the shape of proteins requires an engineer

originally posted by: Kreeate

Kindly provide your empirical evidence and proof. THEN we can have a conversation. Until then, you are just another fundamentalist in my opinion.

The entire OP is filled with verifiable biochemical and biological fact:

It is fact that chirality exists and generates molecules that are mirror images.

It is fact that primarily L-amino acids instead of D-amino acids comprise living things.

It is fact that dehydration synthesis (amino acid polymerization) is thermodynamically unfavorable / endergonic in water

It is fact that many proteins need chaperone proteins to fold them into proper shape

These facts lead to the obvious assertion that life could not have overcome these hurdles given the known thermodynamic laws of existence. If you want to debate you have to actually pick out points and say why the data shows differently than some of the facts above.

a reply to: cooperton

Hey, thanx for the long and involved reply, and engaging with what I wrote. I'll need some time to process all of that. And I now accept that you clearly know something about biochemistry.



As for amino acids in space, has there been any attempt to look or test for them on Mars or on the moon, or even in space? Those would seem to be uncontaminated sources of amino acids.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: Kreeate

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: Kreeate
In addition...

Regarding the OP that states : "the shape of proteins requires an engineer"...

It absolutely does not. Simple known science and established evolutionary evidence will not only refute this ludicrous claim, but will AND DOES totally obliterate it.

How about instead of arm waving, you www.engineeringtoolbox.com... the matter a bit for us.

No elucidation required. The science and actual facts speak for itself.
If you are biased about these facts, that's on you. No concern of mine.

Just stop trying to push pseudo-science nonsense. It's counter productive to society.
We have real world issues to deal with. This flat-earth/creationist nonsense is really not helping.

Hello? Did you read my prior post? I was refuting the OP. I'm a believer in science and that fancy-schmancy evolution theory, but I know not a whit about evolutionary biochemistry. I would honestly like a short explanation of why what you claim is true -- both for myself and for those less inclined to believe in science and evolution. I'm not biased, I just want some solid information on the matter. But I am no going to accept your arm waving either, as that would be even worse than accepting the OP, which at least provided an explanation, albeit a severely flawed one.

I apologize if I've offended you. That was not my intention.

I am no expert regarding evolutionary biology, though I have some experience in the field.
Your best bet in terms of educating yourself about the subject matter would be to search online.
I strongly reject sites like Bitchute as they are apparently focused on simply gaining views at this point. Meaning they disregard fallacious content. Purposely. Evidently.

I suggest sites like researchgate which is peer reviewed and reputable.

That's all I'll leave here.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
a reply to: cooperton

Hey, thanx for the long and involved reply, and engaging with what I wrote. I'll need some time to process all of that. And I now accept that you clearly know something about biochemistry.

This is what I post these things for, I love having productive discussions about it. Everyone learns in the process. Good eye on that math.

As for amino acids in space, has there been any attempt to look or test for them on Mars or on the moon, or even in space? Those would seem to be uncontaminated sources of amino acids.

I looked and apparently some Japanese astronauts landed on an asteroid in outer space and took a sample that came back with organic molecules. There wasn't much detail on it, and it sounds more like a movie to be honest

www.japantimes.co.jp...

They apparently found uracil and niacin in the samples. Contamination could be possible in a lab, but that'd be kinda crazy to have gotten an asteroid sample from space only to accidentally contaminate it once back on earth. Who knows. No research paper on it from what I can find

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: cooperton

Another epic example of utter verbal diarrhea. This and the post above. Spew forth the none-science and the simple minded will swallow it. Hook, line and sinker. Just more of the same generic propaganda aimed at the gullible in order to gain more "souls" so as to enrich the already ludicrously rich. Yay for the church!

Hey, have your time in court. Convince us of your POV. I'm no church goer or believer, but so far the intelligent design person has put forth a better argument than you, and at least said person bothered to read what I wrote rather than dismissing it. You come off more like a creationist who is has created a false flag persona of a dogmatic scientific evolutionist who refuses to make a rational argument to back up your case. You're giving scientific humanists a bad name.

originally posted by: Kreeate

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: Kreeate

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: Kreeate
In addition...

Regarding the OP that states : "the shape of proteins requires an engineer"...

It absolutely does not. Simple known science and established evolutionary evidence will not only refute this ludicrous claim, but will AND DOES totally obliterate it.

How about instead of arm waving, you www.engineeringtoolbox.com... the matter a bit for us.

No elucidation required. The science and actual facts speak for itself.
If you are biased about these facts, that's on you. No concern of mine.

Just stop trying to push pseudo-science nonsense. It's counter productive to society.
We have real world issues to deal with. This flat-earth/creationist nonsense is really not helping.

