Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,10:18    I hope no one minds me setting up this dedicated thread for RFJE. The Bathroom Wall is already clogged with Denial's Devious Delusions and needs no further obstructions getting in the way of knob jokes, assorted off-topicery and LOLcats. Hence I reproduce RFJE's initial foray into AtBC here and fervently hope he'll join us on this thread.         Quote Evolution and the Origin of Life: Real Problems The origin of life is one of the biggest problems for evolution, because of it's committment to naturalism.  That is, that all processes in the universe are explainable using only natural laws.  Virtually all other sciences can be explained by natural laws, but there are very real and ignored problems with  how the first life began. We have all heard of the "primordial soup" model of life.  That at a point in early earth history, the molten earth cooled, and oceans formed.  As rain fell, chemicals in a hypothetical pool organized into proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates.  These molecules then organized into  cellular structures and more complex proteins, DNA, and cell membranes.   The following are proven chemistry facts that are not shared with the average science illiterate population.   Observable Chemistry Fact #1 Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis.  It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming  the chains that build proteins.  Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction. Observable Chemistry Fact #2 Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment.  Why?  Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life. Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer  to sheild the compounds from  the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists.  ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere?   ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM Amino acids in living things 1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things.  We're talking mathematics working against it now. 2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers."   Living things have only the left handed amino acids.  When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life. So intelligent life tried to set up a random mixture of supposed ingredients and could not do it.  It proved that some random amino acids could be produced. My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high.  And in the sense of logic and common sense it is illogical to propose that an effect caused itself. So hello RFJE, welcome, and for the moment (admin approval pending, and unless you've been restricted to the Bathroom Wall for some reason) consider this thread your home. All replies are best directed here. Here are the permalinks to the replies already received (as of 16:00 ish GMT). Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8 Link 9 Link 10 Link 11 Link 12 Link 13 Link 14 Link 15 Link 16 Link 17 Link 18 Link 19 Link 20 Link 21 Link 22 Link 23 Link 24 Link 25 Link 26 Link 27 Link 28 Link 29 Link 30 Link 31 I hope I've got all the (at least minimally  ) relevant replies in the right order. Let me know if I've messed up. Right on with the fun! Cheers Louis -------------- Bye.

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,10:57    Quote My question is why am I labeled as a propagandist when I consider evidence logically and come up with the conclusion that the mathematical improbability of life starting randomly by solely naturalistic means is astronomically high. Can I see your working out please? It's one thing to say it, but another to explain how you came to that conclusion. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,11:32    Way to go Louis... You Scientists, always so "exact" with your language, always bringing up your "facts".  You're NEVER going to get a new victim ID Creationist to respond if you restrict them to facts! :( And BTW - I still think that my idea of labeling this thread and playing off the "expelled" thread by calling it "Expectorated" was Teh Ways To Go.  But hey, what do I know, I'm just a "Mr. Marketing", not a "Real Big Time Working Scientist".   But seriously, I DO think the special thread is the way to go. -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,11:33    Quote These days and nights of fishing were firmly ingrained in my mind, as I toured one of the caverns in northeastern Arkansas.  As we toured, we came upon some burnt wood on display.  The guide told us that this wood had been carbon 14ed at 800 AD.  The wood had no signs of decay, and it was not fossilized. I made sure by INQUIRY to the guide, to make sure I had heard him correctly and that the wood was not fossilized. My point is that here was a man that BELIEVED that this un-fossilized wood was 1200 years old--wood that appeared as is it could have been burnt a year ago--wood that was in a damp cave, with sounds of water flowing in it.   And little ol' me, the independent thinker, asking myself if this man had ever read in one of his textbooks that water and humidity destroys wood.   Um ... Water and humidity do not destroy wood. Things often associated with water and humidity destroy wood. Fully submerged wood much older than 800 AD has been found. E.g. Submerged Forest and old Ship Remains in the Solent Ballard Finds Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea Here's an interesting one about the same age as your sample: Maya Milestone: LSU researcher discovers first wooden ruins, unique artifact from Maya civilization Ya know what? I bet you can't come up with a textbook that states that water and humidity destroy wood. Independent thinking is good. Making up bullshit is bad.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,11:42    Quote I realize that I'm a newbie here, and the sore thumb in everyone's eyes here.  I don't want to be irritating as I see I am. You're not a sore thumb. Maybe a pimple. But you are irritating. You're just another of a long parade of unjustifiably arrogant and abysmally ignorant fools.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,12:24    Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 09 2009,17:32) Way to go Louis... You Scientists, always so "exact" with your language, always bringing up your "facts".  You're NEVER going to get a new victim ID Creationist to respond if you restrict them to facts! :( And BTW - I still think that my idea of labeling this thread and playing off the "expelled" thread by calling it "Expectorated" was Teh Ways To Go.  But hey, what do I know, I'm just a "Mr. Marketing", not a "Real Big Time Working Scientist".   But seriously, I DO think the special thread is the way to go. Expectorated? Shit! I missed that! That's a GREAT idea. I GOTS to pay more attention when reading. AHEM Oh busy moderators, could one of you retitle the thread "Expectorated: RFJE's Personal Thread" please? Thanks Louis -------------- Bye.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,12:28    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,12:24) AHEM Oh busy moderators, could one of you retitle the thread "Expectorated: RFJE's Personal Thread" please? Thanks Louis Thanks, but really that's ok!  I'm just trying to have some fun with our New BFFs... -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,12:48    Quote (JonF @ Feb. 09 2009,11:33)   Quote These days and nights of fishing were firmly ingrained in my mind, as I toured one of the caverns in northeastern Arkansas.  As we toured, we came upon some burnt wood on display.  The guide told us that this wood had been carbon 14ed at 800 AD.  The wood had no signs of decay, and it was not fossilized. I made sure by INQUIRY to the guide, to make sure I had heard him correctly and that the wood was not fossilized. My point is that here was a man that BELIEVED that this un-fossilized wood was 1200 years old--wood that appeared as is it could have been burnt a year ago--wood that was in a damp cave, with sounds of water flowing in it.   And little ol' me, the independent thinker, asking myself if this man had ever read in one of his textbooks that water and humidity destroys wood.   Um ... Water and humidity do not destroy wood. Things often associated with water and humidity destroy wood. Fully submerged wood much older than 800 AD has been found. E.g. Submerged Forest and old Ship Remains in the Solent Ballard Finds Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea Here's an interesting one about the same age as your sample: Maya Milestone: LSU researcher discovers first wooden ruins, unique artifact from Maya civilization Ya know what? I bet you can't come up with a textbook that states that water and humidity destroy wood. Independent thinking is good. Making up bullshit is bad. I'm not sure what this anecdote was supposed to prove in the first place, even if RJFE was in fact right about the impossibility of old wet wood.  That there are people who will mindlessly parrot what they've been taught regardless of plain evidence to the contrary all about them? But he's got to know that already.  After all, he comes from a faith tradition. -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,13:32    Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 09 2009,12:48) Quote (JonF @ Feb. 09 2009,11:33)     Quote These days and nights of fishing were firmly ingrained in my mind, as I toured one of the caverns in northeastern Arkansas.  As we toured, we came upon some burnt wood on display.  The guide told us that this wood had been carbon 14ed at 800 AD.  The wood had no signs of decay, and it was not fossilized. I made sure by INQUIRY to the guide, to make sure I had heard him correctly and that the wood was not fossilized. My point is that here was a man that BELIEVED that this un-fossilized wood was 1200 years old--wood that appeared as is it could have been burnt a year ago--wood that was in a damp cave, with sounds of water flowing in it.   And little ol' me, the independent thinker, asking myself if this man had ever read in one of his textbooks that water and humidity destroys wood.   Um ... Water and humidity do not destroy wood. Things often associated with water and humidity destroy wood. Fully submerged wood much older than 800 AD has been found. E.g. Submerged Forest and old Ship Remains in the Solent Ballard Finds Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea Here's an interesting one about the same age as your sample: Maya Milestone: LSU researcher discovers first wooden ruins, unique artifact from Maya civilization Ya know what? I bet you can't come up with a textbook that states that water and humidity destroy wood. Independent thinking is good. Making up bullshit is bad. I'm not sure what this anecdote was supposed to prove in the first place, even if RJFE was in fact right about the impossibility of old wet wood.  That there are people who will mindlessly parrot what they've been taught regardless of plain evidence to the contrary all about them? But he's got to know that already.  After all, he comes from a faith tradition. Also based on his faith tradition ... He last posted early today, so he's got to be dead for @ 3 days, then come back, right?  So, guess we'll see him just in time to buy us all a round on Darwin's Day. Unfortunately, also based on his faith tradition, he probably lives up to my Great expectations, and will buy us all a round of fruit juice.. Ha Ha - This is him... -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,15:47    **LENGTH AND SLIGHT CHEMISTRY WARNING** Dear RFJE, As I’ve said already “Hello and Welcome”, I hope you have a productive and enjoyable time here at AtBC. I’m always amused when people come in espousing well refuted canards, erroneous nonsense, and generally being unpleasant. Especially when they then complain that they are somehow persecuted by the less than pleasant replies such behaviour engenders. I am, however, for the moment going to ignore all that nonsense and focus on the chemical claims you make. I’m also going to ignore the philosophical and biological errors you make re: origin of life/naturalism/evolution. Others can deal with those if they like. What I’m going to do is make a break down of your chemical claims to make sure I have them correct:   Quote Observable Chemistry Fact #1 Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis. It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming the chains that build proteins. Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction. a) Amino acids do not simply “break down” in aqueous solution at any appreciable rate at room temperature (and in the absence of other reagents), nor indeed do dipeptides or polypeptides. You can in fact buy aqueous solutions of most amino acids. The hydrolysis of the amide bond is comparatively difficult to achieve, normally requiring more forcing conditions (strong acid or base, or powerful nucleophiles etc). I think what you are trying to get at is that formation of the peptide/amide bond, which since it is a condensation reaction (i.e. the formation of an amide results in the elimination of a small molecule like water), is hindered by the presence of water. Below I have drawn a simple amino acid and a simple dipeptide (no solution structure is implied) to illustrate the difference for you. Unfortunately, you are clearly unaware of very basic methods in chemical synthesis. Even though these are not claimed to be the precise routes taken during abiogenesis, they clearly demonstrate that water is not necessarily a hurdle to amide synthesis. Take for example the Schotten -Baumann conditions for peptide synthesis. This is where a biphasic mixture of solvents, one of which is water and the other a water immiscible organic solvent, are used. The simplistic treatment of the various methods of peptide synthesis as equilibrium processes, and hence trivially subject to Le Chatelier's principle, misses many of the other thermodynamic and kinetic factors and is, in this case at least, erroneous. Solid phase methods of peptide synthesis or use of activating agents like various carbodiimides etc can also be performed in the presence of water. Water isn’t the problem you think it is. Not only that, aqueous phase syntheses of simple poly/dipeptides are not the only methods proposed for the origins of these sorts of molecules. b) The Miller-Urey experiment included water as part of the design. The last bit of your claim is mistaken.   Quote Observable Chemistry Fact #2 Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment. Why? Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life. Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer to sheild the compounds from the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists. ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere? a) Oxygen was purposely left out if the Miller-Urey because the best evidence at the time strongly suggested that the early atmosphere had no oxygen in it. Oxygen is a “pollutant” produced by organisms. What Miller and Urey were trying to do was see if simple molecules like amino acids etc could be produced by conditions similar to those proposed on the early earth. Many other experiments of this type have been performed, testing various hypothetical early earth scenarios. b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation. c) Evidence for the early atmosphere being free of oxygen is found in the composition of rocks dated back to the Siderian period of the Precambrian.     Quote ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM Amino acids in living things 1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things. We're talking mathematics working against it now. a) There are vastly more than 2000 possible amino acid types, another basic chemical misunderstanding on your part. The fact that 22 proteinogenic amino acids (plus a few non-proteinogenic ones) are commonly found in modern organisms, is not a mathematical problem for evolutionary biology or abiogenesis. This is no more a problem than the fact that my route to the pub commonly involves me walking via the park rather than via Uzbekistan. Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc). If I were to take a pack of a billion cards and deal 22, that specific 22 card hand is no more or less improbable than any other 22 card hand. There may be reasons the 22 proteinogenic amino acids are the ones we find in modern organisms (thermodynamic stability, specific reactivity etc) but these are very complex and dependant on the chemical environment of the time.     Quote 2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers." Living things have only the left handed amino acids. When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life. a) There are a myriad of perfectly natural ways for homochirality to arise. Not least is autocatalysis (an example, again not specifically related to abiogenesis, but very indicative is my favourite the Soai reaction). Many other ways like crystal templating and chiral transmission etc. Not only that but once homochiral self-replicating systems like those actually proposed for abiogenesis exist then maintenance of homochirality is evolutionarily more favourable. b) Again, Miller and Urey were not trying to create life in a test tube, they were trying to discover if simple molecules that are the building blocks of life could be produced by the conditions proposed for the early earth at the time. They could, and were. Miller and Urey did what  they were trying to do. In conclusion, might I suggest that, instead of posting well refuted common misunderstandings of science on message boards, your missionary zeal inspired thirst for knowledge, if it actually exists, would be better served by some time in the library. As I recommended to Daniel Smith, there is a very good book on the current state of abiogenesis research by Pierre Luigi Luisi called “The Emergence of Life”. I also recommend a couple of basic chemistry courses BEFORE you tackle that book. Also, I have added a few links to Wikipedia etc for your edification. These are simple articles with very simple information in them. I suggest them as a beginning point for your investigation, not as "proof". As you claim to be a well read layman, it would behove you familiarise yourself with the very basic elements of the science you claim is in error because it contradicts your religious faith. A quick search of the internet, a medium you clearly have access to, would have disabused you of the fallacious claims you make re: abiogenesis. Thanks Louis ETA: Several edits for formatting etc. More may be needed. Also, RFJE, I have a lot of experience dealing with creationists and I operate a "three strikes" policy. Demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty and engagement and I'll happily spend my valuable time explaining things and debating. Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 10 2009,13:23 -------------- Bye.

