Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-25-2019 7:34 PM
36 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, jar, RAZD, xongsmith (5 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,452 Year: 15,488/19,786 Month: 2,211/3,058 Week: 69/516 Day: 69/31 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   Science rejects Abiogenesis
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 40 (17491)
09-15-2002 10:51 PM


As with so much of evolution, the misinformation on the topics related thereto have been so often repeated instead of being deleted, especially in school curriculums and textbooks, not to mention sites like these, that science fiction has been masquerading as science.

An important pioneer in scientific research on abiogenesis is Alexander I. Oparin. In 1924, he determined what chemicals must be in the earth atmosphere for amino acids to be formed (e.g. methane, hydrogen, ammonia) and what chemicals ought not be there that will prohibit the formation of amino acids (e.g. Oxygen). Scientists like A.I. Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane proposed a sequence for life's origins in the 1920's, from complicated molecules in an oily liquid he called coacervate droplets, to the first protocell, to enzymes, to finally genes.

Miller prepared an experiment to observe what complicated molecules' might be produced under Oparin-Haldane's proposed ideal pre-biotic atmosphere. Sure enough, in an assumed atmosphere that was DESIGNED to produce amino acids, it was not at all surprising that amino acids formed:

The Products of the Miller Experiment: Tar 85%
Carboxylic acids not important to life 13.0%
Glycine 1.05%
Alanine 0.85%
Glutamic acid trace
Aspartic acid trace
Valine trace
Leucine trace
Serine trace
Proline trace
Treonine trace

Note: Glycine and Alanine are the two simplest amino acids of the twenty proteinous amino acids found in living creatures.

Miller's results were well received and widely reported by the mass media to be a major confirmation of evolution and of life arising spontaneously without a Creator. It became a valuable weapon in the evolutionists' propaganda arsenal for brain washing and brow beating the public and more so, unwary students, into accepting the legitimacy of Evolution.

The Miller-Urey experiment that produced amino acids under laboratory controlled conditions, has been misrepresented in many High school, college and other text books. It is often presented that this experiment demonstrates that amino acids, necessary for life, form naturally in a primitive atmosphere. It is usually further asserted or implied that this experiment demonstrates that abiogenesis is highly probable and that this further demonstrates that evolution (Darwinian) is indeed a fact. Of course such textbooks are nonsense, this experiment demonstrates nothing of the kind. In fact, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrates the opposite, it revealed the overwhelming difficulties that exists with the view that life can form naturally from non-living chemicals.

The key word above is 'controlled'. Intelligent control is what gets one the outcome they are looking for.

Using a system of glass flasks, Steven Miller attempted to simulate Alexander Oparin's ideal atmospheric conditions. He passed a mixture of H2O, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through an electrical spark discharge. At the bottom of the apparatus was a trap to capture any molecules made by the reaction. This trap prevented whatever chemicals formed from being destroyed by the energy source used to create them. Eventually, Miller was able to produce the above described mixture, containing the amino acids described above, the building blocks of proteins.

This was as good as the science ever got for the evolutionists and their hopes for abiogenesis. From now on things get much worse for the Evolutionists. What the public and students have not been told about what science knows concerning the 'origin of life'.

To achieve his results, Miller had to use something that material evolutionists 'KNOW' did not exist in the pre-biotic earth, intelligence, and mental "know-how". He drew on decades of knowledge of organic chemistry in setting up his experiment. The proportions of the various gases used, the actual apparatus, the position of the electrodes, the intensity of the spark, and the chemical trap, were all carefully adjusted to create maximum yield from the experiment.

Many attempts by Stanley Miller failed to produce any amino acids or other building blocks of life.

In an effort to make his Oparin atmosphere to mimic actual atmospheric conditions, Miller arranged fro his electrical discharge to simulate lightning. After a week of these lightning type electrical discharges in the reaction chamber, the sides of the chamber turned black and the liquid mixture turned a cloudy red. The predominant product was a gummy black substance made up of billions of carbon atoms strung together in what was essentially tar, a common nuisance in organic reactions.

However, no amino acids used by living systems, or other building blocks of life, were produced on these first attempts. In his own words, Miller stated "An attempt was made to simulate lightning discharge by building up a large quantity of charge on a condenser until the spark jumped the gap between the electrodes. ... Very few organic compounds were produced and this discharge was not investigated further." from Robert Shapiro: "Origins, A Skeptics Guide ..." P. 103., 1986.