Hello? Did you read my prior post? I was refuting the OP. I'm a believer in science and that fancy-schmancy evolution theory, but I know not a whit about evolutionary biochemistry. I would honestly like a short explanation of why what you claim is true -- both for myself and for those less inclined to believe in science and evolution. I'm not biased, I just want some solid information on the matter. But I am no going to accept your arm waving either, as that would be even worse than accepting the OP, which at least provided an explanation, albeit a severely flawed one.

I apologize if I've offended you. That was not my intention.

I am no expert regarding evolutionary biology, though I have some experience in the field.
Your best bet in terms of educating yourself about the subject matter would be to search online.
I strongly reject sites like Bitchute as they are apparently focused on simply gaining views at this point. Meaning they disregard fallacious content. Purposely. Evidently.

I suggest sites like researchgate which is peer reviewed and reputable.

That's all I'll leave here.

You didn't offend me, but I am a bit surprised with your choice of discourse on the matter. Don't worry, I do not consider Bitchute to have any value from what I have seen of it. I'll take your suggestion and look into researchgate. Have heard of it before, but never looked at it much.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: cooperton

Another epic example of utter verbal diarrhea. This and the post above. Spew forth the none-science and the simple minded will swallow it. Hook, line and sinker. Just more of the same generic propaganda aimed at the gullible in order to gain more "souls" so as to enrich the already ludicrously rich. Yay for the church!

Hey, have your time in court. Convince us of your POV. I'm no church goer or believer, but so far the intelligent design person has put forth a better argument than you, and at least said person bothered to read what I wrote rather than dismissing it. You come off more like a creationist who is has created a false flag persona of a dogmatic scientific evolutionist who refuses to make a rational argument to back up your case. You're giving scientific humanists a bad name.

There is no need for me to "state my case". It is obvious to anyone who's had any kind of basic education.
The subject matter is ludicrous at least. No point in arguing things that had been established by proven science for years in the past. In saying that, science is of course not infallible. Science updates itself as it progresses. Bit by bit it will add and amend itself through growth, understanding and research. This is fundamental.

Until there is absolute and empirical evidence for a creator, I will subscribe to what is perceived as "real" to us.

That is all.

originally posted by: Kreeate
No point in arguing things that had been established by proven science for years in the past. In saying that, science is of course not infallible. Science updates itself as it progresses. Bit by bit it will add and amend itself through growth, understanding and research. This is fundamental.

abiogenesis is far from being established science. Homochirality (i.e. having all L-amino acids) is just one of the many hurdles that are not statistically possible.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kreeate
No point in arguing things that had been established by proven science for years in the past. In saying that, science is of course not infallible. Science updates itself as it progresses. Bit by bit it will add and amend itself through growth, understanding and research. This is fundamental.

abiogenesis is far from being established science. Homochirality (i.e. having all L-amino acids) is just one of the many hurdles that are not statistically possible.

I will respectfully bow out of this conversation. The OP and I are on the mend and I don't want any more drama.
Let's leave it there

All the best with this thread cooperton. May you find enlightenment and perhaps answers to your questions.
Have an absolutely awesome day!

originally posted by: Kreeate

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: cooperton

Another epic example of utter verbal diarrhea. This and the post above. Spew forth the none-science and the simple minded will swallow it. Hook, line and sinker. Just more of the same generic propaganda aimed at the gullible in order to gain more "souls" so as to enrich the already ludicrously rich. Yay for the church!

Hey, have your time in court. Convince us of your POV. I'm no church goer or believer, but so far the intelligent design person has put forth a better argument than you, and at least said person bothered to read what I wrote rather than dismissing it. You come off more like a creationist who is has created a false flag persona of a dogmatic scientific evolutionist who refuses to make a rational argument to back up your case. You're giving scientific humanists a bad name.

There is no need for me to "state my case". It is obvious to anyone who's had any kind of basic education.
The subject matter is ludicrous at least. No point in arguing things that had been established by proven science for years in the past. In saying that, science is of course not infallible. Science updates itself as it progresses. Bit by bit it will add and amend itself through growth, understanding and research. This is fundamental.

Until there is absolute and empirical evidence for a creator, I will subscribe to what is perceived as "real" to us.

That is all.

I don't know about you, but I don't consider evolutionary biochemistry to be basic education. Simple biological evolution, on the other hand is. No argument there.

But this chirality matter for proteins seems to be a legitimate question for biochemists still. No offense meant to you either, but so far none of your posts in this thread have shown that you know anything about biochemistry either (I've already pled guilty to my own ignorance in this field in a prior post). But this biochemical evolution is a bit more complicated than biological evolution observed in nature and the fossil record. There's no shame in admitting that you don't know about evolutionary biochemistry either if that is indeed the case, but dogmatically denying the OP's hypothesis without any firm basis for your argument isn't a good look.

Here's a scientific paper on the subject that doesn't reach for the intelligent design hypothesis, but still acknowledges that there is still a question as to the prevalence of L-chirality in biology.

On the possible origin of protein homochirality, structure, and biochemical function

I was really pleased to see in the introduction that the idea I pulled out of my butt has some adherents in the field of biochemistry:

To address this issue, Dill and coworkers recently proposed the foldamer hypothesis whereby short hydrophobic protein chains collapse to compact structures, which then catalyze the formation of longer proteins from shorter ones.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

originally posted by: Kreeate


I will respectfully bow out of this conversation. The OP and I are on the mend and I don't want any more drama.
Let's leave it there

All the best with this thread cooperton. May you find enlightenment and perhaps answers to your questions.
Have an absolutely awesome day!

This is some wholesome stuff thank you bro. Best of luck, might I even say God Bless (sorry, too soon), on your journey.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

I was really pleased to see in the introduction that the idea I pulled out of my butt has some adherents in the field of biochemistry:

"To address this issue, Dill and coworkers recently proposed the foldamer hypothesis whereby short hydrophobic protein chains collapse to compact structures, which then catalyze the formation of longer proteins from shorter ones."

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Yeah when you had said that earlier I thought you knew that was one of the leading theories for early catalysis. There is evidence that suggests that some polymers can act as catalysts for other polymers to form. The problem still is even getting any sort of polymerization to begin with, the old match underwater scenario. And it still runs into the problem of the 7459 coin flips to get to the checkpoint of being able to parse genetic code to make proteins. It is these sorts of things when I was studying chemistry that really struck me as being beyond the capabilities of even trillions of trillions of years of random chance.

the existence of a hyper-intelligent extra-dimensional Being is a good thing. It paves the way for a logical possibility for the perpetuity of our consciousness after our bodies die.

a reply to: cooperton

I also want to say, @cooperton, that it is not every day that I log into ATS and learn something of a scientific nature -- maybe it is because I go to the political threads like a moth to the flame -- but I really learned something I was completely unawares of before reading your OP, your replies to me, and my follow-up research. Still not accepting your contention, given what else I have come upon, but you have motivated me to look more into the matter, and I can't dismiss your hypothesis out of hand.

And I'll be sure to check any other threads of yours I come upon.


Word out.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kreeate


I will respectfully bow out of this conversation. The OP and I are on the mend and I don't want any more drama.
Let's leave it there

All the best with this thread cooperton. May you find enlightenment and perhaps answers to your questions.
Have an absolutely awesome day!

This is some wholesome stuff thank you bro. Best of luck, might I even say God Bless (sorry, too soon), on your journey.

Whilst I don't necessarily subscribe or believe in the same God as you, I respect the fact that you invoke a blessing on me. Thank you.

I have no (current) God and as such I will simply say this... May your path now and in the future be filled with kindness, understanding, acceptance and love.

Kudos to cooperton and MrInquisitive for keeping an interesting and cordial discussion going, despite Kreeate's half-witted interruptions with his unscientific, simpleton reasoning. These are the kinds of threads that keep me coming back to ATS.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: dandandat2

Can God light a match underwater? Or is that beyond God's abilities?

Of course. If God created law, then thermodynamic law can certainly be temporarily changed by this extra-dimensional Being. If God has the power to create and manipulate matter at a whim, then God creating all existent biological forms through random mutations would be quite a comedy. They certainly wouldn't rely on random chance for their creation, although it would of course be possible among the infinitude of other 'ways' in which God could have created existence.

So you are suggesting that God could have created the universe wherein God allowed random chance to creat life; abiogenesis being the mechanism used? And that our current limited knowledge of the full workings of abiogenesis does not discount the Gods power to use it to creat life?

originally posted by: face23785
Kudos to cooperton and MrInquisitive for keeping an interesting and cordial discussion going, despite Kreeate's half-witted interruptions with his unscientific, simpleton reasoning. These are the kinds of threads that keep me coming back to ATS.

Wow, that's harsh. I still love you though. No hard feelings from my side.

originally posted by: Kreeate

Wow, that's harsh. I still love you though. No hard feelings from my side.

Bro you came in like a wrecking ball and I reacted just as aggressively, but now peace is in the land of ATS. A good day.

originally posted by: dandandat2

So you are suggesting that God could have created the universe wherein God allowed random chance to creat life; abiogenesis being the mechanism used? And that our current limited knowledge of the full workings of abiogenesis does not discount the Gods power to use it to creat life?

God could have suspended the laws of thermodynamics to allow these hurdles to be surpassed, but if God could do that why would he rely on random chance for the rest of it? To engineer 3,200,000,000 DNA units to form the genetic code to be able to provide the entire protein arsenal of the cell is like the most advanced computer coding ever done. To attribute it to random chance certainly makes this omniscient hyper-intelligence shake their head and smile

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

As for amino acids in space, has there been any attempt to look or test for them on Mars or on the moon, or even in space? Those would seem to be uncontaminated sources of amino acids.

Yes Sir.

Amino acids found on asteroid