Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science rejects Abiogenesis
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 3 of 40 (17624)
09-17-2002 4:39 PM


Hey - Matt's back!

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 4 of 40 (17625)
09-17-2002 4:45 PM


Hey Bart - are you John Musselwhite or Arthur Biele?
Because, the funny thing is, I found a bunch of what you wrote here - verbatim - on other web sites.
So, you are either one of those two chaps, or you are presenting someone elses words as your own.
Not a good way to begin a discussion board tenure....

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Bart007, posted 09-17-2002 10:00 PM derwood has replied
 Message 13 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-30-2002 2:25 AM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 5 of 40 (17626)
09-17-2002 4:49 PM


"Bart":
quote:
Now it gets fatally worse for abiogenesis. Miller's amino acids are useless as a basis for abiogenesis.
The amino acids formed were racemates. That is, each amino acid was
produced in equal quantities of Dexterorotary (Right handed Molecules)
and Laevorotary (Left handed) molecules. Furthermore, both right and
left handed amino acids bond to each other equally well. However, all
of life's proteins are made from left-handed amino acid chains. If
just a single right handed amino acid molecule binds to a forming
three dimensional chain of left handed amino acids, that right handed
amino acid is lethal to the formation of the three dimensional chain.
Without exception, all of Miller's amino acids are completely
unsuitable for any type of spontaneous generation of life. And the
same applies to all and any randomly formed substances and amino acids
that form racemates. This statement is categorical and absolute and
cannot be affected by special conditions. This is scientific fact.
Shamelessly stolen from a post by Tim Thompson
here:http://www.creationweb.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi
f47d3adcffff;act=ST;f=26;t=443
Racemic amino acids from the ultraviolet photolysis of interstellar
ice analogues
Nature 416: 401-403, March 28, 2000
Max P. Bernstein, et al.
Abstract: The delivery of extraterrestrial organic molecules to Earth
by meteorites may have been important for the origin and early
evolution of life. Indigenous amino acids have been found in
meteorites - over 70 in the Murchison meteorite alone. Although it has been generally accepted that the meteoritic amino acids formed in
liquid water on a parent body, the water in the Murchison meteorite is depleted in deuterium relative to the indigenous organic acids.
Moreover, the meteoritical evidence for an excess of laevo-rotatory
amino acids is hard to understand in the context of liquid-water
reactions on meteorite parent bodies. Here we report a laboratory
demonstration that glycine, alanine and serine naturally form from
ultraviolet photolysis of the analogues of icy interstellar grains.
Such amino acids would naturally have a deuterium excess similar to
that seen in interstellar molecular clouds, and the formation process
could also result in enantiomeric excesses if the incident radiation
is circularly polarized. These results suggest that at least some
meteoritic amino acids are the result of interstellar photochemistry,
rather than formation in liquid water on an early Solar System body.
Amino acids from ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice analogues
Nature 416: 403-406, March 28, 2000
G.M. Muoz Caro, et al.
Abstract: Amino acids are the essential molecular components of living organisms on Earth, but the proposed mechanisms for their spontaneous generation have been unable to account for their presence in Earth's early history. The delivery of extraterrestrial organic compounds has been proposed as an alternative to generation on Earth, and some amino acids have been found in several meteorites. Here we report the detection of amino acids in the room-temperature residue of an interstellar ice analogue that was ultraviolet-irradiated in a high vacuum at 12 K. We identified 16 amino acids; the chiral ones showed enantiomeric separation. Some of the identified amino acids are also found in meteorites. Our results demonstrate that the spontaneous generation of amino acids in the interstellar medium is possible, supporting the suggestion that prebiotic molecules could have been delivered to the early Earth by cometary dust, meteorites or interplanetary dust particles.
Just to make the story complete, earlier studies on the stability of
amino acid molecules in space are encouraging. Once formed, they are
subject to fairly rapid destruction by the same UV that made it
possible, unless they are protected in ice mantles on interstellar
grains, or in a dense cloud protected from UV (The photostability of
Amino Acids in Space, P. Ehrenfreund et al., Astrophysical Journal
Letters 550: L95-L99, March 20, 2001). There is also evidence, as
suggested in both papers, that if the UV impacting the ice is
circularly polarized, the result could be a non-racemic product. There is some experimental evidence to support this view (Mechanism of pH-dependent photolysis of aliphatic amino acids and enantiomeric
enrichment of racemic leucine by circularly polarized light, H.
Nishino et al., Organic Letters 3(6): 921-924, March 22, 2001), and it is also evident that the necessary environment can be found in space (Astronomical sources of circularly polarized light and the origin of homochirality, J. Bailey, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 31(1-2): 167-183, Feb-Apr, 2001).

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Bart007, posted 09-18-2002 12:07 AM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 9 of 40 (17684)
09-18-2002 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Bart007
09-17-2002 10:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Bart007:
quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
Hey Bart - are you John Musselwhite or Arthur Biele?
Because, the funny thing is, I found a bunch of what you wrote here - verbatim - on other web sites.
So, you are either one of those two chaps, or you are presenting someone elses words as your own.
Not a good way to begin a discussion board tenure....

