then why do you find it funny that evolutionary biologists don't deal with abiogenesis?
whats amusing about it?
whats amusing about it?
Upvote
0
Why evolution doesn't work.
- Thread starter Risen Tree
- Start date
You're right. I don't like people who are not able to "sink" to my level and have a discussion about science. If you what to think that injecting one-liners and quips while other people are having a polite discussion constitutes the "upper" level, go right ahead. Meanwhile, Chase and I will be slumming it with evidence and papers.
Nice assertion. Too bad it's not true. If you have evidence to the contray please offer it up. Saying you have evidence but refusing to reveal it is a hallmark of pseudoscience and cranks. Do you really want to be one of those? In the time it has taken you to make these last five posts on this board you could have answered my question many times over. I suspect that lack of time doesn't have anything to do with why you don't answer.
If it was a passing comment, then you should have ignored me. The fact that you didn't testifies to how passing it was supposed to be.
Oh yeah, much better analogy. . . .
See above. I have no patience for it. I've done my research and found the theory lacking, for me that is enough, I guess you feel the need to prove it to others, well have fun undertaking your great commision.
So you've done the research, found the theory lacking, but are reluctant to share your best insights into this topic with the rest of us. Go ahead put forth your insights, I am patient, we can discuss them slowly as you get the time. Will you put up?
Here is my question: What is the one piece or body of evidence or argument that you find most compelling against evolution? Nothing in there about proving evolution nor disproving creation.
/me hands Outy back the words he unkindly shoved into his mouth
Then why the quip against "evolutionists" after I explained just that to Chase?
Upvote
0
Originally posted by ChaseNelson Whoever told me you quoted it said it was recent so I thought it might be Reader and Joyce, "A ribozyme composed of only two different nucleotides," Nature 420(6917):841-844, 19/26 December 2002. I looked at that abstract and no further--I honestly didn't check the other.
But you are not familiar enough with the paper to recognize the abstract?
Likewise, he didn't identify what the abstract said, and I must have glossed over it in the thread he directed me to.
Yes, LFOD quoted the entire abstract, which is what I had done originally.
Are there any known naturally occuring proteins of that type? As far as I've read, D amino acids are only used in the oligopeptides of bacterial cell walls and antibiotics. Also, I have heard that if a certain something is added to a polypeptide chain, it could switch them all, if I remember correctly. Do you have any references so the supposed pathways, etc.?
Biomed Chromatogr 2001 Aug;15(5):319-27 Amino acid sequence and D/L-configuration determination methods for D-amino acid-containing peptides in living organisms. Iida T, Santa T, Toriba A, Imai K.
Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Hongo, Tokyo, Japan.
D-amino acid-containing peptides with biological activities have been isolated from invertebrates and amphibians, and partial racemization of amino acid residues in mammalian peptides associated with aging and diseases have been discussed. Here, we review the amino acid configuration determination methods in these peptides and recent progress of simultaneous determination method for sequence and configuration of amino acid residues. The applicability of C-terminus sequence analysis and mass spectrometry to configuration determination of amino acids is also discussed.
As far as proteins forming in water, how? And, according to a textbook I have, hydrolyzation is spontaneous and exergonic, Purves et al, Life: The Sciece of Biology, 2001 p. 99. And couldn't this take affect after Hydrothermal Vents got them together. And what are protocells?
Removing water in a aqueous solution happens in several chemical reactions. It's not a problem. Specific papers that discuss protein formation in water are:
6. G Vogel, A sulfurous start for protein synthesis? Science 281:627-628, Jul. 31, 1998. Protein synthesis catalyzed by sulfer and nickel compounds at volcanic vents. Primary article is C Huber and G Wachtershauser, Peptides by activation of amino acids with CO on (ni4Fe)S surfaces: implications for the origin of life. Science 281: 670-671, Jul.31, 1998.
Syren RM, Sanjur A, Fox SW Proteinoid microspheres more stable in hot than in cold water. Biosystems 1985;17(4):275-80 (protocells at hydrothermal vents)
Yanagawa, H. and K. Kobayashi. 1992. An experimental approach to chemical evolution in submarine hydrothermal. systems. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 22: 147-159.
As to protocells, start here:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
But you are not familiar enough with the paper to recognize the abstract?
Likewise, he didn't identify what the abstract said, and I must have glossed over it in the thread he directed me to.
Yes, LFOD quoted the entire abstract, which is what I had done originally.
Are there any known naturally occuring proteins of that type? As far as I've read, D amino acids are only used in the oligopeptides of bacterial cell walls and antibiotics. Also, I have heard that if a certain something is added to a polypeptide chain, it could switch them all, if I remember correctly. Do you have any references so the supposed pathways, etc.?
Biomed Chromatogr 2001 Aug;15(5):319-27 Amino acid sequence and D/L-configuration determination methods for D-amino acid-containing peptides in living organisms. Iida T, Santa T, Toriba A, Imai K.
Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Hongo, Tokyo, Japan.
D-amino acid-containing peptides with biological activities have been isolated from invertebrates and amphibians, and partial racemization of amino acid residues in mammalian peptides associated with aging and diseases have been discussed. Here, we review the amino acid configuration determination methods in these peptides and recent progress of simultaneous determination method for sequence and configuration of amino acid residues. The applicability of C-terminus sequence analysis and mass spectrometry to configuration determination of amino acids is also discussed.
As far as proteins forming in water, how? And, according to a textbook I have, hydrolyzation is spontaneous and exergonic, Purves et al, Life: The Sciece of Biology, 2001 p. 99. And couldn't this take affect after Hydrothermal Vents got them together. And what are protocells?
Removing water in a aqueous solution happens in several chemical reactions. It's not a problem. Specific papers that discuss protein formation in water are:
6. G Vogel, A sulfurous start for protein synthesis? Science 281:627-628, Jul. 31, 1998. Protein synthesis catalyzed by sulfer and nickel compounds at volcanic vents. Primary article is C Huber and G Wachtershauser, Peptides by activation of amino acids with CO on (ni4Fe)S surfaces: implications for the origin of life. Science 281: 670-671, Jul.31, 1998.
Syren RM, Sanjur A, Fox SW Proteinoid microspheres more stable in hot than in cold water. Biosystems 1985;17(4):275-80 (protocells at hydrothermal vents)
Yanagawa, H. and K. Kobayashi. 1992. An experimental approach to chemical evolution in submarine hydrothermal. systems. Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 22: 147-159.
As to protocells, start here:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
Upvote
0
Originally posted by ChaseNelson However, I would like to say that your attitude turned me off somewhat. As a matter of fact, I did read the paper, I photocopied it.
And you misquoted from the article. Your intellectual dishonesty turned me off entirely. If you were one of my graduate students, I would have fired you on the spot. No kidding.
It is Moreland, editor. The authors of the actual article are Bradley and Thaxton, of whom I'm sure you're aware and have a great commentary about
And they still got their biochemistry wrong, didn't they? As I demonstrated.
I apologize, you are correct (at least I think). Wasn't that the case where the results were withdrawn because one of the memebers of the team had tampered witht he experiments?
Not that I know of. I haven't seen a retraction of the biased destruction of D-amino acids by light and magnetic fields. If you have, please post the reference.
And if you can find a creationist source that quotes that, I would certainly like to know. I found it quite on my own.
And misquoted it. On your own, according to your own words. Which makes your directly intellectually dishonest rather than a dupe who re-posts creationist intellectual dishonesty. Primary false witness.
And you misquoted from the article. Your intellectual dishonesty turned me off entirely. If you were one of my graduate students, I would have fired you on the spot. No kidding.
It is Moreland, editor. The authors of the actual article are Bradley and Thaxton, of whom I'm sure you're aware and have a great commentary about
And they still got their biochemistry wrong, didn't they? As I demonstrated.
I apologize, you are correct (at least I think). Wasn't that the case where the results were withdrawn because one of the memebers of the team had tampered witht he experiments?
Not that I know of. I haven't seen a retraction of the biased destruction of D-amino acids by light and magnetic fields. If you have, please post the reference.
And if you can find a creationist source that quotes that, I would certainly like to know. I found it quite on my own.
And misquoted it. On your own, according to your own words. Which makes your directly intellectually dishonest rather than a dupe who re-posts creationist intellectual dishonesty. Primary false witness.
Upvote
0
lucaspa,
Chase is only 13. Please remember that. He appears to be a smart teenager and willing to work. He is not being snotty or arrogent. Would you seriously expect a middle schooler to be able to read and keep up with biochem literature and not make mistakes. What we might consider grossly neglegent, if a high school or college graduate did it, is not what we should consider for Chase.
Chase is only 13. Please remember that. He appears to be a smart teenager and willing to work. He is not being snotty or arrogent. Would you seriously expect a middle schooler to be able to read and keep up with biochem literature and not make mistakes. What we might consider grossly neglegent, if a high school or college graduate did it, is not what we should consider for Chase.
Upvote
0
Yes, it actually is. Evolution is based on " natural selection "... which is the equivalent to... hmm... lets say there were a ton of car parts in a junk yard, and they threw all of them up in the air, and when it came down, there was a brand, new, fully functioning, car!.
