Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

originally posted by: Phantom423

Chiral Amplification of Oligopeptides in the Polymerization of
-Amino Acid
N-Carboxyanhydrides in Water
by Thomas Hitz and Pier Luigi Luisi*
Institut f¸r Polymere, ETH-Zentrum, Universit‰tstrasse 6, CH-8092 Z¸rich
(fax:
41-1-632 10 73; e-mail: [email protected])
Dedicated to Professor Jack D. Dunitz on the occasion of his 80th birthday


This article is concerned with the chiral amplification of oligopeptides formedin the polymerization of
chiral, nonracemic mixtures of the N-carboxyanhydride (NCA) of Leu and Glu in aqueous solution. Labeling
(deuteration) of one enantiomer and reversed-phase and normal-phase high-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (RP- and NP-HPLC/MS, respectively) were used to determine the product
distribution, both with respect to oligopeptide chain length and stereoisomer distribution. Starting the
polymerization with an enantiomeric excess (ee) of 20% of the
-enantiomer (
-amino acid/-amino acid 6 : 4)
leads to an ee of 73% at the level of the homochiral enantiomeric (Leu)5 , and of 71% at the level of the
homochiral enantiomeric (Glu)7. For the Leu system and in the presence of a solid support (quartz), the ee
reached values of up to 100%. We argue that such amplification processes could be relevant for the chemical
evolution towards single-handednes

I didn't even see you posted this paper. And as always, I love picking them apart and showing your reliance on blind faith. First off, it is apparent you did not have access to the full paper, meaning you have no idea the procedure they conducted to form the peptide bonds. I have access to the paper, and the methods require an intensive lab-grade organic chemistry reaction being first submerged in an alkaline 1H-imidazole solution, and then treated with carbonyldiimidazole (CDI).The polymer formation wasn't even a Leucine-Leucine bond, it was an NCA-(D10)
-Leu dimer. This is technically polymerization, but not polymerization of the building blocks of the primary structure of biological proteins. As always, you waste my time with these irrelevant articles:

"Polymerization with Leu. Procedure I: Concentrated Leu solns. of the deuterated
-enantiomer (40 m) and of the nondeuterated -enantiomer (40 m) in 0.4 1 H-imidazole buffer (pH 9) were incubated separately with a 2.5-fold molar excess of CDI at 0
for 2 min. The resulting NCA-(D10)
-Leu and NCA--Leu solutions were mixed in a molar 6 : 4 ratio"

NCA is an acronym for "N-carboxyanhydride". This experiment specifically used NCA with a leucine functional group... which means it is not the same leucine that is necessary for protein production in biological life.

This experiment brought up another difficulty for abiogenesis though. It is great when your own sources dig up more difficulties for your baseless theory. What they were investigating in this paper was the chirality of the formation of peptide bonds in general. The reason they were doing this, is because all chiral amino acid monomers must be specifically in the L- orientation rather than the D- orientation. This ensures a proper functioning protein and this is facilitated by the ribosome in the cell, and cannot be conducted with such precision through random chance reactions, or even elaborate organic chemistry reactions as shown in the experiment you cited:

"The cellular translational machinery (TM) synthesizes proteins using exclusively L- or achiral aminoacyl-tRNAs (aa-tRNAs), despite the presence of D-amino acids in nature and their ability to be aminoacylated onto tRNAs by aa-tRNA synthetases."
link

So in nature, even if these amino acid monomers were able to find a way to consistently polymerize, it would be useless because they all need to be exclusively in the L-orientation, including no D-orientation. DNA is the same thing, except DNA requires all the monomers to be in D-orientation in order to produce its functional helical shape. This vastly elevates the difficulty of protein polymerization without cellular machinery, and further renders abiogenesis impossible.

Thanks for the link phantom !

originally posted by: cooperton
Then show an instance of peptide polymerization occurring spontaneously in water enough times to create a polymer that gets folded into a properly functioning protein. This would be a necessity if life can indeed emerge by natural means without intelligence design.

Define water please.

originally posted by: Toothache
I can't believe dishonest illogical threads like this are STILL being made after 20+ years of refuting nonsensical creation arguments.

