For the alternative theorists:

[Trippy]

let it be known that trippy HAS NOT said the evidence is invalid.

Blatant lie, what I have actually said is that I have already discussed it to death and the one should be able to infer my position based on what has been said.

 

[humbleteleskop]

i already have, and gotten a warning and an infraction for posing it.
let it be known that trippy HAS NOT said the evidence is invalid.
i'll repost it below:
https://creation.mobi/origin-of-lif...oblem-is-magnetochiral-dichroism-the-solution

be aware that all i'm interested in is the discussion about chirality.

I've seen both links the first time you posted them. Please pick your best argument and copy/paste the statement here so it can be addressed specifically.

 

[Write4U]

It's irrelevant where the argument comes from, just copy/paste the specifics here so we know what is it we are talking about. Bring it on.

Make sure you include dates and authorship of the descriptions of events. (And if available, their credentials in the subject matter)

 

[humbleteleskop]

No: there is no such thing as a "creationist scientist", so no such people to discriminate against. One cannot enter a club by self-labeling oneself as a member.

There are scientists, very prominent ones too, who believe in divine creation of the human race, as described by the Bible. Obviously that was intended meaning of the phrase "creationist scientist".

And while it may seem to SOUND nice to say all evidence should be considered regardless of source, it only sounds nice: all sources are not equal and known bad sources should not be considered. Proper source selection is a basic part of critical thinking.

Source selection is not critical thinking, it's a prejudice and ignorant thinking.

 

[Trippy]

Seeing as how Leopold insists on lying about my stance because he's too lazy to go back through the discussion I've JUST BEEN HAVING on this very issue.

Chirality – A brief overview
All living organisms are based upon certain ‘mirror’ isomers of amino acids.

Correct. The scare quotes are un-neccessary, it conveys the air that the writer disagrees with the jargon introducing doubt into the readers mind. This is the start of the wedge technique.

Although normal chemical reactions produce right and left mirrors in equal amounts, often called a ‘racemic mixture’, the proteins which constitute the organelles in living cells are composed entirely of right handed forms of sugars and left handed forms of amino acids (called ‘enantiomers’).

Mostly correct, again, the scare quotes are un-neccessary - as outlined above. A solution that contains equal amounts of right and left enantiomers is not "often called a 'racemic mixture'. It is called a racemic mixture, period.
A racemic mixture has equal amounts of both enantiomers.
A heterochiral mixture has an excess of one or the other, but both are present.
A homochiral mixture is enantiopure.

Because such chemicals exist exclusively in one form, they are referred to as being ‘homochiral’.

Correct. Again, the scare quotes are un-neccessary, homochiral is a technical term. See the points in the first sentence re the scare quotes.

Any naturalistic explanation for the origin of life must, therefore, provide an account of how naturalistic mechanisms would produce the proper mirrored building blocks necessary for the generation of the first self-replicating life form.

Correct, and the basis of the conversation I've been having with humble telescope.

Chirality – A problem for neo-Darwinism
Chirality is a long-standing enigma for those who hold to a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life.

Calling it an enigma is an exaggeration. Here they're exaggerating the uncertainty of science on the matter, again, this is typical use of the wedge technique. It started with the use of scare quotes on technical terms and contiues here.

DNA and RNA are not capable of complementary pair bonding in the absence of being homochiral. This means that racemic DNA or RNA cannot replicate.

Complementary pair bonding within DNA and RNA occurs between Guanine, Adenine, Cytosine, Uracil, and Thymine. They are, as I recall, all planar. Being planar means they do not have enatiomers. So that would make the quoted portion wrong. This is the first lie.

Living things possess molecular machinery to produce homochirality, but undirected chemistry would produce equal mixtures of the left-handed and right-handed isomers, called racemates.

This is the second lie. Chemistry that is not directed by living things (or a divine creator) can still give rise to enantiopure products, it just requires that the reactions occured on a chiral substrate - for example, quartz.

There is no known mechanism by which racemic polypeptides could form the specific shapes required for enzymes; rather, they would have the side chains sticking out all over the place.

I think this is mostly true. Using the wrong enantiomer would probably cause a protein or enzyme to fold improperly. Although, protein folding is controled by other factors as well, such as hydropobocity, pH and so on. At the moment, modelling protein folding on a computer is something that requires distributed processing via projects such as Boinc.

Moreover, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing alpha-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilized in a helix if even a small proportion of the wrong-handed form was present, so it could not form long chains. Only a tiny fraction of wrong-handed molecules is required to terminate RNA replication.

Again, this is probably true, give or take what I just said.

The problem of chirality is crucial to the concept of abiogenesis -- that is, that life can originate from non-living matter. Proponents of such a model must answer questions such as ‘Which came first, homochirality or life?’