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,16:10    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47) A quick search of the internet, a medium you clearly have access to, would have disabused you of the fallacious claims you make re: abiogenesis. Optimist. -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,16:19    Louis, although you are correct that a walk to the pub usually takes one through a park, I'm sure that on several occasions my route home FROM the pub went through Uzbekistan. How else do I explain waking up in the morning wearing a yak skin hat?

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,16:25    Speaking of which, so far no sign of the traveler from the "dark side" of the planet - maybe the freshman just needed a Darwinist alley to puke in on his way home... -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,17:12    This is just where we are in the Biology 111 classes I'm assisting students with. I'm feeling a little nostalgic. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,18:04    RFJE wrote: Quote ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere? Tons, actually.  Wiki banded iron formation (BIF).  Keep in mind that BIFs can't form in an atmosphere that contains free oxygen.  Also keep in mind that that is the reason why BIFs aren't forming today.  Both of those are easily observable facts. My 2c, because my hometown was built to house the miners of a BIF in northeastern Minnesota.  That, and I'm studying to be a geology major.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,18:32    And people picked on me for breaking the last toy? HAH! J'ACCUSE!! :angry: -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,18:32    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,16:47) **LENGTH AND SLIGHT CHEMISTRY WARNING** Dear RFJE, As I’ve said already “Hello and Welcome”, I hope you have a productive and enjoyable time here at AtBC. I’m always amused when people come in espousing well refuted canards, erroneous nonsense, and generally being unpleasant. Especially when they then complain that they are somehow persecuted by the less than pleasant replies such behaviour engenders. I am, however, for the moment going to ignore all that nonsense and focus on the chemical claims you make. I’m also going to ignore the philosophical and biological errors you make re: origin of life/naturalism/evolution. Others can deal with those if they like. What I’m going to do is make a break down of your chemical claims to make sure I have them correct:     Quote Observable Chemistry Fact #1 Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis. It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming the chains that build proteins. Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction. a) Amino acids do not simply “break down” in aqueous solution at any appreciable rate at room temperature (and in the absence of other reagents), nor indeed do dipeptides or polypeptides. You can in fact buy aqueous solutions of most amino acids. The hydrolysis of the amide bond is comparatively difficult to achieve, normally requiring more forcing conditions (strong acid or base, or powerful nucleophiles etc). I think what you are trying to get at is that formation of the peptide/amide bond, which since it is a condensation reaction (i.e. the formation of an amide results in the elimination of a small molecule like water), is hindered by the presence of water. Below I have drawn a simple amino acid and a simple dipeptide (no solution structure is implied) to illustrate the difference for you. Unfortunately, you are clearly unaware of very basic methods in chemical synthesis. Even though these are not claimed to be the precise routes taken during abiogenesis, they clearly demonstrate that water is not necessarily a hurdle to amide synthesis. Take for example the Schotten -Baumann conditions for peptide synthesis. This is where a biphasic mixture of solvents, one of which is water and the other a water immiscible organic solvent, are used. The simplistic treatment of the various methods of peptide synthesis as equilibrium processes, and hence trivially subject to Le Chatelier's principle, misses many of the other thermodynamic and kinetic factors and is, in this case at least, erroneous. Solid phase methods of peptide synthesis or use of activating agents like various carbodiimides etc can also be performed in the presence of water. Water isn’t the problem you think it is. Not only that, aqueous phase syntheses of simple poly/dipeptides are not the only methods proposed for the origins of these sorts of molecules. b) The Miller-Urey experiment included water as part of the design. The last bit of your claim is mistaken.     Quote Observable Chemistry Fact #2 Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment. Why? Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life. Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer to sheild the compounds from the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists. ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere? a) Oxygen was purposely left out if the Miller-Urey because the best evidence at the time strongly suggested that the early atmosphere had no oxygen in it. Oxygen is a “pollutant” produced by organisms. What Miller and Urey were trying to do was see if simple molecules like amino acids etc could be produced by conditions similar to those proposed on the early earth. Many other experiments of this type have been performed, testing various hypothetical early earth scenarios. b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation. c) Evidence for the early atmosphere being free of oxygen is found in the composition of rocks dated back to the Siderian period of the Precambrian.       Quote ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM Amino acids in living things 1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things. We're talking mathematics working against it now. a) There are vastly more than 2000 possible amino acid types, another basic chemical misunderstanding on your part. The fact that 22 proteinogenic amino acids (plus a few non-proteinogenic ones) are commonly found in modern organisms, is not a mathematical problem for evolutionary biology or abiogenesis. This is no more a problem than the fact that my route to the pub commonly involves me walking via the park rather than via Uzbekistan. Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc). If I were to take a pack of a billion cards and deal 22, that specific 22 card hand is no more or less improbable than any other 22 card hand. There may be reasons the 22 proteinogenic amino acids are the ones we find in modern organisms (thermodynamic stability, specific reactivity etc) but these are very complex and dependant on the chemical environment of the time.       Quote 2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers." Living things have only the left handed amino acids. When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life. a) There are a myriad of perfectly natural ways for homochirality to arise. Not least is autocatalysis (an example, again not specifically related to abiogenesis, but very indicative is my favourite the Soai reaction). Many other ways like crystal templating and chiral transmission etc. Not only that but once homochiral self-replicating systems like those actually proposed for abiogenesis exist then maintenance of homochirality is evolutionarily more favourable. b) Again, Miller and Urey were not trying to create life in a test tube, they were trying to discover if simple molecules that are the building blocks of life could be produced by the conditions proposed for the early earth at the time. They could, and were. Miller and Urey did what  they were trying to do. In conclusion, might I suggest that, instead of posting well refuted common misunderstandings of science on message boards, your missionary zeal inspired thirst for knowledge, if it actually exists, would be better served by some time in the library. As I recommended to Daniel Smith, there is a very good book on the current state of abiogenesis research by Pierre Luigi Luisi called “The Emergence of Life”. I also recommend a couple of basic chemistry courses BEFORE you tackle that book. Also, I have added a few links to Wikipedia etc for your edification. These are simple articles with very simple information in them. I suggest them as a beginning point for your investigation, not as "proof". As you claim to be a well read layman, it would behove you familiarise yourself with the very basic elements of the science you claim is in error because it contradicts your religious faith. A quick search of the internet, a medium you clearly have access to, would have disabused you of the fallacious claims you make re: abiogenesis. Thanks Louis ETA: Several edits for formatting etc. More may be needed. Also, RFJE, I have a lot of experience dealing with creationists and I operate a "three strikes" policy. Demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty and engagement and I'll happily spend my valuable time explaining things and debating. Egads. Just names and diversions by one means or another. You think you can fool us with such wordwinkery? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,18:36    " Pierre Luigi Luisi " is obviously some kind of made-up name. "Loogie Lucy" indeed. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

RFJE Posts: 45 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,21:41    Thanks, you made me feel so welcome, guys and girls.  Should I put the official research first or my thoughts first. How about the official research.  This is so fun.  And I thought I was really stupid for a minute.  Love y'all. To form protein, the amino acids are linked by dehydration synthesis to form peptide bonds. Dehydration Synthesis Definition noun, plural: dehydration syntheses A chemical reaction that builds up molecules by losing water molecules. It is a type of condensation reaction in which monomers join together into polymers while losing water molecules. This process is carried out by losing (-OH) from one of the monomers and (H) from another monomer. The two unstable monomers join together, and the (-OH) and (H) combine forming water (H2O). Condensation a chemical reaction between two molecules which links them together and expels a molecule of water. For example: the joining of two amino acids by a peptide bond during the formation of a polypeptide. ----"AWAY FROM THE WATERY ENVIRONMENT" As a polypeptide chain forms, it naturally twists and bends into its native conformation. One of the things that helps determine the native conformation of a protein is the side chains of all the amino acids involved. Remember some amino acid side chains are hydrophobic while others are hydrophilic. In this case, the “likes” attract: all the hydrophobic side chains (here represented by yellow beads) try to “get together” in the center of the molecule, away from the watery environment, while the hydrophilic side chains are attracted to the outside of the molecule, near the watery environment.References:    * Berkow, Robert, ed. 1999. The Merck Manual. 17th ed. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Rahway, NJ.    * Borror, Donald J. 1960. Dictionary of Root Words and Combining Forms. Mayfield Publ. Co.    * Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece. 1999. Biology, 5th Ed.   Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. (plus earlier editions)    * Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece. 1999. Biology: Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed.   Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. (plus earlier editions)    * Marchuk, William N. 1992. A Life Science Lexicon. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, IA. -----LEFT HANDED AMINO ACIDS EXCLUSIVELY PRODUCED IN ORGANISMS Only L  amino  acids are constituents of proteins. For almost all amino  acids , the L isomer has S (rather than R) absolute configuration (Figure 3.5). Although considerable effort has gone into understanding why amino  acids in proteins have this absolute configuration, no satisfactory explanation has been arrived at. It seems plausible that the selection of L over d was arbitrary but, once made, was fixed early in evolutionary history. * W.H. Freeman and Co. Figure 3.5.  Only L Amino Acids Are Found in Proteins. Almost all L amino acids have an S absolute configuration (from the Latin sinister meaning “left”). The counterclockwise direction of the arrow from highest- to lowest-priority substituents indicates that the chiral center is of the S configuration. I believe that this will confirm two of the points I made.  In this research I quote, "...all the hydrophobic side chains...try to 'get together' in the center of the molecule, away from the watery environment...." This is in a cell that has DNA, not in a primordial soup.  Just one dissolving peptide bond ruins the protein, or severely hinders it from functioning correctly.  And how many proteins do we need for life?  Nobody can tell, but its going to take more than a few, and of course in the right sequence.  How did this happen randomly with no DNA to guide it?  And where did DNA get the information? The other point is left handed amino acids--only produced in organisms.  Miller's random (with intelligent help) experiment produced left handed and mirror imaged AA which can not produce organic protein.[I] Do I get an A for effort guys?

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,21:50    No, you get a D for being illiterate. Sorry, but I already spent 10 years in college. Educate yourself, idiot.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,21:56    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,22:41) Thanks, you made me feel so welcome, guys and girls.  Should I put the official research first or my thoughts first... Do I get an A for effort guys? Aw, he's sorta a cute little feller, ain't he? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2009,22:00    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,21:41) To form protein, the amino acids are linked by dehydration synthesis to form peptide bonds. ---snip--- lots of sciency-sounding blabbering deleted ---unsnip--- Do I get an A for effort guys? I am always amazed at how an IDiot can take a tiny nano-bit of information, combine it with a preconceived conclusion, and generate vast amounts of tard. My hat is off to you, sir. You have taken "fractally wrong" to a new dimension. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

raguel Posts: 107 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,00:59    Y'know, if I was interested in learning, thought that racemic mixtures was lethal to abiogenesis, and someone mentioned "homochirality", I'd like to think I'd show some Christian humility and take the time to actually find out what "homochirality" was, and if I didn't understand something, ask questions. But then I'm a hardcore propagandist, not an earnest truth-seeker like RFJE.

