the shape of proteins requires an engineer

Most organic molecules in nature have an interesting feature called "chirality". A molecule is chiral when it is able to have a molecule that is arranged as a mirror image to itself. Think of your left and right hand, they are mirror images of the other. Just as your left hand doesn't quite fit a right-handed glove, so too do molecules behave differently depending if they are left or right handed. This is deemed L or D configurations.



Amino acids formed by natural processes come in both the L and D orientation. This presents a problem, because all life consists of polymers, or chains of amino acids, that consist exclusively of L-amino acids, this is called "homochirality". The exception being that D-amino acid polymers arise occasionally in diseased organisms.

This presents a difficulty for abiogenesis, which is the emergence of life from non-life through natural thermodynamic processes. The difficulty is that there is no known natural mechanism that can naturally select exclusively L-amino acids without a ribosome. The ribosome in your cells, which is responsible for protein production, only allows L-amino acids into the protein chains. The ribosome is much like a 3D printer, implementing the sequence of amino acids to form a micromolecular polymer thread that then gets folded by other enzymes into a 3D shape that performs a specific function in the cell. D-amino acids contaminate the polymer and render it inefficient or totally useless.



Scientists trying to salvage abiogenesis and the secular idea of natural processes forming life in general have tried to find a way that D-amino acids could have been exclusively selected without a ribosome. The ribosome itself is a product of of L-amino acids polymerizing, creating a chicken-or-the-egg scenario since the ribosome is needed for L-amino acids to polymerize. So far the best that scientists could contrive in a laboratory setting was a 70-30 ratio of L to D amino acids for one of the many amino acid components. This is not sufficient, since the polymer ratio needs to be 100-0 L-D. Not to mention that amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically unfavorable in water (meaning protein chains will not just randomly emerge without cellular machinery)

Therefore the entire idea of life emerging from non-life by natural processes is essentially thermodynamically impossible. Generating one protein strand consisting of 1000 amino acids is as likely as flipping a coin heads thousands of times in a row, which is equivalent to 1 x 2^1000 (meaning 1 in 2,000... (994 0's later)... ,000). or also referred to as 1 in 2 googol.



To further the analogy, imagine that you don't even have a coin to flip, this is equivalent to the fact that amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically unfavorable in water.

This is a big L for abiogenesis and evolutionary theory. This sort of faith exhibited by believers in the emergence of life without an intelligent designer is beyond any logical defense.

Those who have left faith in God for faith in natural processes have actually amplified their blind belief. They have replaced priests with tenured scientists who will not get paid unless they conform to a broken theory. This unfortunate facet was shown most by Mark Armitage, who was fired after proving that soft tissue was found in dinosaur bones since this disproved the evolutionary narrative.

Beware of the appeal to authority fallacy, which assumes that these scientists have some sort of resolution. They don't. This and the many other biochemical hurdles have rendered abiogenesis and evolution to be mere faith not based in actual thermodynamic possibility. These various necessities cause the components of the cell to be interdependent, meaning they rely on each other for their own formation and therefore could not have come to be through piece-by-piece successive natural processes.

Just the forces of nature without any life are proof enough for me. To quote Obama, "You didn't make that" applies.

a reply to: cooperton

if there is one habitable world, there are a hundred somewhere else...if there is one engineer, there are a hundred somewhere else

whcih brings us to the fermi paradox

on one hand, if there is more life then show us where it is

on the other, perhaps safer for all worlds if that question remains unanswered

originally posted by: coopertonThe difficulty is that there is no known natural mechanism that can naturally select exclusively L-amino acids without a ribosome.

The emphasis being on "No known". Don't fall in to the trap that just because we don't fully understand the processes, that the only remaining explanation is "God/aliens did it". Maybe life was created, maybe it was not. We simply don't know either way. Just as we don't understand the mechanism fully, we cannot be certain it was engineered. We are still at the very beginning of our scientific understanding of the universe we inhabit, what we currently know is barely scratching the surface.

originally posted by: MetalChickAmy

The emphasis being on "No known". Don't fall in to the trap that just because we don't fully understand the processes, that the only remaining explanation is "God/aliens did it". Maybe life was created, maybe it was not. We simply don't know either way. Just as we don't understand the mechanism fully, we cannot be certain it was engineered. We are still at the very beginning of our scientific understanding of the universe we inhabit, what we currently know is barely scratching the surface.

Biology is very indicative of design though. Proteins behave like micromolecular bots. God-of-the-gaps makes more sense than random-chance-of-the-gaps.

God is good, man

God is a freakin' Scientist.

a reply to: cooperton

Those who have left faith in God for faith in natural processes have actually amplified their blind belief. They have replaced priests with tenured scientists who will not get paid unless they conform to a broken theory. This unfortunate facet was shown most by Mark Armitage, who was fired after proving that soft tissue was found in dinosaur bones since this disproved the evolutionary narrative.

Since no scientist has yet created synthetic life in the laboratory, I can't see how anybody can be certain of anything.

www.grisda.org...

a reply to: cooperton

Oh goody!