Hello SLPx. What is your real name?

Well, when you find something I have presented as my own, yet can be found - verbatim - on other websites written by specific individuals, I'll let you know.
I have to conclude then that you are a plagiarist.
Plagiarism is dishonest.
You have now set the scene for how your posts will be looked at in the future.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 09-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bart007, posted 09-17-2002 10:00 PM Bart007 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Bart007, posted 09-29-2002 6:38 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 15 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-30-2002 2:29 AM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 10 of 40 (17685)
09-18-2002 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Bart007
09-18-2002 12:07 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Bart007:
Shamelessly stolen from a post by Tim Thompson
here:http://www.creationweb.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi
f47d3adcffff;act=ST;f=26;t=443
My post is a juxtapose of many different sources, notes from seminars, and things I pick up here and there. However Tim Thompson is not one of my sources, I do not know Tim Thompson.
I don't believe I said you did. But you did steal the words of others, present them as your own, and not provide the sources.
I did not say I read the papers, Indeed, My opening ("Shamelessly stolen form Tim Thompson...") should have made that clear.
quote:
I shamelessly stole those words starting with, "Without exception" from an outstanding scientists and expert on chemistry, origins, and information theory. He out-debated Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins at Oxford Union on this topic in 1988. In 1981 he wrote "The Natural Sciences know Nothing about Evolution". In 1993 he wrote: "The Time Dimension: Its Relationship to the Origin of Life". I highly recommend you get these books and read them, and reread them, and keep reading them until you understand the science relating to the origin of life. The author is Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith.
Yes, a creationoist, Wow. I am impressed that an avowed creationist would write a book with such an asinine title.
He out-debated all those folks, huh?
Did you see the debate?
Who said he 'out debated' them?
Him?
Other creationists?
I've seen a creation-evolution debate.
They are not quite what they are made out to be by their creationist proponants.
I suggest that you read some non-biased, intelligent sources. And re-read them. And keep re-reading them unitl you understand how ridiculous, dishonest, and incompetent creationist propagandists are.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 09-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Bart007, posted 09-18-2002 12:07 AM Bart007 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 8:43 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 29 of 40 (19004)
10-03-2002 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Bart007
09-30-2002 10:27 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bart007:
SLPx, said I copied from a "Thompson" fellow. Who are you claiming I copied from, Anne.?
[/B][/QUOTE]
Your reading comprehension is inversely proportional to your overconfidence.
I never said any such thing, as I have reiterated and should have been obvious.
I found several sentences from your original bombast in the posts of others made some time ago - verbatim.
As should have been painfully obvious, I wrote that I had 'shamelessly stolen' Tim Thompson's words - that is, I made a blatant attribution to the original author of what I posted.
Please at least re-read the posts in question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 10:27 PM Bart007 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Bart007, posted 10-03-2002 6:23 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 30 of 40 (19005)
10-03-2002 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Bart007
09-30-2002 10:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Bart007:
quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Perhaps you can share something specific that science knows about Evolution that affirms Evolution. If you can come up with, let say, 3 or 4 that science KNOWS about Evlution, then perhaps we can agrre that Wilder-Smith's Title was Asinine. But let's focus on one at a time."
--I don't think SLPx Will have any difficulty providing you with this data..I sure wouldn't. I am also in wonder of why and how this provision of data regarding the ToE has anything to do with whether or not a title of a book is silly or stupid.

Hello True Creatioon
If you can help SLPx, "TrueCreation" please do so. I am curious as to what your proposed scientific evidence may be.