RFJE Posts: 45 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,05:01    My purpose is not to be proud. You people lynched me.  I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.   I don't have any doubt that there are people on this thread far more credentialed than me--far more educated in science.  But I am not illiterate, and I can write, think and communicate.   My points are elementary.  A second grader is quite qualified to answer the equation 2+2=4.  I did not come here claiming to have solved the secrets of blackholes. It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.  It only takes common sense to see some impasses.   You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.  Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.  Since I have been on this site I have seen nothing but arrogance and elitism.  A vaunting of self and knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,05:21    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,03:41) Thanks, you made me feel so welcome, guys and girls.  Should I put the official research first or my thoughts first. How about the official research.  This is so fun.  And I thought I was really stupid for a minute.  Love y'all. To form protein, the amino acids are linked by dehydration synthesis to form peptide bonds. Dehydration Synthesis Definition noun, plural: dehydration syntheses A chemical reaction that builds up molecules by losing water molecules. It is a type of condensation reaction in which monomers join together into polymers while losing water molecules. This process is carried out by losing (-OH) from one of the monomers and (H) from another monomer. The two unstable monomers join together, and the (-OH) and (H) combine forming water (H2O). Condensation a chemical reaction between two molecules which links them together and expels a molecule of water. For example: the joining of two amino acids by a peptide bond during the formation of a polypeptide. ----"AWAY FROM THE WATERY ENVIRONMENT" As a polypeptide chain forms, it naturally twists and bends into its native conformation. One of the things that helps determine the native conformation of a protein is the side chains of all the amino acids involved. Remember some amino acid side chains are hydrophobic while others are hydrophilic. In this case, the “likes” attract: all the hydrophobic side chains (here represented by yellow beads) try to “get together” in the center of the molecule, away from the watery environment, while the hydrophilic side chains are attracted to the outside of the molecule, near the watery environment.References:    * Berkow, Robert, ed. 1999. The Merck Manual. 17th ed. Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Rahway, NJ.    * Borror, Donald J. 1960. Dictionary of Root Words and Combining Forms. Mayfield Publ. Co.    * Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece. 1999. Biology, 5th Ed.   Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. (plus earlier editions)    * Campbell, Neil A., Lawrence G. Mitchell, Jane B. Reece. 1999. Biology: Concepts and Connections, 3rd Ed.   Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Inc. Menlo Park, CA. (plus earlier editions)    * Marchuk, William N. 1992. A Life Science Lexicon. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, Dubuque, IA. -----LEFT HANDED AMINO ACIDS EXCLUSIVELY PRODUCED IN ORGANISMS Only L  amino  acids are constituents of proteins. For almost all amino  acids , the L isomer has S (rather than R) absolute configuration (Figure 3.5). Although considerable effort has gone into understanding why amino  acids in proteins have this absolute configuration, no satisfactory explanation has been arrived at. It seems plausible that the selection of L over d was arbitrary but, once made, was fixed early in evolutionary history. * W.H. Freeman and Co. Figure 3.5.  Only L Amino Acids Are Found in Proteins. Almost all L amino acids have an S absolute configuration (from the Latin sinister meaning “left”). The counterclockwise direction of the arrow from highest- to lowest-priority substituents indicates that the chiral center is of the S configuration. I believe that this will confirm two of the points I made.  In this research I quote, "...all the hydrophobic side chains...try to 'get together' in the center of the molecule, away from the watery environment...." This is in a cell that has DNA, not in a primordial soup.  Just one dissolving peptide bond ruins the protein, or severely hinders it from functioning correctly.  And how many proteins do we need for life?  Nobody can tell, but its going to take more than a few, and of course in the right sequence.  How did this happen randomly with no DNA to guide it?  And where did DNA get the information? The other point is left handed amino acids--only produced in organisms.  Miller's random (with intelligent help) experiment produced left handed and mirror imaged AA which can not produce organic protein.[I] Do I get an A for effort guys? RFJE, Oh dear. I spy quote mines and goalpost shifts. That'll be strike one. 1) Even though formation of the amide/peptide bond is a condensation reaction, as shown above, it doesn't necessarily have to operate in the absence of water (see comment re equilibrium processes). Repeating your original claim when it's been shown to be wrong doesn't reinforce it, especially when all you do is repeat it with copy and pastes you obviously don't understand. Let's look at a basic chemical mechanism for formation of an amide/peptide bond under the Schotten-Baumann conditions I mention above: Look at step 2 where the chloride ion is eliminated to reform the carbon oxygen double bond. The side product formed at this stage is NaCl which is insoluble in ether. The reaction requires water at this stage to solvate the side product. Not only that but the base, NaOH, is also insoluble in ether, for the reaction to work some water has to be present. Solvolysis of the NaOH requires water (in this instance). So no RFJE, your claims that a) amino acids break down in water and b) that the peptide/amide bind cannot form in the presence of water are false. 2) The formation of long chain polypeptides and protein folding are a very different case from forming simple amino acids (see Strecker synthesis for example) or simple di/polypeptides i.e. the amide/peptide bond. Any polymer forming in any solution adopts a conformation of some description. As the comment you quote (without attribution I note) mentions the conformation of the polypeptide forming depends on the hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity of the polymer forming. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not polypeptides can form in aqueous environments (they can and do) but what conformation they adopt in what environment, i.e. their tertiary (and perhaps quaternary) structure. This was your original claim: Quote Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis.  It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming  the chains that build proteins. Since amino acids demonstrably do not break down (at an appreciable rate at RTP, modest pH etc) in water (in fact they form zwitterions which are horribly stable and a pain in the arse for the synthetic chemist on occasion, you have to pH buffer aqueous solutions of amino acids to get them to behave), and since the presence of water is demonstrably not a problem for the formation of the amide bonds, in fact in many amide forming conditions it's essential, the first part of your claim is false. Not only that, as the article you misquote above notes, water does not inhibit the formation of large polypeptides, the solvation/environment of the forming polypeptide influences the conformation of the polypeptide. So again, your second, goalpost shifted claim based on a quote mine, and your original misunderstood claim are false, based as they are on your lack of understanding of chemistry. 3) No one is proposing that complex proteins got together, in the absence of DNA, right at the start of the origin of life. There are a variety of proposed scenarios, all of which require that you understand chemistry sufficiently to appreciate how an amide bond forms! Again, it would behove you to inform yourself BEFORE you spout off about topics you obviously don't understand. For example, in one scenario, self-replication is all that is required. All of this is covered in the book I recommended. 4) AGAIN, there are a variety of possible, perfectly natural mechanisms for the origins of homochirality. Personally (for a variety of technical reasons I'm not going to go into) I would advocate that on earth autocatalytic processes not unlike the Soai reaction in their kinetics would be the most likely candidate. If only because the process amplifies very slight deviations from racemic mixtures to produce almost perfectly enantiopure material. If you're interested check out the work of Prof Donna Blackmond at Imperial College, London, on the subject. The Wikipedia article I provided for you gives a few basic ideas about the origins of homochirality, please read it. So, again, the fact that there are perfectly natural mechanisms for the origin homochirality demonstrate that your claim that "homochirality is a problem for evolutionists" is false. The fact that the Miller-Urey experiment did not magically poof life into existence in a test tube is not a problem, it wasn't meant to. It's also not the only experiment that is relevant to abiogenesis, which of course you'd know if you bothered to minimally educate yourself on a subject before bloviating about it. So no, nothing you quoted confirms your claim which was: Quote 2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers."   Living things have only the left handed amino acids.  When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life. So intelligent life tried to set up a random mixture of supposed ingredients and could not do it.  It proved that some random amino acids could be produced. Your misunderstanding of the Miller-Urey experiment, and the field of study in general, is not evidence. Sorry. 5) The Miller-Urey experiment was, again, meant to demonstrate that one could produce amino acids from conditions like those proposed for the early earth. Regardless of the specific stereochemistry of the amino acids produced, it was a resounding success in that it accomplished what it set out to do. See above. 6) Where did DNA get its information? The sequence of bases in the primary structure of DNA constitutes information (in the technical sense). You're trying to put the cart before the horse. 7) Ahhh trying to have it both ways I see. Because Miller and Urey were intelligent and set up their experiments, they imparted some magical property "intelligence" to the experiment, therefore intelligence is required to make these things. You are assuming what you are trying to prove, literally begging the question, a logical fallacy. For starters, even though it is controversial, the simplest amino acid (glycine) has been (tentatively) observed in space, i.e. it has formed in the absence of "intelligent input". Even if that were not the case, your claim is still logically fallacious. Not only that but it demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the nature of the experiment (or indeed any experiment). Would you say the same thing if the Miller-Urey experiment had failed to produce any amino acids at all? No, you wouldn't, which neatly demonstrates the intellectually dishonest and bad faith mode of argumentation you employ. 8) "One dissolving peptide bond ruins the protein", since no one is suggesting that complex, modern proteins are required for the vastly simpler origins of life and since the peptide bond is actually highly stable, this complaint isn't even relevant. 9) People CAN tell how many proteins (or indeed how many "anything") are needed for "life", minimal "living" systems are currently the objects of extensive research. Your complaint relies on a) ignorance of current research and b) and equivocation on what constitutes "life". 10) A for effort? No. You get an F for failing to minimally educate yourself about a topic before bloviating erroneously about it. My sympathy for you is running out. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,05:22    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 10 2009,00:32) [SNIP ME] Egads. Just names and diversions by one means or another. You think you can fool us with such wordwinkery? No. We all really know chemistry is a conspiracy to keep you from Jebus. Shhh don't tell anyone. Louis -------------- Bye.

Cedric Katesby Posts: 55 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:07    Yay. New toy. New toy. :)

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:09    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,11:01) My purpose is not to be proud. You people lynched me.  I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.   I don't have any doubt that there are people on this thread far more credentialed than me--far more educated in science.  But I am not illiterate, and I can write, think and communicate.   My points are elementary.  A second grader is quite qualified to answer the equation 2+2=4.  I did not come here claiming to have solved the secrets of blackholes. It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.  It only takes common sense to see some impasses.   You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.  Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.  Since I have been on this site I have seen nothing but arrogance and elitism.  A vaunting of self and knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom. RFJE, Since this has to be one of the more odious posts I've encountered from anyone, I'm counting this as strike two. 1) Lynched you? LYNCHED you? Hardly. You came in making demonstrably erroneous claims in an incredibly arrogant manner (more on this later). Do you seriously expect to be treated politely by everyone you encounter when you do this? 2) "Credentialed" people exist who don't share my "worldview" (whatever that is) or "theory" (which one?). No shit, Sherlock. There is no one, NO ONE, on this board who is unaware of this fact. The trading of authorities is not anything anyone is interested in. The evidence is what matters, not what number of PhDs you might have on your "team" (which to be blunt, if we were going to pull the authority card, which we won't, we'd win by miles). 3) So what if people are more educated than you? Your claims stand or fall on the evidence that supports them, not whether or not someone is more educated than you. It behoves you to inform yourself about the evidence supporting the claims you make. When the evidence does not support them, or refutes them (as is the case here) then you are beholden to withdraw your claims as false. That is the honest and humble thing to do. 4) The "problems" you claim exist for our "theory" (whatever your caricature of it might be) are not problems at all (as demonstrated). They are based on your lack of relevant scientific knowledge and your misunderstandings of what evolutionary biology and abiogenesis constitute. An honest and humble person takes appropriate correction when needed, and bothers to minimally educate themselves on a topic before claiming that problems with as specific piece of science exist. 5)  Elitism. No one has claimed, or is claiming, that an understanding of the relevant science is beyond you. All anyone has claimed, with a great deal of justification, is that your claims are derived from your demonstrable ignorance and lack of understanding of the relevant topics. This is not beyond your ability to correct. This is not elitist, it is a simple fact. In fact I have given you links to basic material that is understandable by an educated layman, and doesn't require a huge quantity of specialist knowledge. I am encouraging you to learn about that which you make claims about. This is the opposite of elitism, it is the very epitome of inclusiveness. You can learn about the relevant science and there are people willing to help. The fact that the relevant science requires that you put in some effort to learn it and understand it is not elitism. 6) Arrogance. Common sense is all that is required to overturn the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists over decades if not centuries? All of these people, experts in their relevant fields, are wrong based on the say so of your "common sense"? And you accuse us of arrogance? No evidence required, no education in the relevant issues or science, no understanding (note I do not say "qualification", because it isn't required)? And you're an expert in humility? Crikey RFJE, I'd love to see how arrogant a non-expert in humility was! 7) " Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom." Translation: I've made claims based on ignorance of science and I was relying on the people I made the claims to to be similarly ignorant. They aren't, therefore it must be their fault my claims are wrong. Please start acting in good faith, and with a modicum of intellectual honesty and effort. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:09    Quote (Cedric Katesby @ Feb. 10 2009,12:07) Yay. New toy. New toy. :) Not for long I suspect. Louis -------------- Bye.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:17    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,05:01) My purpose is not to be proud. No, your purpose is to reinforce your preconceived conclusion. Quote You people lynched me. No, as far as I can tell, you are handling that job quite well on your own.   Quote I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.   We are far more familiar with the research than you are, and the fact that there are dissenters on just about every topic in science does not mean that the consensus is wrong. Quote I don't have any doubt that there are people on this thread far more credentialed than me--far more educated in science.   Then why don't you listen to them, rather than assume that your conclusion is correct even after being shown the errors in your assumptions and your thinking? Quote But I am not illiterate, and I can write, think and communicate. Those are minimal requirements for discussion here. Why do you even mention them?   Quote My points are elementary.  A second grader is quite qualified to answer the equation 2+2=4.  I did not come here claiming to have solved the secrets of blackholes. It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.  It only takes common sense to see some impasses. No, you came here blustering that you know more about chemistry than the experts, and proceeded to demonstrate that you really have nothing new to offer. And yes, there are some "impasses", or unresolved questions, in just about every science. What is the point of that strawman?  Quote You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice. Clearly your study of humility has left you less than humble. Quote Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.   That's backward in your case then, because your lack of knowledge has only puffed you up, and your godly love has not edified any of us here. Quote Since I have been on this site I have seen nothing but arrogance and elitism.  A vaunting of self and knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom. And you are so full of ignorance that you have no room for humility. bye -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:33    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01) My purpose is not to be proud. You people lynched me.  I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory.   I don't have any doubt that there are people on this thread far more credentialed than me--far more educated in science.  But I am not illiterate, and I can write, think and communicate.   My points are elementary.  A second grader is quite qualified to answer the equation 2+2=4.  I did not come here claiming to have solved the secrets of blackholes. It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has.  It only takes common sense to see some impasses.   You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice.  Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies.  Since I have been on this site I have seen nothing but arrogance and elitism.  A vaunting of self and knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same.  I think some of you are so full of knowledge you have no room for wisdom. Bzzzzt. Your play of the "humility" and "wisdom" cards is contradicted by the nauseating, presumptive arrogance of your posts. You do in fact possess a second grade education in these matters - worse, really, in that you have immersed yourself in the rotting fish-heads of creationist disinformation - yet from this stance of willful ignorance actually imagine that you are detecting and articulating problems missed, indeed hidden, by an entire community of tens of thousands of working scientists. Puffed up? You're a fucking blowfish. If this typical of the edification supplied by godly love, please take it elsewhere. Asshole. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,06:37    Page turn bug so soon? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,07:07    Oh, don't worry RB, I don't think this one will give up so easily! I mean, He's got a chemist, and actual chemist (thanks Louis, I learned a lot), to spell it out to him, but still he comes back. But at least, what he lacks in knowledge, he has made up for so far by engaging the "issue" in a so non-FTK way. Give him those 2 remaining strikes before we can all agree that he is a fully commited IDot. -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Spottedwind Posts: 83 Joined: Aug. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,07:09    Great post Louis.  Though I have to say that the stand out part for me was:   Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,16:47) Also, I have added a few links to Wikipedia etc for your edification. These are simple articles with very simple information in them. I suggest them as a beginning point for your investigation, not as "proof". Now, I'm not a big Wikipedia fan, but what I like is that you stress that it is the beginning of learning, not the end.  It's not a matter of 'Here, Wikipedia says this, so it is' but a 'teach thyself' offer; which to me is even better.  I'm pretty sure the offer is lost on RFJE but such is life.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,07:32    Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,13:07) Oh, don't worry RB, I don't think this one will give up so easily! I mean, He's got a chemist, and actual chemist (thanks Louis, I learned a lot), to spell it out to him, but still he comes back. But at least, what he lacks in knowledge, he has made up for so far by engaging the "issue" in a so non-FTK way. Give him those 2 remaining strikes before we can all agree that he is a fully commited IDot. But I skipped over the really beautiful detail (one reason the technical post on bonding I want to do for Lou is taking me so long is because I am NOT skipping the detail. I want to do a good job. Sorry Lou). If the guy is struggling at the differences between amino acid, amide/peptide bond, dipeptide/short chain polypeptide, and long chain polypeptide/protein or primary structure vs tertiary structure then what the hell is the point of discussing real mechanistic detail with him?* Bond strengths, rate constants, quantum mechanics and delocalisation, all of these and more illuminate the topic of abiogenesis wonderfully. It's vastly more detailed and complex than a few words from a numpty like me. I know I bang on about it, but if anyone takes the time to understand the Soai reaction's kinetics it is truly fascinating. If anyone has read Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter (or any of his other stuff about strange loops etc) then it will be immediately obvious how relevant it is. The detail really is fun, it's not just for chemistry geeks like me. Louis *The occasional chemdraw scheme isn't too much of an imposition, but excessive equation editor bores the absolute arse off of me, the effort is only worth it for special cases! -------------- Bye.

