KAG:

Actually, no. The Miller-Urey experiment did work and was successful in showing what it was meant to show: "that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_urey).

The amino acids produced were glycine and alanine (both amounting to a total of 2%). the next most abundant amino acid produced was a mere 0.026% . . . too little to be considered significant at all.

Miller-Urey experiment must have assumed an earth's temperature of well below 30 deg C (a temperature that is not feasible for the equator considering most scientists indicate man evolved from there) since MOST proteins cannot survive beyond that temp.

What formed DNA and enzymes?

please read this website - it gives you a DETAILED explanation of why the MU experiment has been largely relegated to biology textbooks, wikipedia and anti-creationist websites.

the rest of your usual long long drone isnt worth reading to be frank.

Maybe you should read the wikipedia entry you posted yourself before carping about:

[size=13pt]Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2.

However, when oxygen gas is added to this mixture, no organic molecules are formed.[/size]

Miller's experiment would have had to assume that there was no atmospheric O₂, the absence of O₂ would also suggest the absence of any water. However Miller's experiment used water.

Another thought for you: In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller–Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.

kind of odd don't you think? But oh well who cares about tiny facts when you can just post high-fallutin words to decieve the gullible.

davidylan:

the problem is KAG comes here spewing a lot of jargon and so the dumb here keep crying about how good she is with what are largely the theories of those with nothing to do with their time but dream up conjecture.

And? How have these theories proven anything about the central question?
How did earth appear here?

It is a desperately flawed theory that is only held by those who wish to negate the creation story. How did this big bang occur? when and through what?
What produced the big bang? Can science re-create life with a big bang?

bla bla bla . . . all this is big grammar that does little to educate us on the central question . . . how did we get on this planet?

Based on more of your flawed scientific theories? Where you there when the earth was created? Who created it? The big bang?
why is the earth the ONLY planet that supports life?

In other words . . . these scientists don't have a clue how we arrived here so they grasp at any straws to explain it away. when you probe deeper they hide under the banner of "we are still searching".
Now you mention "available evidence" . . . what evidence?

If we evolved from other species why have we suddenly stopped evolving? Which species did we evolve from and HOW?
Abiogenesis? Funny enough abiogenenesis DOES NOT occur in real life because amino acids cannot stably form peptides in the natural environment. We already know Miller's experiment was one huge manipulative failure.

Planetry formation? How? why have they stopped forming? Why havent we seen any new huge planets since?

Solar system? Why only one sun for the last million years? Why hasnt this sun died out yet?

don't worry, your praise singers will be here to cheer you on again.

It is hard to believe that someone who claim to work in the scientific domain could spew out such inanity.


Why does not the Atomic Theory account for the propagation of diseases by micro-organisms?

huxley:

It is hard to believe that someone who claim to work in the scientific domain could spew out such inanity.

Why does not the Atomic Theory account for the propagation of diseases by micro-organisms?

all these fraudulent recourse to high sounding but meaningless words dont sway me.

Much of what you all tout as "science" here is nothing but bogus theories propagated by people who have plenty of time to waste. Perhaps you would all be well served if you ACTUALLY practiced science instead of constantly TALKING about it.

davidylan:

all these fraudulent recourse to high sounding but meaningless words don't sway me.

Much of what you all tout as "science" here is nothing but bogus theories propagated by people who have plenty of time to waste. Perhaps you would all be well served if you ACTUALLY practiced science instead of constantly TALKING about it.

We all know this strategy. When e don pass u, u dey commot all this woolly stuff. Answer dey question abi.

huxley:

We all know this strategy. When e don pass u, u dey commot all this woolly stuff. Answer dey question abi.

we know ur strategy too. when you run into a brickwall of facts you come crying about atomic THEORIES. We are tired of theories, conjecture and assumptions being used to question the bible.

Either you prove them or shut up.

Since diseases and microbes did not appear by magic . . . how about you educate us on how they came by first?

davidylan:

we know ur strategy too. when you run into a brickwall of facts you come crying about atomic THEORIES. We are tired of theories, conjecture and assumptions being used to question the bible.

Either you prove them or shut up.

Since diseases and microbes did not appear by magic . . . how about you educate us on how they came by first?

Heym, educate? That would be a waste of time. Pearls and swines come to mind. Such addled minds do not admit of educating.

huxley:

Heym, educate? That would be a waste of time. Pearls and swines come to mind. Such addled minds do not admit of educating.

nice way of ducking out of the main issue. 
Good thing you know what my answer is to your own question . . . something close to diamonds and sows.

davidylan:

The amino acids produced were glycine and alanine (both amounting to a total of 2%). the next most abundant amino acid produced was a mere 0.026% . . . too little to be considered significant at all.

With "Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids" also formed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_urey). However, how does the quantity produced invalidate the Miller_Urey experiment, and subsequent retrials.

Miller-Urey experiment must have assumed an earth's temperature of well below 30 deg C (a temperature that is not feasible for the equator considering most scientists indicate man evolved from there) since MOST proteins cannot survive beyond that temp.

Oh dear! You really are out of your depth here, aren't you? Even if it is assumed that a temperarure below thirty degrees centigrade is necessary for abiogenesis to occur, it should be realised that humans aren't a direct result of the process: simple lifeforms would have been. Giving, then, a long period of time before the evolution of humans.

What formed DNA and enzymes?

Too long for you to care.

please read this website - it gives you a DETAILED explanation of why the MU experiment has been largely relegated to biology textbooks, wikipedia and anti-creationist websites.

Yeah, it's nonsense, but you could post the best arguments from the link if you want.

the rest of your usual long long drone isnt worth reading to be frank.

Lol (I'm laughing at you, not with you). Hardly surprising. I was wondering how long a response of that calibre would take in coming.

Maybe you should read the wikipedia entry you posted yourself before carping about:

[size=13pt]Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2.

However, when oxygen gas is added to this mixture, no organic molecules are formed.[/size]

Miller's experiment would have had to assume that there was no atmospheric O₂, the absence of O₂ would also suggest the absence of any water. However Miller's experiment used water.

