Chemical evolution:

[Write4U]

Hazen offers evidence that inorganic chiral templates act as such even weakly let alone at anything near 100% efficiency needed to produce the necessary fully homochiral polymeric molecules.

OK, a single search brought this little tid-bit.

ROBERT M. HAZEN*1 AND DAVID S. SHOLL2 1 Carnegie Institution of Washington and NASA Astrobiology Institute,5251 Broad Branch Road NW,Washington DC 20015,USA 2 Department of Chemical Engineering,Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania 15213,USA *e-mail: r.hazen@gl.ciw.edu

Chemical interactions that occur at the interface between crystalline surfaces and aqueous solutions are of central importance to a broad range of scientific and technological investigations, including the mechanisms of corrosion, the control of heterogeneous catalysts, the design of chemical sensors,and the development of a host of products from paints and glues to solvents and cleaners. Geo-chemists and environmental chemists have paid special attention to reactions that occur between crystalline mineral surfaces and aqueous species — interactions that play a central role in numerous natural processes, including weathering and soil formation, pH buffering, hydrothermal ore deposition, biofilm formation, catalytic organic synthesis, and the uptake and release of organic and inorganic species that affect water quality 1 .

In this regard, chiral crystalline surfaces that selectively absorb chiral molecules — so-called left-handed and right-handed molecules that are not superimposable on their mirror image — are of special interest. A strong chiral preference for amino acids, sugars and other essential biomolecules is a defining characteristic of biological systems. Abiotic processes that select left-handed versus right-handed molecules are thus central to geochemical models of life’s origin and evolution 2, 3.

Chiral recognition and separation of molecules, furthermore, is vital to the pharmacological activity of many drugs, the biodegradation of packaging materials, the development of stronger polymers, and many other applications in science and industry 4 .

Nevertheless, interactions between chiral molecules and crystalline surfaces have received relatively little attention until recently. In a brief review of these interactions, Jacoby claims that “chiral surface chemistry has hardly been defined, let alone explored”5 . The technical challenges of this pursuit are compounded by the inherent multidisciplinary nature of the field. Indeed,the interface between inorganic crystalline surfaces and organic molecules provides an appropriate metaphor for the subject.

Here we review the rapidly growing experimental and theoretical literature on selective adsorption of chiral molecules onto chiral inorganic crystalline surfaces. We do not address the related, but distinct, topics of chiral molecular organization on achiral crystalline surfaces 6, 7, or adsorption onto chiral organic surfaces 8 — both subjects deserving of review articles.

Current research on chiral inorganic crystalline surfaces progresses on two complementary fronts: nature materials | VOL 2 | JUNE 2003 | www.nature.com/naturematerials 3

https://hazen.carnegiescience.edu/sites/hazen.gl.ciw.edu/files/213-HazenSholl2003nmat.pdf

OK, your turn explaining the necessity of an Intelligent Designer, without whom none of this would be possible.

 

[Michael 345]

OK, your turn explaining the necessity of an Intelligent Designer

We need a ID'er who can do it his way, else it would never happen

 

[Write4U]

Or your commitment to atheism clouds YOUR thinking badly

In what way would that be true? I am not committed to Atheism.
I just think belief in a supernatural being is a left-over of very primitive thinking in early hominids, which can still be observed today in the Chimpanzee behavior. And I can prove that.

 

[Write4U]

We need a ID'er who can do it his way, else it would never happen

It's a MIRACLE , breaking all the known laws of Nature !!!!!!!!

 

[Michael 345]

It's a MIRACLE , breaking all the known laws of Nature !!!!!!!!

That's ID'er's thing

 

[Write4U]

That's ID'er's thing

Science has never found a true miracle yet. Isn't that odd?
Sometimes we see something truly mysterious, but when we examine its causes and effects, it always turns out to be a natural phenomenon, with roots firmly planted in the physics as we know and understand them to be.

 

[Q-reeus]

OK, a single search brought this little tid-bit.