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,07:37    Mayberry RFD, You are right and I am wrong. You are not illiterate.  My mistake.  Wrong word. You are ignorant, however. Also, I gave you a D out of charity.  Back in the day when I was teaching, if you had turned in on a test what you wrote, I would have failed you. So, I'm taking back the D and giving you an F. But, I'm not done yet! Should you return, please explain the importance of "common sense" in science.  Start with the Observable Fact that the Sun rises in the east, sets in the west and the Earth observably does not move much less rotate at a rate of 1000 miles per hour.  Then, using common sense, describe or prove a heliocentric system of sun and planets, and that the Earth moves and rotates. Thank you for playing Common Sense 101. p.s.  There will be a quiz on Monday.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,07:46    Quote (Spottedwind @ Feb. 10 2009,13:09) Great post Louis.  Though I have to say that the stand out part for me was:   Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,16:47) Also, I have added a few links to Wikipedia etc for your edification. These are simple articles with very simple information in them. I suggest them as a beginning point for your investigation, not as "proof". Now, I'm not a big Wikipedia fan, but what I like is that you stress that it is the beginning of learning, not the end.  It's not a matter of 'Here, Wikipedia says this, so it is' but a 'teach thyself' offer; which to me is even better.  I'm pretty sure the offer is lost on RFJE but such is life. The point is lost on the RFJEs/Denials/FTKs/etc of this world. It's always the thing that annoys me with creationists/denialists of any species: claim humility on their part, claim arrogance on the part of scientists, claim persecution by an elite and then spout off about a topic they clearly know nothing about or make egregious errors and refuse to correct them. It's not like it's restricted to the "foot soldiers" either, the Hams and Dembskis of the creationist world do this too. I don't go to bible websites and tell them the bible proves Jesus was a llama and then claim persecution when they (quite rightly) excoriate me. In fact I don't go to bible websites at all! They just have to learn that their ignorance is not as good as anyone else's knowledge. Well, they just have to learn! Louis -------------- Bye.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,07:53    Hip Hip Hurray and Huzzah to everyone on this thread - I think it proves the InterTubes do work... I nominate this entire thread for teh coveted Thread Of The Week  Award , (which I just invented)  and would like it submitted to the Noble and Pullitzer Committees and of course the Smithsonian and British Museums, and for Schrodingers Dog, La Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie. Congratulations to you all. added in edit:  And send it to AIG - "Arguments Not To Use Cuz You'll Look Teh Stoopids." -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,08:20    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,07:32) Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,13:07) Oh, don't worry RB, I don't think this one will give up so easily! I mean, He's got a chemist, and actual chemist (thanks Louis, I learned a lot), to spell it out to him, but still he comes back. But at least, what he lacks in knowledge, he has made up for so far by engaging the "issue" in a so non-FTK way. Give him those 2 remaining strikes before we can all agree that he is a fully commited IDot. But I skipped over the really beautiful detail (one reason the technical post on bonding I want to do for Lou is taking me so long is because I am NOT skipping the detail. I want to do a good job. Sorry Lou). If the guy is struggling at the differences between amino acid, amide/peptide bond, dipeptide/short chain polypeptide, and long chain polypeptide/protein or primary structure vs tertiary structure then what the hell is the point of discussing real mechanistic detail with him?* Bond strengths, rate constants, quantum mechanics and delocalisation, all of these and more illuminate the topic of abiogenesis wonderfully. It's vastly more detailed and complex than a few words from a numpty like me. I know I bang on about it, but if anyone takes the time to understand the Soai reaction's kinetics it is truly fascinating. If anyone has read Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter (or any of his other stuff about strange loops etc) then it will be immediately obvious how relevant it is. The detail really is fun, it's not just for chemistry geeks like me. Louis *The occasional chemdraw scheme isn't too much of an imposition, but excessive equation editor bores the absolute arse off of me, the effort is only worth it for special cases! Louis, I trully admire your commitment. I only wish MY teachers were so good at their job. RFJE should be gratefull for that. I am but a humble entertainer, going "down" in the Blipey class (Blipey, nothing diminishing there, I was merely pointing out the fact that non-scientists can be quite smart and informed), But even I, so simple and basicaly unbiased, can see where the evidence points, and the way it points is nowhere near what RFJE thinks/says/extrapolates... Taking out the blindfolds would be a nice start, RFJE... -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Dr.GH Posts: 2324 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,08:33    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,19:41) The other point is left handed amino acids--only produced in organisms.  Miller's random (with intelligent help) experiment produced left handed and mirror imaged AA which can not produce organic protein.[I] Do I get an A for effort guys? Before this new one runs away; Regarding chirality (which creationists like to pontificate about without the slightest idea of what it means), there is actually no problem at all. L-amino acids are not the only form of AAs used. Pasteur discovered that most amino acids came in two forms which can be identified by how they refract light. We label theses L- (for levo or left) and D- (for dextro, or right). The interesting thing is that life on Earth uses the L form of amino acids, and hardly ever uses the D- form. A solution of just one form is called "chiral" and a mix of forms about 50/50 is called racimic. The kinds (L or D) are called enantomers. The nucleic acid bases are also found in L- and D- forms, only in this case life on Earth only uses the D- form. Creationists like to present this as a profound mystery that is supposed to "prove" that they are correct. I want to mention a neat instance where both left and right amino acids are used in a living thing. It seems at first to be very rare, but it does happen. Next time a creationist claims to be an "expert" and that amino acid chirility "proves" something supernatural, you can gob-smack-em. I have found that even many biologists will bet an "adult beverage" that all proteins are exclusive L- amino acids. The protein is called Gramicidin A and it has 8 L-amino acids, 6 D-amino acids, and one glycine which is an amino acid that is neither L- or D- in its structure. Gramicidin A links to itself and forms a transmenbrane pore. An important feature of these short racemic peptides is that they always form a helix. Before we go forward another couple of basic chemical facts need to be added to the discussion. First, L- amino acids will randomly convert to D- amino acids over time, and D- forms will convert to L- forms. This is called "racimization" because eventually you will end up with equal amounts of L- and D- amino acids. The rate that this occurs at varies with the amino acid, and its surroundings. The fastest conversion happens to amino acid molecules all by themselves in hot water. Under cold, dry conditions when the amino acids are attached to one another, or better yet, if they are also attached to a mineral, racimization can be very slow. Very, very slow. This means that if there is even a tiny advantage one way or the other, the favored form will become the dominant form. The advantage comes from a surprising direction: outer space. Cronin, J. R. & Pizzarello, S., 1999. Amino acid enantomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 293-299. Service, RF, 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283. Antonio Chrysostomou, T. M. Gledhill,1 Fransois M‚nard, J. H. Hough, Motohide Tamura and Jeremy Bailey 2000 "Polarimetry of young stellar objects -III. Circular polarimetry of OMC-1" Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Volume 312 Issue 1 Page 103 - February Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy, 1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838. Jeremy Bailey, Antonio Chrysostomou, J. H. Hough, T. M. Gledhill, Alan McCall, Stuart Clark, Fran‡ois M‚nard, and Motohide Tamura 1998 Circular Polarization in Star- Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular Homochirality Science 1998 July 31; 281: 672-674. (in Reports) Chyba, Christopher F. 1997 Origins of life: A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389, 234- 235 (18 Sep 1997) Engel, M. H., S. A. Macko 1997 Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non- racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389, 265 - 268 (18 Sep) Letters to Nature That should do for that. The next question is can the advantage of L- amino acids be conserved in the formation of more complex molecules called "peptides?" Yep. Schmidt, J. G., Nielsen, P. E. & Orgel, L. E. 1997 Enantiomeric cross- inhibition in the synthesis of oligonucleotides on a nonchiral template. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 1494-1495 Saghatelion A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K, Ghadiri MR, 2001"A chiroselective peptide replicator", Nature 409: 797-51, Feb Singleton, D A,& Vo, L K, 2002 "Enantioselective Synthsis without Discrete Optically Active Additives" J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 10010-10011 Yao Shao, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, Chmielewski J. 1998 Selective amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system. Nature. Dec 3;396(6710):447-50. And there seems to be other L- selection advantages as well. For example: Hazen, R.M., T.R. Filley, and G.A. Goodfriend. 2001. Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(May 8):5487. So chirility doesn't seem to be a big problem. This is far different from the way creationists present this. They cite a few out of date reports and then falsely claim that chiral life is impossible by natural means. There are larger arguments for a racemic origin of life. Edward Trifonov (2004) confirmed two ideas, that the earliest amino acids were those easiest to form abiotically, that codons and aa's organized contemporaneously to form short ogliomers (what he didn't cite was the notion that oligomers can form spontaneously, are "selected" merely by being stable, and that RNAs (or Lacanzo and Miller's PNAs) imprint and replicate "successful" short peptides.) Trifonov wrote, "The amino-acid chronology itself is a quintessence of natural simplicity and opportunism: use first those amino acids that are available. When done with all codons, take from those amino acids that have too many." The fact is that there are a growing list of short proteins with D- aa's, (most of the ones I know of are bacterial membrane components but there are also examples from yeasts to humans). Add to this, most bacteria have evolved enzymes that convert L-aa's to D-aa's for the same Miller/prebiotic amino acids. Again even we humans have enzymes to use D-aa's. ETA: I forgot to include two citations: Lazcano, Antonio, Stanley L. Miller 1996 “The Origin and Early Evolution of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, the Pre-RNA World, and Time” Cell vol 85:793-798 Trifonov, Edward N. 2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles" Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1, (2004) Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 10 2009,13:23 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,08:35    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,05:01) My purpose is not to be proud. You people lynched me. The reaction you got is the normal reaction to be expected when a complete know-nothing comes blasting in, convinced that they have all the answers and that the scientists are completely ignorant on the subject they have spent decades studying. Quote  I was only showing you that the research is there for all to see, AND there are credentialed people in science that do not share your worldview or theory. Do you seriously think that we are not aware of these people that those on the creation/ID side believe to be credentialed and therefore correct? And you accuse us of arrogance! Quote My points are elementary. So why did you assume that no-one has considered them? Quote It is not required that I have a PHD in biochemistry to see the problems your theory has. Interestingly, even people with PhDs have failed to find problems in the theory of evolution. In fact, the better a person is informed on the topic, the less likely they are to have problems with it. Quote You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice. I recall you've said you've been a missionary. In my opinion, nobody is as arrogant as a missionary. Imagine, that of the thousands of religions around, you have found the one true one and are sufficiently convinced that you have the urge to convert all others. What could possibly be more arrogant? -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,08:52    His purpose was to be a martyr, which he has accomplished. You have to have a little bitty bit of experience with the "Darwinists," just like the totally canned "missionary experience." It's street cred - then you can go back to tell your grandchildren all about how you battled the forces of evil. (Yes, I saw the missionary experience, not in Africa, in Jamaica. What a waste, compared to what my organization was doing - but we actually had to consult with the Jamaican people we were working with as equals! The missionaries sat in a circle and talked about God and hauled rocks around; we connected a computer network so that the kids at York Castle High could teleconference with the kids at St. Paul Academy. ) -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,08:53    Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,13:53) Hip Hip Hurray and Huzzah to everyone on this thread - I think it proves the InterTubes do work... I nominate this entire thread for teh coveted Thread Of The Week  Award , (which I just invented)  and would like it submitted to the Noble and Pullitzer Committees and of course the Smithsonian and British Museums, and for Schrodingers Dog, La Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie. Congratulations to you all. added in edit:  And send it to AIG - "Arguments Not To Use Cuz You'll Look Teh Stoopids." Thread of the week? Does it last for a whole hour? Louis -------------- Bye.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,09:29    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,08:53) Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,13:53) Hip Hip Hurray and Huzzah to everyone on this thread - I think it proves the InterTubes do work... I nominate this entire thread for teh coveted Thread Of The Week  Award , (which I just invented)  and would like it submitted to the Noble and Pullitzer Committees and of course the Smithsonian and British Museums, and for Schrodingers Dog, La Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie. Congratulations to you all. added in edit:  And send it to AIG - "Arguments Not To Use Cuz You'll Look Teh Stoopids." Thread of the week? Does it last for a whole hour? Louis No - For the entire year, IMO.  This thread will be hard to top. As a matter of fact, the next time I run into my former state Senator, I will ask him to put this in ALL the text books as an example of How To Do It Right.  I think Barack will agree. You have obviously confused the Post Of The Week with the Much More Prestigious Thread Of The Week... edited for sp -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,09:46    Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,15:29) Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,08:53)   Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,13:53) Hip Hip Hurray and Huzzah to everyone on this thread - I think it proves the InterTubes do work... I nominate this entire thread for teh coveted Thread Of The Week  Award , (which I just invented)  and would like it submitted to the Noble and Pullitzer Committees and of course the Smithsonian and British Museums, and for Schrodingers Dog, La Cité des Sciences et de l'Industrie. Congratulations to you all. added in edit:  And send it to AIG - "Arguments Not To Use Cuz You'll Look Teh Stoopids." Thread of the week? Does it last for a whole hour? Louis No - For the entire year, IMO.  This thread will be hard to top. As a matter of fact, the next time I run into my former state Senator, I will ask him to put this in ALL the text books as an example of How To Do It Right.  I think Barack will agree. You have obviously confused the Post Of The Week with the Much More Prestigious Thread Of The Week... edited for sp But surely in AtBC-world more prestige = less time. So the prestigious POTW can last for hours, maybe even days, and as TOTW is even more prestigious it should possibly last for minutes. Just think POTY could last for picoseconds... ;-) Louis P.S. I think the POTUS has more important issues on his hands than POTW. Like being funky for one (sorry, I've been reading Sinfest again). -------------- Bye.