There is no evidence of vertical evolution, which means, species evolved from specie to specie but there is hundreds of evidence on horizontal evolution, where species evolved within a specie group.
A new research found that identical twins do NOT have the same fingerprints.... what does that say?
overall, in conclusion, i have not one spark of belief in evolution.
My advice? Go check up on Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith " or "The Case for Christ"... As an evolutionist, you should probably be able to research and look through a number of these sorts of books... you cannot just have a foundation of your "thoughts". There need be evidence, and such... anyway, God bless you all, and you too, seesaw.
Upvote
0
If you could explain natural selection, we might have reason to believe your statement that it depends on chance. Of course, if you could correctly explain natural selection, you would already know that it is not chance.
By the way "vertical" and "horizontal" have no established meaning with respect to evolution. You will have to define those terms before we can find out whether your assertions about them are valid.
The thing about fingerprints: the answer is that it tells you fingerprints are not determined genetically - at least not exclusively so...
By the way "vertical" and "horizontal" have no established meaning with respect to evolution. You will have to define those terms before we can find out whether your assertions about them are valid.
The thing about fingerprints: the answer is that it tells you fingerprints are not determined genetically - at least not exclusively so...
Upvote
0
Unfortunately for your rhetorical tactics, this is a complete mischaracterization of evolutionary theory. What you have described is nothing like natural selection.Crazy4Christ: Yes, it actually is. Evolution is based on " natural selection "... which is the equivalent to... hmm... lets say there were a ton of car parts in a junk yard, and they threw all of them up in the air, and when it came down, there was a brand, new, fully functioning, car!.
This isn't even coherent. Please write in well-formed English sentences.
That identical twins don't have the same fingerprints. Considering evolutionary theory doesn't predict that they would, this comes as neither a surprise nor as a devastating blow to evolutionary theory.
Good for you. Let me know when your opinion on scientific matters counts for anything.
Upvote
0
Originally posted by Crazy4Christ
Yes, it actually is. Evolution is based on " natural selection "... which is the equivalent to... hmm... lets say there were a ton of car parts in a junk yard, and they threw all of them up in the air, and when it came down, there was a brand, new, fully functioning, car!.
Nope, selection is nothing at all like that. Here is the argument first putforth by Darwin for adaptive evolution via natural selection.
- No two individuals in a population are alike. (Variation)
- Some of this variation is able to be passed on to the next generation. (Heredity)
- Every generation, more inviduals are produced then can contribute equally to the next generation. (Selection)
- Thus, traits that increase an individual's success and chance to contribute to the next generation, will increase in the population. (Adaptation)
Nothing in there is at all similar to you junk yard analogy.
First note, that "specie" is not a word. "Species" is both the singular and plural of "species." Now if you will kindly read over both this thread and this other one, you will see that there is evidence of speciation and relationship among very different organisms.
Nothing new. Scientists have recognized gene-by-environment actions for a long time.
Which have absolutaly nothing to do with evolution. You can't disprove evolution by proving Christ. It's like trying to disprove gravity by proving that the sky is blue. By the way, I always thought that The Bible was the case for faith and the case for christ. What does Strobel have to offer that Old and New Testaments do not?
Upvote
0
Rufus:
You are quite right, chemical evolution is not a part of biological evolution--however, with a naturalistic framework, I believe it is necessary. At a meeting on homochirality in 1995, "Miller emphasized that the origin of life was synonymous with the origin of evolution [Bada 1995]." My biology textbook says at the beginning of its Origin-of-Life chapter, "The first life must have come from nonliving matter. How did this happen? Under what coniditions did life originate or Earth? This chapter describes how scientists try to answer these questions [Purves et al. 2001, p. 450]." Obviously, just as an embryo requires a sperm and an egg to combine start growing, so does evolution require the chemical evolution of the first self-replicators. And if it is said, "Oh, it makes little difference is that was God, or if it occurred naturalistically"--well, who then is using a god-of-the-gaps explanation? (chickenman)
A naturalistic theory of the origin of life must account for the first step. You use evolution twice in this sentence. Please define whether you're talking about biological or chemical evolution, because I believe that is where the great distinction lies here. To quote G.F. Joyce: "Once a general mechanism existed for self-replication, allowing the introduction of variation and the ability to replicate those variants, darwinian evolution began to operate. This marked the beginning of life [Joyce 2002, p. 215]." So, once chemical evolution produced a self-replicator (at least, that's how I read it--I may be taking it utterly out of context, as I did the last), darwinian evolution (mutation and natural selection) were finally able to operate. Yet this darwinian evolution, even though chemical evolution isn't a defined part of it, rests on the basis of chemical evolution producing a replicator in the first place.
Outspoken, from what I've read of Rufus', he's quite well-read on this subject--just saying bro.
Chickenman:
My comment about the god-of-the-gaps above applies to you here. Abiogenesis certainly has a bearing on the 'theory of evolution', which--to my knowledge--encompasses just about everything. It is not a direct part of biological evolution, yet needs to happen in order for just that to operate. Whether this fact is relevant or not is what we're trying to discuss.
Lucaspa:
I repeat, I did not find the abstract when I went to the thread he mentioned. I skimmed over the page twice, both times to no avail. I didn't read every word--I was looking for numbers and a word like Science or Nature in italics, which I didn't find readily. But even if I had found it--do I consider myself familiar enough with this paper to recognize the abstract? Probably not, it was a while ago.
This is new to me--every evolutionary source I've read on this says, only some cell walls and antiobiotics. I will see if we have that journal available at Hope College.
How does this overcome the Law of Mass Action? Also, I have the G. Vogel and Huber+Wa... papers right here. As Vogel states, "Huber and Wachtershauser added amino acids to the same sulfide slurry, and within a few days they could detect a range of dipeptides, consisting of two amino acids linked together, as well as a few tripeptides... Not all specialists in the origins of life are convinced that this lab demonstration proves that the same thing could have happened naturally, however. Stanley Miller... says that concentrations of carbon monoxide, which activates the amino acids in Wachtershauser's reaction, are much lower in nature than in the experiment. And even if the reaction could occur in nature, it would not be adequate to form proteins that contain many amino acids, says Miller, who favors a cooler beginning for biomolecules [Vogel 1998]." So, this experiment certainly hasn't explained everything. One criticism creationists often make is that: oh boy, tripeptides, even under favorable conditions. Also, they used glycine--an achiral amino acid. Racemization also occurred (I will discuss in a moment why I believe the chirality argument still applies). And in the paper itself they say, "In separate experiments it was determined that under these same conditions dipeptides hydrolized rapidly [Huber and Wachtershauser 1998, p. 670]." They admit homochirality is important: "Homochirality becomes increasingly important with increasing chain lengths of the peptides..." In order to explain the non-homochirality of it all, they say that "... It is of interest that the oligopeptides of cell walls have both D- and L-amino acids." So those papers are super speculative, at best. I do believe the material is relevant, but does not answer what you said it does. Are you citing those references out of context, Lucaspa? :O (I didn't mean to be sarcastic, I just want you to know, that's how I feel.)
My question is this, to both Rufus and Lucaspa: If chirality is non-important, why do papers like this try to deal with it? And why is paper after paper published on the 'problem' of the homochirality of life, and how it could have arisen? Also, I believe it was Rufus who said that the formation of proteins is not what the origin of life is about. Well, then why is this paper discussing just that?
Now, for chirality: I'm going to have to trust your word on this one Lucaspa. Jonathan Sarfati explains why no L-amino acids can be present--is it true? "Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid distrupts the stabilizing a[alpha]-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life." Also, another source of mine says that the wrong handed amino acid, again, will disrupt enzymatic functions.
I believe you.
Okay, basically--it was printed in Science that "They [a German team] applied a magnetic field of between 1.2 and 2.1 teslas to the reaction solution--and found that 98% of the product, which normally contains both enantiomers, consisted of a single mirror-image form [Bradley 1994]." Two monthes later, Science published an article entitled "Underhanded 'Breakthrough' Revealed," that said: "Last week, the head of the team that carried out the work, Eberhard Breitmaier of the University of Bonn, retracted the results in a letter to the journal that published the original paper. One of the member of his team, he explain, had manipulated the experiments... As word had spread about the paper, which was published in the German journal Angewandte Chemie in February, many groups had tried and failed to repeat the experiment and has spotted inconsistencies in the data [Clery and Bradley 1994]." This is the instance I was referring to. You corrected me and said that the actual measure was 1.5 T--I asked if this is what you were referring to; the instance in which the results were flawed. In my post, I stated that I was referring to the paper "Enantioselective Magnetochiral Photochemistry," by G.L.J.A. Rikken and E. Raupach, who even after using a high magnetic field, concluded that, although their solution was possible, "Clearly, the question of the origin of the homochirality of life is far from answered [Rikken and Raupach 2000]."
