Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I'm taking introduction to Microbiology, maybe you should join me!

Originally posted by 1nf1del
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

 

No this!

Fourth, the amino acids which were produced in their experiment were completely useless from the standpoint of their use as life chemicals. This is because the amino acids which were generated in the Miller-Urey experiments were created in a racemic mix. What this means is that equal amounts of "left-handed" (laevorotary, or l) and "right-handed" (dextrorotary, or r) amino acids were formed, these two stereochemical configurations being called enantiomers4. The problem lies in that life systems utilise proteins (which are really polymers of amino acids) which are produced exclusively from l-amino acids. A protein which incorporates even a single dextrorotary amino acid into its chain is completely useless from the perspective of being used in a biologic system. There has not yet been found a single exception to this rule. Because these laevorotary and dextrorotary amino acids produced in the Miller-Urey experiment are otherwise chemically identical, they would be statistically equally likely to be incorporated into a proposed protein being built through abiogenetic processes, and hence any protein formed as a result of an early earth Miller-Urey type process would be completely useless, and would not have provided the material to give us life as we know it to universally be.

www.studytoanswer.net...

Go back and look at the response in the link I gave you. It answers this criticism.

To summarise, the amino acids we see today are the result of their own selection process(1), and there may well be a physical/chemical reason why there is a greater tendancy towards left handedness (2).

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


Hmm apparently I don't understand, in Miller-Ureys experiment they used racemic mix which contained both handed aminos, left are needed for life, what am I missing here?

reply to post by 1nf1del


What's your point? We don't know everything? Oooh, what a crime! Please, enlighten us with your answer. What is the ingenius solution to left-handed aminos?

Originally posted by 1nf1del
Hmm apparently I don't understand, in Miller-Ureys experiment they used racemic mix which contained both handed aminos, left are needed for life, what am I missing here?

Mostly it's that nature had a 4+ billion year head start on Miller & Ureys.

From point 1 -
- Amino acids have undergone their own selection process
- "A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001)"
- "Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002)"
- "Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003)"
- "An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004). "

Point 2 talks about how when UV radiation breaks apart molecules, it leaves behind only electrons with a left-handed spin (thanks to the beta radiation produced by the weak nuclear force) and chemicals which come into contact with these will go on to form left handed molecules.

So you start with a racemic mix. Mix in UV light and give it a couple of billion years. Come back and it likely won't be racemic. All the amino acids will tend to one way or the other

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


And this makes a cell how? Proteins are amazing and you are not going to get amino acids to combine in just the right way over and over again to get a functioning cell and eventually an animal. To believe that you would have to believe that if you sent a tornado into a junk yard enough times you would get a functioning car out of it when it was done. You really believe that?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

What's your point? We don't know everything? Oooh, what a crime! Please, enlighten us with your answer. What is the ingenius solution to left-handed aminos?

Can you just have a conversation or is disdain, snide attitude, and derision you only method of contributing to our discourse? Do you treat everyone in your life like this who disagrees with you?

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

 

And this makes a cell how? Proteins are amazing and you are not going to get amino acids to combine in just the right way over and over again to get a functioning cell and eventually an animal. To believe that you would have to believe that if you sent a tornado into a junk yard enough times you would get a functioning car out of it when it was done. You really believe that?

Argument from ignorance again and the ridiculous straw man analogy which I've already addressed earlier in this thread.

We going to do this all again, are we?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Can you just have a conversation or is disdain, snide attitude, and derision you only method of contributing to our discourse? Do you treat everyone in your life like this who disagrees with you?

No, I just grow weary of arguments made out of ignorance. I'm more than willing to accept that science hasn't found all the answers; I am, however, firmly opposed to giving up on science's ability to continue finding answers.

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing


The most hilarious thing critics of evolution can say is "Im uneducated therefore the theory is flawed" in its innumerable forms.

This thread is a rotting pile of copy and pastes from creationist websites, and the people doing the spamming don't even have a basic understanding of the topic.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Can you just have a conversation or is disdain, snide attitude, and derision you only method of contributing to our discourse? Do you treat everyone in your life like this who disagrees with you?

No, I just grow weary of arguments made out of ignorance. I'm more than willing to accept that science hasn't found all the answers; I am, however, firmly opposed to giving up on science's ability to continue finding answers.

I need to edit this... are you saying "no, you can't communicate in a more respectful and congenial way or no that is not how you need to communicate and you are just frustrated at this time?

I love science as well, and studied it a lot. I was telling a friend that the indoctrination mentality in the science community is probably why I did not become an oceanographer / zoologist as was my first love. I would never have been accepted because I don't like being lied to.

When the "proofs" offered are frauds they should stop teaching them. Science is about provable and observable facts. What part of macro evolution is observable or provable? I mean it's a belief system that some like better than creation. Don't act like they have proven anything. They just like the sound of their belief better.

micro evolution is fine... never was a disagreement with that and creation.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

 

The most hilarious thing critics of evolution can say is "Im uneducated therefore the theory is flawed" in its innumerable forms.

This thread is a rotting pile of copy and pastes from creationist websites, and the people doing the spamming don't even have a basic understanding of the topic.

What the hell do you think science teachers are doing? They are force feeding other "scientists" work and calling it education. Your lack of honesty is astounding. So what someone shares information from another source. I do believe that is what we call learning and sharing information. Stop it with this "source" argument as it's just a means to ignore facts presented. You are just trying to ridicule and derail because your pet theory is crap.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


www.talkorigins.org...

evolutionlist.blogspot.com...

There. Click on the above links and explore at length.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


You have no facts and you have no argument.

Copying and pasting arguments you don't understand and asking that a field of science be explained to you, in detail, when you have no desire to educate yourself is what's dishonest.

Go educate yourself.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

You have no facts and you have no argument.

Copying and pasting arguments you don't understand and asking that a field of science be explained to you, in detail, when you have no desire to educate yourself is what's dishonest.

Go educate yourself.

neener neener... you just can't stand the fact that you can't prove anything, and want to demean those who have offered observable problems within the scientific community and how they continue to teach things that are not true to push their unscientific theory.

If you have nothing but ridicule for those offering facts then you have nothing to say. Your little temper snits are just distractions. You are now on ignore. If you don't like this thread, you can always ignore it as well.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

neener neener... you just can't stand the fact that you can't prove anything, and want to demean those who have offered observable problems within the scientific community and how they continue to teach things that are not true to push their unscientific theory.

And what exactly have you proven?

Has anyone here even read the Origin of Species?

Evolutionists admits the fact that the theory of evolution is a theory, one that is adapted in the light of new evidence.

Do creationists admit this about creationism? They cannot, because they'd also have to mention that there is no evidence to support such a theory, nor that it is in any way falsifiable.

One is honest, one is backed by hoaxes and desperate lies.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Has anyone here even read the Origin of Species?

Evolutionists admits the fact that the theory of evolution is a theory, one that is adapted in the light of new evidence.

Do creationists admit this about creationism? They cannot, because they'd also have to mention that there is no evidence to support such a theory, nor that it is in any way falsifiable.

One is honest, one is backed by hoaxes and desperate lies.

Oh, don't get me started on the untruths taught by so called bible scholars that don't line up with the bible. The difference is we know it's a religion and you cannot prove GOD per say. They don't want to admit they have a belief system and want to say "It's proven" when it is not (again not talking about micro side here).

I can point to a very intelligent design, the coding in nature with the Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio, sacred geometry, historical proofs which back up the bible, and ID. I cannot put God on display and thus my faith is backed by my experiences and what I can see in nature which points to God.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I cannot put God on display and thus my faith is backed by my experiences and what I can see in nature which points to God.

This is why I asked what you have proven earlier. You have offered NO EVIDENCE that points CONCLUSIVELY AND EXCLUSIVELY to a divine creator. You like the answer, that's all. That's the only logical reason to jump to such a conclusion. Having a god makes you feel good, or more secure, or whatever. It's a construct that pleases your understanding of this reality.

So here's a question: are you really interested in the truth, or just a comfortable substitute?

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Oh, don't get me started on the untruths taught by so called bible scholars that don't line up with the bible. The difference is we know it's a religion and you cannot prove GOD per say. They don't want to admit they have a belief system and want to say "It's proven" when it is not (again not talking about micro side here).

I can point to a very intelligent design, the coding in nature with the Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio, sacred geometry, historical proofs which back up the bible, and ID. I cannot put God on display and thus my faith is backed by my experiences and what I can see in nature which points to God.

Actually we derive the fibonacci sequence from nature, not the other way around. Likewise with sacred geometry and other such interpretations. These numbers and sacred geometries are arbitrary, and only used as mathematical descriptions after the fact, not before the fact.