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,10:30    Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 10 2009,08:35)       Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,05:01) You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice. I recall you've said you've been a missionary. In my opinion, nobody is as arrogant as a missionary. Imagine, that of the thousands of religions around, you have found the one true one and are sufficiently convinced that you have the urge to convert all others. What could possibly be more arrogant? Ah, but you misconstrue his point.  His area of expertise is not the practice of humility, it's the regurgitation of aphorisms about humility.     Quote Knowledge puffs up, but godly love edifies. See? -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,12:26    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,16:47) **LENGTH AND SLIGHT CHEMISTRY WARNING** Dear RFJE, As I’ve said already “Hello and Welcome”, I hope you have a productive and enjoyable time here at AtBC. I’m always amused when people come in espousing well refuted canards, erroneous nonsense, and generally being unpleasant. Especially when they then complain that they are somehow persecuted by the less than pleasant replies such behaviour engenders. I am, however, for the moment going to ignore all that nonsense and focus on the chemical claims you make. I’m also going to ignore the philosophical and biological errors you make re: origin of life/naturalism/evolution. Others can deal with those if they like. What I’m going to do is make a break down of your chemical claims to make sure I have them correct:       Quote Observable Chemistry Fact #1 Presence of water is a problem: Some amino acids break down in water by the process called hydrolysis. It actually breaks the bonds of the amino acids preventing them from forming the chains that build proteins. Stanley Miller, who attempted to create life in a test tube in the early 1950's, knew this, and isolated the products in order to avoid this destructive reaction. a) Amino acids do not simply “break down” in aqueous solution at any appreciable rate at room temperature (and in the absence of other reagents), nor indeed do dipeptides or polypeptides. You can in fact buy aqueous solutions of most amino acids. The hydrolysis of the amide bond is comparatively difficult to achieve, normally requiring more forcing conditions (strong acid or base, or powerful nucleophiles etc). I think what you are trying to get at is that formation of the peptide/amide bond, which since it is a condensation reaction (i.e. the formation of an amide results in the elimination of a small molecule like water), is hindered by the presence of water. Below I have drawn a simple amino acid and a simple dipeptide (no solution structure is implied) to illustrate the difference for you. Unfortunately, you are clearly unaware of very basic methods in chemical synthesis. Even though these are not claimed to be the precise routes taken during abiogenesis, they clearly demonstrate that water is not necessarily a hurdle to amide synthesis. Take for example the Schotten -Baumann conditions for peptide synthesis. This is where a biphasic mixture of solvents, one of which is water and the other a water immiscible organic solvent, are used. The simplistic treatment of the various methods of peptide synthesis as equilibrium processes, and hence trivially subject to Le Chatelier's principle, misses many of the other thermodynamic and kinetic factors and is, in this case at least, erroneous. Solid phase methods of peptide synthesis or use of activating agents like various carbodiimides etc can also be performed in the presence of water. Water isn’t the problem you think it is. Not only that, aqueous phase syntheses of simple poly/dipeptides are not the only methods proposed for the origins of these sorts of molecules. b) The Miller-Urey experiment included water as part of the design. The last bit of your claim is mistaken.       Quote Observable Chemistry Fact #2 Presence of Oxygen: Stanley Miller purposely left out oxygen in his experiment. Why? Because he knew that oxygen would be corrosive and tend to destroy the organic compounds for life. Some scientists have suggested that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen, but then the atmosphere would have had no ozone layer to sheild the compounds from the ultraviolet rays of the sun---a catch 22 for evolutionists. ALso, is there any evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere? a) Oxygen was purposely left out if the Miller-Urey because the best evidence at the time strongly suggested that the early atmosphere had no oxygen in it. Oxygen is a “pollutant” produced by organisms. What Miller and Urey were trying to do was see if simple molecules like amino acids etc could be produced by conditions similar to those proposed on the early earth. Many other experiments of this type have been performed, testing various hypothetical early earth scenarios. b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation. c) Evidence for the early atmosphere being free of oxygen is found in the composition of rocks dated back to the Siderian period of the Precambrian.       Quote ANOTHER SIGNIFIGANT PROBLEM Amino acids in living things 1. There are 2000 types amino acids, of which are only 20 are found in living things. We're talking mathematics working against it now. a) There are vastly more than 2000 possible amino acid types, another basic chemical misunderstanding on your part. The fact that 22 proteinogenic amino acids (plus a few non-proteinogenic ones) are commonly found in modern organisms, is not a mathematical problem for evolutionary biology or abiogenesis. This is no more a problem than the fact that my route to the pub commonly involves me walking via the park rather than via Uzbekistan. Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc). If I were to take a pack of a billion cards and deal 22, that specific 22 card hand is no more or less improbable than any other 22 card hand. There may be reasons the 22 proteinogenic amino acids are the ones we find in modern organisms (thermodynamic stability, specific reactivity etc) but these are very complex and dependant on the chemical environment of the time.       Quote 2. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM--All amino acids come in left and right handed forms called "enantiomers." Living things have only the left handed amino acids. When Stanley Miller attempted life in a test tube, he produced only a racemic mixture of right and left handed amino acids that is detrimental to life. a) There are a myriad of perfectly natural ways for homochirality to arise. Not least is autocatalysis (an example, again not specifically related to abiogenesis, but very indicative is my favourite the Soai reaction). Many other ways like crystal templating and chiral transmission etc. Not only that but once homochiral self-replicating systems like those actually proposed for abiogenesis exist then maintenance of homochirality is evolutionarily more favourable. b) Again, Miller and Urey were not trying to create life in a test tube, they were trying to discover if simple molecules that are the building blocks of life could be produced by the conditions proposed for the early earth at the time. They could, and were. Miller and Urey did what  they were trying to do. In conclusion, might I suggest that, instead of posting well refuted common misunderstandings of science on message boards, your missionary zeal inspired thirst for knowledge, if it actually exists, would be better served by some time in the library. As I recommended to Daniel Smith, there is a very good book on the current state of abiogenesis research by Pierre Luigi Luisi called “The Emergence of Life”. I also recommend a couple of basic chemistry courses BEFORE you tackle that book. Also, I have added a few links to Wikipedia etc for your edification. These are simple articles with very simple information in them. I suggest them as a beginning point for your investigation, not as "proof". As you claim to be a well read layman, it would behove you familiarise yourself with the very basic elements of the science you claim is in error because it contradicts your religious faith. A quick search of the internet, a medium you clearly have access to, would have disabused you of the fallacious claims you make re: abiogenesis. Thanks Louis ETA: Several edits for formatting etc. More may be needed. Also, RFJE, I have a lot of experience dealing with creationists and I operate a "three strikes" policy. Demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty and engagement and I'll happily spend my valuable time explaining things and debating.   Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 10 2009,09:33)   Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 09 2009,19:41) The other point is left handed amino acids--only produced in organisms.  Miller's random (with intelligent help) experiment produced left handed and mirror imaged AA which can not produce organic protein.[I] Do I get an A for effort guys? Before this new one runs away; Regarding chirality (which creationists like to pontificate about without the slightest idea of what it means), there is actually no problem at all. L-amino acids are not the only form of AAs used. Pasteur discovered that most amino acids came in two forms which can be identified by how they refract light. We label theses L- (for levo or left) and D- (for dextro, or right). The interesting thing is that life on Earth uses the L form of amino acids, and hardly ever uses the D- form. A solution of just one form is called "chiral" and a mix of forms about 50/50 is called racimic. The kinds (L or D) are called enantomers. The nucleic acid bases are also found in L- and D- forms, only in this case life on Earth only uses the D- form. Creationists like to present this as a profound mystery that is supposed to "prove" that they are correct. I want to mention a neat instance where both left and right amino acids are used in a living thing. It seems at first to be very rare, but it does happen. Next time a creationist claims to be an "expert" and that amino acid chirility "proves" something supernatural, you can gob-smack-em. I have found that even many biologists will bet an "adult beverage" that all proteins are exclusive L- amino acids. The protein is called Gramicidin A and it has 8 L-amino acids, 6 D-amino acids, and one glycine which is an amino acid that is neither L- or D- in its structure. Gramicidin A links to itself and forms a transmenbrane pore. An important feature of these short racemic peptides is that they always form a helix. Before we go forward another couple of basic chemical facts need to be added to the discussion. First, L- amino acids will randomly convert to D- amino acids over time, and D- forms will convert to L- forms. This is called "racimization" because eventually you will end up with equal amounts of L- and D- amino acids. The rate that this occurs at varies with the amino acid, and its surroundings. The fastest conversion happens to amino acid molecules all by themselves in hot water. Under cold, dry conditions when the amino acids are attached to one another, or better yet, if they are also attached to a mineral, racimization can be very slow. Very, very slow. This means that if there is even a tiny advantage one way or the other, the favored form will become the dominant form. The advantage comes from a surprising direction: outer space. Cronin, J. R. & Pizzarello, S., 1999. Amino acid enantomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 293-299. Service, RF, 1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283. Antonio Chrysostomou, T. M. Gledhill,1 Fransois M‚nard, J. H. Hough, Motohide Tamura and Jeremy Bailey 2000 "Polarimetry of young stellar objects -III. Circular polarimetry of OMC-1" Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Volume 312 Issue 1 Page 103 - February Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy, 1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838. Jeremy Bailey, Antonio Chrysostomou, J. H. Hough, T. M. Gledhill, Alan McCall, Stuart Clark, Fran‡ois M‚nard, and Motohide Tamura 1998 Circular Polarization in Star- Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular Homochirality Science 1998 July 31; 281: 672-674. (in Reports) Chyba, Christopher F. 1997 Origins of life: A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389, 234- 235 (18 Sep 1997) Engel, M. H., S. A. Macko 1997 Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non- racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389, 265 - 268 (18 Sep) Letters to Nature That should do for that. The next question is can the advantage of L- amino acids be conserved in the formation of more complex molecules called "peptides?" Yep. Schmidt, J. G., Nielsen, P. E. & Orgel, L. E. 1997 Enantiomeric cross- inhibition in the synthesis of oligonucleotides on a nonchiral template. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 1494-1495 Saghatelion A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K, Ghadiri MR, 2001"A chiroselective peptide replicator", Nature 409: 797-51, Feb Singleton, D A,& Vo, L K, 2002 "Enantioselective Synthsis without Discrete Optically Active Additives" J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 10010-10011 Yao Shao, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, Chmielewski J. 1998 Selective amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system. Nature. Dec 3;396(6710):447-50. And there seems to be other L- selection advantages as well. For example: Hazen, R.M., T.R. Filley, and G.A. Goodfriend. 2001. Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(May 8):5487. So chirility doesn't seem to be a big problem. This is far different from the way creationists present this. They cite a few out of date reports and then falsely claim that chiral life is impossible by natural means. There are larger arguments for a racemic origin of life. Edward Trifonov (2004) confirmed two ideas, that the earliest amino acids were those easiest to form abiotically, that codons and aa's organized contemporaneously to form short ogliomers (what he didn't cite was the notion that oligomers can form spontaneously, are "selected" merely by being stable, and that RNAs (or Lacanzo and Miller's PNAs) imprint and replicate "successful" short peptides.) Trifonov wrote, "The amino-acid chronology itself is a quintessence of natural simplicity and opportunism: use first those amino acids that are available. When done with all codons, take from those amino acids that have too many." The fact is that there are a growing list of short proteins with D- aa's, (most of the ones I know of are bacterial membrane components but there are also examples from yeasts to humans). Add to this, most bacteria have evolved enzymes that convert L-aa's to D-aa's for the same Miller/prebiotic amino acids. Again even we humans have enzymes to use D-aa's. ETA: I forgot to include two citations: Lazcano, Antonio, Stanley L. Miller 1996 “The Origin and Early Evolution of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, the Pre-RNA World, and Time” Cell vol 85:793-798 Trifonov, Edward N. 2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles" Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1, (2004) I am hereby unilaterally awarding dual PotWs. Excellent and informative, not to mention just plain cool science. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,12:37    Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 10 2009,18:26) [SNIP] I am hereby unilaterally awarding dual PotWs. Excellent and informative, not to mention just plain cool science. POTW? How long for? I want at least an hour! ;-) Louis -------------- Bye.

ppb Posts: 325 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:08    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01) You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice. You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.   Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint. -------------- "[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd." - Richard P. Feynman

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:25    Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,13:08)   Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01) You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice. You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint. A saint?  Louis?  Well, he could look like this Saint, I guess.. For those that couldn't place it, this is actually Marcelino Ravery.  Or maybe Louis at last weeks staff meeting... he is British donchaknow, and they do take things a bit more seriously than we do here in the states. -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:33    Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,19:08) Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01) You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice. You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.   Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry, I appreciate the compliment but I am a horribly impatient and intolerant person. I've just mentioned your comment to my wife, she is sending over a trained psychologist and counsellor. Taking that level of hallucinogenic drugs is not good for you. Thanks though. Louis ETA: Of my many great qualities I think my humility is probably my best one. -------------- Bye.