Crazy4Christ, you say that evolution is by chance. Actually, to quote Dawkins, evolution is not necessarily driven by 'chance' (at least in the sense of natural selection). Dawkins states:
So then, it would be setting up a straw man to say that 'evolution is chance, and therefore absurd'. You must first carefully define what you are talking about. Many interpret natural selection to mean evolution, many do not. It should suffice to say that natural selection (whether it be called evolution or not) is not by chance, at least in many cases (of course, it's possible that it's not in many others, but that's beside the point).
Just thought I'd throw my two cents in, mwahaha.
-Chaser
You are quite right, chemical evolution is not a part of biological evolution--however, with a naturalistic framework, I believe it is necessary. At a meeting on homochirality in 1995, "Miller emphasized that the origin of life was synonymous with the origin of evolution [Bada 1995]." My biology textbook says at the beginning of its Origin-of-Life chapter, "The first life must have come from nonliving matter. How did this happen? Under what coniditions did life originate or Earth? This chapter describes how scientists try to answer these questions [Purves et al. 2001, p. 450]." Obviously, just as an embryo requires a sperm and an egg to combine start growing, so does evolution require the chemical evolution of the first self-replicators. And if it is said, "Oh, it makes little difference is that was God, or if it occurred naturalistically"--well, who then is using a god-of-the-gaps explanation? (chickenman)
A naturalistic theory of the origin of life must account for the first step. You use evolution twice in this sentence. Please define whether you're talking about biological or chemical evolution, because I believe that is where the great distinction lies here. To quote G.F. Joyce: "Once a general mechanism existed for self-replication, allowing the introduction of variation and the ability to replicate those variants, darwinian evolution began to operate. This marked the beginning of life [Joyce 2002, p. 215]." So, once chemical evolution produced a self-replicator (at least, that's how I read it--I may be taking it utterly out of context, as I did the last), darwinian evolution (mutation and natural selection) were finally able to operate. Yet this darwinian evolution, even though chemical evolution isn't a defined part of it, rests on the basis of chemical evolution producing a replicator in the first place.
Outspoken, from what I've read of Rufus', he's quite well-read on this subject--just saying bro.
Chickenman:
My comment about the god-of-the-gaps above applies to you here. Abiogenesis certainly has a bearing on the 'theory of evolution', which--to my knowledge--encompasses just about everything. It is not a direct part of biological evolution, yet needs to happen in order for just that to operate. Whether this fact is relevant or not is what we're trying to discuss.
Lucaspa:
I repeat, I did not find the abstract when I went to the thread he mentioned. I skimmed over the page twice, both times to no avail. I didn't read every word--I was looking for numbers and a word like Science or Nature in italics, which I didn't find readily. But even if I had found it--do I consider myself familiar enough with this paper to recognize the abstract? Probably not, it was a while ago.
This is new to me--every evolutionary source I've read on this says, only some cell walls and antiobiotics. I will see if we have that journal available at Hope College.
How does this overcome the Law of Mass Action? Also, I have the G. Vogel and Huber+Wa... papers right here. As Vogel states, "Huber and Wachtershauser added amino acids to the same sulfide slurry, and within a few days they could detect a range of dipeptides, consisting of two amino acids linked together, as well as a few tripeptides... Not all specialists in the origins of life are convinced that this lab demonstration proves that the same thing could have happened naturally, however. Stanley Miller... says that concentrations of carbon monoxide, which activates the amino acids in Wachtershauser's reaction, are much lower in nature than in the experiment. And even if the reaction could occur in nature, it would not be adequate to form proteins that contain many amino acids, says Miller, who favors a cooler beginning for biomolecules [Vogel 1998]." So, this experiment certainly hasn't explained everything. One criticism creationists often make is that: oh boy, tripeptides, even under favorable conditions. Also, they used glycine--an achiral amino acid. Racemization also occurred (I will discuss in a moment why I believe the chirality argument still applies). And in the paper itself they say, "In separate experiments it was determined that under these same conditions dipeptides hydrolized rapidly [Huber and Wachtershauser 1998, p. 670]." They admit homochirality is important: "Homochirality becomes increasingly important with increasing chain lengths of the peptides..." In order to explain the non-homochirality of it all, they say that "... It is of interest that the oligopeptides of cell walls have both D- and L-amino acids." So those papers are super speculative, at best. I do believe the material is relevant, but does not answer what you said it does. Are you citing those references out of context, Lucaspa? :O (I didn't mean to be sarcastic, I just want you to know, that's how I feel.)
My question is this, to both Rufus and Lucaspa: If chirality is non-important, why do papers like this try to deal with it? And why is paper after paper published on the 'problem' of the homochirality of life, and how it could have arisen? Also, I believe it was Rufus who said that the formation of proteins is not what the origin of life is about. Well, then why is this paper discussing just that?
Now, for chirality: I'm going to have to trust your word on this one Lucaspa. Jonathan Sarfati explains why no L-amino acids can be present--is it true? "Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid distrupts the stabilizing a[alpha]-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life." Also, another source of mine says that the wrong handed amino acid, again, will disrupt enzymatic functions.
I believe you.
Okay, basically--it was printed in Science that "They [a German team] applied a magnetic field of between 1.2 and 2.1 teslas to the reaction solution--and found that 98% of the product, which normally contains both enantiomers, consisted of a single mirror-image form [Bradley 1994]." Two monthes later, Science published an article entitled "Underhanded 'Breakthrough' Revealed," that said: "Last week, the head of the team that carried out the work, Eberhard Breitmaier of the University of Bonn, retracted the results in a letter to the journal that published the original paper. One of the member of his team, he explain, had manipulated the experiments... As word had spread about the paper, which was published in the German journal Angewandte Chemie in February, many groups had tried and failed to repeat the experiment and has spotted inconsistencies in the data [Clery and Bradley 1994]." This is the instance I was referring to. You corrected me and said that the actual measure was 1.5 T--I asked if this is what you were referring to; the instance in which the results were flawed. In my post, I stated that I was referring to the paper "Enantioselective Magnetochiral Photochemistry," by G.L.J.A. Rikken and E. Raupach, who even after using a high magnetic field, concluded that, although their solution was possible, "Clearly, the question of the origin of the homochirality of life is far from answered [Rikken and Raupach 2000]."
Crazy4Christ, you say that evolution is by chance. Actually, to quote Dawkins, evolution is not necessarily driven by 'chance' (at least in the sense of natural selection). Dawkins states:
So then, it would be setting up a straw man to say that 'evolution is chance, and therefore absurd'. You must first carefully define what you are talking about. Many interpret natural selection to mean evolution, many do not. It should suffice to say that natural selection (whether it be called evolution or not) is not by chance, at least in many cases (of course, it's possible that it's not in many others, but that's beside the point).
Just thought I'd throw my two cents in, mwahaha.
-Chaser
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Boy, that took way too long.
References:
Bada, Jeffrey L., "Origins of Homochirality," Nature 374(6523):594-595, 13 April 1995.
Bradley, David, "A New Twist in the Tale of Nature's Asymmetry," Science 264(5161):908, 13 May 1994.
Clery, Daniel, and David Bradley, "Underhanded 'Breakthrough' Revealed," Science 265(5168):21, 1 July 1994.
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (W.W. Norton & Company, 1996), 1996 Edition.
Huber, Claudia, and Gunter Wachtershauser, "Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications for the Origin of Life," Science 281(5377):670-674, 31 July 1998.
Joyce, Gerald F., "The Antiquity of RNA-Based Evolution," Nature 418(6894):214-221, 11 July 2002.
Purves, William K., et al., Life: The Science of Biology (Sinauer Associates, Inc., and W.H. Freeman and Company, 2001), Sixth Edition.
Rikken, G.L.J.A., and E. Raupach, "Enantioselective Magnetochiral Photochemistry," Nature 405(6789):932-935, 22 June 2000.
Vogel, Gretchen, "A Sulfurous Start for Protein Synthesis?" Science 281(5377):627-629, 31 July 1998.
References:
Bada, Jeffrey L., "Origins of Homochirality," Nature 374(6523):594-595, 13 April 1995.
Bradley, David, "A New Twist in the Tale of Nature's Asymmetry," Science 264(5161):908, 13 May 1994.
Clery, Daniel, and David Bradley, "Underhanded 'Breakthrough' Revealed," Science 265(5168):21, 1 July 1994.
Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (W.W. Norton & Company, 1996), 1996 Edition.
Huber, Claudia, and Gunter Wachtershauser, "Peptides by Activation of Amino Acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S Surfaces: Implications for the Origin of Life," Science 281(5377):670-674, 31 July 1998.
Joyce, Gerald F., "The Antiquity of RNA-Based Evolution," Nature 418(6894):214-221, 11 July 2002.
Purves, William K., et al., Life: The Science of Biology (Sinauer Associates, Inc., and W.H. Freeman and Company, 2001), Sixth Edition.
Rikken, G.L.J.A., and E. Raupach, "Enantioselective Magnetochiral Photochemistry," Nature 405(6789):932-935, 22 June 2000.
Vogel, Gretchen, "A Sulfurous Start for Protein Synthesis?" Science 281(5377):627-629, 31 July 1998.