Wow! I mean, wow! Seriously? I mean, I shouldn't be surprised, based on past posts, that you'd post such idiocy - and, I am sorry to seem condescending, but it is idiocy; but, dude!

You realise that free oxygen isn't the same thing as water and other compounds, right? Did someone mention that you are in some kind of a science field?

Another thought for you: In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller–Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.

kind of odd don't you think? But oh well who cares about tiny facts when you can just post high-fallutin words to decieve the gullible.

Why is it odd?

KAG:

With "Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids" also formed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_urey). However, how does the quantity produced invalidate the Miller_Urey experiment, and subsequent retrials.

where and how were these "sugars, lipids" formed? from methane gas and ammonia too? Miller-Urey's experiment produced only glycine and alanine (not surprising considering alanine is simply glycine with a -CH₃ side chain. Indicating that it was not possible for him or the atmosphere to produce complex amino acids.

KAG:

Oh dear! You really are out of your depth here, aren't you? Even if it is assumed that a temperarure below thirty degrees centigrade is necessary for abiogenesis to occur, it should be realised that humans aren't a direct result of the process: simple lifeforms would have been. Giving, then, a long period of time before the evolution of humans.

Not out of my depth. Proteins are what i work with every single day. Leaving ordinary cell lysates on your desk at 25^oC for less than an hr is enough to degrade proteins. there is a reason we lyse cells very quickly and ALWAYS on ice.
Unless Miller's hypothesis includes a very low temperature environment, it is impossible for early earth to have generated any stable complex proteins.

KAG:

Wow! I mean, wow! Seriously? I mean, I shouldn't be surprised, based on past posts, that you'd post such idiocy - and, I am sorry to seem condescending, but it is idiocy; but, dude!

You realise that free oxygen isn't the same thing as water and other compounds, right? Did someone mention that you are in some kind of a science field?

Nothing new . . . when you people get backed into a corner you resort to personal abuse.

Simple logic -

1. Miller's experiment would not work in the presence of experimental oxygen O₂

2. It is IMPOSSIBLE for earth to contain H₂O but NO free O₂, you may as well claim that the atmosphere contained no free H₂, N₂ or elemental carbon BUT contained compounds containing those free elements. That is frankly absurd from a scientific point of view.

3. Simple chemistry, free O₂ occurs in solution with water.

If you have a better idea how that conundrum could have been a possibility tell us. All you this pseudo-crammers just coming here to behave as if you are nobel laureates and when your science is exposed for the wishy-washy high school nonsense it is you resort to insults.

KAG:

Why is it odd?

I'm not sure you read it at all . . . i reproduce it again - equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller–Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.

Unless Miller can prove to us that somehow the environment was able to design specifically ONLY left-handed amino acids (all 20 amino acids are left handed), his experiment would be impossible to sustain life.

Do i need to explain racemic mixtures again?

hmm pretty interesting debate we got here.

davidylan:
If you have a better idea how that conundrum could have been a possibility tell us. All you this pseudo-crammers just coming here to behave as if you are nobel laureates and when your science is exposed for the wishy-washy high school nonsense it is you resort to insults.

The nail could not be hit more squarely on the head. And it is not just Nairaland. But the whole of Nigeria. The entire education system is based on cramming and regurgitating impressive sounding words. But ultimately very little understanding. Actually it is a global problem, but it is especially concentrated in Nigerians. We too like grammar, at the expense of common sense.

@ davidylan
where did you get all these knowledge of science from? is it from the bible? what does the bible know or say about science? do you believe in the genetic engineering model of jacob? do you believe that the rainbow is a sign of covenant between the hebrew god and mankind or what science says it is? how did the biblical god create light and living creatures using words of mouth? can you tell us? what about falling stars on the day jesus come flying into the sky? or are they all parts of the miracle of jesus? what a goon.

mazaje:

@ davidylan
where did you get all these knowledge of science from? is it from the bible? what does the bible know or say about science? do you believe in the genetic engineering model of jacob? do you believe that the rainbow is a sign of covenant between the hebrew god and mankind or what science says it is? how did the biblical god create light and living creatures using words of mouth? can you tell us? what about falling stars on the day jesus come flying into the sky? or are they all parts of the miracle of jesus? what a goon.

I can tell you as an irrefutable scientific fact that the rainbow is a serpent called Oshumare that rises to meet the sky when it rains. You don't believe me? enh, you be ode be dat!

But on a more serious note, I think your post is going off on a bit of a tangent from the main thrust of the last few posts, don't you think.

Pastor AIO:

The nail could not be hit more squarely on the head. And it is not just Nairaland. But the whole of Nigeria. The entire education system is based on cramming and regurgitating impressive sounding words. But ultimately very little understanding. Actually it is a global problem, but it is especially concentrated in Nigerians. We too like grammar, at the expense of common sense.

lol its one of the reasons i mostly avoid posts from the likes of KAG and Huxley, plenty of high-fallutin words they dont understand.

you hear words like abiogenesis and the deluded crowd here starts clapping for them. Break down the word in simple terms and its clear KAG herself has no clue what she touts.

davidylan:

where and how were these "sugars, lipids" formed? from methane gas and ammonia too? Miller-Urey's experiment produced only glycine and alanine (not surprising considering alanine is simply glycine with a -CH₃ side chain. Indicating that it was not possible for him or the atmosphere to produce complex amino acids.

Um, they were formed from the reaction that included those two and water and hydrogen. No, as I already pointed out, the Miller-Urey experiment did more than produce only glycine and alanine. Further, the relation between glycine and analine are important because, if nothing else, there is an indication of relatedness because of natural formation. Further, variants of the Miller-Urey experiment have produced amino acids more complex than glycine and alanine.

[quote]Miller-Urey experiment must have assumed an earth's temperature of well below 30 deg C (a temperature that is not feasible for the equator considering most scientists indicate man evolved from there) since MOST proteins cannot survive beyond that temp.