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:36    Quote b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation. Isn't UV also absorped by water? I always thought that the shorter the wavelenght, the more water the light can pass through before it's filtered out. I tried to find out how deep that is for UV light and I found this list (German) with absorption coefficents for different wavelenght and the layer thickness* after which the intensity is reduced to 1/1000 of the original: Lambda(nm)     k(1/m)      x(0,001)(m) ======================================= 200           ca. 7            1 250           ca. 1            7 300           ca. 0,2         35 350           ca. 0,2         35 400           ca. 0,06       110 450           ca. 0,02       350 500           ca. 0,025      280 550           ca. 0,05       140 600           ca. 0,2         35 650           ca. 0,32        22 700           ca. 0,65        11 750           ca. 2,6          2,7 800           ca. 2,0          3,5 1000            37            0,19 So, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the light can reach seems to be true only for the visible light. According to this list UV light can't reach as deep as e.g. blue light. Does anyone know whether that is true? Unfortunately, the author of that list states that he found several vastly different absorption coefficents for UV light in the literature and he would provide only a "best guess". * This isn't exactly a topic I discuss on a daily basis, so I'm not sure whether I use the correct terms. I hope it's still clear what I mean.... -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:36    Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 10 2009,19:25) Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,13:08)   Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01) You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice. You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint. A saint?  Louis?  Well, he could look like this Saint, I guess.. For those that couldn't place it, this is actually Marcelino Ravery.  Or maybe Louis at last weeks staff meeting... he is British donchaknow, and they do take things a bit more seriously than we do here in the states. Ok, I'll cough to wearing the funny dress, but a crucifix? Come ON! Even I wouldn't go that far. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:48    Oh and before I forget, I just want to commend Gary (Dr GH) for his post, I didn't even think of explaining to RFJE that there are organisms with "unnatural" amino acids in them. This is why a multidisciplinary approach is a great thing. The consilience of data from disparate fields is one thing creationists can't get their heads around. Cheers Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,13:57    Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,19:36) Quote b) Lack of stratospheric ozone is not a problem because UV radiation is not only destructive. It is also positively useful. Many “complex” molecules exist in space (in conditions of vastly greater UV radiation), not only that but UV can promote certain reactions. For example the formose reaction is positively aided by UV radiation. Isn't UV also absorped by water? I always thought that the shorter the wavelenght, the more water the light can pass through before it's filtered out. I tried to find out how deep that is for UV light and I found this list (German) with absorption coefficents for different wavelenght and the layer thickness* after which the intensity is reduced to 1/1000 of the original: Lambda(nm)     k(1/m)      x(0,001)(m) ======================================= 200           ca. 7            1 250           ca. 1            7 300           ca. 0,2         35 350           ca. 0,2         35 400           ca. 0,06       110 450           ca. 0,02       350 500           ca. 0,025      280 550           ca. 0,05       140 600           ca. 0,2         35 650           ca. 0,32        22 700           ca. 0,65        11 750           ca. 2,6          2,7 800           ca. 2,0          3,5 1000            37            0,19 So, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the light can reach seems to be true only for the visible light. According to this list UV light can't reach as deep as e.g. blue light. Does anyone know whether that is true? Unfortunately, the author of that list states that he found several vastly different absorption coefficents for UV light in the literature and he would provide only a "best guess". * This isn't exactly a topic I discuss on a daily basis, so I'm not sure whether I use the correct terms. I hope it's still clear what I mean.... Yes water does absorb UV to some extent. As for how deep different wavelengths of EM radiation can penetrate into bodies of water, I honestly don't know off the top of my head. I'm also not sure about the correlation between wavelength and depth of penetration. A couple of things spring to mind though: a) Gamma rays, X rays, cosmic radiation etc pass through water. They have very short wavelengths compared to blue light for example. b) Different materials have different absorption spectra, so there isn't necessarily a linear relationship between wavelength and depth of penetration. I could be wrong however, I'll nip off and have a read! Louis -------------- Bye.

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,14:05    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,14:57) Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,19:36) Isn't UV also absorped by water? I always thought that the shorter the wavelenght, the more water the light can pass through before it's filtered out. I tried to find out how deep that is for UV light and I found this list (German) with absorption coefficents for different wavelenght and the layer thickness* after which the intensity is reduced to 1/1000 of the original: Yes water does absorb UV to some extent. As for how deep different wavelengths of EM radiation can penetrate into bodies of water, I honestly don't know off the top of my head. I'm also not sure about the correlation between wavelength and depth of penetration. A couple of things spring to mind though: a) Gamma rays, X rays, cosmic radiation etc pass through water. They have very short wavelengths compared to blue light for example. b) Different materials have different absorption spectra, so there isn't necessarily a linear relationship between wavelength and depth of penetration. I could be wrong however, I'll nip off and have a read! Louis Admit you don't know? Look it up? You'll never be a good IDiot. -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

Texas Teach Posts: 2082 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,14:12    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47) Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc). This image made my morning.  Thanks, Louis. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,14:18    Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 10 2009,12:12) Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47) Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc). This image made my morning.  Thanks, Louis. The mystery lies in his route back from the pub. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,14:37    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,13:36) For those that couldn't place it, this is actually Marcelino Ravery.  Or maybe Louis at last weeks staff meeting... he is British donchaknow, and they do take things a bit more seriously than we do here in the states.[/quote] Ok, I'll cough to wearing the funny dress, but a crucifix? Come ON! Even I wouldn't go that far. Louis Louis - What???  You don't like it???? Oh!  I see - you thought it was "just a toy" crucifix... Nope - This is an actual built-to-scale model!* - (The C-0909 model) It is for use with LOLCatz**, leprechauns and fairies that cross the line and offend you. * Yeah, you DO need a slightly larger model for IDists. ** For some reason, I could not find a LOL Cat on a crucifix! :( -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,16:38    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,19:57)         Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,19:36)     Isn't UV also absorped by water? [snip] So, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the light can reach seems to be true only for the visible light. According to this list UV light can't reach as deep as e.g. blue light. Does anyone know whether that is true? Unfortunately, the author of that list states that he found several vastly different absorption coefficents for UV light in the literature and he would provide only a "best guess". Yes water does absorb UV to some extent. As for how deep different wavelengths of EM radiation can penetrate into bodies of water, I honestly don't know off the top of my head. I'm also not sure about the correlation between wavelength and depth of penetration. A couple of things spring to mind though: a) Gamma rays, X rays, cosmic radiation etc pass through water. They have very short wavelengths compared to blue light for example. b) Different materials have different absorption spectra, so there isn't necessarily a linear relationship between wavelength and depth of penetration. I could be wrong however, I'll nip off and have a read! Louis Thank you! Re. a) That fits with what I'd thought before I found this list. Re. b) That's obviously true (otherwise we wouldn't see different colours), but it didn't occur to me that it applies to water, too. Thanks for reminding me. I've read a bit more myself and found out that I've forgotten A LOT since I had physics classes during my study.... I'm sure that we learned about the Beer-Lambert law and I seem to remember that we used an experimental setting like this to calculate concentrations but most of it I eradicated quite successfully from my memory... -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,16:54    Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,22:38) Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,19:57)           Quote (JLT @ Feb. 10 2009,19:36)     Isn't UV also absorped by water? [snip] So, the shorter the wavelength, the deeper the light can reach seems to be true only for the visible light. According to this list UV light can't reach as deep as e.g. blue light. Does anyone know whether that is true? Unfortunately, the author of that list states that he found several vastly different absorption coefficents for UV light in the literature and he would provide only a "best guess". Yes water does absorb UV to some extent. As for how deep different wavelengths of EM radiation can penetrate into bodies of water, I honestly don't know off the top of my head. I'm also not sure about the correlation between wavelength and depth of penetration. A couple of things spring to mind though: a) Gamma rays, X rays, cosmic radiation etc pass through water. They have very short wavelengths compared to blue light for example. b) Different materials have different absorption spectra, so there isn't necessarily a linear relationship between wavelength and depth of penetration. I could be wrong however, I'll nip off and have a read! Louis Thank you! Re. a) That fits with what I'd thought before I found this list. Re. b) That's obviously true (otherwise we wouldn't see different colours), but it didn't occur to me that it applies to water, too. Thanks for reminding me. I've read a bit more myself and found out that I've forgotten A LOT since I had physics classes during my study.... I'm sure that we learned about the Beer-Lambert law and I seem to remember that we used an experimental setting like this to calculate concentrations but most of it I eradicated quite successfully from my memory... {facepalm} The Beer-Lambert Law!!!!!!! DAGNABIT! {Sound of Louis going back to first year physics lectures*} Louis *Senility, I has it. -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,16:56    Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 10 2009,20:12) Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47) Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc). This image made my morning.  Thanks, Louis. Your (hic) very welcome. Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,16:57    Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 10 2009,20:18) Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 10 2009,12:12) Quote (Louis @ Feb. 09 2009,15:47) Firstly, like my route to the pub, many of the amino acids found in modern organisms are relatively simple (i.e. the R group side chain is not 16 Buckminster-fullerenes linked into a Borromean ring system, it’s a methyl or tolyl group etc). This image made my morning.  Thanks, Louis. The mystery lies in his route back from the pub. Very true, very true. The uncertainty in homeward route is vast. All I know is that it involved three specific locations: 1) The kebab shop. 2) The gutter. 3) Eventually, the doghouse. Louis -------------- Bye.

hereoisreal Posts: 745 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,17:53    This patron at my bar turned around to leave and fell flat on his face. He crawled to the door and thought, “I only live a block away.  I’ll just crawl home.” So he crawled home, crawled in his house, crawled into the bedroom and crawled into bed with his wife. She said, “You’ve been drinkin’ again, haven’t you?” He replied, “Well yes.  How did you guess?” She answered, “The bar called and said you left your wheelchair there.” -------------- 360  miracles and more at: http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5) It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,18:22    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,22:54) *Senility, I has it. You mean this:     Quote I've read a bit more myself and found out that I've forgotten A LOT since I had physics classes during my study.... is a sign of early-onset senility? -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

RFJE Posts: 45 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:21    This is to Louis: I wanted to thank you for the chemistry lesson.  You are the first person who has answered me without insulting me.  Though you were a bit sarcastic. As you know, Louis I am not a chemist, that's exactly why I stripped material from the internet. One strike?  You are quite high-minded aren't you?  I do have a field of knowledge--it is just not chemistry.   So anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you successfully refuted a public school teacher with a B.S. Ed in biology and a minor in chemistry from Montana State University, with 8 years of science teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  And also Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics (Ohio State University). They wrote and edited respectively the book "Evolution Exposed."  It had an endorsement from Dr. David Menton PhD, cell biology (Brown University). I did paraphrase what was in the book and erred in one sense, in that I said amino acids and their bonds break in water.  Here is the actual quote pp. 139. "Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together--a process called hydrolysis." But you proved them wrong so I'm not supposed to repeat the point I know.  My question is, Louis, "Which PhD are we supposed to believe?"

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:28    Another thing you've got to learn. Having a PhD doesn't make you intelligent or correct. Look for any off the wall crazy idea you can think of, and you'll find a handful of PhDs pushing it. Aura feeling, alternative medicine of all sorts, psychic powers, moon landing conspiracies, 9/11 truthers, alien abductions, Illuminati, etc, etc, etc. Hell, just turn on the TV during infomercials and watch all the PhD endorsements for bullshit products fly by. What matters isn't what a handful of PhDs claim, what matters is reality and evidence. -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:29    RFJE: Quote You [Louis] are the first person who has answered me without insulting me. Eh? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Lou FCD Posts: 5452 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:31    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,22:21) "Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together--a process called hydrolysis." Well, that's news to my body, which is mostly made of water. The second most abundant stuff is proteins. ...made from amino acids. ...in water. ETA: A process called "you're an idiot". Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 10 2009,22:34 -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,21:34    Mayberry RFD, I thought I was puffed up because of cheeseburgers, but it turns out it's only my vast store of knowledge.  That's a relief!  Thanks. Louis isn't high-minded.  He's definitely low-brow.  I'm high-minded.  Just ask me. As for "which PhD to believe," well this will come as a shock to an ignorant but literate person such as yourself, but as a scientist I don't "believe" anything.  Certainly not a PhD.  'Cause I am one and I don't believe me.   You can believe that. Here's what you do RFD old bean, go into a lab and do the experiment.  Come back and tell us all about protein hydrolysis.  Go into the field and look at the rocks.  Get yourself a stick and a nail and chart the stars.  Grow some pea plants.  Do it yourself.  If you don't "believe" it, go out and do something.  No one's stopping you. So while you were out in the missionary position, I was in a lab night and day (cue violins, Louis) working on pattern recognition of dipeptide mass spectra.  Funny thing, I never believed it would work.

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,22:37    (Feels that this is appropriate)       Just a step cried the sad man Take a look down at the madman Theatre kings on silver wings Fly beyond reason From the flight of the seagull Come the spread claws of the eagle Only fear breaks the silence As we all kneel pray for guidance Tread the road cross the abyss Take a look down at the madness On the streets of the city Only spectres still have pity Patient queues for the gallows Sing the praises of the hallowed Our machines feed the furnace If they take us they will burn us Will you still know who you are When you come to who you are When the flames have their season Will you hold to your reason Loaded down with your talons Can you still keep your balance Can you live on a knife-edge - Emerson/Lake/Frazer/Jandcek But there it is

RFJE Posts: 45 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,22:51    This is from you Louis "Dear All, Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things. 1) What actually motivates us to do this?" Louis, I don't if you're an atheist, but you know many evolutionists are.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, and I ask these questions under no false pretense. Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question?   Like the (cant remember his name) scientist who converted to atheism on "Expelled."  He said "I realized I had no free will."  Therefore whatever we do is all because of the chemistry and the biology. What is it in us that gives us a desire to know what we don't know?  It must be important, because we fight so hard to guard our perceptions of reality.  But if it is just a biological process that eventually gives in to entropy then why is it so important to us? Are there  chemical processes that cause love, hope, trust?  There should be somewhere in us.  It should be able to be diagrammed. Where did sacrificial motives come from? Survival to the fittest.  Chemical processes in the mind?  Should we not have found them by now. What about ethical judgement--the innate sense of right and wrong?   Will, determination are these just products of digested, fats, carbs and proteins and the energy they produce. What about a sense of fun, enjoyment, satisfaction vs. dullness, and boredom?  Chemical processes?   Why do we cook and not eat our food raw like animals do?  Is it not to enjoy the taste?  What chemical process triggers this desire? Where did sexual attraction come from and how did it come at the same time as the sexual organs evolved?  What gene is affection associated with, or by what chemical process is it triggered?  And why is it associated with sex? Will, conscience, emotions, desire, ambitions, motivations, intentions bad and good, are all undeniably a part of our being.  They are as real as the screen in front of you.  They can be defined by neither mathematics, nor diagrammed by chemistry.  They can not be included in cell biology for observation. Where does music come from?  Is this also a product of chemistry in the mind?  I am a musician and it seems to come from elsewhere. What other species has serial killers?  Why are there people who kill for fun or fascination.  Are these mutations or evil?  Is evil just an idea of antiquity or is it evil--ask anyone who is on the receiving end of an evil and they will tell you. If someone told you that affection or hate were not real because they are not perceived by the 5 senses, would tell them they were crazy? because they are perceived IN you.  What is the perceiving unit?  Even it is unseen and can not be defined by natural means. What chemical process gives us the perceived sensation of knowing ourselves inwardly, but at the same time gives us the desire to project a certain image on the outside?  How can we discern a fake, even when we have no proof?  Isn't it because most of us are guilty of hypocrisy at one time or the other? If all of this is just the brain, then we should have been able to detect the chemical and biological activity associated with it, if we are nothing more than chemicals. But what if we have a soul Mr. Louis?  A spirit that perceives all these things that we undeniably sense inside.  And what if the Bible is true that our soul is eternal and we will give account?  Is our sense of fair and unfair a shadow of God's judgement?  Do we have his spiritual DNA?   Assuming the naturalist

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,23:07    RFJE, just think about this:  If many (if not all) thought processes weren't chemically-oriented, then why do certain chemicals make people feel a certain way?  After all, it's a pretty well-known fact that caffiene makes a person feel more awake and aware.  And that opiates make you feel rather painless.  And that other chemicals make you feel happy.  or sad.  or goofy.  one of those chemicals is in wine, ya know.   Really, are you older than 18?  I mean, come on, this is just off the top of my head here, and I'm no genius.