Upvote
0
Chase,
You said that you believe that abiogenesis is necessary for a "naturalistic theory of the origin of life." This is understandable. However, whether or not there can be a complete and correct naturalistic theory of the origin of life has no bearing on whether the naturalistic theory explaining modern diversity of life is correct.
Right now, we have no comprehensive or complete naturalistic model of the origin of life. No one is claiming that we do. That's one reason that not many of us care to spend a lot of time arguing whether abiogenesis is possible. The short answer is that there is not enough evidence to conclude either that any particular model of abiogenesis is possible and there is not enough evidence to conclude that no conceivable model of abiogenesis is certainly not possible.
Everything else is just a matter of threshing out some of the known difficulties with the various models that are being worked upon.
You said that you believe that abiogenesis is necessary for a "naturalistic theory of the origin of life." This is understandable. However, whether or not there can be a complete and correct naturalistic theory of the origin of life has no bearing on whether the naturalistic theory explaining modern diversity of life is correct.
Right now, we have no comprehensive or complete naturalistic model of the origin of life. No one is claiming that we do. That's one reason that not many of us care to spend a lot of time arguing whether abiogenesis is possible. The short answer is that there is not enough evidence to conclude either that any particular model of abiogenesis is possible and there is not enough evidence to conclude that no conceivable model of abiogenesis is certainly not possible.
Everything else is just a matter of threshing out some of the known difficulties with the various models that are being worked upon.
Upvote
0
"If it was a passing comment, then you should have ignored me. "
Hmm..I guess I, unlike you, don't ignore people when they talk to me I'm not going to engage in anything else on this thread with you Ruff because you can't seem to understand I've done the research and came to a conclusion already and don't want to take the time or effort right now to bring it all up. Its not worth my time, I've got lots of things higher on my list.
"What is the one piece or body of evidence or argument that you find most compelling against evolution? "
Holes I've seen in the theory, things coming it evolution doesn't explain. As for why I made that comment, because I thought it was funny the way evolutionists always cling to the statements.."no no, I don't want to talk about the beginning..."
Hmm..I guess I, unlike you, don't ignore people when they talk to me
I'm not going to engage in anything else on this thread with you Ruff because you can't seem to understand I've done the research and came to a conclusion already and don't want to take the time or effort right now to bring it all up. Its not worth my time, I've got lots of things higher on my list."What is the one piece or body of evidence or argument that you find most compelling against evolution? "
Holes I've seen in the theory, things coming it evolution doesn't explain.
As for why I made that comment, because I thought it was funny the way evolutionists always cling to the statements.."no no, I don't want to talk about the beginning..."
Upvote
0
Yes, but I specifically asked you a question about "evolution." I didn't ask you about "naturalistic frameworks" or "naturalistic theory of the origin of life." You've read more into my question then was there. That is why I pointed out that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.
See my sig if you want to know what "evolution" is. English has some funny rules. Many words that are part of different, diverse terms have default meanings, a specific term that it refers to when no other is specified. For example, take the linguistic term "English." It is found in the terms "Modern English," "Middle English," and "Old English." Now when you tell your parents that you are learning "English" grammar in school you are refering to "Modern English." Right? You don't need to add the term "modern" to it because that is the default value. Similarily, although there are various terms (scientific and otherwise) with "evolution" in them--"stellar evolution," "chemical evolution," "biological evolution," "molecular evolution," "cultural evolution," "computer evolution," etc.--only one of those is the default meaning: biological evolution. More explicitly, the Theory of Evolution only apples to biological evolution. In other words, in the absence of any other context, "evolution" refers to "biological evolution."
Yeap
No it doesn't. Biological evolution rests on the assumption that an imperfect replicator exists. It doesn't matter where it came from. Evolution occurs regardless of whether Promethesus and Epimethesus made life or whether it came about by naturalistic processes. That is why you can't challenge the theory of evolution by challenging a naturalistic origin of life.
Nope, the theory of evolution only encompasses biological evolution. Try writing down some of the parts of ToE and see if they apply to abiogenesis.
Biological evolution only requires life, as we know it, to exist. I think that you'd agree that that is a reasonable assumption.
Curiosity. It is a very interesting issue that, if life originally had racemeric mixtures of amino acids to work with, what steps did it go through to end up only using one type.
Well some papers were published before the RNA World hypothesis was shown to be very probable. The greatest evidence for it was done in just the last year. X-ray crystalization of ribozymes showed that the active site of preptide bond formation contained only RNA. In other words, enzymematic properties of ribosomal RNA is what makes proteins. Cool huh!
Creationists, like Safarti, use this as a red hering. (Whether it is an honest mistake or out right disception, I'm not sure and it could depend on the person saying it.) The reason why is that sure modern proteins get screwed up if you swap an L-AA for a D-AA because they evolved in the presense of L-AA. Of course, they also can get screwed up if you switch a hydophilic AA for a hydrophobic one. What this doesn't mean is that ancient proteins couldn't work with a miture of the two. Do you understand?
Also I believe that his DNA example is wrong, because one base being off would only destablize that tiny region of the chromosome, not the entire thing. Chromosomes typically have many regions that are not in a double helix because of mRNA transcription, yet they don't destablize. (I'm not even sure if you can have "wrong-headed" nucleic acids. I'll check on that.)
Upvote
0
Originally posted by Outspoken
Hmm..I guess I, unlike you, don't ignore people when they talk to me
Wait! Weren't you just complaining that I didn't ignore you? Please, outie, can you even keep your stories strait.
Holes I've seen in the theory, things coming it evolution doesn't explain.
Such as? I hope it isn't along the lines of "evolution is false because it doesn't explain why the sky is blue."
You might think it is funny. But I challenge you to find where I said that in this thread. I specifically asked Chase about evolution. He responded to me about abiogenesis. I then remined him what the question was and why he was "off topic." Where in that do you get that I don't want to talk about the beginning of life? In fact, back in post #159, I specifically stated "Also, if you [Chase] want to continue with the topic of you post, I suggest that a new thread is in order." Hmm. . . .
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Gracchus
Senior Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 7,198
- 821
- Faith
- Pantheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Posted by Rising Tree:
"The failure of Darwin's theory of evolution can be attributed to four reasons:"
This is known as "begging the question", or "assuming the consequent". The theory of evolution has not demonstrably failed.
"1. The fossil record. If evolution is true, then the fossil record must show a continuous span of different types of species. Instead, we have a discrete span."
Evolution is true. The fossil record does not have to show a continuous span of different types. Fossilization is a rare event, requiring unusual conditions. Many fossil beds have been destroyed by erosion or subduction. Some have not come to light, being deeply buried. This is what anyone with a modicum of geological and palaeontological knowledge would expect. Creationists arguments are neither biological, geological, nor palaeontological. They are illogical.
"The common response is that we just haven't observed them yet. First of all, this is a faith-based reaction to a fact-based argument."
Like all good hypocrites, creationists look into their mirrors and accuse scientists of the moral and intellectual flaws they see there.
"Second of all," (in the postulated scientific response) "we don't have to look for hard-to-find dinosaurs and other big creatures; just find whatever type of fossils commonly occur and go from there."
Who says we have to find dinosaurs? Who says we don't look for them? Who says we haven't found them? I dont know how to break this to you, but a great deal can be learned by examining fossils that are not dinosaurs. Scientists formulate their theories on the basis of what is found.
"However, we cannot at present assume that the missing links occur; at present we have to accept the fact that they do not exist. If science is to be consistent with itself, it should teach what is known to be true, not what is assumed to be true. So for now, the facts are on our side. 1-0 Creation."
Every time science comes up with an intermediate form "C" between "A" and "E", creationists claim it is actually "A" or "E" or demand that science now produce two intermediates, "B" and "D". This strategy ensures that they will always be able to demand "missing links". Creationists' reasoning is a few links short of a chain. It is, however, adequate to enslave their minds.
"2. Fraudulent evidence. Inventing so-called evidence is a classic sign of failing to admit defeat. The following pieces of evidence for evolution are dead or dying, as excerpted from this website:
A. Piltdown Man--was "the jaw of an orangutan mixed with a human skull"
And the fraud was discovered. Indeed, one of the reasons this find was so closely scrutinized was that it was not what scientists would have expected.
"B. Vestigial organs--more than 100 in 1895, less than 10 today."
And pray what are the purposes of the gall-bladder and appendix? Many people get along just fine without them. Why do humans have an immovable tail with muscles attached? What were some of the organs science claimed were vestigial?
"C. Homology--a circular argument attempting to define the pathways of evolution".
Homology isn't an argument, it's an observation, which is to say, a fact. And just how, pray tell is it circular?
"D. Human embryos' gills--they become vital organs later in the development process."
Both embryology and paleontology show gill arches changing into jawbones, and jaw bones metamorphosing into bones of the inner ear.
"E. Archaeopteryx--is 100% bird, 0% dinosaur."
Except for the teeth of course, and the long bony tail, etc. The first finds of this fossil, in sediments that were too coarse to show feathers, were classified as a dinosaurs. And you, who are so keen on pointing out scientific errors, how can you have missed that fact? Archaeopteryx has both bird and reptilian traits. That is what makes it an intermediate.