ROBERT M. HAZEN*1 AND DAVID S. SHOLL2 1 Carnegie Institution of Washington and NASA Astrobiology Institute,5251 Broad Branch Road NW,Washington DC 20015,USA 2 Department of Chemical Engineering,Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania 15213,USA *e-mail: r.hazen@gl.ciw.edu
Current research on chiral inorganic crystalline surfaces progresses on two complementary fronts: nature materials | VOL 2 | JUNE 2003 | www.nature.com/naturematerials 3

https://hazen.carnegiescience.edu/sites/hazen.gl.ciw.edu/files/213-HazenSholl2003nmat.pdf

OK, your turn explaining the necessity of an Intelligent Designer, without whom none of this would be possible.

All quoted passages are irrelevant. Only the link to the 2003 pdf article mattered.
The only relevant passage I could find in that 2003 article is on p370:

As a test of chiral selective adsorption,four calcite crystals were immersed for 24 hours in a 0.05 M solution of racemic aspartic acid27.Enantiomeric faces equivalent to (21–31) and (31 – –21) displayed up to 10% preferential adsorption of D- and L-aspartic acid, respectively.By contrast,no selective adsorption was observed on rhombohedral (101 –4) cleavage faces,which
have centric surface structures and thus serve as an experimental control.This study of the calcite–aspartic acid system is the first experimental demonstration of significant chiral selectivity by a centric natural crystal.

10% is hopelessly inadequate. Biologically active proteins are 100% homochiral. There is afaik no effort to explain how even hypothetically 100% preferential surface absorption could result in build up of a homochiral chain of monomer chiral molecules. By what means? And to repeat, surface preferential absorption offers no mechanism for the insertion of specified information that actual biomolecules contain and need to contain to function. So too much wishful thinking.

 

[Q-reeus]

In what way would that be true? I am not committed to Atheism.
I just think belief in a supernatural being is a left-over of very primitive thinking in early hominids, which can still be observed today in the Chimpanzee behavior. And I can prove that.

I hope you are just being cynical there. Or do you not realize the basic contradiction between the first and second lines!

 

[Write4U]

So too much wishful thinking.

Therefore; ID !!!!!

 

[Write4U]

I hope you are just being cynical there. Or do you not realize the basic contradiction between the first and second lines!

Are you telling me that Chimpanzees do not represent early hominids?

 

[Write4U]

All quoted passages are irrelevant. Only the link to the 2003 pdf article mattered.
The only relevant passage I could find in that 2003 article is on p370:

10% is hopelessly inadequate. Biologically active proteins are 100% homochiral. There is afaik no effort to explain how even hypothetically 100% preferential surface absorption could result in build up of a homochiral chain of monomer chiral molecules. By what means? And to repeat, surface preferential absorption offers no mechanism for the insertion of specified information that actual biomolecules contain and need to contain to function. So too much wishful thinking.

So you are going to debunk Robert Hazen based on a few excerpts I provided?
YOU ARE GOING TO DEBUNK ROBERT HAZEN ????

Robert Miller Hazen (born November 1, 1948) is an American mineralogist and astrobiologist. He is a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington's Geophysical Laboratory and Clarence Robinson Professor of Earth Science at George Mason University, in the United States. Hazen is the Executive Director of the Deep Carbon Observatory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hazen

https://hazen.carnegiescience.edu/sites/hazen.gl.ciw.edu/files/ChiralFaces2004.pdf

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/51...-the-curious-case-of-the-artificial-fragrance

LEFT & RIGHT
Geochemical origins of life's molecular handedness
https://pswscience.org/meeting/left-right/

Selective adsorption of l- and d-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality
https://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/5487

Chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces
https://www.nature.com/articles/nmat879

There are another three pages of links to Hazen papers. If you like I can post all of them.
If you now wish to debunk every paper in favor of the charlatans Tour and Behe, you are welcome to try.

But one question that always remains unanswered: Describe Intelligent Designer

I'll give you a head start from Wiki........;

Intelligent Design

Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins".[1][2][3][4][5] Proponents claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[6] ID is a form of creationism that lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses, and is therefore not science.[7][8][9] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a Christian, politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1]

Though the phrase intelligent design had featured previously in theological discussions of the argument from design,[10] its first publication in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People,[11][12] a 1989 creationist textbook intended for high school biology classes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

So, who or what is an Intelligent Designer and how and where could such a being exist?