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,23:44    Oh boy! From chemistry to neuro-chemistry to cognitive studies to psychology. Goalposts on wheels, RFJE? What about reasserting your initial claims with your own words, in light of what Louis and Doc GH have so patiently explained to you citing many references? -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 10 2009,23:58    And I forgot: some ranges of head trauma can actualy alter one's personality drasticaly. Do you really think it's your "eternal soul" being altered? what about people in a vegetative state? What happened to their "eternal souls"? Just so you don't ponder too much and see where I'm coming from: I think bringing to actually fonctional people a concept of hell in which they'll burn eternaly if they don't follow a book is the quintescence of evil. Every missionary should be locked up. There, no sympathy from me. -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

clamboy Posts: 299 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,00:46    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,22:51) This is from you Louis "Dear All, Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things. 1) What actually motivates us to do this?" ---snip BLAH-DE-FRICKIN'-BLAH-SAME-OLD-SAME-OLD-DID-YOU-THINK-YOU-WERE-BEING-ORIGINAL???-REGURGITATED-CRAP-MY-E FFING-GAWD-RFJE-YOU-ARE-REPEATING-BULLSPIT-THAT-WAS-OLD-TWO-DECADES-AGO-LOUIS-IF-YOU-DON'T-CALL-THIRD-STRIKE-YOU-ARE-A-SPINELESS-LOSER-AFDAVE!AFDAVE!AFDAVE!-WHAT-AN-ARROGANT-BASTARD-IS-RFJE-MAKES!-ME!-FRICKIN!-SICK!!!!--- CHEEZ WHIZ, JREF, FREJ, WHATEVER - there was as time, a few years ago, when I wanted to have a good long talk with a creationist, but thank you very much again for convincing me that such an endeavor is...utterly...USELESS!!! I am getting my breath back now. RFJE, people like you should never be in a position of power. EVER. RFJE, YOU ARE THE MOST ARROGANT, IGNORANT, HUBRISTIC LOSER SINCE afdave MOVED ON TO OTHER PASTURES. ARGH, YOU SICKENING SICKENING INTENTIONAL IGNORAMUS!!!

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,03:33    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,03:21) This is to Louis: I wanted to thank you for the chemistry lesson.  You are the first person who has answered me without insulting me.  Though you were a bit sarcastic. As you know, Louis I am not a chemist, that's exactly why I stripped material from the internet. One strike?  You are quite high-minded aren't you?  I do have a field of knowledge--it is just not chemistry.   So anyway, I just wanted to let you know that you successfully refuted a public school teacher with a B.S. Ed in biology and a minor in chemistry from Montana State University, with 8 years of science teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  And also Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics (Ohio State University). They wrote and edited respectively the book "Evolution Exposed."  It had an endorsement from Dr. David Menton PhD, cell biology (Brown University). I did paraphrase what was in the book and erred in one sense, in that I said amino acids and their bonds break in water.  Here is the actual quote pp. 139. "Proteins cannot form in water because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together--a process called hydrolysis." But you proved them wrong so I'm not supposed to repeat the point I know.  My question is, Louis, "Which PhD are we supposed to believe?" RFJE, A BIT sarcastic? I take that as an insult! I am very sarcastic thank you. Which PhD to believe? Don't believe anyone because they have a PhD. It's not a good enough reason. Look at what Nerull and Doc Bill have said. Actually ignore the bit about low brow/high minded from Doc Bill, I'm both! Louis -------------- Bye.

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,04:57    I wish I could express my opinion using a lot of words but I find that too difficult and time consuming so I'll limit myself to just one simple, basic observation that I believe those two leaves of the same tree, Daniel and RFJE ought to consider: The theory of evolution is like an onion. You need to burrow from the outside to get to the core. I believe that's the gospel truth about evolution - you'll never understand it if you start with complex subjects like cell chemistry - not to mention the origins of the first cell, aka abiogenesis.   Quote Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question? The question may be sincere and honest, but it also is completely absurd. IMHO, it shows however that you have a lot of homework to do before you know what you are asking for. You just are not ready. We all need to learn to crawl before we learn to walk. I've been crawling for 70 years but I can do some steps too... Another point: A honest and sincere quest for the truth about evolution requires an open mind, where God and religion is put aside. As long as God stands in the way, no comprehension is possible. So my best advice is, leave God out of your thinking when you study scientific issues, let them speak for themselves without intervention from God. Can you do that? OTOH, the Holy Spirit of Truth is a fine companion, trust it! Speaking of spirit, do God, or spirit, really move atoms and molecules? Or are they obeying the laws of nature - about which we still have an awful lot to learn? About which we never may know all we would want to know. Will we ever be able to untangle the sobject of Complexity? Who understands quantum mechanics? Maybe it is a bit premature to proclaim the ToE invalid? What is God, is 'he', or rather it,  a tinkerer, messing with everything in the world, or is it more like a spirit pervading the universe? Anyone who really knows, please speak up, show us the evidence. The creationist's problem is not so much about science as it is about psychology, religion and philosophy. And then some. Well, I managed a few words more than I though I could... -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:37    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,04:51) This is from you Louis "Dear All, Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things. 1) What actually motivates us to do this?" Louis, I don't if you're an atheist, but you know many evolutionists are.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, and I ask these questions under no false pretense. Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question?   Like the (cant remember his name) scientist who converted to atheism on "Expelled."  He said "I realized I had no free will."  Therefore whatever we do is all because of the chemistry and the biology. What is it in us that gives us a desire to know what we don't know?  It must be important, because we fight so hard to guard our perceptions of reality.  But if it is just a biological process that eventually gives in to entropy then why is it so important to us? Are there  chemical processes that cause love, hope, trust?  There should be somewhere in us.  It should be able to be diagrammed. Where did sacrificial motives come from? Survival to the fittest.  Chemical processes in the mind?  Should we not have found them by now. What about ethical judgement--the innate sense of right and wrong?   Will, determination are these just products of digested, fats, carbs and proteins and the energy they produce. What about a sense of fun, enjoyment, satisfaction vs. dullness, and boredom?  Chemical processes?   Why do we cook and not eat our food raw like animals do?  Is it not to enjoy the taste?  What chemical process triggers this desire? Where did sexual attraction come from and how did it come at the same time as the sexual organs evolved?  What gene is affection associated with, or by what chemical process is it triggered?  And why is it associated with sex? Will, conscience, emotions, desire, ambitions, motivations, intentions bad and good, are all undeniably a part of our being.  They are as real as the screen in front of you.  They can be defined by neither mathematics, nor diagrammed by chemistry.  They can not be included in cell biology for observation. Where does music come from?  Is this also a product of chemistry in the mind?  I am a musician and it seems to come from elsewhere. What other species has serial killers?  Why are there people who kill for fun or fascination.  Are these mutations or evil?  Is evil just an idea of antiquity or is it evil--ask anyone who is on the receiving end of an evil and they will tell you. If someone told you that affection or hate were not real because they are not perceived by the 5 senses, would tell them they were crazy? because they are perceived IN you.  What is the perceiving unit?  Even it is unseen and can not be defined by natural means. What chemical process gives us the perceived sensation of knowing ourselves inwardly, but at the same time gives us the desire to project a certain image on the outside?  How can we discern a fake, even when we have no proof?  Isn't it because most of us are guilty of hypocrisy at one time or the other? If all of this is just the brain, then we should have been able to detect the chemical and biological activity associated with it, if we are nothing more than chemicals. But what if we have a soul Mr. Louis?  A spirit that perceives all these things that we undeniably sense inside.  And what if the Bible is true that our soul is eternal and we will give account?  Is our sense of fair and unfair a shadow of God's judgement?  Do we have his spiritual DNA?   Assuming the naturalist ***LENGTH WARNING, APOLOGIES TO SCROLLING FINGERS*** RFJE, Good gravy! A stream of consciousness. Do you feel better yet? Is it all out? Have the goalposts moved once more? I thought evolution was false because of chemistry (it isn't), now it's wrong because of.....? Before I continue there is one thing: learn how to quote  things, please. See above the window you type your comments in there is a little button marked "Quote", it will put the quote tags into your text for you, [QUOTE  ] at the start and [/QUOTE  ] at the end, making things easier to read. I don't always do this myself, but it'd general good practise and helps us all. Also, please link things like old posts, just for the sake of ease. When you are quoting websites a link to what you've quoted is very useful, it allows people to see what you are quoting in detail, and explore things further themselves. It's a basic tenet of intellectual honesty. There are also five more relevant things I want to mention before I get into all of this: a) Just because science may or may not have concrete answer to every question yet does not mean that your (or anyone's) religious explanation is automatically the default answer. Every scientist worth his or her salt will cheerfully admit that there are things we don't yet know. b) I am neither a biochemist nor a neuroscientist, but I do have some brief familiarity with some aspects of these fields. So, like before, rather than present you with definitive answers and direct proof (which is practically impossible over the internet anyway, I am not typing out textbooks for you or leading you into a laboratory) I'll try to provide you with a few links which you can follow to begin your own investigations. c) "Pathetic levels of detail". One of William Dembski's (a famous, and famously dishonest, intelligent design creationist) more famous quotes, very illustrative of his mindset (and yours, judging by your questions) is: Quote You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC [irreducibly complex] systems that is what ID is discovering. From here. Needless to say this an astounding piece of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty on Demsbki's part. He's basically trying to say that he has to provide no detail whatsoever for his propositions. If you want to do science, and Dembski pretends he does, then the devil is in the detail. Superficiality don't cut it. Now why do I mention this? I am pre-empting a very common creationist complaint, forgive me if you are not going to make it, but judging by the tone and type of your questions I can see it galloping towards us. As above, if science hasn't (yet) provided a detailed answer to a problem, it doesn't follow that any other explanation is automatically the answer UNLESS that answer has a sufficient level of detail, and correspondingly matches the available evidence. So "goddidit" is absolutely not an answer to anything, it is the abandonment of enquiry, it simply pushes the problem one step further back. I will not accept "goddidit" as an answer for anything, only a dishonest attempt to avoid the answer "I don't know". No sympathy for non-answers. See the god of the gaps for more detail. Again, this is a beginning point for your investigations. d) Doubt. As the physicist Richard Feynman said: Quote I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me. Not knowing something, perhaps just not knowing something yet, is no crime. Not knowing something is not the end of enquiry, it is the beginning. We scientists LIKE not knowing something, it keeps us in a job! Not knowing things is WHY we try to find them out, it is for me why I became a scientist: because there are things (many, many, many, MANY things) I don't know. I don't crave certainty because I know that certainty is not possible, I am merely seeking to reduce the number of things I don' know about. e) HUGENESS! The questions you ask are only really answerable at huge length with huge reference to the available evidence. Needless to say I i) cannot reproduce all of that here and ii) am not even going to try to! You need to do the work yourself. As I explained to Denial Smith, I am not interested in reproducing reams of textbook data. I am equally not interested in petty games of oneupmanship and trading authority figures. I couldn't care less that I have "successfully refuted a public school teacher with a B.S. Ed in biology and a minor in chemistry from Montana State University, with 8 years of science teaching in PUBLIC SCHOOLS.  And also Dr. Georgia Purdom PhD, molecular genetics (Ohio State University). They wrote and edited respectively the book "Evolution Exposed."  It had an endorsement from Dr. David Menton PhD, cell biology (Brown University)." It's not anything I'm interested in. If this is some pissing contest for you, then it will be strike three for me, and I'll simply retreat to mockery as is my wont! Right, enough preamble, enough tips, on with the entertainment, I'll try and organise your stream of consciousness into themes if you don't mind: 1) Atheism: Yes I am an atheist. I lack a belief in any god or gods. That's very different from believing god/gods doesn't/don't exist by the way, but rather than drift into philosophy, I'll leave it at that. Incidentally no one "converts" to atheism, it's not a religion, it is simply the absence of belief in a deity or deities. You too are an atheist with respect to every god except the one you believe in, I've just gone one god further. BTW "Expelled" is not a good place to get one's information from, it is a wickedly dishonest propaganda piece. 2) We/emotions/feelings/desires are "just" the results of natural processes: Just the results of biochemistry? JUST? JUST?????? That's a pretty big "just" there my friend! I would suggest that you have no idea about the complexity and quantity of the phenomena you hand wave away with a "just". Anyway, the questions you are asking about thoughts, desires, feelings are simply huge and reduce to one overarching question: Is consciousness the product of the physical and chemical operations of the brain? The answer to that is very simple: yes. How do I know this? Well it's pretty simple to demonstrate that the consciousness can be altered by simple physical or chemical interventions. Don't believe me? Ok, here, take the dose of LSD. Seriously, the chemistry of neurotransmitters is very well understood. We can, and do, create drugs to manipulate the nature of people's consciousnesses and minds. We can, and do, induce hallucinations, revelations and altered states of consciousness in people by manipulating electromagnetic fields around people's heads. Obviously there's vastly more to it than this, rather than typing out textbooks for you I suggest you start with the basic things I've recommended to you and work from there. The bigger question even than that is "HOW is the mind a product of the physical and chemical processes of the brain?".  Now this is vastly more difficult to answer, and as far as I am aware this has yet to be completely solved by science. I am not the best person too ask about this since it is not my area of expertise. Some answers might be found for you here and here. Reciprocating Bill is probably one of the best people to ask here at AtBC. I can recommend the work of Dan Dennett, and in particular his book "Consciousness Explained", which I admit I haven't read in years. You might also like to read about the Hard Problem of Consciousness, something Dennett disagrees exists, but I mention it as an illustration of some of the issues that may crop up. 3) Altruism: Another huge question. I suggest reading about the evolution of altruism and explanations for its persistence. Altruism, altruism in animals, reciprocal altruism, kin selection, competitive altruism, and empathy altruism. Since I haven't the time to deal with the rest of this, I'll leave you to get on with your work, just as I have to get on with mine. Louis -------------- Bye.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:39    [quote=J-Dog,Feb. 10 2009,13:25]   Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,13:08)     Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01) You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice. You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint. A saint?  Louis?  Well, he could look like this Saint, I guess.. Fixed it for you. No ned for thanks. Edit: WTF is up with formatting? Am I drunk again? Wait, don't answer that. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:41    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 11 2009,11:39) [quote=J-Dog,Feb. 10 2009,13:25]   Quote (ppb @ Feb. 10 2009,13:08)     Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,06:01) You want to talk about humility, now you are entering into my arena of study and practice. You know someone has true humility when they have to point it out to you.  :D Louis, I love reading your posts.  You clearly know what you are talking about, and you seem to really enjoy teaching others.  You have the patience of a saint. A saint?  Louis?  Well, he could look like this Saint, I guess.. Fixed it for you. No ned for thanks. Wrong Simpsons character. Louis -------------- Bye.

