Time factor in self assembly calculations?

[QUOTE][B]so for a 100 amino acid protein produced requires 600 bases? Suggesting 4^600? = 10^360...[/QUOTE][/B]Your calculation is invalid because it assumes that only one protein is possible. You also pulled the length of the protein out of the air. You also failed to omit repeated sequences.

[QUOTE][B]I've never seen a plausible solution to this problem. It's rather ignored.[/QUOTE][/B]The amino acids found in meteorites are primarily 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.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-09-2002]

[QUOTE][B]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.[/QUOTE][/B]Right-handed polarized light preferentially degrades R AAs. I'm embarrassed to use a source as popular as ABCNews to answer your question, but you did ask.http://abcnews.go.com/...ce/DailyNews/lifeorigins980730.html [QUOTE][B] is true, how many meteorites would it take to build one simple organism (by chance?)?[/QUOTE][/B]Useless question. For one, meteorites vary by mass. For another, dust infall is also a factor. Finally, we don't know how many AA's are needed. All of the Creationist arguments here are invalid because they attempt to generate one protein, and reject all others.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-09-2002]

[QUOTE][B]"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."[/QUOTE][/B]Clearly there is something here you do not understand. Science is tentative. This proposed mechanism is only one possible explanation*. That is what your quote means.* For another one, see "Magnetic Field Skews Molecular Handedness" by Charles Seife in Science Now, 6/21/2000By the way, I stand corrected, the L excess is between a lousy 2 to 9%.I also read a comment where a researcher stated that he thought the starlight mechanism was "too exotic" for his taste.I had to find both of these out on my own when it was your job to throw them at me.I hope this doesn't get too personal but you had a chance to show me up and you didn't even exert an effort. There's no fun in that kind of "debate". I thought you would check a journal or some science articles rather than getting a meaningless quote from my own "cite" but...that is too often what happens.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-09-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Isn't dust infall somewhere in the range of 200 tons per year currently?[/QUOTE][/B]40,000 tons per year, according to Science. (Science, News Notes, Irion, Robert, 04/28/2000, Vol. 288 Issue 5466, p603)[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-08-2002]