the shape of proteins requires an engineer

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You're a liar and a fraud. You belong to a cult of idiots and scammers.
And you forget: I KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

Maybe it's about time everyone else knows too..........

You are seriously getting mentally ill over this. I don't even belong to any church so it is clear you have no idea who I actually am. You are literally wrong about everything.

You're wrong. Your pet dinosaur gave you away.

originally posted by: Phantom423

You're wrong. Your pet dinosaur gave you away.

So Cooper keeps pushing that DNA cannot be created in water and also without water. There is some truth to that, but I have told him that he refuses to look in other directions and is just happy with that statement to insure his belief that it must be God to pop it all into existence.

Then we have this from another post.

In September 2020 it was reported there had been a detection of phosphine , a biosignature , in the clouds of Venus , much debate ensued but the gas couldn't be found again , undeterred the team who made the discovery kept looking and their persistence eventually paid off , the team used the James Clark Maxwell Telescope in Hawaii to look deeper into the cloud layers to make their second Phosphine discovery.

This is kind of what I have been talking about with the early universe that was a lot different than today, so we really need to look at different ways life can start outside of something once in a billion years special event. I think life in general is not all that rare and happens when conditions are right. What those conditions are we do not fully know yet, but the clouds of Venus could be a good start to understand.

Then we have this that is 7+ billion years old that is full of all this below. The creationists keep talking about some primordial goo, but we have no clue what that looks like, and is something a long way from a puddle of water as are ancient meteorites.

Murchison meteorite contains common amino acids such as glycine, alanine, and glutamic acid as well as unusual ones such as isovaline and pseudoleucine.[9] A complex mixture of alkanes was isolated as well, similar to that found in the Miller–Urey experiment. Serine and threonine, usually considered to be earthly contaminants, were conspicuously absent in the samples. A specific family of amino acids called diamino acids was identified in the Murchison meteorite as well.

a reply to: Xtrozero

So Cooper keeps pushing that DNA cannot be created in water and also without water. There is some truth to that, but I have told him that he refuses to look in other directions and is just happy with that statement to insure his belief that it must be God to pop it all into existence.

That's because the guy has never conducted ANY experiments in a laboratory environment. He's a total fraud. Not understanding the role of water in biological chemistry is a red flag. He doesn't have a clue. All he does is pick up excerpts from published papers without discussing the context or the references that are cited in the papers.

This is kind of what I have been talking about with the early universe that was a lot different than today, so we really need to look at different ways life can start outside of something once in a billion years special event. I think life in general is not all that rare and happens when conditions are right. What those conditions are we do not fully know yet, but the clouds of Venus could be a good start to understand.

Then we have this that is 7+ billion years old that is full of all this below. The creationists keep talking about some primordial goo, but we have no clue what that looks like, and is something a long way from a puddle of water as are ancient meteorites.

There is enough data which show that nucleic acids have been found in meteorites. I told him on several occasions to write all these folks a letter challenging their research. Did he ever do it? Not necessary to answer that question

Creationists deliberately alter the accepted definition of evolution to make it reflect THEIR interpretation. A perfect example is pond scum. They insist that evolutionists believe that life walked out of pond scum. But they can't show a single research paper or textbook that says that. It's a deceptive tactic.

Mr. Pond Scum wallows in ignorance. I only post to set the record straight. There are over 500 peer-reviewed journals and thousands of research papers that prove him wrong.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Not understanding the role of water in biological chemistry is a red flag.

I agree, so tell me the enthalpy and Gibbs free energy of dehydration synthesis / peptide polymerization in water and I can show you mathematically why it's thermodynamically unfavorable.

Hint: amino acid polymerization is non-spontaneous in water. Largely due to the fact that water is a product of dehydration synthesis, reactions tend to not take place when they are In a medium that consists of one of their products..again, it's thermodynamically equivalent to lighting a match underwater.

originally posted by: Phantom423

You're wrong. I know who you are. Your pet dinosaur gave you away.

Lol whatever creep. I couldn't care less who you are. Cannon fodder lab tech.

a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Enthalpy and Gibbs free energy determine the nature of reactions. Dehydration synthesis is the reaction that joins amino acids together. This is literally high-school bio 101. I am spot on with all of my descriptions.

You're terrified to debate me. You and the others are constantly denying basic science. Lab tech behavior.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Not understanding the role of water in biological chemistry is a red flag.

Come on lab tech, show a source that says amino acid monomers polymerize spontaneously (negative delta G) in water. You will never find such a thing because it defies the most basic tenet of biochemistry. Your inability to admit you're wrong shows you're a trash scientist.

a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Yeah take the loss you coward.

ta reply to: cooperton

That was posted multiple times. And that is proof positive you know absolutely nothing about biochemistry. You cannot even read a research article and understand it.

I told you before I am Not discussing any science topic with you. Go play with your dinosaur.

originally posted by: Phantom423
ta reply to: cooperton

That was posted multiple times. And that is proof positive you know absolutely nothing about biochemistry. You cannot even read a research article and understand it.

I told you before I am Not discussing any science topic with you. Go play with your dinosaur.

Either you're really dumb, or you're just resorting to gaslighting in the hopes that the other blind believers will believe your bluff.

Here's someone asking a similar question:

chemistry.stackexchange.com...

Peptide polymerization in water is non-spontaneous... no matter how much you want to deny science.

a reply to: Phantom423

Creationists deliberately alter the accepted definition of evolution to make it reflect THEIR interpretation. A perfect example is pond scum. They insist that evolutionists believe that life walked out of pond scum. But they can't show a single research paper or textbook that says that. It's a deceptive tactic.

And you are doing exactly the same thing by decoupling evolution from abiogenesis, it's intellectual dishonesty and your side knows it, that's why you are so angry and frustrated.
Conceptually the two sciences although separate are linked like two train cars, if the first car of abiogenesis is unfounded and goes off the rails it pulls evolution right with it. Yes they are separate fields of science but they are inseparably linked within the context of this discussion, and that won't change.

A scientist leading away from the awe we can find in the intelligent design of existence needs to be given happiness.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

...
I mean laws are that they dont change over time and remain constant based on the fact we observe it as such
but it is still possible that they one day could suddenly change right ?

...

It would not be a good thing for us if they did. “Changing the existing laws by even a scintilla could have lethal consequences,” says cosmologist Paul Davies. For example, if protons were slightly heavier than neutrons, rather than slightly lighter as they are, all protons would have turned into neutrons. Would that have been so bad? “Without protons and their crucial electric charge,” explains Davies, “atoms could not exist.”

Kinda hard to imagine physical lifeforms existing (or emerging spontaneously/by chance) without atoms (existing first).

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33


And you are doing exactly the same thing by decoupling evolution from abiogenesis, it's intellectual dishonesty and your side knows it, that's why you are so angry and frustrated.
Conceptually the two sciences although separate are linked like two train cars, if the first car of abiogenesis is unfounded and goes off the rails it pulls evolution right with it. Yes they are separate fields of science but they are inseparably linked within the context of this discussion, and that won't change.

Exactly. If it's thermodynamically impossible for abiogenesis to occur, then clearly the dumb luck model doesn't work in general.

Notice how phantom is ignoring my posts about the basic biochemistry that shows the unfavorability of peptide bonds forming in water. This is extremely embarrassing for her because this is literally bio 101. Especially since she doubled down on her ignorance. It is likely she is desperately trying to find a journal article that defies this basic law, and since she cant find one she resorts to posting lame clip-art from the early 2000s.

Her posts resemble a hissing lab rat that is cornered against a wall.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You keep suggesting abiogenesis defiles the second law of thermodynamics and then you just stop and drop the mic walking away, but the second law applies to closed systems.

I was referring to the thermodynamics of protein monomer polymerization being a non-spontaneous reaction in water. This means that according to Thermodynamics, synthesizing protein or DNA monomers in water is equivalent to lighting a match underwater.

I know nothing about protein development/evolution so cant comment on that side but I suspect you may be forgetting the important but often forgotten clause of thermodynamics, they apply in a closed system - the Earth is an open system subject to outer forces primarily from the Sun.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Phantom423

You're wrong. Your pet dinosaur gave you away.

So Cooper keeps pushing that DNA cannot be created in water and also without water. There is some truth to that, but I have told him that he refuses to look in other directions and is just happy with that statement to insure his belief that it must be God to pop it all into existence.

Then we have this from another post.

In September 2020 it was reported there had been a detection of phosphine , a biosignature , in the clouds of Venus , much debate ensued but the gas couldn't be found again , undeterred the team who made the discovery kept looking and their persistence eventually paid off , the team used the James Clark Maxwell Telescope in Hawaii to look deeper into the cloud layers to make their second Phosphine discovery.

This is kind of what I have been talking about with the early universe that was a lot different than today, so we really need to look at different ways life can start outside of something once in a billion years special event. I think life in general is not all that rare and happens when conditions are right. What those conditions are we do not fully know yet, but the clouds of Venus could be a good start to understand.

You may find the idea of the Boltzmann Brain interesting; I've always thought the idea of 'goldilocks zones' and carbon-only life pretty limiting but that stuff blew my mind as it's far more likely we're all Boltzmann Brains and not humans.

It's basically the laws of physics show it's more likely for random collections of atoms floating through space to have a conciousness than for the human brain to evolve but at the same time if a Boltzmann Brain is a typical observer/conciousness rather than human conciousness then our current understanding of the Universe and Physics is all wrong.

Boltzmann Brains

Slightly offtopic but the concept of Boltzmann Brains is all set around the laws/principia of thermodynamics

originally posted by: bastion

I know nothing about protein development/evolution so cant comment on that side but I suspect you may be forgetting the important but often forgotten clause of thermodynamics, they apply in a closed system - the Earth is an open system subject to outer forces primarily from the Sun.

You're referring to entropy. It is often argued that order cannot come out of chaos (as per the 2nd law of thermodynamics) which I believe shows the universe as a whole must have began ordered. If it didn't begin ordered, then order could not have risen out of the chaos due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I am talking about the universe as a whole, the entirety of everything. Not just our solar system.