 

[paddoboy]

So, who or what is an Intelligent Designer and how and where could such a being exist?

Give him time and I'm sure he'll come up with something!
Again, the important point to remember, when people are expressing beliefs as opposed to science, is to listen really carefully and take in their other out of this world beliefs!
It fits q-reeus to a "T"
Gullible:
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/gullible
If you are gullible, the joke is on you because you are easily fooled.

It is thought that gullible might be derived from the verb gull, meaning "to swallow." This would be a funny coincidence as gullible describes an overly trusting person who tends to swallow the stories he hears whole. The related word, gull, can be used as a noun "don't be such a gull!" or as a verb "you can't gull me into believing that!"

 

[Write4U]

Intelligent Design is a logically unnecessary "added value", and as such does not meet the rigor of Occam's Razor.

There are other more compelling (known) natural self organizing principles that can easily replace the concept of Intelligent Design without affecting Universal processes one iota.

A Mathematical Universe would be equal to an Intelligent Designer Universe in all respects, without the complication of a motivated intelligence, which, in the scope of things, is a superfluous imaginary product of human hubris.

Humans are "special" because we are made in the image of the Intelligent Designer?
Well isn't that "precious"......

But we do know that the Universe is a self-organizing system in accordance to certain universal constants. Nothing remarkable or mysterious about that.

Can we point to an intelligent Designer behind the Universal constants?

Can someone point to the first appearance of "irreducible complexity"?

It seems curious that IDs are dabbling in self-organizational principles at the chemical level, then declare that the Designer by-passed all these small details and started with a fully formed irreducibly complex "flagella". If chirality is a minor detail in the formation of much more complex organizations, what's all the fuss about?

 

[Write4U]

Q-reeus said: ↑ I hope you are just being cynical there. Or do you not realize the basic contradiction between the first and second lines!

Not if you consider the implications of the third line........

 

[Write4U]

Intelligent design

ID seeks to challenge the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[2][16] though proponents concede that they have yet to produce a scientific theory.[17]

As a positive argument against evolution, ID proposes an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts, a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God.[1][n 2] ID proponents then conclude by analogy that the complex features, as defined by ID, are evidence of design.[18][n 3]

Critics of ID find a false dichotomy in the premise that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design.

Moreover, there is no evidence against evolution!

 

[Q-reeus]

Intelligent design
Moreover, there is no evidence against evolution!

None that you and like-minded brigade here are willing to accept. That being amply demonstrated here in post after post, I'm off this merry-go-round. Keep enjoying your carnival ride.

 

[Write4U]

None that you and like-minded brigade here are willing to accept. That being amply demonstrated here in post after post, I'm off this merry-go-round. Keep enjoying your carnival ride.

That is because you have failed to prove anything after being afforded ample opportunity!
And no, you don't get off that easy. You're on the merry-go-round and it's running. If you sell out now you're admitting you're wrong.

There is no evidence against Evolution by Natural Selection. Prove me wrong!

I bet you cannot because evolution by natural selection is a mathematical equation and holds true under all tests, including human artificial application. You got a prize Bull?

Natural selection
Modern biology began in the nineteenth century with Charles Darwin's work on evolution by natural selection.

Part of a series on

Evolutionary biology
Darwin's finches by John Gould

Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations. Charles Darwin popularised the term "natural selection", contrasting it with artificial selection, which in his view is intentional, whereas natural selection is not.

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and their offspring can inherit such mutations.

Throughout the lives of the individuals, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment. Because individuals with certain variants of the trait tend to survive and reproduce more than individuals with other less successful variants, the population evolves. Other factors affecting reproductive success include sexual selection (now often included in natural selection) and fecundity selection.

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, the characteristics of the organism which actually interact with the environment, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives that phenotype a reproductive advantage may become more common in a population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

 

[Q-reeus]

That is because you have failed to prove anything after being afforded ample opportunity!
And no, you don't get off that easy. You're on the merry-go-round and it's running. If you sell out now you're admitting you're wrong.

