Bible Discussion: Optical Isomers Vs Evolution

Optical Isomers Vs Evolution
Posts: 12

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

IknowHimDoYou
2003-07-19 17:55:53 EST
Optical Isomers vs Evolution

Fact No. 1
All living creatures contain amino acids(in proteins) and sugars(in
nucleic acids). These compunds are necessary for the system to function.
The amino acids used are of the "L" rotation and the sugars are of the
"D". The fact is that "D" isomers of the amino acids just will not work
and neither will the "L" isomers of the sugars. This finding is called
"handedness" and is extremely important to life.

Fact No. 2
When organic compounds such as amino acids and sugars are sythesized in
the laboratory or factory(or by experiment) a mixture of around 50% of
each isomer is produced. Special work of seperation(which is never 100%
effective) is required to try and purify the different optical rotation
compounds.

Fact No. 3
Pure "D" or "L" forms of organic compounds cannot make themselves without
a chemist(designer) seperating them out of mixtures. For life to come
about as the evolutionists say these compiunds would have had to exist in
nature in their near pure forms, and they never have and never will.

Supposition No. 1
Since even many medicinal compounds are sythesized without following
isomer seperations into the usable optical forms what effect do you think
these medications might have on patients using them? We do not yet fully
understand what happens when the opposite isomers are used except that all
prescribed reactions for sustaining life would turn out quite differently.

Evolution opinion faces an unsolvable problem with "handedness" and it is
a fact that it exists and can only be explained as a product of a Designer
who created life in this unalternatable way.

The Omniscient Blade
2003-07-19 19:27:12 EST

"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1907031455530001@pm3-43.kalama.com...
> Optical Isomers vs Evolution
>
> Fact No. 1
> All living creatures contain amino acids(in proteins) and sugars(in
> nucleic acids). These compunds are necessary for the system to function.
> The amino acids used are of the "L" rotation and the sugars are of the
> "D". The fact is that "D" isomers of the amino acids just will not work
> and neither will the "L" isomers of the sugars. This finding is called
> "handedness" and is extremely important to life.
>
> Fact No. 2
> When organic compounds such as amino acids and sugars are sythesized in
> the laboratory or factory(or by experiment) a mixture of around 50% of
> each isomer is produced. Special work of seperation(which is never 100%
> effective) is required to try and purify the different optical rotation
> compounds.
>
> Fact No. 3
> Pure "D" or "L" forms of organic compounds cannot make themselves without
> a chemist(designer) seperating them out of mixtures. For life to come
> about as the evolutionists say these compiunds would have had to exist in
> nature in their near pure forms, and they never have and never will.

Wrong, you fail to take into account catalytic preference.

>
> Supposition No. 1
> Since even many medicinal compounds are sythesized without following
> isomer seperations into the usable optical forms what effect do you think
> these medications might have on patients using them? We do not yet fully
> understand what happens when the opposite isomers are used except that all
> prescribed reactions for sustaining life would turn out quite differently.

Most enzymes won't use the wrong isomers and so you don't get the other
isomer affecting a bioligcal reaction in most cases.

>
> Evolution opinion faces an unsolvable problem with "handedness" and it is
> a fact that it exists and can only be explained as a product of a Designer
> who created life in this unalternatable way.

Actually there are several catalytic processes that favour one optical
isomer over another that have nothing to do with human intention. Lets just
assume that life got started with the involvement of some non-biological
catalyst that favoured one optical isomer over another. That would lead to
life systems that used one type in preference to another which is exactly
what we see.

--
Blade ICQ#27537648

Smart people can fake being stupid, but stupid people can't fake being
smart.

Change .con to demon<dot>co<dot>uk to send mail.



Michael
2003-07-22 12:48:16 EST
In article <qykSa.2656$oS6.242@news02.roc.ny>, "Adam Marczyk"
<*e@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:

> IknowHimDoYou <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
> news:IknowHim-1907031455530001@pm3-43.kalama.com...
> > Optical Isomers vs Evolution
> >
> > Fact No. 1
> > All living creatures contain amino acids(in proteins) and sugars(in
> > nucleic acids). These compunds are necessary for the system to function.
> > The amino acids used are of the "L" rotation and the sugars are of the
> > "D". The fact is that "D" isomers of the amino acids just will not work
> > and neither will the "L" isomers of the sugars. This finding is called
> > "handedness" and is extremely important to life.
> >
> > Fact No. 2
> > When organic compounds such as amino acids and sugars are sythesized in
> > the laboratory or factory(or by experiment) a mixture of around 50% of
> > each isomer is produced. Special work of seperation(which is never 100%
> > effective) is required to try and purify the different optical rotation
> > compounds.
> >
> > Fact No. 3
> > Pure "D" or "L" forms of organic compounds cannot make themselves without
> > a chemist(designer) seperating them out of mixtures. For life to come
> > about as the evolutionists say these compiunds would have had to exist in
> > nature in their near pure forms, and they never have and never will.
>
> In reality, there are several natural ways to separate or preferentially
> create amino acids according to chirality. For example, circularly
> polarized ultraviolet light will selectively destroy either one or the
> other enantiomer, depending on the direction of polarization. (This is
> thought to have played a role in the formation of the Murchison meteorite,
> a well-studied carbonaceous chondrite which was found to have a distinct
> excess of left-handed amino acids.) Based on infrared observations of
> star-forming regions of nebulae, circularly polarized ultraviolet light is
> predicted to be present in sufficient quantities for asymmetric photolysis
> of organic molecules. If our solar system formed under similar conditions,
> it is natural that the correct enantiomers to create life as we know it
> would have selectively survived.

If our solar system....it is natural...would have survived. Sounds like a
lot of might have, could have, would have, but a bit light on evidence.

>
> Also, several common minerals, such as calcite, are themselves chiral: they
> selectively concentrate molecules of one handedness on one facet and the
> other handedness on another. (See
> http://www.nature.com/nsu/010503/010503-4.html). Life may simply have
> gotten started on one side of a rock rather than the other.

Life may simply have....Sounds like a lot of might have, could have, would
have, but a bit light on evidence. Also sounds steeped in antique 19th
Century Darwinism science, life is not simple as Darwin thought, which
discredits his simply theory.


>
> Also, the two different enantiomers are not perfect mirror images of each
> other. Due to a weak force interaction (the weak force is the only one of
> the four fundamental forces of nature that does not conserve parity), the
> symmetry between the two is broken: left-handed amino acids are slightly
> more stable than right-handed amino acids. (Right-handed sugars are also
> slightly more stable than left-handed sugars, for the same reason.) Even a
> small asymmetry could have been amplified by a principle of chemistry
> called "majority rule" that produces completely chiral polymers from only
> weakly chiral starting conditions.

The Work of the Creator who wrote the laws of physics, chemistry, as well
as morality is a marvelous work. We can all agree on that.

>
> The question of chirality is not completely solved yet, but as it is plain
> to see, it is hardly an "unsolvable problem" for abiogenesis research. The
> only people who think this are God-of-the-Gaps creationists who are
> desperate to halt the advance of human knowledge by making problems seem
> more difficult than they are.

Actually, the advance of the evidence has discredited the antique fundie
evolutionists Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and mutated monster theories, and
has validated Creation theory and intelligent design. The conclusion of
genetic research will put the final nail in the coffin of atheist
evolution, a religion in crisis.

--
Michael
People who don\ufffdt read newspapers are better off than those
who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Adam Marczyk
2003-07-22 13:20:10 EST
Michael <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2207031248160001@sdn-ap-005dcwashp0497.dialsprint.net...
> In article <qykSa.2656$oS6.242@news02.roc.ny>, "Adam Marczyk"
> <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> IknowHimDoYou <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
>> news:IknowHim-1907031455530001@pm3-43.kalama.com...
>>> Optical Isomers vs Evolution
>>>
>>> Fact No. 1
>>> All living creatures contain amino acids(in proteins) and sugars(in
>>> nucleic acids). These compunds are necessary for the system to
>>> function. The amino acids used are of the "L" rotation and the sugars
>>> are of the "D". The fact is that "D" isomers of the amino acids just
>>> will not work and neither will the "L" isomers of the sugars. This
>>> finding is called "handedness" and is extremely important to life.
>>>
>>> Fact No. 2
>>> When organic compounds such as amino acids and sugars are sythesized in
>>> the laboratory or factory(or by experiment) a mixture of around 50% of
>>> each isomer is produced. Special work of seperation(which is never
>>> 100% effective) is required to try and purify the different optical
>>> rotation compounds.
>>>
>>> Fact No. 3
>>> Pure "D" or "L" forms of organic compounds cannot make themselves
>>> without a chemist(designer) seperating them out of mixtures. For life
>>> to come about as the evolutionists say these compiunds would have had
>>> to exist in nature in their near pure forms, and they never have and
>>> never will.
>>
>> In reality, there are several natural ways to separate or preferentially
>> create amino acids according to chirality. For example, circularly
>> polarized ultraviolet light will selectively destroy either one or the
>> other enantiomer, depending on the direction of polarization. (This is
>> thought to have played a role in the formation of the Murchison
>> meteorite, a well-studied carbonaceous chondrite which was found to
>> have a distinct excess of left-handed amino acids.) Based on infrared
>> observations of star-forming regions of nebulae, circularly polarized
>> ultraviolet light is predicted to be present in sufficient quantities
>> for asymmetric photolysis of organic molecules. If our solar system
>> formed under similar conditions, it is natural that the correct
>> enantiomers to create life as we know it would have selectively
>> survived.
>
> If our solar system....it is natural...would have survived. Sounds like
> a lot of might have, could have, would have, but a bit light on evidence.

Did you even read what I wrote? Circularly polarized UV light will
selectively destroy one or the other enantiomer. That is evidence. The
Murchison meteorite had a distinct excess of left-handed amino acids. That
is evidence. Infrared observations of star-forming regions lead us to
conclude circularly polarized UV should be present - not a direct
observation, but a prediction based on well-studied and thoroughly
understood fundamental physics.

I don't apologize for qualifying my statements. Science deals in
preponderance of the evidence, not in absolute proof, and all scientific
theories are provisional and subject to refutation. My qualifiers are
merely intended to reflect this fact. That does not change the fact that
this is the best evidence currently available to us. Would you have put any
more stock in my arguments if I stated them belligerently, as absolute
truth? Would you be more likely to believe me if I insisted there was no
way I could ever be wrong about anything? Only creationists who do not
understand science think that greater self-assurance equals greater
evidentiary support.

>> Also, several common minerals, such as calcite, are themselves chiral:
>> they selectively concentrate molecules of one handedness on one facet
>> and the other handedness on another. (See
>> http://www.nature.com/nsu/010503/010503-4.html). Life may simply have
>> gotten started on one side of a rock rather than the other.
>
> Life may simply have....Sounds like a lot of might have, could have,
> would have, but a bit light on evidence.

Common minerals such as calcite sort and concentrate molecules according to
chirality. That is evidence. And yes, I don't claim to know how life got
started. But this is an area of ongoing research, and much progress is
still being made. Though we do not know for certain which of these
possibilities actually happened, or if it was a combination of them, or
even if it was some other mechanism we have yet to discover, the mere fact
that there are *possibilities* destroys the original poster's naive
assertion that only intelligent intervention can separate molecules by
handedness.

> Also sounds steeped in antique
> 19th Century Darwinism science, life is not simple as Darwin thought,
> which discredits his simply theory.

I don't recall Darwin ever saying that life had to be simple for his theory
to work. Citation?

>> Also, the two different enantiomers are not perfect mirror images of
>> each other. Due to a weak force interaction (the weak force is the only
>> one of the four fundamental forces of nature that does not conserve
>> parity), the symmetry between the two is broken: left-handed amino
>> acids are slightly more stable than right-handed amino acids.
>> (Right-handed sugars are also slightly more stable than left-handed
>> sugars, for the same reason.) Even a small asymmetry could have been
>> amplified by a principle of chemistry called "majority rule" that
>> produces completely chiral polymers from only weakly chiral starting
>> conditions.
>
> The Work of the Creator who wrote the laws of physics, chemistry, as well
> as morality is a marvelous work. We can all agree on that.

Since I do not believe in a creator, I do not agree on it. You're welcome
to believe whatever you like, but don't make the mistake of thinking that
*your* knowledge or lack thereof defines the limits of what humanity as a
whole knows. Far too many creationists make that mistake, such as the
original poster who is basically asserting that abiogenesis is impossible
because *he* can't imagine how it might have happened.

>> The question of chirality is not completely solved yet, but as it is
>> plain to see, it is hardly an "unsolvable problem" for abiogenesis
>> research. The only people who think this are God-of-the-Gaps
>> creationists who are desperate to halt the advance of human knowledge
>> by making problems seem more difficult than they are.
>
> Actually, the advance of the evidence has discredited the antique fundie
> evolutionists Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and mutated monster theories, and
> has validated Creation theory and intelligent design. The conclusion of
> genetic research will put the final nail in the coffin of atheist
> evolution, a religion in crisis.

Ah, yes, the "imminent demise of evolution" claim. Creationists have been
making that one for a good 150 years now.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

In reality, qualified scientists overwhelmingly support the theory of
biological evolution and reject all pseudoscientific alternatives such as
creationism, as the NCSE's "Project Steve" shows.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

An open letter opposing a recent pro-creationism bill was signed by almost
a hundred scientific *organizations*.

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/evolutionletter.html

In a 1986 Supreme Court case over creationist "equal time" laws, an amicus
curiae brief opposing such laws was signed by 72 Nobel Prize winners, 17
state academies of science, and 7 other scientific organizations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html

You'd be hard pressed to find *any* other theory that has such strong and
unequivocal support from the scientific community. Top science journals
continue to routinely publish numerous articles in support of evolution,
and zero in support of creationism or "intelligent design". Evolution
reigns triumphant, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon - most
certainly not due to the efforts of creationists who sit on the sidelines
and snipe, occasionally taking time out to pat each other on the back over
what a great job they're doing.

--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Elmer Bataitis
2003-07-22 13:43:40 EST
Michael wrote:
> In article <jukSa.10413$d47.634300@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "Lane Lewis"

(snip)

> > In fact the creation of life isn't even covered by evolution is it.
> > In fact its covered by the science abiogenesis.

> Nice solution for the theory that fails to explain how life began, without
> which, evolution as a theory is moot.

Abiogenesis is a fact Mike. Heritable genetic change in a reproducing
population remains a fact and the theory of why that happens explains
the evidence quite nicely.

(snip)

**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************

Elmer Bataitis
2003-07-22 13:45:01 EST
Michael wrote:

> Actually, the advance of the evidence has discredited the antique fundie
> evolutionists Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and mutated monster theories, and
> has validated Creation theory and intelligent design.

It has? Where?

> The conclusion of
> genetic research will put the final nail in the coffin of atheist
> evolution, a religion in crisis.

Did you read the latest Sci Am article on cancer?

**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought." - C.
Cagle
**********************************************************

Tom
2003-07-22 16:50:52 EST

"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2207031248160001@sdn-ap-005dcwashp0497.dialsprint.net...
> In article <qykSa.2656$oS6.242@news02.roc.ny>, "Adam Marczyk"
> <ebonmuse@deletethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > IknowHimDoYou <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
> > news:IknowHim-1907031455530001@pm3-43.kalama.com...
> > > Optical Isomers vs Evolution
> > >
> > > Fact No. 1
> > > All living creatures contain amino acids(in proteins) and sugars(in
> > > nucleic acids). These compunds are necessary for the system to
function.
> > > The amino acids used are of the "L" rotation and the sugars are of the
> > > "D". The fact is that "D" isomers of the amino acids just will not
work
> > > and neither will the "L" isomers of the sugars. This finding is
called
> > > "handedness" and is extremely important to life.
> > >
> > > Fact No. 2
> > > When organic compounds such as amino acids and sugars are sythesized
in
> > > the laboratory or factory(or by experiment) a mixture of around 50% of
> > > each isomer is produced. Special work of seperation(which is never
100%
> > > effective) is required to try and purify the different optical
rotation
> > > compounds.
> > >
> > > Fact No. 3
> > > Pure "D" or "L" forms of organic compounds cannot make themselves
without
> > > a chemist(designer) seperating them out of mixtures. For life to come
> > > about as the evolutionists say these compiunds would have had to exist
in
> > > nature in their near pure forms, and they never have and never will.
> >
> > In reality, there are several natural ways to separate or preferentially
> > create amino acids according to chirality. For example, circularly
> > polarized ultraviolet light will selectively destroy either one or the
> > other enantiomer, depending on the direction of polarization. (This is
> > thought to have played a role in the formation of the Murchison
meteorite,
> > a well-studied carbonaceous chondrite which was found to have a distinct
> > excess of left-handed amino acids.) Based on infrared observations of
> > star-forming regions of nebulae, circularly polarized ultraviolet light
is
> > predicted to be present in sufficient quantities for asymmetric
photolysis
> > of organic molecules. If our solar system formed under similar
conditions,
> > it is natural that the correct enantiomers to create life as we know it
> > would have selectively survived.

