Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2071498

Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

one other little thing;

much is made of the "non-randomness" of the proteinoid configuration in that over and over, 
the proteinoids from given starting materials are always the same. that each amino acid 
'determines' its own arrangements. trouble is, that proteins formed from genetic information 
always violate -this- determined sequence, and, in essence, produce "non-natural" protein sequences.

"naturally" occuring protein-like species are always the same

genetically produced protein species have a wide variety and diversity
 not found in the "naturally" occurring species.

i have some things to do, ... i may be back..later







Moses wrote:
> 
> addendum:
> 
> go into the lab, and take the raw crud from any or all of the various electrical
> discharge, or UV light, or hot heat experiments, which produce the amino acid tar
> and use that crud as the starting material for phase two, the melt inclusion
> followed by hot salt water wash to produce microspheres.
> 
> i suggest to you that there is a reason that they don't -emphasize- this, and that is
> because they -did- try it that way and it din't go to microsphere stage because there
> is a whole lot of crud in the raw goop that interferes with -that- stage.
> 
> maybe you'll get a publication out of it.
> 
> maybe not.
> 
> Moses wrote:
> >
> > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 03:13:33 -0500, Moses
> > > <noone@here.not-valid-address> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 21:34:00 -0500, Moses
> > > >> <noone@here.not-valid-address> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>  Moses wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> You looked at it, and perhaps skimmed it. But you didn't read it.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> >> >> They metabolised and reproduced.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> >> >that flavins may be found in the bubbles and flavins have metabolic activities in living cells,
> > > >> >> >> >does not suggest that these bubbles are using flavins to feed themselves. they are not. these
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> >> What "bubbles" were you lying about?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> >the proteinoid microspheres are bubbles,
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> READ THE PRESENTATION, AND LOOK AT THE MICRO-PHOTOGRAPHS.
> > > >>
> > > >> Clearly, you didn't.
> > > >
> > > >> >there's another glaring problem with the relevance of the Fox work. not that it isn't interesting work, but
> > > >
> > > >> >the miller-urey type experiments produces the amino acids glycine and alanine in approximately 2% yield
> > > >> >[1.05%] and [0.75%] respectively, depending on the amount of carbon supplied as methane. More complex
> > > >> >amino acids such as glutamic acid and leucine are produced in smaller amounts about 0.026% of the total
> > > >
> > > >> So frikking what?
> > > >
> > > >> Fox used a different method of amino acid formation than Miller and
> > > >> Urey.
> > > >
> > > >> He produced amino acids using heat and silica sand as a catalyst, not
> > > >> an electrical discharge.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >and the proportions are generally identical, the reason being that it is in the nature  of the products themselves
> > > >and not the exact method for obtaining them. glycine and alanine simply form more readily due to their structures,
> > > >and the others, including glutamic and aspartic form in much smaller proportions by these methods.
> > > >this is part of the "non-randomness" of the chemistry.
> > > >
> > > >you may like to peruse this instead of your harbinger presentation
> > >
> > > You may want to address Fox's presentation instead of trying to
> > > discredit it by repeating lies you got from a creationist web page.
> > >
> > > >Molecular Evolution and Protobiology
> > > >By Matsuno, Dose, Harada and Rohlfing
> > > >
> > > >and that's Kaoru Harada who worked with Fox, he gives a fairly detailed first hand account of the studies in question.
> > >
> > > SO WHAT?    Unless you give the actual cite, in the surrounding context, I have no
> > > reason to believe you because of all your previous lies.
> >
> > that -is- the cite,
> >
> >     Molecular Evolution and Protobiology
> >     By Matsuno, Dose, Harada and Rohlfing
> >
> > it's a book, look it up. i don't feel like typing out the whole passage.
> > and Harada  gives a detailed description of the work and not the simplistic
> > overview of certain points offered up in your harbinger presentation
> >
> > > Nobody insists that the way Harada and Fox demonstrated, actually
> > > happened - that would take a time machine.
> >
> > you're not comprehending that these experiments are done in a molten phase reaction
> > and that only glutamic aspartic and lysine form these lactam melts and that is why they must be present in excess.
> > it's not a 'fudge' it's the way those reactions go, the problem is, that the proportions of the excess molten
> >  varieties is not naturally in agreement with that obtained in the experiment that purportedly naturally
> >  produces the amino acids in the first place. yes, many combinations do not react, they don't go.
> >
> > they didn't just stumble on the reactant mixtures that -did- go, they tried dozens of combinations.
> > they were -trying- to mimic and understand pre-biotic chemisty.
> >
> > these reactions Do Not go in aqueous phase.
> >
> > so, the problem is;
> >
> > first, they convince themselves that amino acids can be form by elctric discharges in
> > the gas phase and high temperatures, and they do produce amino acids but then, they jump
> >  to a totally new set of conditions to do teh second experiment, and these are conditions
> >  which are -not- directly related to teh natural conditions which produced the acids in the first place.
> >
> > and a striking difference is in the proportions of the amino acids.
> >
> > not just any proportion goes, as noted by your harbinger piece that says they had
> > to -overcome- the problem of thermal decomposition. and they overcame this by using
> > excesses of specific acids, namely glutamic and aspartic
> >
> > why? because these form melts and all the rest do not.

Back to alt.atheism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.55> - 2016-03-05 20:14 -0500
  Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 20:18 -0600
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-05 20:36 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 20:49 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 19:52 -0700
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.6y> - 2016-03-05 22:48 -0500
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 22:44 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-05 23:48 -0500
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-05 23:38 -0600
            Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 02:51 -0500
              Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 02:03 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 03:25 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 09:45 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.54> - 2016-03-06 11:58 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:31 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-07 21:34 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 01:14 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 03:13 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 04:35 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 06:10 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 06:48 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-08 07:42 -0500
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:41 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:30 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 10:29 -0600
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-09 01:12 +0100
                Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 19:18 -0600
              Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 18:00 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-05 23:44 -0500
  Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <forget@it.nw> - 2016-03-06 12:01 +0100
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <moses@sinai.56> - 2016-03-06 07:29 -0500
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-06 19:20 +0000
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 13:56 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-06 14:27 -0600
            Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:35 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Gordon <gordonlr@swbell.net> - 2016-03-06 14:33 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:47 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-03-07 20:23 +0000
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 20:53 +0100
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 14:07 -0600
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Moses <noone@here.not-valid-address> - 2016-03-07 22:17 -0500
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 01:20 -0600
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-07 23:37 -0800
          Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-08 23:15 +0100
            Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-08 16:56 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 17:22 -0800
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:25 -0700
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-03-06 05:07 -0800
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 17:08 +0100
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 11:00 -0600
    Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-03-06 09:50 -0600
      Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-06 23:01 +0100
        Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-07 18:30 -0500

csiph-web