Only by constantly readjusting and fine tuning his apparatus and using a continuous electrical charge that Miller eventually obtained the amino acids indicated it above. Even when using the same gas mixture and a continuous electrical discharge, Miller did not obtain any positive results until placing the apparatus in a different order. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, noted that with respect to the use of "Intelligence" and "Know How:" on the part of the experimenters to achieve the results they desire in "Origin of Life" type experiments:

(P. 102-103)

"another significant factor also influences the products being formed in an experiment of this type, but is less recognized, selection by the experimenter."

"One clear message should emerge from this discussion. A variety of results may be possible from the same general type of experiment. The experimenter, by manipulating apparently unimportant variables, can affect the outcome profoundly. The data that he reports may be valid, but if only these results are communicated, a false impression may arise concerning the universality of the process. This situation was noticed by Creationist writer, Martin Lubenow, who commented: "I am convinced that in every origin of life experiment devised by evolutionists, the intelligence of the experimenter is involved in such a way as to prejudice the experiment.""

Now it gets much worse for Abiogenesis.

The tar tends to fix the amino acids so that they are not that free to
bond, which must happen if theses amino acids are to form any kind of
molecular structures leading to a replicating life form.

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." (1)

You can never even "naturally" achieve an RNA world because of this
scientific fact.

All amino acids that form by natural causes alone are racemized. Even those found on comets are racemized.

Though the above is fatal to any scenario for abiogenesis, things continued to get worse for the evolutionists conception of origins.

Oparin's ideal atmosphere of Methane, Ammonia, Hydrogen, and without Oxygen never existed! We've known for at least the past thirty years that the pre-biotic atmosphere had oxygen that is lethal to the formation of life's building blocks, and it had at best, traces of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. Ultra-violet let would have destroyed amino acids formed in the atmosphere, and the chemicals of the ocean would have destroyed life's building blocks that ended up there.

Along the lines of beating a dead horse, the evolutionists hope for abiogenesis gets even more bad news from science:

When amino acids bond together in prebiotic experiments, they do so in several different ways using several types of links as the molecular bonds. Only the type of link known as alpha link is used in all proteins from known life. In origin of life experiments, the alpha link is greatly outnumbered by the other types of links. Even if we greatly favor the evolutionists possibilities by allowing for every link in a forming 100 unit polypeptide chain to have a 50-50 chance of being an alpha type link, the probability of getting a 100 unit amino acid chain using only alpha links is 10 to the 30th power to one.

And it still gets still for the evolutionists:

There are 20 amino acids needed for life. These are called proteinous amino acids. There are thousands of amino acids that are not proteinous. Stephen Gould once asked, "Why only a few amino acids in organisms when the [primordial] soup must have contained at least ten times as many." Amino acid molecules can link-up (polymerize) to form polypeptide chains. Those with certain structure and characteristics are called functional proteins. Functional proteins will consist of chains of 90 to 1000 amino acids. In a soup containing proteinous amino acids and 10 times the number of non-proteinous amino acids (which Gould says must have been there) then the probability of getting a functional protein consisting of 100 proteinous amino acids is 10 to the 100th power to one. It is not going to happen.

There is other scienctific facts that also drive the nails into the coffin of the concept abiobenesis.

To make life, we need amino acids, sugars, bases, and phosphates. This gives us other catch 22's. You need formaldehyde to make sugars, but formaldehyde fixes amino acids so that they do not react. Methane polymerizes formaldehyde, but must be present to make amino acids. Amino acids plus bases destroys formaldehyde. Calcium and magnesium in our oceans destroy phosphates, you can't get phosphates in oceans. Energy needed to make amino acids also destroys the amino acids.

R. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, "The Improbability of Prebiotic Nucleic Acid Synthesis" 14 Origin of Life 565, 1984, relates how experiments like Miller-Urey have very limited significance because of the implausible conditions under which they are conducted:

"Many accounts of the origin of life assume the spontaneous synthesis of a self replicating nucleic acid could take place readily. However, these procedures use pure starting materials, afford poor yields, and are run under conditions that are not compatible with one another. Any nucleic acid components that were formed in the primitive earth would tend to hydrolyze by a number of pathways. Their polarization would be inhibited by the presence of vast numbers of related substances which would react preferentially with them."