>Burt: If our solar system....it is natural...would have survived. Sounds
like a
> lot of might have, could have, would have, but a bit light on evidence.

Tom: Sounds better than created by a bearded old man by the sound of his
voice.

> > Also, several common minerals, such as calcite, are themselves chiral:
they
> > selectively concentrate molecules of one handedness on one facet and the
> > other handedness on another. (See
> > http://www.nature.com/nsu/010503/010503-4.html). Life may simply have
> > gotten started on one side of a rock rather than the other.

>Burt: Life may simply have....Sounds like a lot of might have, could have,
would
> have, but a bit light on evidence. Also sounds steeped in antique 19th
> Century Darwinism science, life is not simple as Darwin thought, which
> discredits his simply theory.

Tom: Speaking of simple, how are you doing Mike? Darwin never thought life
was simple, not in the least. He had great respect for life and he knew that
life was complex. I really don't see how you would know, however, because
you have never read a thing he published.

> >
> > Also, the two different enantiomers are not perfect mirror images of
each
> > other. Due to a weak force interaction (the weak force is the only one
of
> > the four fundamental forces of nature that does not conserve parity),
the
> > symmetry between the two is broken: left-handed amino acids are slightly
> > more stable than right-handed amino acids. (Right-handed sugars are also
> > slightly more stable than left-handed sugars, for the same reason.) Even
a
> > small asymmetry could have been amplified by a principle of chemistry
> > called "majority rule" that produces completely chiral polymers from
only
> > weakly chiral starting conditions.

>Burt: The Work of the Creator who wrote the laws of physics, chemistry, as
well
> as morality is a marvelous work. We can all agree on that.

Tom: Oh yes Mike, the "creator". The one who walked in the Garden of Eden
but didn't know if Adam and Eve were present? The one who had to rest for a
day after he created the universe in six days? That strong creator? Why did
he have to rest Mike? Is speaking so difficult? Did he strain his voice as
he created a "creationist"? Probably. Or some of those nasty quasars
billions of years away. But wait, he only had six days in which to get those
quasars out there, didn't he? The creator that was so stupid that he didn't
know his creation would need to be destroyed because it had become so
sinful? Yes, we are all familiar with the work of your "creator" and it
causes big belly laughs in many of us :-).

> > The question of chirality is not completely solved yet, but as it is
plain
> > to see, it is hardly an "unsolvable problem" for abiogenesis research.
The
> > only people who think this are God-of-the-Gaps creationists who are
> > desperate to halt the advance of human knowledge by making problems seem
> > more difficult than they are.

>Burt: Actually, the advance of the evidence has discredited the antique
fundie
> evolutionists Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and mutated monster theories, and
> has validated Creation theory and intelligent design. The conclusion of
> genetic research will put the final nail in the coffin of atheist
> evolution, a religion in crisis.

Tom: Listen to Michael speak. He wouldn't know genetic research if it bit
him in the a**. Tell us Michael, in what ways so far, as genetic research
done anything but strengthen evolutionary theory? You don't need to name a
lot, just a few will do. I think that since you say that this is the final
nail that there must be much evidence out there.






