I need conclusive proof of Abiogenesis

[Trippy]

i assume you meant the link to the PDF you mentioned.
came from NASA and has not been independently verified.
it also didn't state it would apply to all the amino acids in the body.
it did mention a few though.

You're being disingenius, illiterate, or incoherent, and I can't decide which it is, and here's why:

Let's start off by repeating what you said:

i assume you meant the link to the PDF you mentioned.
came from NASA and has not been independently verified.
it also didn't state it would apply to all the amino acids in the body.
it did mention a few though.

Now, this was in response to this:

Now go back and re-read what I actually said.

Which was my response to this:

you only provided the source for one compound.
i believe there are 20 amino acids that needs the similar treatment.
can they all be separated by circulatory polarized light?

Which was in response to this:

Quite, and meanwhile he (and leopold) just side step the issue that we have direct evidence of handedness arising naturally, and early.

Which was referring back to this post:

I'm going to reiterate here a point I made in another thread:

Again, this issue is a non-starter.

Carbon rich meteorites have been found to have an excess of L-Enantiomers over D-Enantiomers in carbon rich meteorites, and there are several explanations that have been proposed for this observation - including circularly polarized light as a result of supernovae.

However, recently, the observation was made that the greater the enrichment of L-isovaline in these meteorites, the greater the amount of water alteration that appeared to have taken place. This is important to note because, at least in the case of isovaline, L-isovaline is slightly less soluble in water than D-isovaline.

Here is a paper from 2009 discussing the discovery of excess L-Isovaline in the Murchison Meteorite and the Orgueil Meteorite.
Enrichment of the amino acid L-isovaline by aqueous alteration on CI and CM meteorite parent bodies

And here's a NASA press release (there will be a paper associated with it somewhere, I simply lack the time to track it down) that exteds the initial findings to a wider range of meteorites.
More Asteroids Could Have Made Life's Ingredients

So, like the fixable nitrogen issue, this issue is a non-starter. You'll also note that there's an extra added layer of parsimony in all of this (to put it one way) in that the excess of L-Amino acids has come from the same source as the ammonia - indeed, they've both been found in the same meteorite.

Trippy 2775021/59

Which brings us back to the full circle, and asking whether you're a liar or a moron.

Observe.

First let's break down the post in question:

Again, this issue is a non-starter.

Carbon rich meteorites have been found to have an excess of L-Enantiomers over D-Enantiomers in carbon rich meteorites, and there are several explanations that have been proposed for this observation - including circularly polarized light as a result of supernovae.

Okay, that's fine, here I mention that meteorites have, for a long time been known to have an excess of one enatiomer over another, and it happens to be the same enantiomer that earth bound life forms use, then I suggest that a number of explanations have been proposed, one of which is cirularly polarized high energy photons from a supernova. Which I clarify again later in response to one of your posts:

First off, it's circularly polarized light, circulatory polarized light is a meaningless term, and yes, it would affect all amino acids, that's one of the reasons it was proposed as a mechanism.

We have other lines of evidence suggesting a nearby supernova very early in the earth's history, and a nearby supernova would affect all amino acids, and have the capability to 'process' the entire solar system at once.

And then I continue:

However, recently, the observation was made that the greater the enrichment of L-isovaline in these meteorites, the greater the amount of water alteration that appeared to have taken place.

Oooh, exciting, here I'm discussing new science, recent discoveries - in these meterorites, which display this excess, we find that the areas that have the greatest enrichment, also show the greatest amount of alteration by water - NOT alteration by high energy photons such as those found in a supernova, but alteration by water.

Then I explain, in the most succinct fashion I can think of why this is important:

This is important to note because, at least in the case of isovaline, L-isovaline is slightly less soluble in water than D-isovaline.

It's important because the enantiomer that life doesn't use, is more soluble in water than the enantoimer that life does use. Incidentally, we're not talking an enrichment of a few percent here, we're talking a thousand fold enrichment. Note that I'm talking about solubility in water, not rates of photodissociation by circularly polarized light.

You'll also note the use of some weasel wording in there, I know, for a fact, that it's true of isovaline, because I took the time to exercise due dilligence and looked up the solubility of isovaline on solubility tables, and found that one is slightly more soluble in water than the other.

Both are soluble in water, so as you deplete one, you deplete them both, however you deplete the more soluble one more than you deplete the less soluble one.