There is no evidence against Evolution by Natural Selection. Prove me wrong!

I bet you cannot because evolution by natural selection is a mathematical equation and holds true under all tests, including human artificial application. You got a prize Bull?

Natural selection
Modern biology began in the nineteenth century with Charles Darwin's work on evolution by natural selection.

Part of a series on

Evolutionary biology
Darwin's finches by John Gould

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

I'll come back just to clarify and correct your ongoing folly. Of late evolution has come to include so-called prebiotic chemical evolution. That's what I was referring to - it's the thread topic in case you need reminding! You keep muddying the waters by chaotically switching unannounced between that and Darwinian evolution. Can't keep on topic.
And btw despite your contempt for Behe, he has convincingly shown the macro-evolutionary claims of Darwinian evolution lead to a dead end. But you won't study his newer articles on that, instead relying on detractors claims. Bye.

 

[Write4U]

I'll come back just to clarify and correct your ongoing folly. Of late evolution has come to include so-called prebiotic chemical evolution. That's what I was referring to - it's the thread topic in case you need reminding!

To which I responded that evolutionary processes already starts at the chemical molecular level

You keep muddying the waters by chaotically switching unannounced between that and Darwinian evolution. Can't keep on topic.

As I have shown, there is fundamentally no difference in evolutionary processes, only it's application to various criteria.

And btw despite your contempt for Behe, he has convincingly shown the macro-evolutionary claims of Darwinian evolution lead to a dead end. But you won't study his newer articles on that, instead relying on detractors claims. Bye.

Then why do you make it so difficult for me to find the exact article you are referring to, without quote or link? I call that rude. I provide quotes and links to leave no doubt as to the intent of my post. For you to not afford me the same courtesy is not good form, IMO.

But, thanks for the response. Of course it does not in any way negate evolution or abiogenesis.
On the contrary, it confirms that evolutionary processes already begin at the molecular level (Hazen). Which I have already addressed many posts ago.
but please, when you cite a scientist, provide a quote and a link. It makes for an informed exchange.

Prebiotic Evolution and Self-Assembly of Nucleic Acids

Abstract

Prebiotic evolution is the stage that is assumed to have taken place prior to the emergence of the first living entities, during which time the abiotic synthesis of monomers, oligomers, and supramolecular systems that led to the hypothesized RNA world occurred. In this Perspective, the success of one-pot Miller–Urey type synthesis of organic compounds is compared with the multipot syntheses developed within the framework of systems chemistry, which attempts to demonstrate that RNA could have been formed directly in the primitive environment. The prebiotic significance of liquid-crystal ordering of nucleic acid oligomers and self-organizing assemblages of RNA and DNA that are formed in the absence of membranes or mineral matrices is also addressed.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.8b07605#:

 

[Q-reeus]

Then why do you make it so difficult for me to find the exact article you are referring to, without quote or link? I call that rude. I provide quotes and links to leave no doubt as to the intent of my post. For you to not afford me the same courtesy is not good form, IMO.

Disingenuous - the leads were supplied earlier this thread and I can safely assume you refused to even take a peek:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/chemical-evolution.163475/page-4#post-3655988
When you expand the text immediately below vid window, an almost direct link to Amazon site is provided:
https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910/&redir_token=QUFFLUhqa0Mzb3NqNnZMazRqc2tkUVhrRk1qMTlwd2NDd3xBQ3Jtc0tsSDQzQjV4TE9xUXpOcGtPSFVQMUZhZXJjdS1LRDNoNTBDcFVWV3BHUHdBQ3FQSU9UUVU4UFVNVTFRcmNEdE1CV3BzTER1Y0JyOC13alZFaVNFajBYQVNfbjN4NlpROGJ3ekRwSklDMmw0WW13TEFtcw==&event=video_description&v=rBxSh0ZInng
The non-YouTube filtered direct link:
https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910/

Behe's other important works are also cited in that vid, along with examples of outright shameless lying by his critics, but again, I can safely assume you never bothered to watch the YouTube vid. Sad.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.8b07605#

Why link to an article behind a paywall very few not institutionally exempt are willing to fork out for? Click bate nothing more.