Matt Silberstein
2003-07-22 22:28:17 EST
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
m*t@ix.netcom.com (Michael):

>In article <jukSa.10413$d47.634300@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, "Lane Lewis"
><lanejlewis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
>> news:IknowHim-1907031455530001@pm3-43.kalama.com...
>> > Optical Isomers vs Evolution
>> >
>> > Fact No. 1
>> > All living creatures contain amino acids(in proteins) and sugars(in
>> > nucleic acids). These compunds are necessary for the system to function.
>> > The amino acids used are of the "L" rotation and the sugars are of the
>> > "D". The fact is that "D" isomers of the amino acids just will not work
>> > and neither will the "L" isomers of the sugars. This finding is called
>> > "handedness" and is extremely important to life.
>> >
>> > Fact No. 2
>> > When organic compounds such as amino acids and sugars are sythesized in
>> > the laboratory or factory(or by experiment) a mixture of around 50% of
>> > each isomer is produced. Special work of seperation(which is never 100%
>> > effective) is required to try and purify the different optical rotation
>> > compounds.
>> >
>> > Fact No. 3
>> > Pure "D" or "L" forms of organic compounds cannot make themselves without
>> > a chemist(designer) seperating them out of mixtures. For life to come
>> > about as the evolutionists say these compiunds would have had to exist in
>> > nature in their near pure forms, and they never have and never will.
>>
>> How do evolutionist claim life started - Do you have a citation for this
>> or are just inventing a stawman.
>
>The theory of evolution is insufficent to discuss abiogenesis, so they
>separate the problem and say it belongs to someone else.

Nope yet again. Evolution is an observed process. Scientists have
developed a predictive model to explain these observations.
Abiogenesis is a *different* process. As such it needs a
different explanation. Now as it happens I strongly suspect (as
in, there is some interesting research pointing to) that
*mechanisms* involved in evolution, imperfect replication and
differential reproductive success, played an important role in
abiogenesis as well. It may well be that the *result* of our
exploration of abiogenesis will be a unified theory explaining
both. That would be a Good Thing (tm).

>>
>> In fact the creation of life isn't even covered by evolution is it.
>> In fact its covered by the science abiogenesis.
>
>Nice solution for the theory that fails to explain how life began, without
>which, evolution as a theory is moot.

Nope yet again. Evolution depends on the existence of life, not
an particular origin of life. As we observe that life exists and
we have evidence for its existence for billions of years there is
no problem for evolution.
>>
>> You knew that didn't you.
>>
>> So lets see that citation.
>
>There is none, evolution theory fails to account for its beginnings. It
>is a very limited and inpractical theory.

Yeah, it only explains the billions of years since the origin of
life, real limited.


Adam Marczyk
2003-07-23 02:08:04 EST
Matt Silberstein <matts2@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:kdsrhv4367i9ns81dpiu9p5v4br3g7ljkd@4ax.com...
> In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
> mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael):

[...]

>>> In fact the creation of life isn't even covered by evolution is it.
>>> In fact its covered by the science abiogenesis.
>>
>> Nice solution for the theory that fails to explain how life began,
>> without which, evolution as a theory is moot.
>
> Nope yet again. Evolution depends on the existence of life, not
> an particular origin of life. As we observe that life exists and
> we have evidence for its existence for billions of years there is
> no problem for evolution.

Or, to put it in a way that creationists might understand more easily: If
God had miraculously created the first living cell in a puff of smoke,
evolution could have proceeded normally from there.