Another skewed and misinterpreted perception of actual science. Your constant attempts at trying to justify the existence of your creator is amusing. You never cease to provide giggles at our office. Good going and keep the comedy coming!

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
God is a freakin' Scientist.

Imagine making atoms to follow precise laws to congregate into molecules which form organic substances that are able to interact in a way to make microscopic factories that create individual cells which form together in the trillions to create a self-aware, emotional, rational, beautiful, reproductive supercomputer encased in a skull with a body that has limbs that allow you to move around a beautiful sensory material interface that feeds you and gives you air to breath with water coming from the ground and sky and you get to share this lovely world with others who love the God who created us.

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: cooperton

You never cease to provide giggles at our office. Good going and keep the comedy coming!

Cool story bro. My workers and I never think about you at all.

a reply to: cooperton

I know, right?

Blows my tiny little human brain full of wonder and awe at how smart He is.

I mean, props to the entire Angelic Orders as well.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: cooperton

You never cease to provide giggles at our office. Good going and keep the comedy coming!

Cool story bro. My workers and I never think about you at all.

Considering they/you have no clue who I am or that I even exist, sure. Ditto to your OP

originally posted by: SigmaXSquared
a reply to: cooperton

if there is one habitable world, there are a hundred somewhere else...if there is one engineer, there are a hundred somewhere else

whcih brings us to the fermi paradox

on one hand, if there is more life then show us where it is

on the other, perhaps safer for all worlds if that question remains unanswered

The Fermi Paradox is bull# because we DO have evidence of thousands or more encounters with ET and UFOs but they don't "count." The only reason the Fermi Paradox exists is because the government wants to pretend it does.

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: SigmaXSquared
a reply to: cooperton

if there is one habitable world, there are a hundred somewhere else...if there is one engineer, there are a hundred somewhere else

whcih brings us to the fermi paradox

on one hand, if there is more life then show us where it is

on the other, perhaps safer for all worlds if that question remains unanswered

The Fermi Paradox is bull# because we DO have evidence of thousands or more encounters with ET and UFOs but they don't "count." The only reason the Fermi Paradox exists is because the government wants to pretend it does.

No evidence exists. There is no evidence whatsoever that any encounter with UAP/UFO/NHI is of extraterrestrial origin.
There are indeed countless events of sightings and "encounters" of these phenomena, but none of those have resulted in conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial origin.

I want to believe. I won't be coerced into believing nonsense.


Back on topic... the idea that natural proteins "needed" some kind of initial spark to exist is laughable.
This topic clearly exhibits the OP's inability to understand fundamental biology and evolution.

originally posted by: Kreeate

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: SigmaXSquared
a reply to: cooperton

if there is one habitable world, there are a hundred somewhere else...if there is one engineer, there are a hundred somewhere else

whcih brings us to the fermi paradox

on one hand, if there is more life then show us where it is

on the other, perhaps safer for all worlds if that question remains unanswered

The Fermi Paradox is bull# because we DO have evidence of thousands or more encounters with ET and UFOs but they don't "count." The only reason the Fermi Paradox exists is because the government wants to pretend it does.

No evidence exists. There is no evidence whatsoever that any encounter with UAP/UFO/NHI is of extraterrestrial origin.
There are indeed countless events of sightings and "encounters" of these phenomena, but none of those have resulted in conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial origin.

I want to believe. I won't be coerced into believing nonsense.


Back on topic... the idea that natural proteins "needed" some kind of initial spark to exist is laughable.
This topic clearly exhibits the OP's inability to understand fundamental biology and evolution.

Me neither, I won't be coerced into believing nonsense. I want physical proof. No, I want to talk, telepathically, with those that know me and they ain't from here.

Sorry Coop, we be CT and we get carried away.

How did God engineer the shape of proteins?


If God is all powerful can God create a universe wherein abiogenesis (which is the emergence of life from non-life through natural thermodynamic processes) is factual ... or is that beyond God's abilities?

originally posted by: dandandat2
How did God engineer the shape of proteins?


If God is all powerful can God create a universe wherein abiogenesis, (which is the emergence of life from non-life through natural thermodynamic processes) is factual ... or is that beyond God's abilities?

Deep question... First you have to establish the existence of God. And therein lies the problem. To everything really.

It amazes me how people can ignore the simple idea that nothing would exist without the forces of nature. Where did the forces come from, those same forces and laws of nature which allowed for biology, evolution, and a perfectly balanced universe? An atheist I knew said that the universe had to come into existence due "to the sheer weight of the numbers". However, before the universe existed there was nothing and the sheer weight of nothing is zero.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
It amazes me how people can ignore the simple idea that nothing would exist without the forces of nature. Where did the forces come from, those same forces and laws of nature which allowed for biology, evolution, and a perfectly balanced universe? An atheist I knew said that the universe had to come into existence due "to the sheer weight of the numbers". However, before the universe existed there was nothing and the sheer weight of nothing is zero.

In the beginning there was nothing. And before that there was nothing,
And out of nothing, something came. Simple math would dictate that it is inconclusive.
The idea of eternity nullifies all theories, hypothetically.

But "God" is the answer of course, because that makes so much more sense... right?