Oh dear! You really are out of your depth here, aren't you? Even if it is assumed that a temperarure below thirty degrees centigrade is necessary for abiogenesis to occur, it should be realised that humans aren't a direct result of the process: simple lifeforms would have been. Giving, then, a long period of time before the evolution of humans.

Not out of my depth. Proteins are what i work with every single day. Leaving ordinary cell lysates on your desk at 25^oC for less than an hr is enough to degrade proteins. there is a reason we lyse cells very quickly and ALWAYS on ice.
Unless Miller's hypothesis includes a very low temperature environment, it is impossible for early earth to have generated any stable complex proteins.[/quote]

No, out of your depth. Really. I mean that in a nice way. Read what you wrote initially (I quoted it for you). Read my response. Also, although Miller-Urey experiment is a landmark of sorts, the science of abiogenesis has moved on and a recreation of the probable way of proteins may have evolved has been done: Scientists Evolve New Proteins From Scratch: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070522210926.htm

[quote]Miller's experiment would have had to assume that there was no atmospheric O2, the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water. However Miller's experiment used water.

Wow! I mean, wow! Seriously? I mean, I shouldn't be surprised, based on past posts, that you'd post such idiocy - and, I am sorry to seem condescending, but it is idiocy; but, dude!

You realise that free oxygen isn't the same thing as water and other compounds, right? Did someone mention that you are in some kind of a science field?

Nothing new . . . when you people get backed into a corner you resort to personal abuse. [/quote]

LoL (I'm still laughing at you). I think personal abuse is warranted when a supposed biochemist (?) is unable to distinguish water from free oxygen.

Simple logic -

1. Miller's experiment would not work in the presence of experimental oxygen O₂

2. It is IMPOSSIBLE for earth to contain H₂O but NO free O₂, you may as well claim that the atmosphere contained no free H₂, N₂ or elemental carbon BUT contained compounds containing those free elements. That is frankly absurd from a scientific point of view.

3. Simple chemistry, free O₂ occurs in solution with water.

If you have a better idea how that conundrum could have been a possibility tell us.

Oh wow! I give up. Did you just say it's impossible for the earth to have H₂O without free oxygen? This is beyond absurd.

All you this pseudo-crammers just coming here to behave as if you are nobel laureates and when your science is exposed for the wishy-washy high school nonsense it is you resort to insults.

Let's not pretend I don't have good grasp of science. I do. You know that. It's not worth debating. Ironically, it would seem that you think my understanding of science is "wishy-washy high school nonsense" because I happen to know, amongst other things, that free oxygen and water are different chemical entities.

I'm not sure you read it at all . . . i reproduce it again - equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller–Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.

Unless Miller can prove to us that somehow the environment was able to design specifically ONLY left-handed amino acids (all 20 amino acids are left handed), his experiment would be impossible to sustain life.

No, I read it all. I don't see why it's odd, though. His experiment set out to, as I pointed in my first post on this subject, show "that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors."

Even Miller was aware of that stating: "Indeed, if you[r] results are not racemic, you immediately suspect contamination" (http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.php)

Do i need to explain racemic mixtures again?

Again?

davidylan:

lol its one of the reasons i mostly avoid posts from the likes of KAG and Huxley, plenty of high-fallutin words they don't understand.

Lol. I think you mean words you don't understand.

you hear words like abiogenesis and the deluded crowd here starts clapping for them. Break down the word in simple terms and its clear KAG herself has no clue what she touts.

Yes, which is why you've managed to refute any of the points I've made in this thread. Gladrags.

davidylan:

lol its one of the reasons i mostly avoid posts from the likes of KAG and Huxley, plenty of high-fallutin words they don't understand.

you hear words like abiogenesis and the deluded crowd here starts clapping for them. Break down the word in simple terms and its clear KAG herself has no clue what she touts.

Could it be because many of my questions and threads are beyond your shallow wit?

KAG:

Um, they were formed from the reaction that included those two and water and hydrogen.

No proof!

KAG:

No, as I already pointed out, the Miller-Urey experiment did more than produce only glycine and alanine.

Which i duly noted earlier when i said that the combined combination of Gly and Ala produced was 2% and the next highest amino acid coming in at 0.026%. too insignificant to support life.

KAG:

Further, the relation between glycine and analine are important because, if nothing else, there is an indication of relatedness because of natural formation.

actually its unimportant. For the simple reason that Ala is simply a substitution of hydrogen with a methyl side chain. Nothing new here.

KAG:

Further, variants of the Miller-Urey experiment have produced amino acids more complex than glycine and alanine.

Unfortunately most of those "variants" have needed more stringent conditions that have been shown to have been unlikely to have existed in early atmosphere.

KAG:

No, out of your depth. Really. I mean that in a nice way. Read what you wrote initially (I quoted it for you). Read my response.

you basically said nothing but i'll take the pains to go through it:

Here is what you said - Even if it is assumed that a temperarure below thirty degrees centigrade is necessary for abiogenesis to occur, it should be realised that humans aren't a direct result of the process: simple lifeforms would have been. Giving, then, a long period of time before the evolution of humans.

which is basically nonsense because it would require that the earth was a very cold environment for the spontaneously generated proteins to have survived long enough to evolve to simple organisms. Another problem with the temperature conundrum is the fact that enzymes require varying temperatures to be effective.

KAG:

Also, although Miller-Urey experiment is a landmark of sorts, the science of abiogenesis has moved on and a recreation of the probable way of proteins may have evolved has been done: Scientists Evolve New Proteins From Scratch: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070522210926.htm

this is putting the cart before the horse. The Miller-Urey experiment highlighted the basic problem generating amino acids which are the basic building blocks of proteins. When you can't generate amino acids or you generate mainly glycine and alanine how then can you generate a protein? the scientists you reference had all 20 amino acids in sufficient quantities to start with so to claim that "science of abiogenesis has moved on" is redundant.

KAG:

LoL (I'm still laughing at you). I think personal abuse is warranted when a supposed biochemist (?) is unable to distinguish water from free oxygen.

