the shape of proteins requires an engineer

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: dandandat2

Why would God use random chance to creat life?

- for amusement.
- To see if it can be done.
- As a control group for other projects God is working on.
- So that God's ultimate creasion can sit in astonishment over the scientific discoveries that are hidden in the fabric of the universe.

I would never presume to understand why God does things; or that we in the 21st century already understand all of the wonders God has in store for us.... why do you?

I don't already understand all of the wonders of God, but I am actively pursuing it and these are some of the conclusions I have come to. If someone wanted to program a computer they wouldn't leave it for a random letter generator to code it for them.

You are kinda describing how AI programs are coded. It's more sophisticated than a random letter generator; but there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the programming and a good deal of letting the AI randomly learn on its own.

... and humans aren't God. I have to assume God is better at dealing with the randomness of Gods creation.

a reply to: MetalChickAmy

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.

Sorry to say, but that 'explanation' is bunk, pure & simple, The OP has put together an excellent, well-argued & evidenced hypothesis, clearly we already know a great deal about chirality & protein synthesis. It is disingenuous to say that we 'don't know enough', or that we're 'at the start of our journey'. We know plenty already - plenty which gives abundant evidence (in the form of many, many zeroes in the probability projection) that artificiality of design is absolutely occurring in this instance, and basically this argument knocks the ball out of the park, it can't be dismissed. We have been learning good science for hundreds of years, it is nothing but an atheist trope to fall back on the whole 'we're at the beginning of our journey, tread carefully' argument.

Well done, OP, you've done an excellent job in moving the argument forwards by several large steps.

Thank you for your service!

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

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.

A famous scientist whose methodology has been credited with the birth of modern science, once said:

"A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding." (Isaac Newton)

Do you understand what you refer to as "fancy-schmancy evolution theory"?

Since "faith" is a synonym for "belief", would the term "blind faith/belief" be appropiate for someone who believes in something they do not understand?

Yes, I understand the theory of evolution, and the evidence on which it is based/premised. I only used the "fancy-schmancy" descriptor before it facetiously because the person I was addressing didn't think I believed in it or understood it. The point of my discussion with him was that he needed to provide as good of or a better explanation for molecular biological chirality than the OP in order to convince anyone on his view of things.

And yes, I agree with what you say about faith, belief and understanding or not understanding. Scientific dogma isn't a whole lot different than religious dogma, and actually comes off as being hypocritical.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
a reply to: cooperton

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.

edit: the comment below is based on me misreading your comment, I now realize you were asking about analyzing the samples for their content in space, rather than on earth. That has not been done cause the equipment to analyze such samples is heavy, and when talking about space missions, it's all about keeping the weight of what you send into space down as much as you can. So it's a bit impractical. Besides, it would probably lower the odds of detecting amino acids, and not detecting amino acids is not something those receiving funding for these type of space missions and additional research on earth would want, cause that would not warrant further research and funding as much as when they do detect amino acids and have something to talk and speculate about in peer reviewed publications (in terms of origin of life research and the speculative idea of panspermia). Of course, if you want to get closer to the truth of the matter, doing the analysis in space would be helpful (but more costly, thus less profitable if you substract the cost from the funding), but from my experience these types usually are better money* seekers than truth seekers. *: i.e. research funding, they are good at selling their proposed research as something useful to the advancement of the sciences, something worth funding).

I've made a comment in another thread using articles that report the detection of amino acids on samples from all the sources you mentioned (Mars, moon and space). The results of this research are often widely anounced in the science news media under titles such as "Amino acids found in moon rock samples" or "... in space", usually with some remarks about its supposed relevance to the origin of life and the idea of panspermia (and thus assuming or implying they are of extraterrestrial origin). In each of the cases discussed, there have been those scientists (usually the ones analyzing the samples and reporting the detection of amino acids) who have argued for an extraterrestrial origin (so not due to terrestrial contamination) and those scientists who have argued for a terrestrial origin (contamination). The latter group usually speaking up later when responding to the claims of an extraterrestrial origin by the original team of researchers, responding to their arguments that argue for an extraterrestrial origin. And in each case (of the examples used in the 2 articles in that comment) the final verdict has been that the amino acids detected were of terrestrial origin (due to contamination, and then the source of contamination is identified by the latter group).