This is sort of correct, hence we have hypotheses like DNA world, RNA world, Metabolism first world, and so on.

If one holds that homochirality was first, it is an admission that without ‘left-handed’ amino acids and ‘right-handed’ sugars, life’s structures and processes would not have been possible. One then has to account for the origin of this homochirality.

The scare quotes are un-neccessary. There is nothing in modern biology that says life couldn't have just as easily formed with right handed amino acids and left handed sugars, or, for that matter, as I understand it combinationd of left/left and right/right for amino acids and sugars. Once again, we see exaggeration of a partially valid claim. Typical wedge technique.

Conversely, if one contends that life was first, then one is saying that chirality was not important to the origin of life’s structures and processes as we now know them.

Not strictly true. Saying that chirality was unimportant to the origin of life is not the same thing as saying that homochirality is unimportant.

One must enter a special pleading for a vastly different metabolism in the ‘protobiont’, ignoring for instance the pivotal role of polypeptide homopolymers in hydrogen-bonded networks for proton and electron transport.

Again, we have exaggeration of what might have been an otherwise valid point. Having said that, everything listed here are features that have evolved in modern life, but are not neccessarily going to be properties of the first life, or life -like structures.

Moreover, one must also account for the successful transition to homochirality as we have it today -- a problem which is, arguably, even more insurmountable.

No it isn't. Simple evolutionary processes may have been sufficient if the earth had an excess of one chirality over the other. Again, this is an example of the wedge technique.

The logical conclusion from these considerations is that homochirality and life emerged simultaneously.

Not neccessarily, no.

Chirality – Summary
The origin of homochirality is of fundamental importance in origin-of-life research, since non-homochiral mixtures of amino acids or sugars are not conducive to the composition of RNA, DNA and proteins -- the building blocks of all living organisms.

There are varying degrees of truth in this. This is classic wedge technique. There are honest statements mixed in with statements derived from their false statements to give them the air of validity. For example, where they discussed chirality of DNA they discussed the chirality of amino acids but not sugars. They're using a possibly true statement regarding the sugars to support their false claims regarding the amino acids in DNA and RNA.

There remains no naturalistic explanation that describes how homochirality could have arisen through entirely materialistic processes.

This is also a lie. Naturalistic explanations exist. Again, wedge technique.

Processes that can enhance the enantiomeric excess of appropriate amino acid or nucleic acid building blocks produce only modest increases in the percentage of those proteins, while requiring unrealistic, laboratory conditions.
- See more at: http://www.allaboutscience.org/chirality.htm#sthash.0XKe1XCy.dpuf

Unrealistic by whose definition? Modest increase by what standard? They're using vague, wishwashy language to make un-substantiated claims.

Now, Leopold. Do you see yet how much of this (I dare say all of it) has already been covered over the last few days?

Are you going to stop lying?

 

[paddoboy]

To Trippy and others Interested in FACT:
It seems a problem has arisen on this forum, and this thread in particular.
My only reason in posting this, is to throw light onto the mentality of some.
I am rather bored actually with the mud slinging between you and leopold, so I thought it maybe the case that some pertinent past happenings have been forgotten.
It may now be time to raise them so as other bystanders are able to judge for themselves as to who the likely liars and trolls really are.

At one time I received a message from leopold which inferred he would like private conversation with me re Evolution and God and some "evidence"he was supposed to have that invalidated Evolution.
I declined the offer, saying I was not Interested in discussing religion and/or Evolution with anyone off the bounds of the forum.
He continued messaging me with obviously more angst at my decline.
My take on this episode was that for some reason, he saw a possible candidate for conversion, so to speak. Why?? I don't know.
Possibly because I have always tried to be even handed and fair and equitable on these forums, and in that, he saw a patsy.
Anyway, the messaging stopped and after some time, we crossed swords in this very thread about the subject at hand.
Someone or other, from memory [I'm not going to check the actual details as it is not pertinent to the overall message I am trying to convey] then told him he was a God botherer or Creationist, which he vehemently denied.
I saw that denial as an opportunity to remind him of his messaging to me.
He vehemently again denied being a God Botherer or Creationist of any sort, and denied he ever mentioned it in his messaging of me.
He even dared me to post the messages on this forum, for all to see [rather strange I thought] but I thought this would be against protocol and declined, despite his continuing threats and denial.
In my opinion then, it got to a stage where it looked as if I was lying about these messages, so I posted them to Trippy as evidence to support my claims.

The denials continued from leopold, and finally Trippy gave me the OK to post the messages.
The messages were posted, word for word, and are probably still part of this thread.
Leopold then said he was putting me on ignore :shrug: which did not worry me and his rantings against evolution, a near factual theory, continued unabatted to this day.

Now, I have been called a science cheer leader here by some [all anti science people by the way] so it did not worry me, and obviously this "reminder" from me is going to prompt some in calling me a Trippy/Mod suckhole or similar.
Suffice to say that Trippy has banned me a couple of times, [Wrongly in my opinion, and for reasons that he wanted to be seen as fair and reasonable] but I copped it without any of the complaints that is obvious in the bottom positioned threads here.

In my opinion, it is obvious who the liar here is, and speaking more broadly, it is obvious who the other trouble maker is.
But that's not my business, except when I am included in with troublemakers when some disagreement does occur.

 

[leopold]

And while it may seem to SOUND nice to say all evidence should be considered regardless of source, it only sounds nice: all sources are not equal and known bad sources should not be considered. Proper source selection is a basic part of critical thinking.

i didn't say all evidence, i said all valid evidence.
and yes, if the evidence is valid then the source is irrelevant.

edit:
do you dispute anything the site has to say about chirality?
no one to my knowledge has said "i dispute it and here's why".
also, no one has explained how the post is meaningless, and no one has explained why it was trolling.

 

[humbleteleskop]

At one time I received a message from leopold which inferred he would like private conversation with me re Evolution and God and some "evidence"he was supposed to have that invalidated Evolution.

It would have been enough if you only said this, the rest was unnecessary. It was obvious he was hiding some agenda all along, because he was not making any actual point and he avoided questions using generalizations and ambiguity. In any case, I would love to hear about whatever evidence leopold has about invalidating evolution or abiogenesis, publicly of course. I see no any reason why to hide such evidence, it's exactly what we are talking about here. Please, bring it on.

 

[leopold]

I've seen both links the first time you posted them. Please pick your best argument and copy/paste the statement here so it can be addressed specifically.

i have no arguement.
i was merely trying to post both sides.
and i get a warning AND an infraction shoved up my ass for doing it.
edit:
it isn't going to stop me trippy.
i WILL be objective.

 

[Trippy]

i have no arguement.
i was merely trying to post both sides.
and i get a warning AND an infraction shoved up my ass for doing it.

Quit lying. I've already explained to you that the re card infraction was issued in error necause I failed to check a box, and was subsequently reversed.

 

[humbleteleskop]

i have no arguement.
i was merely trying to post both sides.

You said you wanted to talk about it. Do you want to know the truth? Then please pick what you believe is the best argument so I can tell you the real truth about it and show you the evidence you are not aware of.

 

[billvon]

i WILL be objective.

"refusing to acknowledge valid evidence is the mark of a coward."

That's funny stuff, there.

 

[Russ_Watters]

i didn't say all evidence, i said all valid evidence.
and yes, if the evidence is valid then the source is irrelevant.

You are contradicting yourself and dancing in a circle around yourself: You want the evidence in your link evaluated to determine if it is valid before discarding it. You deny the validity of evaluating the source prior to evaluating the position/information it presents.

do you dispute anything the site has to say about chirality?
no one to my knowledge has said "i dispute it and here's why".

No, I do not dispute anything the site has to say and no one else has either, because none of us have put any effort into evaluating what the site is saying. The reason why is that the site is obviously not credible and therefore it is a waste of effort to do so.

also, no one has explained how the post is meaningless, and no one has explained why it was trolling.
[separate post]
i have no arguement.
i was merely trying to post both sides.
and i get a warning AND an infraction shoved up my ass for doing it.

You cannot get upset about being treated like the devil when playing devil's advocate. You are using crackpot sources, crackpot logic and crackpot tactics to argue a crackpot position. Whether you actually believe that position or are just arguing it for another unknown reason is irrelevant: behaving in an unscientific manner in a scientific forum isn't acceptable.

it isn't going to stop me trippy.
i WILL be objective.

When you start being objective it will be a welcome change.

 

[Russ_Watters]

There are scientists, very prominent ones too, who believe in divine creation of the human race, as described by the Bible. Obviously that was intended meaning of the phrase "creationist scientist".

In the context of the link, it is specifically regarding scientists in the relevant disciplines. If you think such scientists exist, please name some. I'll give you a hint: since there is no such scientifically recognized field as "creation science", there can be no such thing as "creation scientists".

Source selection is not critical thinking, it's a prejudice and ignorant thinking.

Considering your short and inglorious posting history, it is not surprising you don't even know what critical thinking is, since you have as of yet failed to demonstrate any:

Skill #4: Evaluation
What it Means: Being able to evaluate the credibility of statements or descriptions of a person’s experience, judgment or opinion in order to measure the validity of the information being presented.

Imagine you are leading a focus group at work to determine how your customers view the organization’s products. You ask the group a few questions that uncover several negative opinions about certain items you sell. You will need to use this skill to evaluate those responses, so you can determine if the information you received is valid and whether or not it needs to be further looked into.