Please bear in mind, that these names are assigned by men and it is because there are so many intermediate forms that taxonomists argue about what goes where.
By the way, other creationists claim it is 100% dinosaur and 0% bird. It would seem that creationists are just as divided in their scientific opinions as they are in their religious opinions.
(Did you know that Christians once persecuted and killed each other because they disagreed as to whether Jesus was of the same substance as the Father [homousion] or of a similar substance as the Father [homoiusion]?[Matthew 7:17-23.])
"F. The Horse Evolution Diagram--was made in 1879, hardly classifying it as up-to-date. The creatures in it
come from different continents. Besides, there are critical differences between each successive specie,
implying that many, many (currently non-existent) intermediary species must exist."
I am beginning to understand. If scientific theory changes to account for new evidence, then science is inconstant, and so unworthy of credence, and if science sees no need to change the theory it is "not up-to-date". And it is the "critical differences" that demonstrate evolution.
"G. Ota Benga--Talk about evolutionists literally being racists:"
A plausible story but irrelevant, unless of course Christians do not have a history of destroying, enslaving and despoiling non-Christians and driving the surviving "pagan" aboriginals into "reservations" and "townships".
"H. Neanderthal Man--After its initial discovery in 1856, it was hailed as a late-stage missing link in the
evolution of man. Modern scientific research shows that we are not ancestors of Neanderthal man."
Well I, at least, claim no Neanderthal descendents.
"Apparently, Homo heidelbergensis was the common ancestor of the two, but this theory is nothing more than
a guess and liable to change with the next palaeontological discovery. Other research says that Neanderthal.
man was the ancestor of modern-day Europeans."
As life evolves to fit the environment, so science evolves to fit the facts. I remember one hypothesis was that blue eyes and blond hair were originally Neanderthal traits.
There is some evidence of interbreeding between H. sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens sapiens. Most scientists seem to think it was not important, and that the Neanderthal reached a genetic dead end.
"Need I say more? Many of the above fradulent (sic.) (Why is it that so many creationists don't know how to use spell-checkers or dictionaries or don't proof read their posts?) pieces of evidence are still taught in the classroom today even though evolutionists know that they can no longer be considered as evidence."
Which "fradulent" claims are taught in which classrooms?
"Evolution is a political agenda, not science. 2-0 Creation."
Creationism is a religious and political agenda, not science. Creation 0.
"3. The principle of spontaneous disorder. Commonly referred to as the Second Law of Thermodynamics within the physical science realm, it is a common fact of life that ordered systems spontaneously break down into chaotic systems. Anything left unattended falls apart. Evolutionists typically rationalize this one with a lengthy thermodynamical discussion about how the earth can dump its energy into outer space, receive it from the sun, etc. Although said situation does not work in favor of the odds of the evolution, this is not the type of disorder that the creationists refer to when they bring up the Second-Law argument."
The second law of thermodynamics is about heat (thermo) flow (dynamics) from a source to a sink. The Clausius statement of the second law is as follows: "No process is possible in which nothing happens except the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a warmer one. (pg. 876 Eisberg and Lerner "Physics: Foundations and Applications" McGraw-Hill, © 1981) What it means is that heat (energy) will not flow spontaneously from a cold area to a warmer one. If flow spontaneously occurs from the warmer source to the colder sink, the process will cease when the source and sink reach the same temperature. At this point the system has reached maximum entropy. If no energy enters or leaves the system it is said to be closed. If energy flows into the system from a warmer source outside the system, or if energy flows from the system to a cooler system then the system is said to be open. In terms of order then, a system with an energy gradient is ordered and an energetically homogeneous system is disordered.
"They (creationists) are referring to logistical and information disorder."
That is information theory and not thermodynamics. They do not address the same problems. In short, the creationists are referring to a fallacious principle. And even information theory does not support creationist claims.
"Contrary to what evolutionists would have us believe, we do NOT have an infinite amount of time to make order out of chaos."
This has nothing to do with either thermodynamics or information theory, it is a chimera. Nor is it scientists who require an infinite amount of time.
"Simply put, I would be more willing to believe that the source code for ChristianForums.com were the result of a random character generator than to believe that life as we know it evolved likewise."
You believe so many ridiculous things! In fact you insist upon them. That is your privilege.
"Claiming the former would be a grave insult to the site designer(s); claiming the latter would be a grave insult to the Creator."
Your beliefs are an insult to human and divine reason.
"As such, the principle of spontaneous disorder is a fundamental, scientifically accurate one, and arguments against it are rooted in faith and not fact."
Come on! It is the creationists who claim a lock on faith, and incredulity. Science strives for a healthy skepticism.
"3-0 Creation."
Who put you in charge of the scoreboard? I am inclined to think you may not be an unbiased referee.
"4. The Law of Biogenesis. Again, this is a scientific principle. Throughout the history of mankind, life has never been observed to spontaneously arise from non-life. This could be considered to be a corrollary of #3. For example, hundreds of years ago, people believed that dead, rotting meat gave rise to living maggots. Research later showed that flies were coming in and breeding the maggots."
OK. Biogenesis has not been observed. This is not a principle, however.
"The Miller-Urey experiment attempted to show how life can spontaneously evolve from non-life. Chaser showed the flaws of this experiment in the last post on this page of this discussion. So science is reduced to zero evidence to counter the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution has faith-based arguments; creation has science-based arguments."
The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that organic compounds could arise naturally in a reducing atmosphere. No more, no less.
"4-0 Creation." Creation 0.
"The verdict: Notice with the exception of #2, these evidences for creation are based on scientific laws, not blind faith and assumptions."
No evidence for creation has been presented. You have attempted to attack evolution, but all you have demonstrated is that you are ignorant of scientific methods and conclusions. And you are the advocate, not the judge or jury.
"I encourage any of you who believe that we believe in creation based on blind faith to consider which school of thought actually works off of blind faith."
The only victory you have achieved is the triumph of imagination over reason, and that victory is only in your own mind. You have defeated yourself.
"The failure of Darwin's theory of evolution can be attributed to four reasons:"
This is known as "begging the question", or "assuming the consequent". The theory of evolution has not demonstrably failed.
"1. The fossil record. If evolution is true, then the fossil record must show a continuous span of different types of species. Instead, we have a discrete span."
Evolution is true. The fossil record does not have to show a continuous span of different types. Fossilization is a rare event, requiring unusual conditions. Many fossil beds have been destroyed by erosion or subduction. Some have not come to light, being deeply buried. This is what anyone with a modicum of geological and palaeontological knowledge would expect. Creationists arguments are neither biological, geological, nor palaeontological. They are illogical.
"The common response is that we just haven't observed them yet. First of all, this is a faith-based reaction to a fact-based argument."
Like all good hypocrites, creationists look into their mirrors and accuse scientists of the moral and intellectual flaws they see there.
"Second of all," (in the postulated scientific response) "we don't have to look for hard-to-find dinosaurs and other big creatures; just find whatever type of fossils commonly occur and go from there."
Who says we have to find dinosaurs? Who says we don't look for them? Who says we haven't found them? I dont know how to break this to you, but a great deal can be learned by examining fossils that are not dinosaurs. Scientists formulate their theories on the basis of what is found.
"However, we cannot at present assume that the missing links occur; at present we have to accept the fact that they do not exist. If science is to be consistent with itself, it should teach what is known to be true, not what is assumed to be true. So for now, the facts are on our side. 1-0 Creation."
Every time science comes up with an intermediate form "C" between "A" and "E", creationists claim it is actually "A" or "E" or demand that science now produce two intermediates, "B" and "D". This strategy ensures that they will always be able to demand "missing links". Creationists' reasoning is a few links short of a chain. It is, however, adequate to enslave their minds.
"2. Fraudulent evidence. Inventing so-called evidence is a classic sign of failing to admit defeat. The following pieces of evidence for evolution are dead or dying, as excerpted from this website:
A. Piltdown Man--was "the jaw of an orangutan mixed with a human skull"
And the fraud was discovered. Indeed, one of the reasons this find was so closely scrutinized was that it was not what scientists would have expected.
"B. Vestigial organs--more than 100 in 1895, less than 10 today."
And pray what are the purposes of the gall-bladder and appendix? Many people get along just fine without them. Why do humans have an immovable tail with muscles attached? What were some of the organs science claimed were vestigial?
"C. Homology--a circular argument attempting to define the pathways of evolution".
Homology isn't an argument, it's an observation, which is to say, a fact. And just how, pray tell is it circular?
"D. Human embryos' gills--they become vital organs later in the development process."
Both embryology and paleontology show gill arches changing into jawbones, and jaw bones metamorphosing into bones of the inner ear.
"E. Archaeopteryx--is 100% bird, 0% dinosaur."
Except for the teeth of course, and the long bony tail, etc. The first finds of this fossil, in sediments that were too coarse to show feathers, were classified as a dinosaurs. And you, who are so keen on pointing out scientific errors, how can you have missed that fact? Archaeopteryx has both bird and reptilian traits. That is what makes it an intermediate.
Please bear in mind, that these names are assigned by men and it is because there are so many intermediate forms that taxonomists argue about what goes where.
By the way, other creationists claim it is 100% dinosaur and 0% bird. It would seem that creationists are just as divided in their scientific opinions as they are in their religious opinions.
(Did you know that Christians once persecuted and killed each other because they disagreed as to whether Jesus was of the same substance as the Father [homousion] or of a similar substance as the Father [homoiusion]?[Matthew 7:17-23.])
"F. The Horse Evolution Diagram--was made in 1879, hardly classifying it as up-to-date. The creatures in it
come from different continents. Besides, there are critical differences between each successive specie,
implying that many, many (currently non-existent) intermediary species must exist."
I am beginning to understand. If scientific theory changes to account for new evidence, then science is inconstant, and so unworthy of credence, and if science sees no need to change the theory it is "not up-to-date". And it is the "critical differences" that demonstrate evolution.
"G. Ota Benga--Talk about evolutionists literally being racists:"
A plausible story but irrelevant, unless of course Christians do not have a history of destroying, enslaving and despoiling non-Christians and driving the surviving "pagan" aboriginals into "reservations" and "townships".
"H. Neanderthal Man--After its initial discovery in 1856, it was hailed as a late-stage missing link in the
evolution of man. Modern scientific research shows that we are not ancestors of Neanderthal man."
Well I, at least, claim no Neanderthal descendents.
"Apparently, Homo heidelbergensis was the common ancestor of the two, but this theory is nothing more than
a guess and liable to change with the next palaeontological discovery. Other research says that Neanderthal.
man was the ancestor of modern-day Europeans."
As life evolves to fit the environment, so science evolves to fit the facts. I remember one hypothesis was that blue eyes and blond hair were originally Neanderthal traits.
There is some evidence of interbreeding between H. sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens sapiens. Most scientists seem to think it was not important, and that the Neanderthal reached a genetic dead end.
"Need I say more? Many of the above fradulent (sic.) (Why is it that so many creationists don't know how to use spell-checkers or dictionaries or don't proof read their posts?) pieces of evidence are still taught in the classroom today even though evolutionists know that they can no longer be considered as evidence."
Which "fradulent" claims are taught in which classrooms?
"Evolution is a political agenda, not science. 2-0 Creation."
Creationism is a religious and political agenda, not science. Creation 0.
"3. The principle of spontaneous disorder. Commonly referred to as the Second Law of Thermodynamics within the physical science realm, it is a common fact of life that ordered systems spontaneously break down into chaotic systems. Anything left unattended falls apart. Evolutionists typically rationalize this one with a lengthy thermodynamical discussion about how the earth can dump its energy into outer space, receive it from the sun, etc. Although said situation does not work in favor of the odds of the evolution, this is not the type of disorder that the creationists refer to when they bring up the Second-Law argument."
The second law of thermodynamics is about heat (thermo) flow (dynamics) from a source to a sink. The Clausius statement of the second law is as follows: "No process is possible in which nothing happens except the transfer of heat from a cooler body to a warmer one. (pg. 876 Eisberg and Lerner "Physics: Foundations and Applications" McGraw-Hill, © 1981) What it means is that heat (energy) will not flow spontaneously from a cold area to a warmer one. If flow spontaneously occurs from the warmer source to the colder sink, the process will cease when the source and sink reach the same temperature. At this point the system has reached maximum entropy. If no energy enters or leaves the system it is said to be closed. If energy flows into the system from a warmer source outside the system, or if energy flows from the system to a cooler system then the system is said to be open. In terms of order then, a system with an energy gradient is ordered and an energetically homogeneous system is disordered.
"They (creationists) are referring to logistical and information disorder."
That is information theory and not thermodynamics. They do not address the same problems. In short, the creationists are referring to a fallacious principle. And even information theory does not support creationist claims.
"Contrary to what evolutionists would have us believe, we do NOT have an infinite amount of time to make order out of chaos."
This has nothing to do with either thermodynamics or information theory, it is a chimera. Nor is it scientists who require an infinite amount of time.
"Simply put, I would be more willing to believe that the source code for ChristianForums.com were the result of a random character generator than to believe that life as we know it evolved likewise."
You believe so many ridiculous things! In fact you insist upon them. That is your privilege.
"Claiming the former would be a grave insult to the site designer(s); claiming the latter would be a grave insult to the Creator."
Your beliefs are an insult to human and divine reason.
"As such, the principle of spontaneous disorder is a fundamental, scientifically accurate one, and arguments against it are rooted in faith and not fact."
Come on! It is the creationists who claim a lock on faith, and incredulity. Science strives for a healthy skepticism.
"3-0 Creation."
Who put you in charge of the scoreboard? I am inclined to think you may not be an unbiased referee.
"4. The Law of Biogenesis. Again, this is a scientific principle. Throughout the history of mankind, life has never been observed to spontaneously arise from non-life. This could be considered to be a corrollary of #3. For example, hundreds of years ago, people believed that dead, rotting meat gave rise to living maggots. Research later showed that flies were coming in and breeding the maggots."
OK. Biogenesis has not been observed. This is not a principle, however.
"The Miller-Urey experiment attempted to show how life can spontaneously evolve from non-life. Chaser showed the flaws of this experiment in the last post on this page of this discussion. So science is reduced to zero evidence to counter the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution has faith-based arguments; creation has science-based arguments."
The Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that organic compounds could arise naturally in a reducing atmosphere. No more, no less.
"4-0 Creation." Creation 0.
"The verdict: Notice with the exception of #2, these evidences for creation are based on scientific laws, not blind faith and assumptions."
No evidence for creation has been presented. You have attempted to attack evolution, but all you have demonstrated is that you are ignorant of scientific methods and conclusions. And you are the advocate, not the judge or jury.
"I encourage any of you who believe that we believe in creation based on blind faith to consider which school of thought actually works off of blind faith."
The only victory you have achieved is the triumph of imagination over reason, and that victory is only in your own mind. You have defeated yourself.
Upvote
0
"Wait! Weren't you just complaining that I didn't ignore you? Please, outie, can you even keep your stories strait"
Just taking your words at face value, should I not?
"But I challenge you to find where I said that in this thread."
I didn't address you specifically nor did I say all evolutionists. Read close
Just taking your words at face value, should I not?
"But I challenge you to find where I said that in this thread."
I didn't address you specifically nor did I say all evolutionists. Read close
Upvote
0
Originally posted by Crazy4Christ Yes, it actually is. Evolution is based on " natural selection "... which is the equivalent to... hmm... lets say there were a ton of car parts in a junk yard, and they threw all of them up in the air, and when it came down, there was a brand, new, fully functioning, car!.
Sorry, that is not natural selection. Natural selection has two components:
1. Variation
2. Selection
The selection is the opposite of chance; it is pure determinism. Variation is random in one and only one respect: in relation to the needs of the individual or the population.
Now, the analogy is not natural selection. That is pure chance, but notice that is has no selection in it. No trials and errors with only the trials producing something like a car being kept and then variations on that trial being made in the next generation.
There is no evidence of vertical evolution, which means, species evolved from specie to specie
Sorry, but not so. There are hundreds of papers documenting speciation in the scientific literature. Doubt me? Then go to
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed and enter "speciation" into the search box.
In the fossil record, there are many sequences of fossil individuals linking one species to another even across genus, family, and order lines to have one class evolving from another. I have posted these several times but would be happy to do so again if you have missed them.
A new research found that identical twins do NOT have the same fingerprints.... what does that say?
It simply says that the pattern of ridges on the fingertips are determined not directly by the genes but by an interaction of the differentiation factors in the apical ectodermal ridge at the end of the limb bud during embryogenesis. Since these interactions are somewhat stochastic, what the genes determine is that you will have fingerprints, but that the exact pattern is controlled by the binding of protein factors to receptors on the progenitor epithelial cells.
i have not one spark of belief in evolution.
No one is asking you to "believe" evolution, but to accept the data. However, from your reading list it appears that you too are making the mistake that evolution = atheism. Accepting evolution has nothing to do with believing in God or Christ. At least half the evolutionary biologists in history -- starting with Darwin -- believed in God and Christ.
My advice? Go check up on Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith " or "The Case for Christ"...
Have you really read Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin? If evolution were atheism, could Darwin have written these passages?
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.
Sorry, that is not natural selection. Natural selection has two components:
1. Variation
2. Selection
The selection is the opposite of chance; it is pure determinism. Variation is random in one and only one respect: in relation to the needs of the individual or the population.
Now, the analogy is not natural selection. That is pure chance, but notice that is has no selection in it. No trials and errors with only the trials producing something like a car being kept and then variations on that trial being made in the next generation.
There is no evidence of vertical evolution, which means, species evolved from specie to specie
Sorry, but not so. There are hundreds of papers documenting speciation in the scientific literature. Doubt me? Then go to
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed and enter "speciation" into the search box.
In the fossil record, there are many sequences of fossil individuals linking one species to another even across genus, family, and order lines to have one class evolving from another. I have posted these several times but would be happy to do so again if you have missed them.