A pattern of behaviour by those with a vested interest to argue for an extraterrestrial origin (for further research funding, cause a terrestrial origin isn't interesting for further research) is emerging. Especially once you consider the admittal bolded in the main article I'm talking about (I quoted from 2 articles in that comment, but mostly from 1):

...

Despite the dedicated efforts in the design and execution of contamination control (Allen et al. 2011; Calaway et al. 2019; Dworkin et al. 2017; McCubbin et al. 2019; Sandford et al. 2010; Yada et al. 2014b), it is impossible to completely eliminate sources of organic contamination.

...

Source: Concerns of Organic Contamination for Sample Return Space Missions | SpringerLink (2020)

And I recon that's still the case even if you did the analysis in space (or on the moon, mars), but at least you can eliminate a few more sources of terrestrial organic contamination. See the full aticle (or the comment I linked for quicker reference) to see some of the sources and potential sources of contamination that have already been identified, to see which ones you could eliminate by doing the analysis in space. And which ones you still can't eliminate with that approach.

The following from the same article may also be of interest:

Small bodies, e.g., comets and asteroids, were logical target choices for the first organic sample return due to both scientific and logistical reasons. ... Furthermore, to date no such samples have shown to contain any traces of life. ...

The other article in the comment linked earlier concerns amino acids detected in a Martian meteorite, but it also focuses on contamination as the main subject:

Amino acids in the Martian meteorite Nakhla | PNAS (1999)

... The rapid amino acid contamination of Martian meteorites after direct exposure to the terrestrial environment has important implications for Mars sample-return missions and the curation of the samples from the time of their delivery to Earth.

originally posted by: whereislogic

It also has important implications for the many publications concerning amino acids detected in meteorites found on earth, and the often connected impressions that all, most, many, or some of these amino acids are of extra-terrestrial origin (i.e. already in or on the 'meteorite'/spacerock before it entered earth's atmosphere or landed*). On which the general impression that comets, asteroids, or meteoroids (in space) contain many different types of amino acids is mostly based (based on meteorites that have been studied after they have been on earth for many years). Cause they only started doing "sample return space missions" with much more effort to minimize contamination recently (they still can't rule it out completely which we will get to later). *:it depends a bit on the reader of such publications, or those who refer to these publications in for example an OOL discussion, which exact impression they got or are giving when referring to these publications and in particular the title for example, regarding whether these amino acids are of terrestrial or extra-terrestrial origin as soon as they read the word "meteorite".

originally posted by: cooperton
...
www.japantimes.co.jp...

They apparently found uracil and niacin in the samples. Contamination could be possible in a lab...

Notice the bold claim made by one of the researchers interviewed for the article:

“These molecules on Ryugu were recovered in a pristine extraterrestrial setting,” Oba said. “It was directly sampled on the asteroid Ryugu and returned to Earth, and finally to laboratories without any contact with terrestrial contaminants.”

Keep in mind that the samples were collected in 2019, so the protocols to eliminate contamination were already formulated before that. So basically what he's claiming there is that they accomplished what the other article from 2020 that I've been quoting from above says is impossible to accomplish ("completely eliminate sources of organic contamination", in sample return space missions). With contamination protocols formulated before 2020, before the other article that has 'weighed these in the balances, and found them wanting', so to speak.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
a reply to: Kreeate
... 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.

Yeah, I got that impression as well, a bit of an over-the-top overly zealous worshipper of philosophical naturalism and the evolutionary philosophies that accompany it under the marketingbanner "Science".