And yet here they are, along with flat and/or hollow earth, giants, dragons, and all kinds of lunacy. The internet is the modern day circus of freaks.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Define water please.

Liquid H2O. Need me to define what a woman is too?

originally posted by: TerraLiga The internet is the modern day circus of freaks.

Says the guy who believes he's the ancestor of mutated pond goo lol. So sophisticated.

a reply to: whereislogic

Checkout the post at the top of the page. Chirality, or the orientation of bonds, is also another nail in the coffin for abiogenesis. All DNA molecules have to be D-orientation, and all protein polymers have to be L-orientation. This is statistically impossible to occur naturally because both configurations are equally like to exist, so any polymer would be plagued with impure configurations and would make useless shapes.

The cell is able to choose only L-configurations for protein synthesis through the ribosome. But in nature without catalysts there would be nothing to prevent an impure mixture of L and D configurations.

So even if consistent thermodynamic miracles were to occur and amino acids were to spontaneously polymerize, they would only have a 50% chance of bonding in the correct orientation, multiply that by 1000s of bonds that need to occur all in the same orientation for just one protein to form, and the odds are about the same as flipping heads on a coin 1000 times in a row. Mathematically denoted as 1/2^1000.

originally posted by: cooperton

So even if consistent thermodynamic miracles were to occur and amino acids were to spontaneously polymerize, they would only have a 50% chance of bonding in the correct orientation, multiply that by 1000s of bonds that need to occur all in the same orientation for just one protein to form, and the odds are about the same as flipping heads on a coin 1000 times in a row. Mathematically denoted as 1/2^1000.

Jesus, here we go with the chance thing....

Out of about 480,000 scientists only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory, so why is that?

"We should reject as a matter of principle the substitution of Intelligent Design for the dialogue of chance and necessity (Behe 1996); but we must concede, that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell, Oxford University Press, 2001, p.205)

It's the promoters of philosophical naturalism that bring up chance as the cause for life's emergence. "Chance and necessity" is their terminology. The latter referring to the claim that the forces of nature operate in such a manner that life is the "inevitable" (Jeremy England) endresult (entirely contradictory to our observations concerning the 2nd law of thermodynamics as explained in more detail before). This is based on the circular reasoning that because life is here, it must have happened by natural causation, because supposedly we must adhere to philosophical naturalism at all times. As their creedal dogma says: “God is not an explanation.” (which is the "principle" Franklin M. Harold was thinking of as well as explained by Michael Behe)

Fraud in Science—The Greatest Fraud of All (Awake!—1990)

...

Molecular biologist Michael Denton writes in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, page 250: “Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than [one trillionth of a gram], each is in effect a veritable micro-​miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-​living world.

“Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of their basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.”

George Greenstein acknowledges all this intelligence involved in the earth’s structure. In his book The Symbiotic Universe, he speaks of the mysterious and incredible series of coincidences that are beyond explaining, coincidences without which life on earth would be impossible. The following statements, appearing throughout pages 21-8, reflect his agonizing over conditions that bespeak the need for an intelligent and purposeful God:

“I believe that we are faced with a mystery​—a great and profound mystery, and one of immense significance: the mystery of the habitability of the cosmos, of the fitness of the environment.” He sets out “to detail what can only seem to be an astonishing sequence of stupendous and unlikely accidents that paved the way for life’s emergence.* There is a list of coincidences, all of them essential to our existence.” Yet “the list kept getting longer . . . So many coincidences! The more I read, the more I became convinced that such ‘coincidences’ could hardly have happened by chance.” A shattering fact for an evolutionist to face up to, as he next acknowledges:

“But as this conviction grew, something else grew as well. Even now it is difficult to express this ‘something’ in words. It was an intense revulsion, and at times it was almost physical in nature. I would positively squirm with discomfort. The very thought that the fitness of the cosmos for life might be a mystery requiring solution struck me as ludicrous, absurd. I found it difficult to entertain the notion without grimacing in disgust . . . Nor has this reaction faded over the years: I have had to struggle against it incessantly during the writing of this book. I am sure that the same reaction is at work within every other scientist, and that it is this which accounts for the widespread indifference accorded the idea at present. And more than that: I now believe that what appears as indifference in fact masks an intense antagonism.”