A new research found that identical twins do NOT have the same fingerprints.... what does that say?
It simply says that the pattern of ridges on the fingertips are determined not directly by the genes but by an interaction of the differentiation factors in the apical ectodermal ridge at the end of the limb bud during embryogenesis. Since these interactions are somewhat stochastic, what the genes determine is that you will have fingerprints, but that the exact pattern is controlled by the binding of protein factors to receptors on the progenitor epithelial cells.
i have not one spark of belief in evolution.
No one is asking you to "believe" evolution, but to accept the data. However, from your reading list it appears that you too are making the mistake that evolution = atheism. Accepting evolution has nothing to do with believing in God or Christ. At least half the evolutionary biologists in history -- starting with Darwin -- believed in God and Christ.
My advice? Go check up on Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith " or "The Case for Christ"...
Have you really read Origin of the Species by Charles Darwin? If evolution were atheism, could Darwin have written these passages?
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by ChaseNelson however, with a naturalistic framework, I believe it is necessary.
When you go to "naturalistic framework", Chase, you are leaving science and entering philosophy. There is a philosophy called philosophical naturalism. That philosophy (also known as atheism) does require a "naturalistic" origin of life. But since philosophical naturalism isn't evolution, and evolution doesn't require philosophical naturalism, you are mixing apples and oranges.
Go back to Darwin. he made it very clear that the origin of life wasn't what biological evolution is all about:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
At a meeting on homochirality in 1995, "Miller emphasized that the origin of life was synonymous with the origin of evolution [Bada 1995]."
Yes, and now you see why. You can't have evolution until you have life. However it comes into being. Thru Darwin's "Creator breathed" or Fox's protocells.
"To quote G.F. Joyce: "Once a general mechanism existed for self-replication, allowing the introduction of variation and the ability to replicate those variants, darwinian evolution began to operate. This marked the beginning of life [Joyce 2002, p. 215]." So, once chemical evolution produced a self-replicator (at least, that's how I read it--I may be taking it utterly out of context, as I did the last), darwinian evolution (mutation and natural selection) were finally able to operate. Yet this darwinian evolution, even though chemical evolution isn't a defined part of it, rests on the basis of chemical evolution producing a replicator in the first place."
Of course. All theories have boundaries. Cell theory states that all organisms are made of cells. So Cell Theory rests on the existence of cells. General Relativity says gravity is a warping of space, so it rests on the existence of space.
This is not a big deal. Once you have life, as Darwin stated, then biological evolution explains the diversity of life on the planet.
Chase, I will heed the plea and treat you as a 13 year old. There are two debates going on here. One debate is between scientific theories: creationism and evolution. But there is always the underlying debate of theism vs atheism. It is terribly easy to confuse the two, especially because the extremists on both sides want to confuse the two. You must resist that confusion.
Even though abiogenesis appears to be true, that does not signal victory for atheism and defeat for theism. Putting God into the gaps of knowledge -- such as trying to say that science can't make life -- is no good for God. Because as soon as that gap is filled, there is less room for God.
How does this overcome the Law of Mass Action?
Gibb's free energy. Whether a reaction is spontaneous depends on whether free energy is negative (spontaneous) or positive. However, any reaction can be made to occur as long as enough energy is pumped into the system. Gibb's free energy equation is DeltaG (change in free energy) = DeltaH (change in enthaply) - TDeltaS where T = temperature in Kelvin and DeltaS is change in entropy. Increase T enough, and -TDeltaS is going to be larger than a positive DeltaH.
Also, I have the G. Vogel and Huber+Wa... papers right here.
Good, let's go over them.
As Vogel states, "Huber and Wachtershauser added amino acids to the same sulfide slurry, and within a few days they could detect a range of dipeptides, consisting of two amino acids linked together, as well as a few tripeptides... Not all specialists in the origins of life are convinced that this lab demonstration proves that the same thing could have happened naturally, however. Stanley Miller... says that concentrations of carbon monoxide, which activates the amino acids in Wachtershauser's reaction, are much lower in nature than in the experiment.
The concentration of CO is only 4 mmole. Not much. And remember hydrothermal vents get injections of CO from the volcanic gasses (as the paper mentions). Is Miller counting on only dissolved atmospheric CO?
And even if the reaction could occur in nature, it would not be adequate to form proteins that contain many amino acids, says Miller, who favors a cooler beginning for biomolecules [Vogel 1998]." So, this experiment certainly hasn't explained everything.
Never said it did. Remember the claims, Chase. ALWAYS remember the claims. Your claim was that proteins could not form in water. This paper refutes that claim. I never said that it was the answer to all of abiogenesis, only that it refuted that specific claim.
Now, let's go back to Miller. Remember, to be a good skeptic, you have to be skeptical of all statements unless tested. Miller doesn't get a free ride because he is being critical. You also have to be critical of his criticisms. Now, have you seen anything in the paper that says the reaction will stop at tripeptides and not be able to make longer proteins as Miller alledges? I didn't. Tripeptides is what they observed in their limited 4 day observation. But what if they had kept the experiment going 30, 60, 90, 180, 360 days or longer? Hydrothermal vents don't shut down after 4 days. Miller has a personal opinion, but I can't see any data to hang it on. I also see personal gain for him to say what he did. After all, isn't cool temp formation of proteins his theory?
They only ran the experiment for 4 days. And glycine is present in your proteins. In fact, the collagen of your skin and bones is 1/3 glycine. Do you have a source to look up the chemical formula of glycine. Because the "R" group is H, that means that glycine has 2 hydrogens on its carbon atom. That means that the mirror images of glycine can be superimposed, which means that it won't rotate the plane of polarized light.
"In separate experiments it was determined that under these same conditions dipeptides hydrolized rapidly [Huber and Wachtershauser 1998, p. 670]."
But the tripeptides didn't. Did they?
They admit homochirality is important: "Homochirality becomes increasingly important with increasing chain lengths of the peptides..."
Let's look at the preceding sentences:
The experiments with L-phenylalanine and L-tyrosine produced both epimeric dipeptides as a result of racemization. In the<SUP> </SUP>case of L-tyrosine, racemization was extensive after 4 days. These<SUP> </SUP>results mean that in an origin of life on (Fe,Ni)S at elevated<SUP> </SUP>temperatures, amino acids would be racemic. In a chemo-autotrophic<SUP> </SUP>origin of life with a catalytic feedback of amino acids or<SUP> </SUP>short oligopeptides as ligands for catalytic metal centers homochirality<SUP> </SUP>of the amino acids or of their peptides is not essential. Homochirality<SUP> </SUP>becomes increasingly important with increasing chain lengths of<SUP> </SUP>the peptides."
You have to read all of it before you start taking short clips out. Those clips have to accurately represent the whole, not just what you want to see. Anything else is deluding yourself and committing false witness.
I do believe the material is relevant, but does not answer what you said it does.
it answers exactly what I said it does: that peptide bonds can form in water.
My question is this, to both Rufus and Lucaspa: If chirality is non-important, why do papers like this try to deal with it?
Depends on your definition of "important". Since chirality exists, it is important to discover how the present near homochirality happened. In that sense it is important.
However, what is claimed by your creationist sources is that proteins don't work unless they are homochiral and that homochirality can't form. Those claims are very different. And false. Within the context of those claims, homochirality is not important. You don't have to have homochirality from the beginning. It can happen stepwise and the proteins still work composed of both forms of amino acids.
Again, remember the claims and keep track of them carefully.
Also, I believe it was Rufus who said that the formation of proteins is not what the origin of life is about. Well, then why is this paper discussing just that?
Because it is part of the system. Also remember that there are competing theories. Some scientists hypothesize that RNA came first and acted as both template and enzyme. Proteins came later. Other scientists look to proteins first and have them catalyze the synthesis of RNA/DNA.
Now, for chirality: I'm going to have to trust your word on this one Lucaspa. Jonathan Sarfati explains why no L-amino acids can be present--is it true? "Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid distrupts the stabilizing a[alpha]-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life." Also, another source of mine says that the wrong handed amino acid, again, will disrupt enzymatic functions.
No. The part about stabilizing an alpha helix is possibly correct (I'll look it up) but DNA isn't amino acids. In this case the chiral molecule is the D-sugar ribose. The bases aren't chiral. The reason glycine is used in collagen is precisely because the R group is small, giving a very tight helix to the collagen. But since it is neither D nor L, that would refute Sarfati's claim, wouldn't it?
That part about the side chains "sticking out randomly" is garbage. Remember, chemically the two isomers are identical. There is a different orientation in space, but it is not "random" in the sense Sarfati is using it -- everywhere. The hydrophobic and hydrophilic (water hating and water loving) interactions between R groups would still cause a non-random 3D folding. And that would still mean that some amino acid R groups would be in position to form active sites so the protein could act as an enzyme.
Okay, basically--it was printed in Science that "They [a German team] applied a magnetic field of between 1.2 and 2.1 teslas to the reaction solution--and found that 98% of the product, which normally contains both enantiomers, consisted of a single mirror-image form [Bradley 1994]."
You and I are talking about 2 different articles. I am referring to:
R Irion, Did twisty starlight set stage for life? Science 281:626-627, Jul. 31, 1998. Polarized UV light from stars can selectively destroy either L or D amino acids, setting the stage for chirality. Primary article is J Bailey, A Chrysostomous, JH Hough et al., Circular polarization in star-formation regions: implicactions for biomolecular homochirality. Science 281: 672-674, Jul. 31, 1998.
So look up that one and then we can discuss it and that selective destruction of one enantiomer can set the stage for later homochirality.
When you go to "naturalistic framework", Chase, you are leaving science and entering philosophy. There is a philosophy called philosophical naturalism. That philosophy (also known as atheism) does require a "naturalistic" origin of life. But since philosophical naturalism isn't evolution, and evolution doesn't require philosophical naturalism, you are mixing apples and oranges.
Go back to Darwin. he made it very clear that the origin of life wasn't what biological evolution is all about:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.
At a meeting on homochirality in 1995, "Miller emphasized that the origin of life was synonymous with the origin of evolution [Bada 1995]."
Yes, and now you see why. You can't have evolution until you have life. However it comes into being. Thru Darwin's "Creator breathed" or Fox's protocells.
"To quote G.F. Joyce: "Once a general mechanism existed for self-replication, allowing the introduction of variation and the ability to replicate those variants, darwinian evolution began to operate. This marked the beginning of life [Joyce 2002, p. 215]." So, once chemical evolution produced a self-replicator (at least, that's how I read it--I may be taking it utterly out of context, as I did the last), darwinian evolution (mutation and natural selection) were finally able to operate. Yet this darwinian evolution, even though chemical evolution isn't a defined part of it, rests on the basis of chemical evolution producing a replicator in the first place."
Of course. All theories have boundaries. Cell theory states that all organisms are made of cells. So Cell Theory rests on the existence of cells. General Relativity says gravity is a warping of space, so it rests on the existence of space.
This is not a big deal. Once you have life, as Darwin stated, then biological evolution explains the diversity of life on the planet.
Chase, I will heed the plea and treat you as a 13 year old. There are two debates going on here. One debate is between scientific theories: creationism and evolution. But there is always the underlying debate of theism vs atheism. It is terribly easy to confuse the two, especially because the extremists on both sides want to confuse the two. You must resist that confusion.
Even though abiogenesis appears to be true, that does not signal victory for atheism and defeat for theism. Putting God into the gaps of knowledge -- such as trying to say that science can't make life -- is no good for God. Because as soon as that gap is filled, there is less room for God.
How does this overcome the Law of Mass Action?
Gibb's free energy. Whether a reaction is spontaneous depends on whether free energy is negative (spontaneous) or positive. However, any reaction can be made to occur as long as enough energy is pumped into the system. Gibb's free energy equation is DeltaG (change in free energy) = DeltaH (change in enthaply) - TDeltaS where T = temperature in Kelvin and DeltaS is change in entropy. Increase T enough, and -TDeltaS is going to be larger than a positive DeltaH.
Also, I have the G. Vogel and Huber+Wa... papers right here.
Good, let's go over them.
As Vogel states, "Huber and Wachtershauser added amino acids to the same sulfide slurry, and within a few days they could detect a range of dipeptides, consisting of two amino acids linked together, as well as a few tripeptides... Not all specialists in the origins of life are convinced that this lab demonstration proves that the same thing could have happened naturally, however. Stanley Miller... says that concentrations of carbon monoxide, which activates the amino acids in Wachtershauser's reaction, are much lower in nature than in the experiment.
The concentration of CO is only 4 mmole. Not much. And remember hydrothermal vents get injections of CO from the volcanic gasses (as the paper mentions). Is Miller counting on only dissolved atmospheric CO?
And even if the reaction could occur in nature, it would not be adequate to form proteins that contain many amino acids, says Miller, who favors a cooler beginning for biomolecules [Vogel 1998]." So, this experiment certainly hasn't explained everything.
Never said it did. Remember the claims, Chase. ALWAYS remember the claims. Your claim was that proteins could not form in water. This paper refutes that claim. I never said that it was the answer to all of abiogenesis, only that it refuted that specific claim.
Now, let's go back to Miller. Remember, to be a good skeptic, you have to be skeptical of all statements unless tested. Miller doesn't get a free ride because he is being critical. You also have to be critical of his criticisms. Now, have you seen anything in the paper that says the reaction will stop at tripeptides and not be able to make longer proteins as Miller alledges? I didn't. Tripeptides is what they observed in their limited 4 day observation. But what if they had kept the experiment going 30, 60, 90, 180, 360 days or longer? Hydrothermal vents don't shut down after 4 days. Miller has a personal opinion, but I can't see any data to hang it on. I also see personal gain for him to say what he did. After all, isn't cool temp formation of proteins his theory?
They only ran the experiment for 4 days. And glycine is present in your proteins. In fact, the collagen of your skin and bones is 1/3 glycine. Do you have a source to look up the chemical formula of glycine. Because the "R" group is H, that means that glycine has 2 hydrogens on its carbon atom. That means that the mirror images of glycine can be superimposed, which means that it won't rotate the plane of polarized light.
"In separate experiments it was determined that under these same conditions dipeptides hydrolized rapidly [Huber and Wachtershauser 1998, p. 670]."
But the tripeptides didn't. Did they?
They admit homochirality is important: "Homochirality becomes increasingly important with increasing chain lengths of the peptides..."
Let's look at the preceding sentences:
The experiments with L-phenylalanine and L-tyrosine produced both epimeric dipeptides as a result of racemization. In the<SUP> </SUP>case of L-tyrosine, racemization was extensive after 4 days. These<SUP> </SUP>results mean that in an origin of life on (Fe,Ni)S at elevated<SUP> </SUP>temperatures, amino acids would be racemic. In a chemo-autotrophic<SUP> </SUP>origin of life with a catalytic feedback of amino acids or<SUP> </SUP>short oligopeptides as ligands for catalytic metal centers homochirality<SUP> </SUP>of the amino acids or of their peptides is not essential. Homochirality<SUP> </SUP>becomes increasingly important with increasing chain lengths of<SUP> </SUP>the peptides."
You have to read all of it before you start taking short clips out. Those clips have to accurately represent the whole, not just what you want to see. Anything else is deluding yourself and committing false witness.
I do believe the material is relevant, but does not answer what you said it does.
it answers exactly what I said it does: that peptide bonds can form in water.
My question is this, to both Rufus and Lucaspa: If chirality is non-important, why do papers like this try to deal with it?
Depends on your definition of "important". Since chirality exists, it is important to discover how the present near homochirality happened. In that sense it is important.
However, what is claimed by your creationist sources is that proteins don't work unless they are homochiral and that homochirality can't form. Those claims are very different. And false. Within the context of those claims, homochirality is not important. You don't have to have homochirality from the beginning. It can happen stepwise and the proteins still work composed of both forms of amino acids.
Again, remember the claims and keep track of them carefully.
Also, I believe it was Rufus who said that the formation of proteins is not what the origin of life is about. Well, then why is this paper discussing just that?
Because it is part of the system. Also remember that there are competing theories. Some scientists hypothesize that RNA came first and acted as both template and enzyme. Proteins came later. Other scientists look to proteins first and have them catalyze the synthesis of RNA/DNA.
Now, for chirality: I'm going to have to trust your word on this one Lucaspa. Jonathan Sarfati explains why no L-amino acids can be present--is it true? "Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid distrupts the stabilizing a[alpha]-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life." Also, another source of mine says that the wrong handed amino acid, again, will disrupt enzymatic functions.
No. The part about stabilizing an alpha helix is possibly correct (I'll look it up) but DNA isn't amino acids. In this case the chiral molecule is the D-sugar ribose. The bases aren't chiral. The reason glycine is used in collagen is precisely because the R group is small, giving a very tight helix to the collagen. But since it is neither D nor L, that would refute Sarfati's claim, wouldn't it?
That part about the side chains "sticking out randomly" is garbage. Remember, chemically the two isomers are identical. There is a different orientation in space, but it is not "random" in the sense Sarfati is using it -- everywhere. The hydrophobic and hydrophilic (water hating and water loving) interactions between R groups would still cause a non-random 3D folding. And that would still mean that some amino acid R groups would be in position to form active sites so the protein could act as an enzyme.
Okay, basically--it was printed in Science that "They [a German team] applied a magnetic field of between 1.2 and 2.1 teslas to the reaction solution--and found that 98% of the product, which normally contains both enantiomers, consisted of a single mirror-image form [Bradley 1994]."
You and I are talking about 2 different articles. I am referring to:
R Irion, Did twisty starlight set stage for life? Science 281:626-627, Jul. 31, 1998. Polarized UV light from stars can selectively destroy either L or D amino acids, setting the stage for chirality. Primary article is J Bailey, A Chrysostomous, JH Hough et al., Circular polarization in star-formation regions: implicactions for biomolecular homochirality. Science 281: 672-674, Jul. 31, 1998.
So look up that one and then we can discuss it and that selective destruction of one enantiomer can set the stage for later homochirality.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