It makes one wonder, is this person 'for real'? Or are they laying it on extra thick on purpose to deliberately give those who adhere to the same philosophies a bad name? Mind you, propaganda designed to support this way of thinking, can have that effect on people, making them talk like that. So for me, it's more of a passing thought, I do think he's 'for real' (edit: for me the question remains whether he's a victim of propaganda and then inadvertently copying the way of arguing or doing it on purpose, knowing that it works so well). Also because the same way of arguing works so well when utilizing propaganda techniques on purpose (you begin to talk just like the propagandists, who do the same thing, see for example what is said about "the tyranny of authority" in this article). That article mentions: "So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. They did in Jesus’ day; they do today." Case in point, the way Kreeate talks about Cooperton (edit: his arrogance and feelings of moral and intellectual superiority over Cooperton or anyone with similar views is also on display in his commentary, see what is mentioned about those propagandists who play on pride and the fear of seeming stupid if you don't choose to view things the way they say you should view them, in my comment below; which is a tactic that is used in conjunction with the tyranny of authority. And then imagine what effect that could have on a person at the receiving end of such appeals to pride in the long run, if they are not aware of how they are being played like that). If you want to better understand the last reference, see the context in the article or the one below (another article that brings up the tyranny of authority with the same example from Jesus' day).

If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981) which follows Is It a Fact?

A RELIGIOUS “FAITH”? A PHILOSOPHY?

EVOLUTION “IS ALSO BEING QUESTIONED BY REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS”

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’​—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.

They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.

Writing in Science, R. E. Gibson said that Galileo possessed “a passionate antagonism to any kind of dogma based on human authority.” It was his intellectual integrity that got him into trouble with the Inquisition. But such integrity, Gibson asserts, “is not fashionable now; the present tendency is for the scientific community, now grown powerful, to behave much as the church did in Galileo’s time.” Is modern science handling power and prestige any better than the Catholic Church did? Einstein once remarked that we are not as far removed from Galileo’s time as we would like to think.​—Science, September 18, 1964, pp. 1271-1276.

... Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

...

THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS

“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”​—Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10.

“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”​—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky.

“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”​—“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin.

“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”​—“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington.

“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”​—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey.

“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”​—“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson.

“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”​—“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 407, Newman.

The bolded quotations above explain my expression "overly zealous worshipper".

originally posted by: Kreeate

There is no need for me to "state my case". It is obvious to anyone who's had any kind of basic education.

...

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

...

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.

... Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

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.

...

Sources: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)
Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!

a reply to: cooperton

So.. basically what we are currently attempting with quantum computing and AI….

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.

A bit odd that you would be pleased when an unverified idea/philosophy ("wishful speculation"; see quotation further below) you can just pull out of your butt (make up with a bit of imagination and speculation) is promoted by some scientists under the marketinbanner "Science" as a presumably scientific (testable) "hypothesis" (given the context in which it is presented as a "hypothesis" and the definition for "hypothesis" I have read in a dictionary for scientific terminologies, main point being that they need to be testable, which in essense means you need to be able to devise a test with which you can verify whether or not the hypothesis is true/correct, without error or not).

Has a test been proposed by which to verify whether this is the way it happened or not? Have any efforts been made to verify that this so-called "hypothesis" is even actually possible? Or does it still fall within the realm of fancy story-telling and "wishful speculations".

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity, 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, p. 205).

Michael Behe calls them "just-so stories" when he bring up that quote, but often, because they are presented under the label "hypothesis", more like 'maybe-so stories'. Not exactly scientific if you consider the origin of the word "science", from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge. Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/certainties/realities/truths acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. Or in other words, things that are factual/certain/absolute/conclusive/true/correct, without error. Where you see a / I'm using synonyms as reminders as to what we're talking about here when we're talking about what is science/knowledge and what is not science (yes, that's also still a synonym for "knowledge", as per its origin, and still used that way; of course, it has also taken on more meanings and usages by different people, especially philosophical naturalists have done a real number on what they consider to be science or not, blurring the lines between fact and fiction, or so-called "hypotheses", regardless of testability or verifiability).

Now that I've come this far, I might as well quote Newton on the matter (just keep in mind that the term "experimental philosophy" has become more widely known under the term "modern science").

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.”

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopædia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

a reply to: cooperton

You response is typically very biased. You have made your mind up that "God-of-the-gaps" design is the solution, and will fit everything around that. Where would you stand if smarter minds than ours hypothetically figure out things, and it makes so much sense, that it's neither random chance or created by an intelligence? Kind of like a Copernicus moment, but for proteins.