What antagonism? Antagonism to the thought that the explanation might lie in a purposeful Creator. As Greenstein expresses it: “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency​—or, rather, Agency—​must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially drafted the cosmos for our benefit?” But Greenstein recovers from such heretical thinking and reasserts his orthodoxy to the evolutionary religion, reciting one of their creedal dogmas: “God is not an explanation.”

Astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in his book The Intelligent Universe, on page 9, talks about those, like Greenstein, who fear God’s entering the picture: “Orthodox scientists are more concerned with preventing a return to the religious excesses of the past than in looking forward to the truth [and this concern] has dominated scientific thought throughout the past century.”

In his book he then discusses these same mysterious features that trouble Greenstein. “Such properties,” he says, “seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents. But there are so many of these odd coincidences essential to life that some explanation seems required to account for them.” Both Hoyle and Greenstein say chance cannot explain these many “accidental coincidences.” Hoyle then says that to account for them, ‘the origin of the universe requires an intelligence,’ an ‘intelligence on a higher plane,’ ‘an intelligence that preceded us and that led to a deliberate act of creation of structures suitable for life.’

None of this is to be taken as saying that Hoyle is thinking of the God of the Bible, but he does see that behind the universe and the earth and life on it, there must be a tremendous supernatural intelligence. While he does say that “‘God’ is a forbidden word in science,” he allows that we might “define an intelligence superior to ourselves as a deity.” He speculates that “through our own minds’ pre-​programmed condition,” there might be “a connecting chain of intelligence, extending downward . . . to humans upon the Earth.” [whereislogic: actually, ‘God’ is a forbidden word in philosophical naturalism posing as science and methodological naturalism posing as the scientific method or the only viable scientific methodology. But don't expect Fred Hoyle to admit that any time soon.]

...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Jesus, here we go with the chance thing....

The statistical impossibility of abiogenesis frustrates you

Out of about 480,000 scientists only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory, so why is that?

Ahh yes the classic appeal to authority fallacy. Supposedly intelligent people denying intelligence in the origin of intelligence is quite the irony.

Notice how you're not debating the science, you are relying on your faith in other people to tell you what to think. Evolution believers today are like the baby boomers blindly believing whatever they were told about Christianity in the 50s.

"When you believe in things you don't understand, you suffer."

originally posted by: cooperton
...
Ahh yes the classic appeal to authority fallacy. Supposedly intelligent people denying intelligence in the origin of intelligence is quite the irony.

It does make one wonder if all of them really believe what they're selling though, or if the majority is just catering to the bigger market because it's easier to earn a living that way. And putting on some major pretense, like the biologist interviewed below:

In most cases outside biology and biochemistry, I suspect it's also based on a lot of ignorance as to the issues with evolutionary philosophies and stories. Ignorance born out of a conditioned refusal to consider any argument against evolutionary thinking seriously, and being easily swayed with ad hominems against the sources of such arguments. And the fear of being put in the same bracket as those who argue against evolutionary mythology, if they were to change their position publicly.

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000) and the next page (linked in my signature).

a reply to: whereislogic

Yeah exactly if the scientists don't abide they don't get grant money and are essentially ostracized and out of a job. Look what they did to Mark Armitage for finding that there is consistently soft tissue in dinosaur bones... Yet another Achilles heel for evolution.

Then all the people who don't know how to interpret science on their own, or are so hell-bent on their atheist dogma that they are unwilling to consider they might be wrong, are the ones who parade and re-capitulate the theory as if its fact. Notice how all the evolutionists give up when debating with us. They don't know how to respond to the actual evidence at hand, and so often resort to an appeal to authority fallacy and let the "experts" do the thinking for them.

originally posted by: cooperton
The statistical impossibility of abiogenesis frustrates you

We have shown time and time again there are no probabilities involved here, but it seems to keep being your main point.

Ahh yes the classic appeal to authority fallacy. Supposedly intelligent people denying intelligence in the origin of intelligence is quite the irony.

Notice how you're not debating the science, you are relying on your faith in other people to tell you what to think. Evolution believers today are like the baby boomers blindly believing whatever they were told about Christianity in the 50s.

I'm asking you why 99% of scientists are wrong and you are right. We have hashed and rehashed the science over and over and you act like it is the first time each time you go back to it. There is no debate possible here since you are so deep in your faith. God made life and man exactly as you suggest, no other possibilities...lol

originally posted by: whereislogic

It does make one wonder if all of them really believe what they're selling though, or if the majority is just catering to the bigger market because it's easier to earn a living that way. And putting on some major pretense, like the biologist interviewed below:

Why would science have an issue with intelligent design? In fact, religion drove science for 1000s of years. It wasn't science that forced incorrect truths on people like the earth was flat...

The problem today is not that science is against religion it's that religion is against science. To suggest that Cooperton is right and everyone else is wrong might not be the best path to go down since the basis of his "science" logic is false. He uses a lot of "impossibles" in his logic that just about everyone else disagrees with.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It's because creationism is a CULT i.e. a small group of people with spurious beliefs. It's like Jonestown. Crackpot science and crackpot followers. They're followers of Ken Ham and his evil religious ideology.
Ham is the crackpot in charge leading the blind. None of them have any education in science and have never been in a lab. Amazingly, they all seem to know everything about it though! Idiots of the first rank, particularly Cooperton.



I only followed these idiots because I had family members who bought into the cult some years ago. Fortunately, they were able to see the light and got themselves out.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Xtrozero

It's because creationism is a CULT i.e. a small group of people with spurious beliefs. It's like Jonestown. Crackpot science and crackpot followers. They're followers of Ken Ham and his evil religious ideology.
Ham is the crackpot in charge leading the blind. None of them have any education in science and have never been in a lab. Amazingly, they all seem to know everything about it though! Idiots of the first rank, particularly Cooperton.

I only followed these idiots because I had family members who bought into the cult some years ago. Fortunately, they were able to see the light and got themselves out.

So no comment on the chirality of polymerizing monomers? No comment on how your own paper is showing the difficulty of abiogenesis? hahaha. You do notoriously always change the topic every time you're backed up against a wall. You're a garbage scientist lol. You always quit debating because you run out of points and don't know what to say. You're just not knowledgeable enough to follow a scientific discourse.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Why would science have an issue with intelligent design? In fact, religion drove science for 1000s of years. It wasn't science that forced incorrect truths on people like the earth was flat...

The problem today is not that science is against religion it's that religion is against science. To suggest that Cooperton is right and everyone else is wrong might not be the best path to go down since the basis of his "science" logic is false. He uses a lot of "impossibles" in his logic that just about everyone else disagrees with.

I showed you on the prior page, there are plenty of scientists that disagree with the validity of evolutionary theory:



It is very telling that your only remaining debate point is that "most scientists believe so." It is called an appeal to authority fallacy for that very reason. Nazi scientists had a lot of popular beliefs among them, that does not make them true necessarily. That's why we debate the actual evidence. Besides phantom... phantom is useless. Incapable of following points and responding accordingly.

a reply to: cooperton

No. No comment on your crackpot science.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

No. No comment on your crackpot science.

Such a coward. You're simply following the cow herd. continue in your blind belief in your mutant pond goo. Your stubborn faith in an ontologically worthless theory is quite astounding. You're so deep and twisted in your own silly fantasy that you enjoy the misery of your nihilist nightmare... nothing can pull you out apparently. Definitely not empirical evidence.

a reply to: cooperton


You're a crackpot.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton


You're a crackpot.

You think your ancestors were apes. Go back far enough and you believe your ancestors were unicellular organisms floating around in a gooey biomass. You literally believe you come from the scum of the earth lolol.

a reply to: cooperton

Crackpot science again.

originally posted by: cooperton

I showed you on the prior page, there are plenty of scientists that disagree with the validity of evolutionary theory:

I see like 10 in that video that is pushing a very biased point, to say the least. What about the other 500,000? The bottom line is if science led in the direction of intelligent design then so be it, end of story, but that isn't what has happened. You are still pushing an unfalsifiable statement in saying if we do not know yet how something happened then it is 100% God as the ONLY answer...

You also fail over and over to suggest evolutionary theory explains how life started and it does not.