Wow. The overconfidence of the engineer creationist is matched only by its arrogance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 10:31 PM Bart007 has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 31 of 40 (19006)
10-03-2002 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Bart007
09-30-2002 8:43 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bart007:
[B]Bart007 wrote: "In 1981 [A.E, Wilder-Smith] wrote "The Natural Sciences know Nothing about Evolution". In 1993 he wrote: "The Time Dimension: Its Relationship to the Origin of Life". I highly recommend you get these books ..."
SLPx "Yes, a creationoist, Wow. I am impressed that an avowed creationist would write a book with such an asinine title."
Let us test whether or not the title of that 1st book I mentioned is, as you put it, "Asinine".
You probably believe that science has established Evolution (i.e. all creatures extant and extinct share a common ancestry)as a fact. If you do not believe this, please set the record straight.
If so, then you must know that science knows a lot about evolution and it is extremely affirmative.
Perhaps you can share something specific that science knows about Evolution that affirms Evolution. If you can come up with, let say, 3 or 4 that science KNOWS about Evlution, then perhaps we can agrre that Wilder-Smith's Title was Asinine. But let's focus on one at a time. [/quote]
Sure. Read my paper:
Page, S.L., and Goodman, M. Catarrhine Phylogeny: Noncoding DNA Evidence for a Diphyletic Origin of the Mangabeys and for a Human-Chimp Clade. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2001 Jan;18(1):14-25
One of the datasets used in that paper can be seen here:
http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm
The observable pattern of synapomorphy is indicative of descent. This is premised on a few extremely simple premises, two of which follow:
Mutations happen, and are heritable.
Patterns of inherited mutation can be used to infer relationships.
The methodologies empoloyed have been tested on knowns and found to assurately reconstruct the relationships.
I assume that molecular biology falls under the umbrella term "Natural Science"?
quote:
SLPx wrote: "I suggest that you read some non-biased, intelligent sources. And re-read them. And keep re-reading them unitl you understand how ridiculous, dishonest, and incompetent creationist propagandists are."
Debate me. Let's see if I'm a "... ridiculous, dishonest, and incompetent creationist...".
Have you written vanity press books targetted at scientifically illiterate like-minded individuals?
Do you host a web site jam packed with disinformation?
If not, then I was not referring to you, unless you consider yourself a creationist propagandist. Perhaps I hit too close to home? I can document some of what makes it easy to conlcude that what I wrote about creationist propagandists is true.
quote:
But if your gifted at ridicule, browbeating, and insults; and ad-hominem attacks and other sophistries are all you are about, then it's best you do not reply at all. Otherwise, I welcome your comments, thoughts and arguments.
Well, I am gifted at ridicule, thank you very much.
Oh - what sophistries did you have in mind?
Maybe something like insisting evolution rises or falls on whether or not abiogenesis happened? Something like that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 8:43 PM Bart007 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Bart007, posted 10-06-2002 6:09 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 37 of 40 (19221)
10-07-2002 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Bart007
10-06-2002 6:09 PM


I have no intention of reading yet another creationist book that is beyond reproach. The same was said of Sarfati's, and Wells', and ReMine's, etc., and yet as I read each of those, I saw nothing but repeated assertion and shoddy scholarship.
Why should I expect this chap's to be any different?
Of course, I a mnot the least bit impressed with the 'awe factor' of Jastrow or any other religious scientist.
Nor do I believe that 'spontaneous generation' has any impact on evolution.
quote:
Here is a challenge for you in response to your premise "Mutations happen, and are heritable." It is not as trite as you suggest.
Did some digging to find that perfect quote, I see...
Well, let's see if this mined quote has any actual bearing on what I wrote:
quote:
"The frequency with which a single non-harmful mutation is known to occur is 1 in 1000.The probability that two favorable mutations will occur is 1x10e3 x 10e3 = 1x10e6, 1 in a million. Studies of Drosophila have revealed that large numbers of genes are involved in the formation of separate structural elements. There are as many as 30 - 40 genes involved in a single wing structure. It is most unlikely that fewer than five genes could ever be involved in the formation of even the simplest new structure, previously unknown to the organism. The probability now becomes one in one thousand million million. We already know that mutations in living cells appear once in ten million to once in one hundred thousand million. It is evident that the probability of five favourable mutations occurring within the a single life cycle of an organism is effectively zero.
Let us consider the alternative possibility that five mutations occur spontaneously within a large population of interbreeding organisms. They will have to be brought together eventually in a single organism, if they are to generate the structure of a new level of complexity, favourable for natural selection.
According to our definition, each of the genes we are considering is due to a mutation which will give rise to hitherto unknown structure of additional complexity once it meets the other four genes in the fertilized egg cell. It would be indeed be surprising of any [one alone] of these mutations could, at the same time, modulate an existing structure in the manner that it would be selected favourably by natural selection. It is only when the five genes find themselves together that a selective advantage will emerge. They are more likely to be present independently, within the population, as so called neutral genes. ... In the absence of selective advantage, the probability of the five genes coming together simultaneously within a single organism is extremely small." [about i in 1x10e15].
"Improbability increases at an enormous rate as the number of genes Increases."
Evolutionist and cell biologist E.J. Ambrose, "The Nature and Origin of the Biological World", Ellis Horwood, 1982, pp 120-121, 123.
Ah - as I suspected.
No, it doesn't.
You see, the creationist ALWAYS tries to spin their way into a direction that they think they can score some points on.
You, being an engineer of some sort and not a biologist of any sort, failed to understand the real meaning of the 'trite' statement I gave.
You see, I did not say whatthe mutations were. I did not mention good, bad, or indifferent.
I had no need to.
I was not referring to gains of function, body parts, or anything else.
Sorry, barty, mutations do happen, and yes, they are heritiable, and yes, it IS that trite.
Phylogenetic analyses do not care one way or the other as to the character of the mutations.
I suspect that you have been reading too much of that pharmacist Wilder-Smith.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 10-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Bart007, posted 10-06-2002 6:09 PM Bart007 has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 39 of 40 (20723)
10-24-2002 3:17 PM


Barty?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024