Application Exercise: With the invention of the Internet this is a skill you can hone anytime you begin a search online. For practice, run a search on how to be a leader at work to test your evaluation skills. Are you able to identify whether the information you find is reliable and valid? Being aware of additional information you may need to make this assessment is essential. (Hint: In this example, you may need to evaluate the website’s URL, the author’s bio and potentially many other pieces of information.)

http://www.rasmussen.edu/student-li...tical-thinking-skills-you-need-to-master-now/

 

[paddoboy]

It now seems this thread [as excellent a thread as it obviously is] is degenerating somewhat in discussions on trivialities, pedant and details.

The current debate sprung up in discussions on the natural situation of scientific theories gaining in certainty, as they match observations and keep predicting successfully.
That has been realised with the BB, SR and GR.
The two under current discussions, Abiogenesis and Evolution are also near certain, so near in fact, that they are often inferred as fact, to illustrate the tremendous revelations and credibility each has.
I think most here agree with that objective summation.
Isn't that the crux of this debate?
Obviously the insistence of "details" is being pushed by the religiously inclined.
Details, some of which we are not sure of yet.
That though in know way detracts from any of the certainties of those theories in question.

 

[Trippy]

no one to my knowledge has said "i dispute it and here's why".

Liar.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ve-theorists&p=3206681&viewfull=1#post3206681
Thankyou though for validating my hesitance to go into any detail.

 

[humbleteleskop]

Living things possess molecular machinery to produce homochirality, but undirected chemistry would produce equal mixtures of the left-handed and right-handed isomers, called racemates.

This is the second lie. Chemistry that is not directed by living things (or a divine creator) can still give rise to enantiopure products, it just requires that the reactions occured on a chiral substrate - for example, quartz.

There are many ways homochirality could have happened naturally rather than biologically, but chemistry of the environment, including chirality, can be and it is directed by living things as well, if not more. All we need is a chiral enzyme who is producing replicas of itself and we have autocatalytic chemical reaction. It doesn't matter then if these self-replicating chiral enzymes are floating freely in a sea or are trapped inside a membrane of a living cell. Abiogenesis could have happened before, after, or right along as this separation was going on. Only very slight initial imbalance could produce 100% homochirality, rather quickly. But I also don't see any reason why evolution could not produce bi-chiral organisms or separate but co-existing species of both chirality.

There is no known mechanism by which racemic polypeptides could form the specific shapes required for enzymes; rather, they would have the side chains sticking out all over the place.

I think this is mostly true. Using the wrong enantiomer would probably cause a protein or enzyme to fold improperly. Although, protein folding is controled by other factors as well, such as hydropobocity, pH and so on. At the moment, modelling protein folding on a computer is something that requires distributed processing via projects such as Boinc.

Obviously then by the time ancestors of RNA and DNA started shaping the environment was already largely or completely homochiral.

There is nothing in modern biology that says life couldn't have just as easily formed with right handed amino acids and left handed sugars, or, for that matter, as I understand it combinationd of left/left and right/right for amino acids and sugars.

Exactly.

Having said that, everything listed here are features that have evolved in modern life, but are not neccessarily going to be properties of the first life, or life -like structures.

Indeed, naturally.

Naturalistic explanations exist.

They sure do, and this is very good place to learn about it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857173/

 

[humbleteleskop]

The current debate sprung up in discussions on the natural situation of scientific theories gaining in certainty, as they match observations and keep predicting successfully.
Isn't that the crux of this debate?

Obviously the insistence of "details" is being pushed by the religiously inclined.
Details, some of which we are not sure of yet.

You are already having your general and empty debate in every thread you post in. I'd like some substance, I want to talk about specific things and practical details.

 

[humbleteleskop]

In the context of the link, it is specifically regarding scientists in the relevant disciplines. If you think such scientists exist, please name some. I'll give you a hint: since there is no such scientifically recognized field as "creation science", there can be no such thing as "creation scientists".

Google it. Some prominent scientists who believe in god are among the leads in DNA research and sequencing, for example. There are Richard Dawkins interviews and debates on YouTube with some of them. Christopher Hitchens was under new treatment for cancer by one of them, which is kind of ironic some might say, in more than one way.

Considering your short and inglorious posting history, it is not surprising you don't even know what critical thinking is, since you have as of yet failed to demonstrate any:

If your physical body is completely governed by the laws of physics, can your "free will" make it do anything different than it was already going to do by itself anyway?

 

[humbleteleskop]

The reason why is that the site is obviously not credible and therefore it is a waste of effort to do so.

Oh, behave! Ignorance and prejudice is not something you should be proud of. How in the world you managed to acquire such insensibly queer mentality? Both links he gave actually point to the same evidence and, in essence, asking the same questions that mainstream scientists officially do. There are no any lies per se, only false conclusions.