I have no problems distinguishing the two, thank you and that was not the issue . . . i know you people like to chase red herrings when you come unstuck.
So here i try to explain again . . . the Miller-Urey experiment was based on a reducing environment because ALL repeat experiments in the lab clearly outline the FACT that there is NO production of amino acids in the presence of O₂.

Now was Miller correct to assume that the atmosphere did NOT contain any elemental oxygen but contained water? Well science (not me) says no:

1. Since Miller used water vapor in his experiment, he clearly indicates that he believes the primitive atmosphere contained a lot of water vapour.

2. Miller and his group also believed that much of the gases in the primitive atmosphere came from active volcanoes that also produced lots of water vapor.

3. Since we know that the primitive earth also had a sun (for which we have no idea if that appeared by abiogenesis or magic), it is concluded that photodissociation of water in the upper layer of the atmosphere was a definite possibility.

4. H₂O --hƒ--> H₂ + ½O₂

Therefore on a photon striking water vapor, it generates elemental oxygen which would have been in substantial enough quantities to inhibit formation of amino acids from smaller molecules.

Maybe instead of laughing all the time you shld try and substantiate your vague points with FACTS.

KAG:

Oh wow! I give up. Did you just say it's impossible for the earth to have H₂O without free oxygen? This is beyond absurd.

Its not absurd because you would have to claim that photodissociation of water which you were taught in secondary school is wrong.

KAG:

Let's not pretend I don't have good grasp of science. I do. You know that. It's not worth debating. Ironically, it would seem that you think my understanding of science is "wishy-washy high school nonsense" because I happen to know, amongst other things, that free oxygen and water are different chemical entities.

Straw man alert. We are all well aware of that fact. I have hence addressed the main issue above.

KAG:

No, I read it all. I don't see why it's odd, though. His experiment set out to, as I pointed in my first post on this subject, show "that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors."

His conditions are based on way too many assumptions. For instance we HAVE to assume that everything as we know it on earth did not exist millions of years ago.

Environmental concentrations of inorganic precursors used by Miller:

1. Methane - 0.00017%

2. Elemental hydrogen - 0.00006%

3. Ammonia - 0%

4. Oxygen - 20.9%

5. Water - 70%

please help us ask Mr. Miller and Miss "ITK" KAG how their own primitive environnment was like millions of years ago, with a little more than mere guesses and conjectures of course.

One more problem:

2 CH₄ + NH₃ + 2 H₂O ↔ H₂N.CH₂.COOH + 5 H₂

this is the most probable equation to explain Miller's formation of glycing using his inorganic elements.
Unfortunately this reaction yields a very very low K value . . . way too low yield.

the only way to increase the rate of the forward reaction is to continously remove the glycine produced.

However there are 2 problems:

1. Where would the produced glycine go?

2. the production of more glycine requires the destruction of the glycine already produced!

KAG . . . less laughing, more thinking and maybe we can start taking you charlatans seriously.

huxley:

Could it be because many of my questions and threads are beyond your shallow wit?

possibly. Its pretty hard to understand gibberish really. Virtually the only people attracted to your threads are fellow atheist praise singers if you havent noticed.

Pastor AIO:

The nail could not be hit more squarely on the head. And it is not just Nairaland. But the whole of Nigeria. The entire education system is based on cramming and regurgitating impressive sounding words. But ultimately very little understanding. Actually it is a global problem, but it is especially concentrated in Nigerians. We too like grammar, at the expense of common sense.

See frying pan calling kettle black, pray what is your solution for the education system? to be based on cramming your stupid holy book like you have done?

And what is your definition of common sense? "suffer not a witch to live" is that not what your holy book says and some even more stupid people have crammed it and are killing and maiming innocent children in the east, are you sure you aren't one of them?

Please shut that your lying mouth, most of us have seen glimpses of your "improved education system" and we don't like what we see. Pastor my foot, extortionist is more like it.

@KAG

Please fire on joo, we dey gbadun you, I hope all my daughters (if I have any) will be smart like you and not some pretty empty heads that some useless pastor will be fibbing every weekend.

Take no notice of all these religious bigots, if you were a member of their church they will be bringing all their kids to you daily for you to lay hands on them because they will claim you have some sort of "intellectual anointing".

Davidylan is the most hypocritical bloke I've ever encountered in my life time, I wonder how someone could pick holes in a reasonable (even if incomplete) theory like the big bang while finding nothing wrong in an unreasonable and absolutely spurious tale of a 6 day creation by a mythical being whose supposed attributes and actions are a contradiction any way you choose to look at them.

duduspace:

Davidylan is the most hypocritical bloke I've ever encountered in my life time, I wonder how someone could pick holes in a reasonable (even if incomplete) theory like the big bang while finding nothing wrong in an unreasonable and absolutely spurious tale of a 6 day creation by a mythical being whose supposed attributes and actions are a contradiction any way you choose to look at them.

we're talking miller-urey and u're talking big bang?

Besides the big bang is just as mythical as you claim the creation is. To call it reasonable is to betray ur bias.

davidylan:

we're talking miller-urey and u're talking big bang?

Besides the big bang is just as mythical as you claim the creation is. To call it reasonable is to betray ur bias.

There lies your problem, your God given excellent ability to see only your view of things, have you forgotten that this thread started with thought provoking questions for atheists? of which a lot of those questions had to do with creation?
Please, note that some of us actually follow the thread rather than just jumping in to foolishly oppose other views at all costs even when they sound reasonable.

The big bang is in no way mythical, incomplete it may be but it sounds much more reasonable than your ludicrous "And God Said".

Just imagine this,

Davidylan walks into his room and says "Let there be light" _{forgetting to flick the switch}
and there was pitch darkness.

No wonder why he is so confused, he is yet to figure out the light switch.

davidylan:

where and how were these "sugars, lipids" formed? from methane gas and ammonia too? Miller-Urey's experiment produced only glycine and alanine (not surprising considering alanine is simply glycine with a -CH3 side chain. Indicating that it was not possible for him or the atmosphere to produce complex amino acids.

Um, they were formed from the reaction that included those two and water and hydrogen.

No proof!

This gets more painful with each passing post, so I sincerely hope this is just some poor attempt at the Socratic method. First, the proof is in the pudding - so to speak. In a chemical experiment, following certain conditions results in specific reactions. For the Miller-Urey experiment, the reactants of the chemicals and conditions used in the experiment produced a result that can and has been duplicated. Simply put, no magic pixies sprinkled golden dust on the experiment that one time. Also, if there's some possibility that you do understand some chemistry the wiki page has the chemical equation from the experiment.

Which i duly noted earlier when i said that the combined combination of Gly and Ala produced was 2% and the next highest amino acid coming in at 0.026%. too insignificant to support life.

For the third time of asking: the Miller-Urey experiment set out to show: "that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors." The field has also produced a varied result since then.

actually its unimportant. For the simple reason that Ala is simply a substitution of hydrogen with a methyl side chain. Nothing new here.

You mean apart from the fact that it's a major component in organic life?

Unfortunately most of those "variants" have needed more stringent conditions that have been shown to have been unlikely to have existed in early atmosphere.

Like which?

you basically said nothing but i'll take the pains to go through it:

Here is what you said - Even if it is assumed that a temperarure below thirty degrees centigrade is necessary for abiogenesis to occur, it should be realised that humans aren't a direct result of the process: simple lifeforms would have been. Giving, then, a long period of time before the evolution of humans.

which is basically nonsense because it would require that the earth was a very cold environment for the spontaneously generated proteins to have survived long enough to evolve to simple organisms. Another problem with the temperature conundrum is the fact that enzymes require varying temperatures to be effective.

Um, not quite, no. First, the part you seem to be missing is the part where I point out that, contrary to what you misunderstood, the evolution of humans would have been a long point away from the onset of abiogenesis. That is, the eventual emergence of human beings wouldn't have happened immediately or soon after abiogenesis or even the emergence of microbes.

Second, you do realise that very often one habitat can have various spots of differing temperature. You've also failed to take into account the existence of water bodies. A body of water, especially one of considerable depth, is usually cool.

By the way, I don;t see how you didn't understand my correction of your misunderstanding. It's pretty clear and concise.

this is putting the cart before the horse. The Miller-Urey experiment highlighted the basic problem generating amino acids which are the basic building blocks of proteins. When you can't generate amino acids or you generate mainly glycine and alanine how then can you generate a protein? the scientists you reference had all 20 amino acids in sufficient quantities to start with so to claim that "science of abiogenesis has moved on" is redundant.

Actually, that part of my post was in response to only half of the claim:  "it is impossible for early earth to have generated any stable complex proteins." I realise what you mean by it's putting the cart before the horse in regards to the Miller-Urey experiment; however, that's just the point: the Miller-Urey experiment wasn't the last nor the only experiment in the field of natural production of amino-acids. Others have been able to show the probable path for the natural emergence of the twenty amino acids necessary.

LoL (I'm still laughing at you). I think personal abuse is warranted when a supposed biochemist (?) is unable to distinguish water from free oxygen.

I have no problems distinguishing the two, thank you and that was not the issue . . . i know you people like to chase red herrings when you come unstuck.

Lol. Red-herring my ass. You stated: "the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water." I'm still not sure how anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry can't see the absurdity in that statement.

So here i try to explain again . . . the Miller-Urey experiment was based on a reducing environment because ALL repeat experiments in the lab clearly outline the FACT that there is NO production of amino acids in the presence of O₂.

Now was Miller correct to assume that the atmosphere did NOT contain any elemental oxygen but contained water? Well science (not me) says no:

Actually, science says yes, he was right to assume that the early earth had little to no free oxygen.

Examples:

# Gases produced were probably similar to those created by modern volcanoes (H2O, CO2, SO2, CO, S2, Cl2, N2, H2) and NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane)
# No free O2 at this time (not found in volcanic gases). (http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html)

and:

"The present atmosphere of the Earth is probably not its original atmosphere. Our current atmosphere is what chemists would call an oxidizing atmosphere, while the original atmosphere was what chemists would call a reducing atmosphere. In particular, it probably did not contain oxygen. " (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/atmosphere.html)

1. Since Miller used water vapor in his experiment, he clearly indicates that he believes the primitive atmosphere contained a lot of water vapour.

2. Miller and his group also believed that much of the gases in the primitive atmosphere came from active volcanoes that also produced lots of water vapor.

3. Since we know that the primitive earth also had a sun (for which we have no idea if that appeared by abiogenesis or magic), it is concluded that photodissociation of water in the upper layer of the atmosphere was a definite possibility.

4. H₂O --hƒ--> H₂ + ½O₂

Therefore on a photon striking water vapor, it generates elemental oxygen which would have been in substantial enough quantities to inhibit formation of amino acids from smaller molecules.

Maybe instead of laughing all the time you shld try and substantiate your vague points with FACTS.

*palm* *head*. If you only knew how crazy or silly you're sounding, you'd laugh too. I'm sure it will come to you in time, Then, you'd just pretend you never made the stupid claims in this thread, shift the goalposts and attempt to keep your ego on its pedestal. Only, if no one else will know, I'll know and you'll know.

By the way, so it doesn't get swept away in my gales of laughter, no, the sun didn't appear by abiogenesis nor magic. Abiogenesis is the . . . aw, what's the point.

Oh wow! I give up. Did you just say it's impossible for the earth to have H2O without free oxygen? This is beyond absurd.

Its not absurd because you would have to claim that photodissociation of water which you were taught in secondary school is wrong.

I had to look up photodissociation and I don't think it means what you think it means.

Let's not pretend I don't have good grasp of science. I do. You know that. It's not worth debating. Ironically, it would seem that you think my understanding of science is "wishy-washy high school nonsense" because I happen to know, amongst other things, that free oxygen and water are different chemical entities.

Straw man alert. We are all well aware of that fact. I have hence addressed the main issue above.