This thermodynamic assertion matches what our ancient ancestors said about history.. there was an initial golden age which gradually fell from grace.

But regardless, no I was referring to the enthalpy and the free energy of reactions in terms of peptide bonds. When two amino acids bond together it is a thermodynamically unfavorable reaction, which means that peptide bonds will break rather than form in water. Even if you add large amounts of energy that will merely accelerate the overall decomposition of organic polymers:

Think of boiling soup. Potatoes sitting in room temperature water will maintain their hardness for much longer than if the water is boiling. This is because the heightened temperature accelerates the decomposition of organic molecules. So even if the system is getting external heat from somewhere (i.e. the sun), peptide polymerization is still an unfavorable reaction in water. Boiling potatoes is a simple demonstration to show this universal law

originally posted by: bastion

Slightly offtopic but the concept of Boltzmann Brains is all set around the laws/principia of thermodynamics

Our awareness is limited to what our brain and body can do. This doesn't mean it is a correct picture either. A good book to read is called "The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuition Deceives Us". It is very interesting to what information our brains take in and how that is processed to end up with what we call reality. One example is that our eyes only see pizza slices as vision and our brain fills in the rest. This is why a magician can tell you the trick and do it in front of you and you still don't see it as they are playing in that area that the brain needs to invent.

We have our own reality as does a tree or an ant. All three are real realities and all three are self-created and completely different from each other. Our reality is actually not real past our brain so the "you don't exist, and they don't exist" is a true statement.

Or, well, statistically speaking you are. The idea of a Boltzmann brain emerges from two observations. First, that even extremely unlikely events happen if you wait long enough, and second, any mechanism which produced the universe must be capable of producing a human observer since, clearly, we exist.

We’ll come back to the second point in a moment, but for now, let’s tackle the first. Imagine you had a box of gas, and all the particles suddenly crammed themselves into one corner of the box. It’s not physically impossible, but it’s very, very unlikely. If we imagine the universe as a similar, if far larger, box of particles, then we can see how the Big Bang looks a lot like all the particles in the universe were jammed into the same spot and allowed to expand.

The unlikely event could just be our universe. Wait an infinite amount of time with infinite combinations and everything will happen. We also need to think that time might not exist outside our universe. The big bang would create a moving forward event we call time, but that could just be a function within our universe. What this means is outside our universe is a zero-sum infinity with no clock ticking away the seconds. Thinking that infinity is zero time kind of blows my pea brain...lol

Where I digress from the article is that once our universe was formed then the laws and rules were set as we see today and so to suggest that life is one of those "Wait an infinite amount of time" events would just not be true. We are proof that life happens and it seems no matter how hard the earth tries to wipe it out it keeps coming back in abundance.

It is like trying to suggest a star is a "Wait an infinite amount of time" event that sooner or later all these particles find the corner of the box and become dense enough to start a star to be what it is, but here we have trillions of them because that is the nature of our universe. Life would be the same in it is a part of the nature of our universe, so just like a star, when the conditions are right it happens.

This short video is absolutely fascinating and it reminded me of your thread.

It shows the complex systems inside of our cells, specifically kinesin, little nano bots that work overtime traversing microtubules to deliver various packages.

It's incredible.

originally posted by: bastion

I know nothing about protein development/evolution so cant comment on that side ...

Don't worry, you're not the only one. Chemist Dickerson made this comment: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.”⁠ (Scientific American, September 1978, p. 85.)

The situation has not changed since 1978.* Remember, proteins are the components almost all biomolecular machinery are made up of (except for some ribozymes that are exclusively made up of RNA, but even many ribozymes are made up of a RNA-protein mixture).

Also note that Dickerson is acknowledging the fact/reality/certainty/truth that this really is "machinery", not using that term as either an analogy or a metaphor, but using it as if it's a fact/reality. We all know what the only established and observed cause (causal mechanism) is for the emergence of machinery, it isn't a mindless natural process. It's called engineering, which requires a minimum of at least 1 engineer who knows what he/she is doing (talking about causal agency now).

*: Here's another more recent one that Michael Behe quotes in his presentation of the evidence for design in biology: “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 Harold, The Way of the Cell, 2001)

See the full quotation and Michael Behe's commentary about it after 26:37 (to go straight to the quote you could skip ahead to 30:08):

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: bastion

...

But regardless, no I was referring to the enthalpy and the free energy of reactions in terms of peptide bonds. When two amino acids bond together it is a thermodynamically unfavorable reaction, which means that peptide bonds will break rather than form in water. Even if you add large amounts of energy that will merely accelerate the overall decomposition of organic polymers:

...

Dickerson speaks about that subject as well:

...

Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”⁠10 Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”⁠11

...

10. Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75.

11. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.

Source: Chapter 4: Could Life Originate by Chance? (Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

originally posted by: whereislogic

Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”⁠10 Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”⁠11

...

10. Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75.

11. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.
Source: Chapter 4: Could Life Originate by Chance? (Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

Just reposting this for emphasis. Water breaks amino acid and DNA/RNA bonds. Phantom seems to be the only one who doesn't believe in empirical science.