Here is a paper from 2009 discussing the discovery of excess L-Isovaline in the Murchison Meteorite and the Orgueil Meteorite.
Enrichment of the amino acid L-isovaline by aqueous alteration on CI and CM meteorite parent bodies

Here I provide a link to a two year old paper, that IIRC goes somewhat in depth into various amino acids, but only looks at a couple of meteorites - this is important, because it extrapolates the findings beyond isovaline, and pre-empts the argument 'But it's just the one, it could be special in some way'. Note that the title of the paper says 'aqueous alteration' not 'photodissociation'.
Aqueous: a term used to describe a system which involves water.

And here's a NASA press release (there will be a paper associated with it somewhere, I simply lack the time to track it down) that exteds the initial findings to a wider range of meteorites.
More Asteroids Could Have Made Life's Ingredients

Here I provide a link to a press release that discusses a new finding that is related to the 2009 paper, that studies a wider range of of meteorite types, and finds an excess in those, and finds the same correlation between the degree of water alteration, and the degree of enrichment. Again, that's water alteration, not photodissociation, and not irradiation.

So, like the fixable nitrogen issue, this issue is a non-starter. You'll also note that there's an extra added layer of parsimony in all of this (to put it one way) in that the excess of L-Amino acids has come from the same source as the ammonia - indeed, they've both been found in the same meteorite.

Here I suggest that the 'asteroid seeding' hypothesis has (or should have) an added level of appeal to it, because it solves more than one problem with a single hypothesis - implicit in this is the assumption (or explicit context in the original thread) that the reader is smart enough to figure out for themselves that if the amines found on earth came from asteroids, and the amines on asteroids have an excess of one enantiomer over another, then it stands to reason that the earth should have the same excess. The significance of which requires the prior knowledge that with one or two exceptions, none of which IIRC are relevant here, the rate of a reaction is dependent on the concentration of the reactants (as well as, in some cases, the concentration of the products), which has the corrollary that if there is an excess of one enantiomer over another in the initial mixture, then one reaction will 'out compete' the other.

Now, getting back to your post, which I will repeat again:

i assume you meant the link to the PDF you mentioned.
came from NASA and has not been independently verified.
it also didn't state it would apply to all the amino acids in the body.
it did mention a few though.

An again, but this time with the added context of nested quotes:

you only provided the source for one compound.
i believe there are 20 amino acids that needs the similar treatment.
can they all be separated by circulatory polarized light?

Now go back and re-read what I actually said.

i assume you meant the link to the PDF you mentioned.
came from NASA and has not been independently verified.
it also didn't state it would apply to all the amino acids in the body.
it did mention a few though.

The PDF I provided had nothing to do with circularly polarized light. The PDF has to do with the alteration of amino acids by water, not the photodissociation of amino acids by circularly polarized light, or to do with supernovae.

Now before I go any further, I do have one confession to make - I may have inadvertantly conflated two seperate theories, however, we come back to the same point - if I had been intending to illustrate supernova initiated refractory processes leading to enantiomeric enrichment, I would have linked to one of Boyd et al's papers - eg this one or this one, or if I was wanting to discuss 'one handed' enrichment of DNA or RNA by circularly polarized light I would have linked to Michaelin's paper.

But I didn't, I linked to things discussing the evidence for enrichment by preferential dissolution in meteorites. Which leads us back to my opening question, given that the material I linked to discusses enrichment of seeding material by preferential dissolution, why are you asking me if photodissociation by circularly polarized light is applicable to all amino acids because (And here I quote you, and paraphrase you) "...the PDF mentioned... ...didn't state it would apply to all the amino acids in the body." Are you inept and unable to express youself clearly? I.E. Am I somehow supposed to infer that even though we've been discussing photodissociation, and the context the statement was made in was one of a discussion of photodissociation, that you now wish to discuss enrichment by preferential dissolution, but you're unable to formulate a clear statement such as 'one question about the water thing'? Are you illiterate, or do you have some kind of short term memory issue that means you're unable to retain the context of a dicussion for the duration of the discussion, even though you have only recently looked at the initial post in question? Or are you dishonest and forwarding an allegation or hypothesis that you know to be untrue, or engage me in a 'bait and switch' by engaging me in one topic, and then suddenly, without anything approaching an indication, changing subject in the hope to trick me into making some kind of gaff?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I need conclusive proof of Abiogenesis.

And I need a cure for arthritis. All of these things will surely come, but perhaps not during our lifetimes.

There is enough evidence that is consistent with the hypothesis of abiogenesis, to make it the only hypothesis that is in the running. This is no guarantee that it will ultimately be proven true, but it means that all current competing hypotheses have already been proven false.

"Creationism," for example, fails quite simply and quite dismally, on the fallacy of recursion. The "god" who is given credit for creating all life is obviously alive, which requires him to have created himself. And these folks think the Big Bang makes no sense?

Religious assertions are so boneheaded that their falsification requires almost no advanced education, merely a good solid grounding in common sense.

 

[spidergoat]

I know that, but the christian in the debate seems to have different standards for his arguments vs. anyone else's (I know, right?). As in, God did it needs to be claimed to have happened by the Bible, and Abiogenesis needs to have been 100% confirmed to not only be possible, but to have been the case in the formation of life on Earth. I've tried telling him about the flaws in Scripture, I've tried arguing that anything possible within the universe (being as big as it is) would have to eventually happen somewhere in the universe, no matter how unlikely, but no luck.

You could say that I just shouldn't try to fight for this lost cause, but I just can't do that. Perhaps I care to much for the world's ability to reason. Perhaps I'm too stubborn. Perhaps I feel that giving up here is a reflection of how much of a failure I am. I dunno.

You would lose if you accept the Christian's standards for debate. You have to explain that there is no evidence for God or creationism and massive evidence for life based on natural processes. So a naturalistic explanation is the default position, and all you need is a plausible naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis.

 

[wellwisher]

Before there was water in the universe, the template for forming water could be inferred from atoms and the EM force. All you need is hydrogen and oxygen below a certain temperature. The design was there even before the reality of the first water molecules. This design is not random nor does it come to be after it appears. It was there from the beginning of the universe.

If we made water over and over again from a hot plasma of atoms, the same result will appear. The god of random is not in charge except as an addendum. Order is in charge based on a template of logical inference, with the final reality already defined, even before it comes into reality. This is a god logic.

If I saw a cloud of stella gas starting to move, I can infer that a star is forming, even before it looks like a star. The gravity template was already ther,e even before the cloud appears as a final star. The god of random might tweak this, but his/her role is occurs as it comes into reality.

I look for templates and not this the impact of the minor god of random, who, we are told, can form life in mysterious ways we can not duplicate in the lab. I prefer look for the template of life.

 

[spidergoat]

There is a certain geometry to matter and the universe, but that alone does not imply a creator.

 

[leopold]

Or are you dishonest and forwarding an allegation or hypothesis that you know to be untrue, or engage me in a 'bait and switch' by engaging me in one topic, and then suddenly, without anything approaching an indication, changing subject in the hope to trick me into making some kind of gaff?

you could have stated the post you wanted me to read.

you probably didn't just so you could rag on me like this.

ass.

don't bother asking me any more questions.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

you could have stated the post you wanted me to read.

We learnt a long time ago that simple requests like that are useless with you as your intellectual dishonesty prevents you from ever addressing simple questions. Your usual tactic is to ignore such questions and re-state your erroneous conclusions that have previously been debunked.

you probably didn't just so you could rag on me like this.

If by “rag” you mean demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty, trolling, wilful ignorance, disingenuousness or lack of understanding of the scientific method, then yes.

don't bother asking me any more questions.

Okay. And you don’t bother ever posting again in an abiogenesis thread. Deal? Otherwise I predict your behaviour will earn you a ban for trolling.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Mod note: I had to think for a while about what to do with this thread. Unfortunately this topic always brings out a mixture of the scientifically confused down to outright crackpots. We have:

wellwisher – pseudoscientific word salads that usually erroneously identify decreased membrane entropy (or similar pseudoscience idea) as the be-all-and-end-all of every biological question.

leopold99 – continuous intellectual dishonesty, wilful ignorance and trolling. Leopold has been spouting his misunderstanding of abiogenesis, evolution, the scientific method and science in general for several years on Sciforums.

lightgigantic – strawman arguments that miss the points being made.​

But there have been some good responses to the above so I have left the thread intact but closed it as it has veered off-topic.