nuytsia Posts: 131 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:51    Cup of sugary tea for clamboy!   At the risk of fueling RFJE's persecution complex...         Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 10 2009,14:51) This is from you Louis "Dear All, Since a major part of all our online (and possibly even offline) existences is spent engaging in debate with various types of people. I was curious about a few things. 1) What actually motivates us to do this?" Louis, I don't if you're an atheist, but you know many evolutionists are.  Forgive me if I'm wrong, and I ask these questions under no false pretense. Assuming that you and I are just results of biochemistry, then what chemical process took place in you to motivate you toward science?  I am completely sincere, this is an honest question?           Quote this is an honest question? No. No I don't think so. No this and what follows is a way of moving onto a topic where you probably won't have your arse handed to you so easily... whilst still trying to plead the same point. No longer able to claim your god lurks behind the "mystery" of the peptide bond... it's time to move on to a myriad of far more nebulous points. Smart move too! These are (mostly) bigger questions and far harder to resolve. You'll be able to lodge your "Heere be Dragones" sign in some of these for decades. That must feel far more reassuring? I must say I'm slightly disappointed to find that you didn't ask whether "we've really looked at our hands? I mean really looked at them?"         Quote What is it in us that gives us a desire to know what we don't know?  It must be important, because we fight so hard to guard our perceptions of reality.   Something that works gets selected for. A species that develops a talent in learning how to manipulate its environment is going to have an edge. Chimps, bonobos and orangs show an impressive set of problem solving skills. Our lineage took it further. A lot further.         Quote It must be important, because we fight so hard to guard our perceptions of reality. I hate to point this out but our species has a terrible history of curbing it's curiosity in front of authority. Particularly military, religious or a heady mix of both.         Quote But if it is just a biological process that eventually gives in to entropy then why is it so important to us? We are all going to die so why bother living? This is a nonsense question. We all find our reasons to do things. Otherwise we wouldn't do them. At best this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.         Quote Are there  chemical processes that cause love, hope, trust? Yes.         Quote There should be somewhere in us. In the brain, that would be my guess.         Quote It should be able to be diagrammed. Yes. Possibly. Probably. How accurate those diagrams are will vary.     Quote Where did sacrificial motives come from? Survival to the fittest.  Chemical processes in the mind?  Should we not have found them by now. Do have a read about social insects you'll find it most enlightening. Ants and bees are well into sacrifice to save their siblings. The fact that you think such behaviour might be down to a a few simple chemical process doesn't speak well for you to be honest. That you might think that that is the expectation of evolutionary science.... well....  speaks volumes.         Quote What about ethical judgement--the innate sense of right and wrong? Some people think that G W Bush was right to invade Iraq. Others don't. Some people think it's right to deny gay people the rights enjoyed by straight people. Others don't. What's your point?         Quote Will, determination are these just products of digested, fats, carbs and proteins and the energy they produce. What about a sense of fun, enjoyment, satisfaction vs. dullness, and boredom?  Chemical processes? For someone who supposedly teaches science you seem to show a total lack of love for it. If life and all it entails is ultimately explained in terms of chemistry, physics and biology does that rob it of it's wonder? Really? Over twenty years ago I had to learn (no great hardship; I relished the experience - like a condiment junky relishes a burger) the detailed biochemistry of photosynthesis (as known then) and I still think it's as cool as fuck. Nothing I've learnt about science has ever detracted from the fact that this is an amazing place to be. Honestly does understanding how the world works only bring you ambivalence or contempt? Is there only value in seeing it as a magic trick? If so you have my pity.         Quote Why do we cook and not eat our food raw like animals do?  Is it not to enjoy the taste?  What chemical process triggers this desire? Honestly you are asking this? Seriously? Two advantages to cooking.... 1) Pre-breakdown of proteins and carbohydrates making digestions easier 2) Killing off parasites and pathogens. Any group of individuals adopting this have an advantage. Good ideas/practices spread. You don't know this? Honestly???         Quote Where did sexual attraction come from and how did it come at the same time as the sexual organs evolved?  What gene is affection associated with, or by what chemical process is it triggered?  And why is it associated with sex? (sigh)         Quote Where did sexual attraction come from and how did it come at the same time as the sexual organs evolved? Oh please cite your evidence for this claim. Pretty please!!!!!! A very brief summary of the science of sex The Joy of Sexual Reproduction (for adults only apparently- flagged by creationist (sigh) - very good) Evolution of Sex The Origin of Sexual Reproduction         Quote Will, conscience, emotions, desire, ambitions, motivations, intentions bad and good, are all undeniably a part of our being.  They are as real as the screen in front of you.  They can be defined by neither mathematics, nor diagrammed by chemistry.  They can not be included in cell biology for observation. You know you are dead right. As far as I know they've never isolated the "bad intentions" cell. Take that science!!!         Quote Where does music come from?  Is this also a product of chemistry in the mind?  I am a musician and it seems to come from elsewhere. I've never heard you play so I can't comment. Perhaps it does come from somewhere else....         Quote What other species has serial killers?  Why are there people who kill for fun or fascination.  Are these mutations or evil?  Is evil just an idea of antiquity or is it evil--ask anyone who is on the receiving end of an evil and they will tell you. Have you ever owned a cat? Dolphins pods living around east coast of Scotland kill porpoises for no apparent reason. Chimps are known to kill members of other tribes if they catch them alone. You don't need to believe in god to recognise evil. Atheists don't have any trouble deciding if something is evil. Whether we can realistically attribute this human concept on the natural world is debatable and frankly doesn't get you very far apart from tutting at cats, dolphins, etc. Again this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.         Quote If someone told you that affection or hate were not real because they are not perceived by the 5 senses, would tell them they were crazy? because they are perceived IN you.  What is the perceiving unit?  Even it is unseen and can not be defined by natural means. This is of course bullshit. Which sense is schizophrenia experienced through? Your argument here, that a rational approach is far too simplistic, is a strawman.         Quote What chemical process gives us the perceived sensation of knowing ourselves inwardly, but at the same time gives us the desire to project a certain image on the outside?  How can we discern a fake, even when we have no proof?  Isn't it because most of us are guilty of hypocrisy at one time or the other? If all of this is just the brain, then we should have been able to detect the chemical and biological activity associated with it, if we are nothing more than chemicals. As I said at the beginning of this (as far as I know) scientific knowledge of how the mind works is still in it's infancy so you are safe to hide your god in here if you like. It may take quite some time to resolve an issue of this subtlety and complexity. But this is, of course, an argument from ignorance. Some of us would prefer to wait for the evidence to come in before believing in ripping yarns.         Quote But what if we have a soul Mr. Louis?  A spirit that perceives all these things that we undeniably sense inside.  And what if the Bible is true that our soul is eternal and we will give account?  Is our sense of fair and unfair a shadow of God's judgement?  Do we have his spiritual DNA? I don't suppose we could prevail upon you to actually provide some evidence that the soul exists could we? You know you'd be ever so famous if you could. Lecture circuits. TV interviews. Oprah. You'd be rich. Rich beyond your wildest dream. Rich beyond k.e.'s wildest dreams. ... and those are really wild. Apparently. Bloody hell this is the longest post I've ever made. This wine is really good! ETA - Took me too bloody long to write though!!!

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,05:54    ETA: apologies for the distraction. Please return to your regular viewing. -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:03    Why is the sky blue, daddy? Why does a boy's winky look different? Where does music come from? Why does Kitty kill mices? Why have the requirements for a BSc.Ed. fallen so drastically? -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

RFJE Posts: 45 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:17    Hello, I did want to apologize for my approach, that I paraphrased a source, and that I mis-paraphrased it.  I said that some amino acids break down in water when I should have said some proteins break down in water. Here is the actual quote from Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson..."Proteins can not form in water, because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together...hydrolysis." I have read some of your posts and I understand your annoyance with me.  I was out of field of study and I will research this further. I do believe from my study that hydrolysis is the opposite of dehydration sythesis--correct me if Im wrong. Also my question would be here is what about the hydrophobic  side chains of the polypeptide chain.  They attract each other to the center of the molecule away from a watery environment.  If they were exposed say to water during spontaneous generation, could it break the peptide bond?

tsig Posts: 339 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:20    Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 11 2009,06:03) Why is the sky blue, daddy? Why does a boy's winky look different? Where does music come from? Why does Kitty kill mices? Why have the requirements for a BSc.Ed. fallen so drastically? Why is water wet? why does fire burn? how high is up? Why are you coming at me with a knife daddy?

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:28    yes, he/she does sound like a 4 years old. I am inclined to take an issue regarding the music stuff. As a professional musician, I find no difficulty in understanding the source of my inspiration: imagination. Imagination is an abstract thought. Since I do not have any PH.D or extent education in neuroscience, I cannot possibly detail the exact M.O of abstract thought process. But I know for sure that it initiates in the brain, and not some "holy-eternal-soul". Cognitive developement also plays a big part. Having been raised in an environnement surounded by a certain kind of music, I have some ease writting my music in a related style (i.e melodic and symphonic metal in my case, inspired by my living in a mostly classical and rock environnement). Don't ask me to write contemporary music, for I wouldn't even have a clue how to do it. Some people have talents in some areas, some have talents in others. I am not linking that to an "eternal soul", but rather to the wonders of our brain functions, combined with cultural and cognitive aspects... The day you understand the "magic" in thit is the day you'll understand the wonders of Nature. Assuming your very own talent comes from some hypothetical deity of choice is diminishing to you and the entire human race. My 0.01$ (because of the economical crises. I won't spend more on creo's) -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:47    Quote (RFJE @ Feb. 11 2009,06:17) Hello, I did want to apologize for my approach, that I paraphrased a source, and that I mis-paraphrased it.  I said that some amino acids break down in water when I should have said some proteins break down in water. Here is the actual quote from Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson..."Proteins can not form in water, because the water breaks the bonds that hold the amino acids together...hydrolysis." I have read some of your posts and I understand your annoyance with me.  I was out of field of study and I will research this further. I do believe from my study that hydrolysis is the opposite of dehydration sythesis--correct me if Im wrong. Also my question would be here is what about the hydrophobic  side chains of the polypeptide chain.  They attract each other to the center of the molecule away from a watery environment.  If they were exposed say to water during spontaneous generation, could it break the peptide bond? Actually, my annoyance with you has multiple bases. 1) quoting egregious lies from creationist sources, which would be obvious to anyone with a high school education in biology OR chemistry 2) moving the goalposts when the lies are exposed 3) extreme bluster about an ignorant claim while simultaneously lecturing those with superior knowledge about their lack of humility 4) mentioning atheism as if it has any relevance in a discussion about science. There are probably more of them, but those come to the top of the list right now. So the apology is appreciated. But it will be worthless if you revert to behaviors like those above. As for your last question, if I can rephrase it as "Will the presence of hydrophobic side chains break the peptide bond?" (ignoring the spurious "during spontaneous generation" bit), the answer is No. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:59    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2009,06:37) Reciprocating Bill is probably one of the best people to ask here at AtBC. I dunno. A position that simultaneously claims an innate sense of right and wrong and the existence of serial killers as positive evidence is probably too ameboid for much constructive discussion. Plus Refredjee is clearly abjectly ignorant of some of the obvious starting points for a discussion of the well studied neurobiological bases of many human and mammalian feeling states (love, lust, care and attachment, etc.) - e.g. the limbic system, mediation of sexual and loving feelings by oxytocin, etc. This is basic stuff.   Mostly I'm still stuck on his ridiculous claims of "humility," "wisdom," and "god's edification." But perhaps he would like to acknowledge his unreflective arrogance in making some of the claims he has made. Let's see if he's got a neuron for that. ReFred? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,07:08    RB, I am not sure we yet had a clue about whether RFJE is male or female. And as Al Pacino stated in the most excellent "the devil's advocate": "Cemicaly speaking, love is no different from eating a large quantity of chocolate". And this one just for fun and giggles: "Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER!" I love tha movie :D -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,07:55    For more, much more, RFJE blustering, please stop by and visit the UK Board I have linked to. RFJE - If this is NOT you, please let us know. kthnxbai Female First Board Looks like RFJE loves her /him some UK talk.  No wonder RFJE and Louis get along so well! :) -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,08:03    Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 11 2009,07:55) For more, much more, RFJE blustering, please stop by and visit the UK Board I have linked to. RFJE - If this is NOT you, please let us know. kthnxbai Female First Board Looks like RFJE loves her /him some UK talk.  No wonder RFJE and Louis get along so well! :) yeah, probably him/her/it. But the sidebar ads are WAY too disruptive to be sure... -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2009,08:51    Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 11 2009,08:08) RB, I am not sure we yet had a clue about whether RFJE is male or female. Well, back here he stated, Quote I was  just a young country boy with a brain sitting on a bank of a creek, fishing (Issac Newton was under an apple tree at one time), watching on the periphery, the trees that had fallen in 1968 and other years afterward from tornadoes in central Illinois... -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington