https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBiIDwBOqQA

Feridoxin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:43:04 PM UTC-4, Popping Mad wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBiIDwBOqQA

Feridoxin

I couldn't find this word in a search of the transcript. What's the connection?

Whether you answer this question or not, the bottom line is that the appropriate venue
for this topic is talk.origins, which deals with topics like this
that really aren't a part of paleontology.

But a word of warning: the Talk.Origins Archive has a silly comment by the author,
Keith Robison, in an otherwise largely sensible FAQ. It is to the following effect:

The Krebs Cycle disproves the concept of Irreducible Complexity (IC)
by not being irreducibly complex.

Don't be surprised if some bozo cites the FAQ as one of the many
supposed refutations of IC.


Peter Nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/1/23 1:43 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:43:04 PM UTC-4, Popping Mad wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBiIDwBOqQA

Feridoxin

I couldn't find this word in a search of the transcript. What's the connection?

Misspelled? "Ferredoxin", I think.

Whether you answer this question or not, the bottom line is that the appropriate venue
for this topic is talk.origins, which deals with topics like this
that really aren't a part of paleontology.

But a word of warning: the Talk.Origins Archive has a silly comment by the author,
Keith Robison, in an otherwise largely sensible FAQ. It is to the following effect:

The Krebs Cycle disproves the concept of Irreducible Complexity (IC)
by not being irreducibly complex.

That is indeed silly, provided you have accurately given the sense.

Don't be surprised if some bozo cites the FAQ as one of the many
supposed refutations of IC.

Doubtful. And even if that part is silly, it's possible that some other
part was a refutation. Still, what would it mean to refute IC? Some
things clearly are IC under Behe's original definition (removal of any
one part destroys function). It's the implication for evolution that's
commonly disputed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/1/23 16:43, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:43:04 PM UTC-4, Popping Mad wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBiIDwBOqQA

Feridoxin

I couldn't find this word in a search of the transcript. What's the connection?

Whether you answer this question or not, the bottom line is that the appropriate venue
for this topic is talk.origins, which deals with topics like this
that really aren't a part of paleontology.

But a word of warning: the Talk.Origins Archive has a silly comment by the author,
Keith Robison, in an otherwise largely sensible FAQ. It is to the following effect:

The Krebs Cycle disproves the concept of Irreducible Complexity (IC)
by not being irreducibly complex.

Don't be surprised if some bozo cites the FAQ as one of the many
supposed refutations of IC.

Peter Nyikos

I thnk the role of the kreb cycle in evolution is truning out to be revolutionary and most interesting

Follow his discussion of te kres cycle in reverse and deep vent life.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 4:34:18 AM UTC-4, Popping Mad wrote:

On 8/1/23 16:43, Peter Nyikos wrote:

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:43:04 PM UTC-4, Popping Mad wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBiIDwBOqQA

Feridoxin

I couldn't find this word in a search of the transcript. What's the connection?

Whether you answer this question or not, the bottom line is that the appropriate venue
for this topic is talk.origins, which deals with topics like this
that really aren't a part of paleontology.

But a word of warning: the Talk.Origins Archive has a silly comment by the author,
Keith Robison, in an otherwise largely sensible FAQ. It is to the following effect:

The Krebs Cycle disproves the concept of Irreducible Complexity (IC)
by not being irreducibly complex.

Don't be surprised if some bozo cites the FAQ as one of the many
supposed refutations of IC.

Peter Nyikos

I thnk the role of the kreb cycle in evolution is truning out to be revolutionary and most interesting

Follow his discussion of te kres cycle in reverse and deep vent life.

With it being almost an hour long, and with no decent transcript available [1] I'd need more incentive to look at the whole thing. Another video of his, talking
directly about the origin of life, seems much more promising.
And it's 8 minutes shorter. Better yet, a usable transcript is available.

[1] I tried clicking on the "Show transcript" after clicking on the three dots, but all I got was "search in video". If you happen to know what words you
are looking for, it will give you the occurrences.

I looked for "in reverse" and it gave me six hits, one of them mentioning ferredoxin:

24:54
They don't actually use the reverse Krebs cycle, but they use something very similar. And so, the reverse Krebs cycle is using hydrogen and CO2, is using ferredoxin, this ion protein."

This is about methanogens, a form of archae that is not confined to
[perhaps not even found in?] deep sea vents.

None of the 6 hits talks about an actual, observed reversal of the Krebs cycle in nature. Does he say
how he thinks one of them got exapted to evolve into the real Krebs cycle?


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)