--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------


The Omniscient Blade
2003-07-23 16:09:11 EST

"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-2207031248160001@sdn-ap-005dcwashp0497.dialsprint.net...
<snip>
> > > Fact No. 1
> > > All living creatures contain amino acids(in proteins) and sugars(in
> > > nucleic acids). These compunds are necessary for the system to
function.
> > > The amino acids used are of the "L" rotation and the sugars are of the
> > > "D". The fact is that "D" isomers of the amino acids just will not
work
> > > and neither will the "L" isomers of the sugars. This finding is
called
> > > "handedness" and is extremely important to life.
> > >
> > > Fact No. 2
> > > When organic compounds such as amino acids and sugars are sythesized
in
> > > the laboratory or factory(or by experiment) a mixture of around 50% of
> > > each isomer is produced. Special work of seperation(which is never
100%
> > > effective) is required to try and purify the different optical
rotation
> > > compounds.
> > >
> > > Fact No. 3
> > > Pure "D" or "L" forms of organic compounds cannot make themselves
without
> > > a chemist(designer) seperating them out of mixtures. For life to come
> > > about as the evolutionists say these compiunds would have had to exist
in
> > > nature in their near pure forms, and they never have and never will.
> >
> > In reality, there are several natural ways to separate or preferentially
> > create amino acids according to chirality. For example, circularly
> > polarized ultraviolet light will selectively destroy either one or the
> > other enantiomer, depending on the direction of polarization. (This is
> > thought to have played a role in the formation of the Murchison
meteorite,
> > a well-studied carbonaceous chondrite which was found to have a distinct
> > excess of left-handed amino acids.) Based on infrared observations of
> > star-forming regions of nebulae, circularly polarized ultraviolet light
is
> > predicted to be present in sufficient quantities for asymmetric
photolysis
> > of organic molecules. If our solar system formed under similar
conditions,
> > it is natural that the correct enantiomers to create life as we know it
> > would have selectively survived.
>
> If our solar system....it is natural...would have survived. Sounds like a
> lot of might have, could have, would have, but a bit light on evidence.

Shall I set the facts out a little bit clearer then so you don't have to
make that many logical leaps. The evidence is that our solar system WAS
formed under similar conditions and that the correct enantiomers to created
life did selectively survive. Sounds like a lot of did, was, has, I
know...what will all the heavy evidence for it. The original statment was
one of what is possible. The fact is that the possibilities became reality
for our solarsytem.

>
> >
> > Also, several common minerals, such as calcite, are themselves chiral:
they
> > selectively concentrate molecules of one handedness on one facet and the
> > other handedness on another. (See
> > http://www.nature.com/nsu/010503/010503-4.html). Life may simply have
> > gotten started on one side of a rock rather than the other.
>
> Life may simply have....Sounds like a lot of might have, could have, would
> have, but a bit light on evidence.

Sorry we haven't progressed our understanding fast enough for your likeing.
There are alternatives in nature that still produce the desired results and
its not easy working out which ones actually contributed to the process and
which didn't.

>Also sounds steeped in antique 19th
> Century Darwinism science, life is not simple as Darwin thought, which
> discredits his simply theory.

Simplicity is a relative term. You can't invoke it without stating what it
is relative to. How simple DID Darwin think life was?

>
>
> >
> > Also, the two different enantiomers are not perfect mirror images of
each
> > other. Due to a weak force interaction (the weak force is the only one
of
> > the four fundamental forces of nature that does not conserve parity),
the
> > symmetry between the two is broken: left-handed amino acids are slightly
> > more stable than right-handed amino acids. (Right-handed sugars are also
> > slightly more stable than left-handed sugars, for the same reason.) Even
a
> > small asymmetry could have been amplified by a principle of chemistry
> > called "majority rule" that produces completely chiral polymers from
only
> > weakly chiral starting conditions.
>
> The Work of the Creator who wrote the laws of physics, chemistry, as well
> as morality is a marvelous work. We can all agree on that.

Morality is a relative term but for the others I will assume that you are
conceding that not special intent went in to our creation and the laws of
the universe (however they were set up) can naturally lead to our existence
without any deliberate design and thuse concede that abiogenesis and
evolution are correct models of how reality works (if they are models of
gods system regulation code or if they just exist).

>
> >
> > The question of chirality is not completely solved yet, but as it is
plain
> > to see, it is hardly an "unsolvable problem" for abiogenesis research.
The
> > only people who think this are God-of-the-Gaps creationists who are
> > desperate to halt the advance of human knowledge by making problems seem
> > more difficult than they are.
>
> Actually, the advance of the evidence has discredited the antique fundie
> evolutionists Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and mutated monster theories, and
> has validated Creation theory and intelligent design. The conclusion of
> genetic research will put the final nail in the coffin of atheist
> evolution, a religion in crisis.

Shame that the larger absence of evidence discredits the existence of the
being you actually require for creation to be true.

--
Blade ICQ#27537648

Smart people can fake being stupid, but stupid people can't fake being
smart.

Change .con to demon<dot>co<dot>uk to send mail.


Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron