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

Groups > alt.atheism > #2071382

Re: Here's Some More Evidence For You

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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 PRESENTATION, AND LOOK AT THE MICRO-PHOTOGRAPHS.

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

that's an 80 to 1 abundance of glycine and alanine to the rest, which includes glutamic
the actual proportions may be even greater.


[from harbinger Fox note] speaking of the decomposition which occurs when you heat amino acids

\\\\
"We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in the mixture to be heated 
a sufficient proportion of one or both of two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid."    /lysine also works
\\\

this part of the experiment cannot be carried out in aqueous solution because the production
of water in the polymerization process makes the reaction non-spontaneous

[amino acid] + [amino acid]  <===> [amino acid polymer] + water
                                    free energy favors reactants


so, the reason for the excessive proportions of those particular acids is that, aspartic lysine glutamic acids
form melts when heated, and the melts constitute the solvent system where the other amino acids may form co-polymers
with the solvent system. meaning when you form a melt with aspartic lysine or glutamic acids you can then dope in 
other amino acids and the reaction proceeds in a 'non-aqueous' environment/solvent system.

glycine alanine and all the rest do not form melts.

trouble here is that the "natural" abundance of amino acids formed by the electrical discharge experiments
show a glaring =poverty= of the amino acids that form melts, and which must be employed in =excess= proportion
in the Fox experiment.

so, our "experimenter" must step in and alter the natural abundance to get his experiment to proceed.

these proportions are not "natural" as shown from the electrical discharge experiments and so,
nullify the Fox experiment as not a naturalistic reproduction of pre-biotic chemistry. 



> >and another trouble is, the starting materials which are clean dried purified amino
> >acids in very specific proportions do not occur "naturally" and you have to rig
> >the experiment and then make up stories after the fact to make those conditions
> >conform to some imaginary earth conditions.

> Where did the presentation say anything about "clean, dried, purified
> amino acids in specific proportions?

the initial part of the experiment is carried out by heating dried amino acids in a melt,
because the reaction doesn't go in aqueous solution. there's your "dried" part;

and as he says;

"We learned that we could avoid the decomposition if we included in the mixture to be heated 
a sufficient proportion of one or both of two amino acids: aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid." 

a "sufficient proportion"   

in other words, he has to rig the proportions to get a favorable result and in this case, 
the proportions do not match the proportions of the miller-urey and herrera type experiments.

fails the "natural" test.


> There was no "rigging of the experiment".

> At that point, the research was into protein formation, not the origin
> of life.

> And simply put, it was just heat and any old mixture of amino acids as
> long as it included aspartic acid and/or glutamic acid.


not quite, not just =included= aspartic and/or glutamic but had those amino acids 
in =excess= because they melt and form the solvent system where the reaction goes
 because it doesn't go in aqueous solution.

not natural abundances in line with the electrical discharge experiments.


> >  they have unnatural kinked and branched chains and are not
> >linear and they always form a racemic mixture of D and L forms where living organisms
> >as we know all always have only the L form. if that process always results in a
> >racemic mixture of D and L, even starting with all L amino acids, and all subsequent
> >actual cells "evolved" from them, we should not see the preference for L forms in the
> >living cell structure, which we do see. the so-called proto-cells are racemates, and
> >must be racemates by virtue of the process itself and cannot and do not purify their
> >chirality before forming the microspheres  but that real organisms evolved from these
> >majically lose this in favor of homochirality. if those microspheres which are racemates
> >started inventing nucleic acids based on themselves, we should see racemic nucleic acids
> >but we don't. you may be able to show me how a mixture of racemic amino acids can be
> >chirally purified, but the process itself of heating destroys
> >this purity in favor of the racemic mixture in the microsphere again.

> WHY DO YOU EXPECT MODERN FORMS OF LIVING ORGANISMS?

the DL chirality problem is not trivial 

=if= the rest of teh bit was "natural" which it isn't.

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