That has no connection to the conversation.
Why on earth did you post that? You Google keywords and copy-paste stuff you don't understand.
I am opting out trying to interrupt your frustrating monologue.
or do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
That has no connection to the conversation.
Why on earth did you post that? You Google keywords and copy-paste stuff you don't understand.
I am opting out trying to interrupt your frustrating monologue.
or do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
I agree that chemiosmosis is central to lane's hypothesis - no probs from me
The point is the "free lunch" provided by natural proton gradients in hydrothermal vents. This is what frees the origin-of-life from the barren metabolism or replication first debate.
I am going to do a series of threads to explain it in the near future.
or do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
Contrast and compare.
biochemists are committed to metabolism first explanations. I tend to favour the latter like Martin and Lane do. - Ruby
"There is an old rift between origin-of-life researchers about what came first, metabolism or replication. It's a barren debate" - Nick Lane
Lane's main hypothesis is based on metabolism first. therefore I am not misrepresenting him. - Ruby
Perhaps you could write to Nick Lane and tell him he doesn't know what the is talking about.
You have missed the whole point about chemiosmosis. It is THE central idea of Lane's hypothesis.
i got in an hour metal detecting this evening and found this almost immediately.. it is a silver penny of henry ii minted in london by "davi" between 1180 and 1189. this adds a king i didn't have in my collection.
i now have the series of henry ii - john - henry iii - edward i - edward ii - edward iii.. i now need richard the lionheart to fill in the gap.
he was the brother of john and reigned after the death of henry ii.
I wonder if you are on some kind of archaeological site
I live on a rural estate that appears in the records as far back as the 11th century. It has a very rich history. It was the property of Norman Knights since soon after the Conquest. I know a bit of the history of most of the families that owned it over the centuries. I have written it up for the current landowner.
There was a medieval village here but due to it's proximity to the Scottish border it was attacked many times. It is likely that it also fell victim to the plague.
One interesting highlight is that The earl of Bothwell hid here for a few nights in 1563 when he was on the run from being imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle. He was betrayed and recaptured here in the middle of the night and taken to the Tower of London. He later went on to murder Lord Darnley the husband of Mary Queen of Scots and to take Mary as his wife. He vowed revenge on the owner of the estate who had betrayed him.
As well as coins I find a lot of everyday objects.
i got in an hour metal detecting this evening and found this almost immediately.. it is a silver penny of henry ii minted in london by "davi" between 1180 and 1189. this adds a king i didn't have in my collection.
i now have the series of henry ii - john - henry iii - edward i - edward ii - edward iii.. i now need richard the lionheart to fill in the gap.
he was the brother of john and reigned after the death of henry ii.
Very interesting episode in the life of Henry II involved his relationship with Archbishop Thomas Becket. Henry appointed his friend because he thought he could control him, but Becket turned out to be his own man.
After one altercation on Christmas Day 1170 Henry uttered the words "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" Four of his knights failed to recognise this as a rhetorical question and went off and murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral.
Henry spent most of his life doing penance for this crime. To pick up a coin that nobody has touched since those times is a real buzz.
i got in an hour metal detecting this evening and found this almost immediately.. it is a silver penny of henry ii minted in london by "davi" between 1180 and 1189. this adds a king i didn't have in my collection.
i now have the series of henry ii - john - henry iii - edward i - edward ii - edward iii.. i now need richard the lionheart to fill in the gap.
he was the brother of john and reigned after the death of henry ii.
I got in an hour metal detecting this evening and found this almost immediately.
It is a silver penny of Henry II minted in London by "Davi" between 1180 and 1189. This adds a king I didn't have in my collection. I now have the series of Henry II - John - Henry III - Edward I - Edward II - Edward III.
I now need Richard the Lionheart to fill in the gap. He was the brother of John and reigned after the death of Henry II
It's a great feeling to pick up a coin that nobody has touched for well over 800 years in a world that was so different. Even more so as it was only about 200 yards from my front door.
or do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
You are totally misrepresenting Nick Lane for the third time. He specifically rejects the "metabolism first" position and the alternative and lays out at great length why it is a "barren debate".
You claimed before that he said religion is of the greatest inventions of evolution - he did not.
Then you claimed that "the black hole at the heart of biology" is a metaphysical one about what makes us human - he says no such thing.
Now you have made it a hat trick by distorting the central premise of his ideas.
or do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
He specifically states that 'metabolism first' versus 'replication first' is "a barren debate".
His entire book is a resolution to this false dichotomy.
If you don't get that you might as well have not opened the book.
or do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
regarding the origin of life biologists like Richard Dawkins are committed to genetics first as explanatory tools
Where has Dawkins shown a commitment to "genetics first" in regards to origin of life?
while biochemists are committed to metabolism first explanations
What do you base that on?
I tend to favour the latter like Martin and Lane do.
Once again you are misrepresenting Nick Lane on a very important point of his book. One of the most important insights he presents is that the metabolism first - replication first debate is a false dichotomy.
or do we give in to social constructivism?
to relativity?
or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.
Ruby - Your thread title implies that "we" have a desire for something called absolute truth.
I have never come across the idea outside of a religious context. I'm just asking what you mean.