The above is much more than enough to convince all reasonable people that abiogenesis is scientifically unfeasible. Louis Pasteur is correct when he gave us the biogenetic law that states that life only comes from life. It takes intelligence and 'know how' to create life. Non-thoughtful processes can not create life because those processes are controlled by the Laws of Physics and Chemistry and they can not place the necessary boundary conditions on the laws of physics and chemistry to form a living being.

I could go on and on, but the point is made. What the laws of chemistry and physics tells us is that the most profound statement ever written on origin of life is: "In the beginning, G-d Created...".

(1) Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith: "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution", p. 17, (1981, TWFT Publishers).

[This message has been edited by Bart007, 09-30-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Bart007, posted 09-15-2002 11:48 PM Bart007 has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Brad McFall, posted 10-04-2002 11:18 AM Bart007 has not yet responded

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 40 (17493)
09-15-2002 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Bart007
09-15-2002 10:51 PM


I have just posted a very powerful scientific refutation of abiogenesis. These science facts have been known in scientific circles, but scientists still published, or permitted to be published, misinformation and untruths about the significance of the Miller-Urey type experiments, misleading both the public and, even worse, vulnerable students. Indoctrinating them into believing falsehoods, again as witnessed by many postings on these type forums.

They were most likely influenced by many sources of misinformation such as:

Carl Sagan appearing on a Nova episode about two decades ago declared how the Earth once had an atmosphere consisting mostly of Methane for hundreds of millions of years, ‘a methane world' he called it, a world in which living things breathed methane. Then he spoke of how life as we know it had begun under this reduced atmosphere, and he speculated how life that lived off methane was destroyed by a new poisonous gas that entered the atmosphere caused by this "new life", and replaced the methane: that gas being Oxygen! And his BS was all based on the Oparin model and he spoke to the public as if it was scientifically established fact.

Here is another example from the third (1984) edition of a College textbook `Elements of Biology' which still declares, like many others text books, that the Miller-Urey 1953 experiment provides `important support for his [Alexander Oparin] theory' that `living things chemically evolved from inorganic gases ... in the primitive earth atmosphere'. As if this lie was not enough this textbook goes on to state as follows:

"The relative ease with which the amino acids were formed is of great significance. ... In many other experiments that have followed Miller's breakthrough effort, other forms of energy have been successfully used in the laboratory to create not only amino acids but also other critical biological molecules. Thus it appears that no special obstacles would have interfered with the construction of the essential building blocks of life on the primitive Earth, given the amount of time now believed to have passed since the formation of the Earth (see fig 219)[ fig. 219 shows the sun as energy input shining on Earth during `chemical evolution' during Earth's 1st 800 million years, `1st self-replicating molecule or protogene over next 300 million years, `Life' 3.5 billion years ago]. ... these experiments have led many biologists to accept the idea that once air and ground conditions on Earth were suitable for life [Opirin Model], LIFE WAS INEVITABLE." [Emphasis mine]

Here is a more recent example:

Barron's Review Course Series "Let's Review: Biology", Barron's
Educational Series, 1995.

"... the [pre-biotic earth over hundreds of millions of years] "filled with inorganic and organic substances such as water (H2O), ammonia (NH3), methane (NH3), hydrogen gas (H2), and various mineral salts. These substances mixed together in a primitive atmosphere and oceans to form a thin hot soup, in which random chemical reactions could occur at a rapid rate. Gaseous oxygen and and carbon dioxide are thought NOT to be present in this early stage." P. 246-7.

Barron's "Let's Review: Biology" continues: Scientist Stanley Miller "set up a controlled environment that simulated [THE Prebitoic
Atmosphere desribed above]... After several days of continoues electrical input, Millers experimental flasks contained the precursors (beginnng formss) for several simple organic substances, including amino acids, simple sugars, and nucleotides. In later experiments, Sidney Fox, and other scientistsdemonstrated Miller's precurser's could be joined together into complex molecular arrangments and grouped to form cell-like structures. ... Increasing structural complexity of cellular aggregates, including the formation of complex proteins and nucleic acids, is thought to have led to the ability to reproduce new cellular aggregates. The ability to reproduce is considered to have represented represented the last critical step leading to a living condition, marking the difference between mere chemical aggregates and true living cells." P 247-248.