I dn't see it as a strawman, per se. That is, I was trying to summarise a position that regards water as impossible with free oxygen. Anyway, see above - yeah, including the parts where I'm being a cad.

No, I read it all. I don't see why it's odd, though. His experiment set out to, as I pointed in my first post on this subject, show "that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors."

His conditions are based on way too many assumptions. For instance we HAVE to assume that everything as we know it on earth did not exist millions of years ago.

Environmental concentrations of inorganic precursors used by Miller:

1. Methane - 0.00017%

2. Elemental hydrogen - 0.00006%

3. Ammonia - 0%

4. Oxygen - 20.9%

5. Water - 70%

please help us ask Mr. Miller and Miss "ITK" KAG how their own primitive environnment was like millions of years ago, with a little more than mere guesses and conjectures of course.

First, billions, not millions. Second, the state of the early atmosphere of the earth can be determined through the examination of early and "fossil" geological layers. That is, by testing rocks and layers one can gauge the type of elements and compounds that would have been present or absent.

One more problem:
2 CH₄ + NH₃ + 2 H₂O  ↔ H₂N.CH₂.COOH + 5 H₂

this is the most probable equation to explain Miller's formation of glycing using his inorganic elements.
Unfortunately this reaction yields a very very low K value . . . way too low yield.

the only way to increase the rate of the forward reaction is to continously remove the glycine produced.

However there are 2 problems:

1. Where would the produced glycine go?

2. the production of more glycine requires the destruction of the glycine already produced!

KAG . . . less laughing, more thinking and maybe we can start taking you charlatans seriously.

Except if you're wrong. These are the equations for the production of glycine:

   CO2 => CO + {O} (atomic oxygen)
   CH4 + 2{O} => CH2O + H2O
   CO + NH3 => HCN + H2O
   CH4 + NH3 => HCN + 3H2 (BMA process)

These compounds then react with the formation of aminoacids (Strecker synthesis) and other biomolecules:

   CH2O + HCN + NH3 => NH2-CH2-CN + H2O
   NH2-CH2-CN + 2H2O => NH3 + NH2-CH2-COOH (glycine)

(wiki)

Just so you know, so far you're the only one that appears to be a charlatan. If for some reason you aren't sure why, re-read the thread.

*finally runs out of a trailer load of popcorn and a tanker load of diet coke. He cannot leave his seat just yet, this ass whopping show is just too good to miss *

davidylan is the biggest hypocrite on nairaland. he accepts the jacob model of genetic engineering but comes here posturing as a scientist who knows alot about science when its clear he is a pseudo scientist who knows nothing about science. and god says "let there be light and there was light" ask him to explain how the process occured he can't, explain how jonah survived inside a fish for 3 days and all we hear is its a miracle. where did you get all your knowledge of science from is it from the bible? does the bible know anything about how the world is when it shamelessly narrates the noah's story? did moses and his friends that killed a man because he was picking sticks on the sabath know anything about this equation that you wrote?

2 CH4 + NH3 + 2 H2O ↔ H2N.CH2.COOH + 5 H2

do the so called matthew, mark, luke and john know anything about it? why did the bible say that evil spirit causes blindness?
is rain bow a convenat btw the biblical god and his people?
does james the david, elijah, ezekeil, abraham and all those murdering thugs know anything about atomic oxygen? do the writers of the bible know anything about the BAM process? does james the brother of jesus know anything about environmental concentrations of inorganic substances? let me not belabour this point but where did you get your knowledge of science? is it from the bible? apart from the imaginary heaven, hell, and the ability to kill babies because their parents worship other gods, what does the bible and the god it advocates know? science has no answer but yet you use its proceeds everyday. how has the biblical god helped in the creation of computers? does he know what a computer is? what a goon.

The nail could not be hit more squarely on the head. And it is not just Nairaland. But the whole of Nigeria. The entire education system is based on cramming and regurgitating impressive sounding words. But ultimately very little understanding. Actually it is a global problem, but it is especially concentrated in Nigerians. We too like grammar, at the expense of common sense.

what is ur defination of common sense from the bible. turning your other cheek when slapped or maiming and removing your body parts if it causes you to sin as jesus said? bunch of goons.

KAG, first let me reiterate once again that your responses are simply one-way traffic - insults! Very little attempt to address the subject matter at all, which leaves us wondering what your real goal is.

KAG:

This gets more painful with each passing post, so I sincerely hope this is just some poor attempt at the Socratic method. First, the proof is in the pudding - so to speak. In a chemical experiment, following certain conditions results in specific reactions. For the Miller-Urey experiment, the reactants of the chemicals and conditions used in the experiment produced a result that can and has been duplicated. Simply put, no magic pixies sprinkled golden dust on the experiment that one time. Also, if there's some possibility that you do understand some chemistry the wiki page has the chemical equation from the experiment.

I read and re-read this and i honestly don't see your point here. Besides i already posted IN BOLD FONTS the chemical equation for the Miller-Urey experiment for the generation of glycine . . . based on the fact that the eqn has a very low K_m and u require the complete destruction of the produced glycine to drive the forward reaction . . . spontaneous production is IMPOSSIBLE.

Besides Miller could not prove where he got his ammonia from. The atmosphere has virtually no NH₃ besides man-made sources.

You know, you really could debate POINTS rather than insulting me.

KAG:

For the third time of asking: the Miller-Urey experiment set out to show: "that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors." The field has also produced a varied result since then.

Recent evidence shows that Miller's idea of the conditions of primitive earth ARE WRONG. We know that oxygen was present in the atmosphere then which inhibits spontaneous generation of organic amino acids.

KAG:

You mean apart from the fact that it's a major component in organic life?

Actually no. Glycine is a "conditionally essential" amino acid. The ESSENTIAL amino acids absolutely required for organic life and which CANNOT be synthesized by organic life are - K I L H F Y T W V C and M

you know, you really could try to debate FACTS rather than insult my person.

KAG:

Second, you do realise that very often one habitat can have various spots of differing temperature. You've also failed to take into account the existence of water bodies. A body of water, especially one of considerable depth, is usually cool.

What does this explain?
1. Would the reaction have taken place in water?
2. How much water would the earth have required to cool the earth to below 4 deg C?
3. Water would contain disolved oxygen which inhibits the reaction anyway.

KAG:

Actually, that part of my post was in response to only half of the claim:  "it is impossible for early earth to have generated any stable complex proteins." I realise what you mean by it's putting the cart before the horse in regards to the Miller-Urey experiment; however, that's just the point: the Miller-Urey experiment wasn't the last nor the only experiment in the field of natural production of amino-acids. Others have been able to show the probable path for the natural emergence of the twenty amino acids necessary.

It is quite concievable that if these "other experiments" where any more successful they would have been given massive publicity by now.

KAG:

Lol. Red-herring my ass. You stated: "the absence of O2 would also suggest the absence of any water." I'm still not sure how anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry can't see the absurdity in that statement.

Not absurd at all . . . water contains disolved oxygen and photodissociation of water produces oxygen. To say there was absolutely no trace of O2 in the atmosphere when we also had water vapour is what is truly absurd.

The reason fish can survive in water at all is because they can aspirate free disolved oxygen in water.
If you remember solubility from ordinary high school chemistry, the higher the temperature of water, the less disolved oxygen there is. So lets assume the temeprature of water was so high as NOT to contain any disolved oxygen at all . . . the earth's temperature would thus be too high to sustain peptide bonds in its native state.

However you argued earlier that it is possible that water was really cold . . . unless primitive earth was not obeying laws of O2 solubility, that cold water would definitely contain lots of disolved O2.

I should also point out that water is not simply pure H2O only, it contains low amounts of other disolved gases in it. Lets for a second assume that O2 was non-existent in the atmosphere . . . how did water form?

But i know KAG never admits reality. She'd rather insult me. 

KAG:

Actually, science says yes, he was right to assume that the early earth had little to no free oxygen.

Examples:

# Gases produced were probably similar to those created by modern volcanoes (H2O, CO2, SO2, CO, S2, Cl2, N2, H2) and NH3 (ammonia) and CH4 (methane)
# No free O2 at this time (not found in volcanic gases). (http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html)

and:

"The present atmosphere of the Earth is probably not its original atmosphere. Our current atmosphere is what chemists would call an oxidizing atmosphere, while the original atmosphere was what chemists would call a reducing atmosphere. In particular, it probably did not contain oxygen. " (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/atmosphere.html)

Actually if you are 100% honest with yourself you'd know that science says no such thing. Infact many scientists are divided on the issue of whether early earth was reducing or oxidizing. the problem i see though is that very few will take the time to run through the 2 links you posted which unfortunately are not peer-reviewed and could have been put up by just any geek willing to sell an idea.

1. I have instead put up an article written by a professor of Geological sciences detailing evidence why the atmosphere of early earth was oxidizing and not reducing. Good luck ignoring it as you usually do.

THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE EARTH'S ORIGINAL ATMOSPHERE

2. this is a Nature Science review published in 2002 and quite clearly indicates the fact that oxygen and its isotopes must have been present in the earth during primitive - Determining the composition of the Earth

3. Another nature review article - The habitat and nature of early life

- This article is very interesting in the sense that it says this - Water is a strong greenhouse gas and, at some stages early in the history of Venus and Earth, water vapour was probably present high in the atmosphere. Such water vapour would have been photolysed into hydrogen and oxygen, and the hydrogen present in the upper atmosphere would have been lost rapidly to space.

KAG, it would be better to debate science than insult me.

KAG:

*palm* *head*. If you only knew how crazy or silly you're sounding, you'd laugh too. I'm sure it will come to you in time, Then, you'd just pretend you never made the stupid claims in this thread, shift the goalposts and attempt to keep your ego on its pedestal. Only, if no one else will know, I'll know and you'll know.

By the way, so it doesn't get swept away in my gales of laughter, no, the sun didn't appear by abiogenesis nor magic. Abiogenesis is the . . . aw, what's the point.
Its not absurd because you would have to claim that photodissociation of water which you were taught in secondary school is wrong.

I had to look up photodissociation and I don't think it means what you think it means.

The nature review article i linked to above talks about photolysis of water. you can call the authors stupid if you wish. By the way i looked up the very first web page you referenced and it has this to say:

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html

[size=15pt]Oxygen Production
 
Photochemical dissociation - breakup of water molecules by ultraviolet
Produced O2 levels approx. 1-2% current levels [/size]

KAG, it would be better if you thoroughly read the websites you link to yourself instead of insulting me.

KAG:

I dn't see it as a strawman, per se. That is, I was trying to summarise a position that regards water as impossible with free oxygen. Anyway, see above - yeah, including the parts where I'm being a cad.

We know that isnt possible. Take a class in photlysis of water . . . it might help.

KAG:

First, billions, not millions. Second, the state of the early atmosphere of the earth can be determined through the examination of early and "fossil" geological layers. That is, by testing rocks and layers one can gauge the type of elements and compounds that would have been present or absent.

the first article i posted clearly used this same technique to prove that the earth in Miller's predicted period was oxidizing and not reducing.

Here it is again for your perusal - THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE EARTH'S ORIGINAL ATMOSPHERE

KAG:

Except if you're wrong. These are the equations for the production of glycine:

    CO2 => CO + {O} (atomic oxygen)
CH4 + 2{O} => CH2O + H2O
    CO + NH3 => HCN + H2O
    CH4 + NH3 => HCN + 3H2 (BMA process)

These compounds then react with the formation of aminoacids (Strecker synthesis) and other biomolecules:

    CH2O + HCN + NH3 => NH2-CH2-CN + H2O
    NH2-CH2-CN + 2H2O => NH3 + NH2-CH2-COOH (glycine)

(wiki)

the presence of atomic oxygen automatically negates this entire equation as improbable. Atomic oxygen does not fly in by magic, it is produced by the splitting of O₂ by UV radiation.

If O₂ did not exist then, according to Miller, then you don't have any atomic oxygen and thus equations 1 and 2 from your own wiki post is rendered useless.

I think you just ran to copy Wiki's equations on the generation of glycine without thinking it through.

Another scenario: Miller's experiment used specifically water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2) [Wiki]. How was CO2 generated? The second eqn requires atomic O2 from CO2 but there was no CO2 in Miller's tank at all.

Is the Wiki eqn really correct? where is the source?

KAG:

Just so you know, so far you're the only one that appears to be a charlatan. If for some reason you aren't sure why, re-read the thread.

KAG, u're better off debating facts than spending way too much time to insult me.

@davidylan

Where did you get your knowledge of atmospheric oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and ammonia from? is it from the bible? Beside the use of miracle and outlandish explanations do the writers of the bible know what amino acids are? you come here insisting that science knows and answers nothing about life, the world and creation when the bible which you assert contains the ultimate truth of how things came to be clearly does not even know what it is talking about when it comes to how things came to being and some basic principles of science. Mazaje asked you to explain how God in the bible created light through words of mouth but all you are doing here is lecturing about the science that the bible, the God in it and it's writers have no knowledge about. As mazaje asked do you believe in Jacobs genetic engineering model? can you explain how peeled branches affect an organism’s appearance?

From our knowledge of gastric juices and bile acids we know that they are more than capable of digesting a human body, how did Jonah survive inside a fish for 3 days? can you explain? While there are multitudes of unfortunate factors that can cripple a person, spiritual possession has never proven to be one of them yet Luke says purports that a woman’s crippled nature is due to possession by a devil? Can you explain how a Devil causes this? Scientist never have any outlandish claim of miracles and what not, If we are to go by your bible and what it espouses we would still be living in caves, enslaving and killing witches all over the world. You believe that the words written by men chauvinistic who lived in caves on stones is enough to tell you how the world and humans came into being but modern science as you claim has not answered anything. How has genesis answered how the sun was created? We see through all your posturing.

mazaje:

what is ur defination of common sense from the bible. turning your other cheek when slapped or maiming and removing your body parts if it causes you to sin as jesus said? bunch of goons.

Wow, dude, you ask some really tough questions. You really got me on that one. I never realised that the bible put forward a definition of Common sense. As I'm such a goon, perhaps I should come and take some bible lessons from you.

However I can tell you what my own understanding of Good sense is, and it is definately not being impressed by a lot of big words and abstractions, and arguments that I can't properly follow. That is how people get deceived.

duduspace:

See frying pan calling kettle black, pray what is your solution for the education system? to be based on cramming your stupid holy book like you have done?

And what is your definition of common sense? "suffer not a witch to live" is that not what your holy book says and some even more stupid people have crammed it and are killing and maiming innocent children in the east, are you sure you aren't one of them?

Please shut that your lying mouth, most of us have seen glimpses of your "improved education system" and we don't like what we see. Pastor my foot, extortionist is more like it.

Are you alright? If you want to discuss education then you can start a thread on it to which I will be happy to contribute.

Re: Thought Provoking Questions For Atheist.
« #74 on: Yesterday at 11:55:55 AM »

Quote from: davidylan
If you have a better idea how that conundrum could have been a possibility tell us. All you this pseudo-crammers just coming here to behave as if you are nobel laureates and when your science is exposed for the wishy-washy high school nonsense it is you resort to insults.



The nail could not be hit more squarely on the head. And it is not just Nairaland. But the whole of Nigeria. The entire education system is based on cramming and regurgitating impressive sounding words. But ultimately very little understanding. Actually it is a global problem, but it is especially concentrated in Nigerians. We too like grammar, at the expense of common sense.

However I admit that I should probably never have got involved as I know very little about chemistry. I was just reacting to what Davidylan said because it struck a chord with me, and it's an issue that I've being aware of way before I even knew about Nairaland.

KAG:

This gets more painful with each passing post, so I sincerely hope this is just some poor attempt at the Socratic method. First, the proof is in the pudding - so to speak. In a chemical experiment, following certain conditions results in specific reactions. For the Miller-Urey experiment, the reactants of the chemicals and conditions used in the experiment produced a result that can and has been duplicated. Simply put, no magic pixies sprinkled golden dust on the experiment that one time. Also, if there's some possibility that you do understand some chemistry [size=15pt]the wiki page has the chemical equation from the experiment.[/size]

Actually that is false.

KAG:

CO2 => CO + {O} (atomic oxygen)
CH4 + 2{O} => CH2O + H2O
CO + NH3 => HCN + H2O
CH4 + NH3 => HCN + 3H2 (BMA process)

These compounds then react with the formation of aminoacids (Strecker synthesis) and other biomolecules:

CH2O + HCN + NH3 => NH2-CH2-CN + H2O
NH2-CH2-CN + 2H2O => NH3 + NH2-CH2-COOH (glycine)

1. Miller did not include CO2 in his flask . . .

Reason - Miller reasons that the partial pressure of CO2 had to be low in other to obtain substantially stable partial pressures of CH4 in the atmosphere at all [apparently to justify his use of CH4 in the experiment]. At higher CO2 pressures, much of the CO2 is either disolved in water as HCO₃^- or reacts with silicates to form limestone . . . there would be very low CO2 left to react with hydrogen to form methane.
At lower CO2 partial pressure, no limestone is formed and the CO2 can now form as much CH4 as would have made Miller's experiment possible.

2. No such equations are found anywhere in Miller's 2 papers.

Attached are both papers for your reading pleasure.

Main experimental paper

Discussion paper

KAG, you are better served reading up on the subject matter you pretend to discuss than personal insults.

Pastor AIO:

However I admit that I should probably never have got involved as I know very little about chemistry. I was just reacting to what Davidylan said because it struck a chord with me, and it's an issue that I've being aware of way before I even knew about Nairaland.

You have my sincere apologies, mistook you for an ally of our resident hypocrite.