Time factor in self assembly calculations?

Dear Shane,You say:
"I nearly fell off my chair when I read this"(Didn't break anything, I hope.)
What I said in my previous mail is that all so called evidence for evolution can be falsified at least once. That makes it a bad theory. In physics it would not be accepted.
Peter

All you do is simplification of the problem.
Since all natural (but glycine) aminoacids have an chiral C atom, they have two distinct L-or R-configurations ("mirror images" or "enantiomers"). Thus, any oligo-peptide of 10 aminoacids and composed of only one type of aminoacids (e.g. all alanine) will be spontaneously formed under abiotic conditions in 2(exp)10 different configurations. In life we only see the L-configuration of aminoacids (and we only find the R-configuration of the ribose and deoxyribose --that have 2 and 3 distinct chiral C-atoms and thus 4 and 8 enantiomers are possible-- in RNA and DNA, respectively). I've never seen a plausible solution to this problem. It's rather ignored.
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 08-07-2002]

dear Shane,You state:
"I think the real problem with the meaningfulness of these calculations is that they assume there was a single unlikely event which gave rise to a single self replicating molecule which was similar to a modern day biopolymer. The approach is only slightly better than trying to imagine how a whole cell or eyeball could have spontaneously formed. I think the real lesson from these exercises is that our imaginations are simply not up to the task of intuitively finding the path from nonliving to (modern) living matter."But a freak event is still an event and the likelyhood of events occurring --unlikely or likely-- can be calculated. Ignoring that is ignoring that the accidental origin of life is an event. The same fallacious reasoning can be found in Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker". I don't buy it.And:
"We have to "think outside the cells we live in""Who are you? Richard Dawkins?And:
"The selective use of L-amino acids in proteins and R-sugars in polynucleotides is probably already the result of selection which occurred an unimaginably long time ago"Problem is the evolutionary rules of selection do not work at this level.Finally, you say:
"I just thought of an interesting question regarding quantum physics ie:1.If the observation influences the result,2. If a process which results in many quantum states creates observers as part of one of those states, does the act of observation cause the states to collapse into the one containing the observer?Sorry to pick a new tangent- the original thread was getting a bit thread bare. Does this count as "sleight of hand" on the part of an evolutionist?"....Ye, why not discuss Schrodinger's cat, (or was it Heisenberg's dog)?.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Gene,You say:
"The amino acids found in meteorites are almost exclusively left handed, due to selective destruction involving light. This is applicable because (1) the same thing could have been happening in the environment in which abiogenesis occured (2) the primary source of AA's in early Earth might have been from meteorites."I say:
Show me the references and I will respond to that. I've heard these stories before and all they show is a 4:6 ratio R:L.
Ad 1) Acoording to recent insights the primordial atmosphere contained oxygen and thus ozone. This protects the putative biolocules from degradation through (UV-)radiation.
Furthermore, show me an experiment where is demonstrated that radiation (no matter what kind) specifically degraded/converts a racemic mixture of R and L molecules.
Ad 2) If 1) is true, how many meteorites would it take to build one simple organism (by chance?)?cheers
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 08-08-2002]

dear Gene,Apparently, you didn't read these articles. The authors conclude:"How did amino acids form? Why are they all left-handed? Although the two Science papers offer some tantalizing clues, evolutionary biologists still have two unanswered questions."Why is nobody reading the stuff they discuss?Peter

Dear gene,Correct me if I am wrong, but do I have to look for articles that sustain your arguments, while I object to them? Maybe it works like that in the upsidedown world, not here.
If you make a statement and support it with an reference than I will check the reference. If the reference doesn't cover your claims I will let you know. That's what I did.And you say:
"By the way, I stand corrected, the L excess is between a lousy 2 to 9%"That's not exacly what we need, isn't it?Best wishes.