These lies are an outrage, scientists knew decades before the 1995 publication of Barron's widely read High School Science Book that this whole scenario from beginning to end was false. Science had
established that the pre-biotic atmosphere lacked methane and free hydrogen and had ample oxygen to destroy amino acids and other building blocks needed for life, and that the thin hot soup never existed. That ultra-violet light, oxygen, and the chemicals of the ocean would rapidly destroy any biological building blocks that might form. That the amino acids formed in these experiments were always racemized and thus prevented any formation of proteins.

This is a BIG LIE, these type experiments did just the opposite as my prior post demonstrates. They demonstrated just how extremely implausible abiogenesis is. I will now reval to you what many scientists have known going back 50 years.

Abiogenesis, An evolutionist's article of faith!

The evidence for abiogenesis was never good, but it was widely accepted by scientists promoting Evolutionism because it conformed to the philosophy of naturalism.

Nobel Prize laureate Harold C. Urey once stated:
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."

F. Dyson, 'Origins of Life' (1985, Cambridge University Press, p. 31):
"The Oparin picture was generally accepted by biologists for half a century. It was popular not because there was any evidence to support it, but rather because it seemed to be the only alternative to biblical creationism."

Yet Dyson admits, and many other evolutionary scientists were fully aware, even in the 1950's and 1960's, that these experiments were not solutions to abiogenesis but rather magnified the problems with any notion of abiogenesis.

Evolutionist A. Cairns-Smith, "Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life" 1986. Points out that experiments like Miller-Urey demonstrate that critical prevital nucleic acids are highly implausible:

"But so powerful has been the effect of Miller's experiment on the scientific imagination that to read some of the literature on the origin of life (including many elementary texts) you might think that it had been well demonstrated that nucleotides were probable constituents of a primordial soup and hence the prevital nucleic acid
replication was a plausible speculation based on the results of the experiments. There have indeed been many interesting and detailed
experiments in this area. But the importance of this work lies, in my mind, not in demonstrating how nucleotides could have formed on the primitive Earth, but in PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE: these experiments allow us to see, in much greater detail than would otherwise been possible, just why prevital nucleic acids are highly implausible."
[emphasis mine].

R. Shapiro, Ph.D. Chemistry, "The Improbability of Prebiotic Nucleic
Acid Synthesis" 14 Origin of Life 565, 1984, relates how experiments
like Miller-Urey have very limited significance because of the
implausible conditions under which they are conducted:
"Many accounts of the origin of life assume the spontaneous synthesis of a self replicating nucleic acid could take place readily. However,
these procedures use pure starting materials, afford poor yields, and are run under conditions that are not compatible with one another. Any
nucleic acid components that were formed in the primitive earth would tend to hydrolyze by a number of pathways. Their polarization would be inhibited by the presence of vast numbers of related substances which would react preferentially with them."

Speaking as an evolutionist, and therefore, aa an apriori believer in abiogenesis, Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1988, 13(4) 348. writes:

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to it's solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

"Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principal evolutionary processes from pre-biotic molecules to pregenotes have not been proven by experimentation and the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells actually originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (necleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure function relationships in modern cells came into existence."

Leslie Orgel "The Origin of Life on Earth" Scientific American 271, October 1994. P 77-83.

"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life never could in fact have originated by chemical means."

"We proposed that RNA might well have come first and established what is called the RNA world. ... This scenario could have occurred we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today; a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins, and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis. ..."

"The precise events giving rise to an RNA world remain unclear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. ..."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Bart007, posted 09-15-2002 10:51 PM Bart007 has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 109 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 109 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 responded
 Message 13 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-30-2002 2:25 AM derwood has not yet responded

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 109 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?s=3ca9
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. Muñoz 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 responded

    
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 40 (17633)
09-17-2002 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by derwood
09-17-2002 4:45 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by derwood, posted 09-17-2002 4:45 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nos482, posted 09-17-2002 10:02 PM Bart007 has not yet responded
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 09-18-2002 11:22 AM Bart007 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 40 (17635)
09-17-2002 10:02 PM
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?