If science ultimately does prove the existence of a creator however, then I will go with that too. I will accept any genuinely scientific explanation. It's not like there is anything we can do about it anyway. But I will not go with blind faith.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

We are missing huge chunks of the puzzle.

a reply to: dandandat2

I thought you would like this video.

a reply to: cooperton

Touche!

LMAO

dont need fancy arguments in favor of creation, I need a fancy creator in favor of arguing

you dont get it and thats fine, cause this was never about you. its about who has been saved and who is waiting to be saved

I dont like playing faith games with charlatans, I always lose my wallet.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
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.

It was good having you, come back and share if you find any more interesting things regarding this topic.

Just wanted to chime in to say you are not alone. Everything is unexplained.

a reply to: whereislogic

I was pleased because as a person who knows jack about molecular biology, I came up with a hypothesis that is evidently at least viable according to researchers in the field. I'm not saying that this is THE answer to the question of one-sided chirality, just that the stringing together of shorter protein chains to make longer ones is a legit possible mechanism chemically speaking. In other words, I didn't come up with a completely off-the-wall notion that makes no sense in reality. The authors of the study I mentioned have advanced degrees in the field, so I very much doubt that they are just pulling ideas out of their butts, and do know for a fact that protein chains can be lengthened in this fashion. And no, I don't think this is a gross assumption on my part, as generally far-out speculation doesn't make it through the peer-review process of scientific papers.

Obviously any hypothesis for one-sided chirality needs experimental evidence to make it a viable theory.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
a reply to: whereislogic
... And no, I don't think this is a gross assumption on my part, as generally far-out speculation doesn't make it through the peer-review process of scientific papers.

Let's talk about this peer-review process and see how effective it really is at weeding out "far-out speculation", or even outright fraud. But first, a bit more background about fraud in science:

Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990)...

...

“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,” U.S.News & World Report said. “Hundreds of new journals are being founded each year to handle the flood of research papers cranked out by scientists who know that the road to academic success is a long list of articles to their credit.” Quantity, not quality, is the goal. Forty thousand journals published yearly produce a million articles, and part of this flood “is symptomatic of fundamental ills, including a publish-​or-​perish ethic among researchers that is stronger now than ever and encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless or even fraudulent work.”

A senior editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Drummond Rennie, commented on the lack of quality: “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-​serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”

Making Mountains out of Molehills

The publish-​or-​perish syndrome has made many researchers very resourceful in nursing a modest output of published articles into phenomenal numbers. They write one article, then chop it up into four smaller ones​—called salami slicing in the jargon of the profession. In this way, instead of a publication credit for one article, they have four articles added to their publications list. Then they may send the same article to several journals, and each time it is published, it is counted again. More often than not, one article may show several scientists as authors, and each author adds the article to his list of published articles. A two- or three-​page article may show 6, 8, 10, 12, or more authors.

On the NOVA program entitled “Do Scientists Cheat?” telecast on October 25, 1988, one scientist commented on this practice: “People are trying to get their names attached to as many publications as they possibly can, so that very commonly now you find huge teams where 16 people all sign their name to a particular publication, which probably wasn’t worth publishing in the first place. But this is part of a kind of rat race, a competitiveness, a vulgar quantitative counting mentality that is absolutely encouraged by the structure of science in the United States today.” Some listed as coauthors may have had very little to do with the article, may not even have read it, yet add the article to their list of publications. Such bloated lists influence the granting of research requests involving hundreds of thousands of dollars of public funds.

[whereislogic: and now we get to the main point about peer review.]

Peer Review, a Safeguard Against Fraud?

Editors of science journals often​—but not always—​submit papers to other scientists for review before publishing them. This practice, called peer review, theoretically weeds out erroneous and fraudulent articles. “Science is self-​correcting in a way that no other field of intellectual endeavor can match,” Isaac Asimov says. “Science is self-​policing in a way that no other field is.” He marveled that “scandal is so infrequent.”

But many others do not share this view. Peer review is “a lousy way to detect fraud,” said previously quoted Dr. Drummond Rennie. The American Medical News said: “Peer-reviewed journals, once regarded as almost infallible, have had to admit that they are incapable of eradicating fraud.” “Peer review has been oversold,” said a medical writer and columnist for The New York Times.

...

“For high-​octane gall in proclaiming its ethical purity, the scientific community has long been the runaway winner,” said New Scientist magazine. The highly vaunted peer-​review system that theoretically screens out all the cheats is felt by many to be a farce. “The reality,” New Scientist said, “is that few scientific scoundrels are caught, but, when they are, they frequently turn out to have been running wild for years, publishing faked data in respectable journals, with no questions asked.”

Previously, an official of the NIH said, as reported in The New York Times: “I think an age of innocence has ended. In the past people assumed that scientists didn’t do this kind of thing. But people are beginning to realize that scientists are not morally superior to anybody else.” The Times report added: “Although a few years ago it was rare for the National Institutes of Health to receive one complaint a year of alleged fraud, she said, there are now at least two serious allegations a month.” Science magazine observed: “Scientists have repeatedly assured the public that fraud and misconduct in research are rare . . . And yet, significant cases seem to keep cropping up.”

The chairman of one of the congressional investigating committees, John Dingell, at one time said to scientists: “I will tell you that I find your enforcement mechanisms are hopelessly inadequate and that rascality seems to be triumphing over virtue in many incidences in a fashion that I find totally unacceptable. I hope you do too.”

The NOVA program on “Do Scientists Cheat?” concluded with this acknowledgment by one of the scientists present: “Skeletons have to come out of the closets, bureaucrats’ careers have to be impaired if that’s what it takes, and there’s no alternative. This is ethically required, this is legally required, and it’s certainly morally required.”

None of that has happened yet. Just like fraud is running rampant in peer reviewed publications, "far-out speculation" is running even more rampant, cause it is not even counted as fraud even when recognized as "far-out speculation". It's considered an acceptable practice for peer reviewed publications, especially in evolutionary biology (and theoretical physcis for that matter, but that's another subject; I'm thinking of the multiverse hypothesis* and so-called "string theory", which isn't a scientific theory, and the first one isn't a scientific hypothesis cause it isn't testable).

*: the multiverse hypothesis is connected to what is called "M-theory", which also isn't a scientific theory. I hope this is not too off-topic but since I brought it up (keep in mind regarding what Roger Penrose says concerning "ideas", that "philosophies" is a synonym for "ideas", and when they haven't been verified, than they are "unverified philosophies", the term I used earlier, much like my term "evolutionary philosophies" used earlier):

Also note what John Lennox has to say about the things scientists claim after 5:47, context starts at 5:35:

originally posted by: MetalChickAmy
a reply to: cooperton

You response is typically very biased. You have made your mind up that "God-of-the-gaps" design is the solution, and will fit everything around that.

Given that our world perpetuates according to precise physical laws, it makes sense that it was designed by an intelligence rather than unintelligence. "God-of-the-gaps" makes way more sense as a precept than "random-chance-of-the-gaps"

Where would you stand if smarter minds than ours hypothetically figure out things, and it makes so much sense, that it's neither random chance or created by an intelligence? Kind of like a Copernicus moment, but for proteins. If science ultimately does prove the existence of a creator however, then I will go with that too. I will accept any genuinely scientific explanation. It's not like there is anything we can do about it anyway. But I will not go with blind faith.

Chirality alone shows that random chance was not responsible. There are many other aspects too that leave biochemists baffled regarding origins through natural means. They are relying on blind faith right now to continue belief in abiogenesis/evolution... because the mechanism is totally unknown for many of these necessary biochemical processes. The one I described in the OP is one of many thermodynamic impossibilities.

originally posted by: MetalChickAmy
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

We are missing huge chunks of the puzzle.

The pieces we do have though all point towards design. There's about 100 quadrillion micromolecular motors (ATP synthase) working in your body right now to provide you with energy

Anton Petrov, wonderful person, presents a new experiment discovery involving RNA chirality and magnetism. They grew RAO crystals on magnetite with 100% uniform chirality. The experiment details are a 8:00 minutes in the video. The process doesn't, however, work in wet/muddy systems, only on dry magnetite. So this is another possible solution to the problem of RNA chirality.

originally posted by: SigmaXSquared

I dont like playing faith games with charlatans, I always lose my wallet.

Are you talking about the church?