How about how many times a week you have sex?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Bart007, posted 09-17-2002 10:00 PM Bart007 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-30-2002 2:26 AM nos482 has not yet responded

  
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 40 (17639)
09-18-2002 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by derwood
09-17-2002 4:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
"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?s=3ca9
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 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.

---------------------------------

SLPx writes:

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. Muñoz 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).


Hello SLPx.

I'm glad you produced some recent published papers that confirm what I wrote about the pre-biotic atmosphere is not a viable source for amino acids.

The part about the formation in outer space of left handed amino acids of any signifcance to origin-of-life on earth is extremely speculative.

Even if true, meteors are an inadequate source for supplying such necessary "left handed" amino acids. In most cases the amino acids would be destroyed by intense heat of the meteor impact with our atmosphere. In addition, most meteors do not have any amino acids and most amino acids found on meteors are racemized and contain only traces of them. Also, amino acids from space that make it to the surface of the prebiotic earth would have had a life span of little more than 100 years. Evolutionists seem to me to be really reaching for a solution when they start appealing to meteors as the suppliers of life building blocks.

Since you read the articles, how many of the 16 amino acids were pure left handed amino acids? How many were racemized? How many of the 16 amino acids were of the twenty amino acids that are found in living organisms?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by derwood, posted 09-17-2002 4:49 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by derwood, posted 09-18-2002 11:36 AM Bart007 has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 109 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 responded

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

    
derwood
Member (Idle past 109 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?s=3ca9
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 responded

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

    
Bart007
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 40 (18543)
09-29-2002 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by derwood
09-18-2002 11:22 AM


SLPx writes: "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...."

Bart007 responds: "Hello SLPx. What is your real name?"

SLPx responds: "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."

I have written a lot in my two intial postings. With the exception of that one short phrase I quoted verbatim from A. E. Wilder-Smith, the words are all mine. If anyone else has the same exact wording that I have used, then they would be plagiarizing me."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 09-18-2002 11:22 AM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-30-2002 2:32 AM Bart007 has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3749
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 12 of 40 (18545)
09-29-2002 7:20 PM


Abiogenesis theory is certainly based on a lot of ifs and maybes of what was the early earth's environment.

It is a study of what might have happened, but I can't see abiogenesis ever being "proven beyond a reasonable doubt", as evolution has (of course an opinion that many creationists don't agree with).

To put it differently:

We have the "fact" of evolution - The theory of evolution is the best effort to explain the mechanisms.

We do NOT have the "fact" of abiogenesis - But it is one of the possible starting points, from which evolution happened. The theory of abiogenesis is the best effort to explain the mechanisms of a possible "non-fact".

So once again it is stated: "Even if the current state of abiogenesis theory is falsified, the fact of evolution remains the same".

No claims what-so-ever, of being a biologist, biochemist, or biowhateverist,
Moose

ps: Source references are a good thing, as best you can.

[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 09-29-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by acmhttu001_2006, posted 09-30-2002 2:34 AM Minnemooseus has responded
 Message 21 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 9:57 PM Minnemooseus has responded

    
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 40 (18573)
09-30-2002 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by derwood
09-17-2002 4:45 PM


To the author of this topic,

Yep, not a good thing. When I started, I made the same dumb mistake. Give credit for the sources so we can check these. Becuase, how do we know you are not just saying things to agree with what you think? How do we know if you are or are not manipulating science to fit your own definitions?

Until sources are cited, I will assume the two beginning posts are false, for there is not way that we can back them up or validate them. And it there is not way, then you are to discard them.

Need sources. Not a good practice not quoting sources.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by derwood, posted 09-17-2002 4:45 PM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Bart007, posted 09-30-2002 10:09 PM acmhttu001_2006 has responded

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 40 (18574)
09-30-2002 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by nos482
09-17-2002 10:02 PM


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nos482, posted 09-17-2002 10:02 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
acmhttu001_2006
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 40 (18575)
09-30-2002 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by derwood
09-18-2002 11:22 AM


SPLx,

Thanks for posting your posts. I do not like plagarism and do not like words being passed off as the author of this topic's own words.

You are right, does not allow posts to be looked at in a very good light. Hey any more sources about abiogensis? Would appreciate them, am doing reserach over it. Thanks.

------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 09-18-2002 11:22 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019