Poll: Evolution and the other side

dantoddd

New member
Sep 18, 2009
272
0
0
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
So organic molecules spontaneously combined to form amino acids, which combined to form proteins, which spontaneously combined to form DNA, RNA, and cell membranes, etc.
No. Amino acids, which already existed because of other endothermic reactions, eventually polymerized in lipid acid pockets, into peptides. That's it.

Fat (lipid acid) turns into bubbly pockets. Ever cook spaghetti? Sometimes stuff gets in those pockets. Amino acids are already proven to exist at this point. So they got in there, and formed peptide bonds cause that's what amino acids when there is heat. Those bonded amino acids could not escape because the surface tension of the fat pockets.

That's it. That's all. THAT is the first life form. RNA? DNA? cell membranes? None of those are necessary.

Somehow the first cell formed, which reproduced, and natural selection caused it to evolve into all the life forms we see today.
No. The cell didn't evolve for a while. At least, not the complex cell structures we know of today.

Somehow simple molecules have to assemble themselves into more complex molecules (the ?building blocks of life?),
Carbon-based molecules have a tendancy to do this. Carbon is kinda a slut in the chemical world.

which assemble themselves into the first living thing, which reproduces itself, in order to get the evolutionary process started. Molecules will not assemble themselves this way because they have to obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is flawed. Horribly horribly flawed.

Also saying something that cannot happen but occurs millions of times a day in your body only shows your ignorance on the subject. But... here's the solution that solves your quandry. It's two words.

ENDOTHERMIC REACTIONS

Some chemical reactions require energy from an outside source to fuel them. Many reactions essential to life are endothermic reactions.

You should make a note of that, because the second law of thermodynamics only states that entropy must increase in closed systems. Once you have an endothermic reaction, you must also include the energy source, and any thing connected to or involved in that energy source.

In other words, you cannot take a chemical in a vacuum and say it cannot do things, and call it a closed system, when it is not, in fact, the sum total of what is going on there.

DNA molecules contain heat in the form of chemical energy. As everyone who listened to the expert testimony at the O.J. Simpson trial knows, DNA molecules are fragile. The slightest bit of external energy breaks DNA molecules into simpler molecules, allowing the heat to escape into the environment. Energy breaks molecules apart, allowing them to release even more energy. An unlit candle just sits there, holding its heat in the form of chemical energy until you bring a lighted match close to it. The warmth of the match breaks the wax molecules apart, releasing heat in the form of warmth, which provides the energy to break more wax molecules apart, which keeps the reaction going.
Why are you talking about DNA like it's somehow relevant to the point of abigenesis? Did you watch the video I provided?

Organic molecules in food remain intact longer in the freezer than they do in the refrigerator. They remain intact longer in the refrigerator than they do sitting on the kitchen counter. That?s why you keep your most perishable food in the freezer or refrigerator. Heat eventually breaks downs DNA, RNA, sugars, proteins, and amino acids. It doesn?t put them together. Chefs know this basic fact.
Actually, that has a lot more to do with this thing called 'bacteria growth'. You don't freeze stuff to prevent protein breakdown. You freeze stuff to prevent salmonella, botulism, and other such things.

Alternatively, you can accomplish the exact same thing by keeping the temperature above 167 degrees Farhenheit.

By the way, I've done my time in a kitchen.

Abiogenesis violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics because it requires heat to organize itself into localized chemical energy. Simple molecules have to combine into complex molecules which store more heat. Heat doesn?t naturally flow from cold places to hot places.
Okay. Now you're full of shit.

First off, reactions that require heat to start, and then give off energy (exothermic reactions) are completely possible in modern chemistry and physics. Proof: FIRE. What happens is the energy from one reaction provides the energy necessary to start another reaction. So, the heat given off by one of them reactions you claim is impossible, would then radiate, and would trigger other similar reactions, in what is called a 'chain reaction.'

But, that's not what's likely to be happening:

Secondly, reactions that require heat, but absorb energy (endothermic reactions) change heat into the energy of the chemical bonds. The heat is gone, and the temperature of the resultant molecule is less than that of the original components. As a result, you have a resultant molecule that is colder than the environment that is warm enough to start the reaction. Thus, you do not have the problem of energy travelling from cold to hot.

More over, this is actually not relevant to the current theory of abiogenesis.

Stanley Miller knew that he would have to build a machine that would assemble simple gas molecules into amino acids, and he knew that this machine would need an external source of energy to force the molecules to combine. He initially used a spark for this purpose, but other forms of energy, such as ultraviolet light, were later used in similar experiments. But Stanley Miller ran into some trouble. Miller?s electric spark broke molecules apart faster than it created them. That is why he had to get the molecules he created out of the spark-filled chamber before the next spark. Stanley Miller proved organic molecules (amino acids, proteins, sugars, etc.) don?t occur naturally in sufficient purity and abundance to sustain life.
Which is absolutely awesome, and has nothing to do with the CURRENT THEORY OF ABIOGENESIS.

Protip: They actually created life. Maybe you should actually watch the video.

So long as Abiogenisis breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is dead on arrival.
It doesn't, but that's okay. You didn't watch the video. Go watch the video.

As long as Evolutionists require Abiogenisis to be fact in text books and in their lectures, then Evolution will be dead on arrival.
Evolution is not predecated on ABiogenesis. And, so long as you make false claims like 'Abiogenesis breaks the laws of thermodynamics' then I'll say to you 'Abiogenesis has been replicated in a lab, and as it has -occured-, it does not break the laws of thermodynamics.'

I'll reiterate this to you.

Scientists. Actually. Did. It.

And you need to learn Second Law of Thermodynamics better, because in your understanding, the very things you mentioned to stop amino acid breakdown... refridgerators, and freezers... are impossible. Cause isn't that drawing heat from a cold source (the inside of the unit) to an outside source? (the very hot cooling racks in the back)

There's more to it than heat.
What i can never understand is why people write all these extra long responses to ID arguments. It's a monumental waste of time
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
DracoSuave said:
UPDATE:

Apparently my experiment on L-type and D-type amino acids as edible substances is continuing well. I believe I am still living, an observation that is backed up by me posting in this thread.

I, however, am not satisfied so this morning I had another 500g of mocha yogurt.

The subject, me, seems to enjoy the sourness of the yogurt, combined with the bittersweetness of the mocha.

If I die, can someone else continue my experiment on eating sour things with bittersweet things to see if they are delicious?

Whoever said 'left-handed' (really right-handed) amino acids are poisonous to life? Consuder that myth BUSTED.
Real cute, Draco. But it should be noted that your belly, according to my reserach, doesn't have the ability to digest the D-type amino acids into their basic form. That is why time and time again, I keep reading that life only works with L-type amino acids.

An important exception occurs in a component in cell membranes of eubacteria. There the amino acids are right-handed. This has led many to conclude that they must have evolved separately from all other bacteria. Because evolving the first living cell is so improbable, having it happen twice, in effect, compounds the improbability. [See Adrian Barnett, ?The Second Coming: Did Life Evolve on Earth More Than Once?? New Scientist, Vol. 157, 14 February 1998, p. 19.]
Recent discoveries have found that some amino acids, most notably aspartic acid, flip (at certain locations in certain proteins) from the normal left-handed form to the right-handed form. Flipping increases with age and correlates with disease, such as Alzheimer?s disease, cataracts, and arteriosclerosis. As one ages, flipping even accumulates in facial skin, but not other skin. [See Noriko Fujii, ?D-Amino Acid in Elderly Tissues,? Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, Vol. 28, September 2005, pp. 1585?1589.]
If life evolved, why did this destructive tendency to flip not destroy cells long before complete organisms evolved?

Amino acids can form in either left-handed or right-handed molecular symmetry, but it is notable that all life on the Earth contains left-handed amino acids as the building blocks of its proteins. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/amino.html
The amino acids that form the building blocks of life come in two forms: a left-hand and a right-hand version. But nearly all living organisms only use the left-handed form. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5448305
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
UPDATE:

Apparently my experiment on L-type and D-type amino acids as edible substances is continuing well. I believe I am still living, an observation that is backed up by me posting in this thread.

I, however, am not satisfied so this morning I had another 500g of mocha yogurt.

The subject, me, seems to enjoy the sourness of the yogurt, combined with the bittersweetness of the mocha.

If I die, can someone else continue my experiment on eating sour things with bittersweet things to see if they are delicious?

Whoever said 'left-handed' (really right-handed) amino acids are poisonous to life? Consuder that myth BUSTED.
Real cute, Draco. But it should be noted that your belly, according to my reserach, doesn't have the ability to digest the D-type amino acids into their basic form. That is why time and time again, I keep reading that life only works with L-type amino acids.
What exactly is the basic form of an amino acid?
 

evilneko

Fall in line!
Jun 16, 2011
2,218
49
53
Alright, I'm getting kinda tired of this.

monfang said:
Actually, it has everything to do about it. Abiogenisis is the theory that life started suddenly and without any outside trigger. If that theory is shown to be false then Macroevolution gets a lot of questions thrown at it. Because by proven Abiogenisis false, it shows that an outside source had to seed the Earth with preexisting life. Such as God.
The status of abiogenesis does not in any way affect the validity of evolution. And, let me reiterate, in nice big letters:

[HEADING=1]There is no distinction between so-called "Macro" and "Micro" evolution.[/HEADING]

Repeating that there is will not make it any more true, even if you plug your ears and shout really loud.


Yay, someone brought that up. Lets talk about Hominini. First off, lets understand what this discovery did to the Scientific community. Up till then, it was thought that Humans and Apes shared a common grandfather in the evolutionary tree. It's why we share about 98% of our DNA with them. However, Arti changed that by pushing the common ancestor back many millions of years and throwing a question at the vitality of the 98%.

This is were Evolutionists capture both sides of the DNA argument as validations of their theory. First, if the DNA is similar to chimp DNA, then they are right because we share a common ancestor, if the DNA is different, then they are right because we evolved differently. If I was a playtester for a game that did this, I'd kick the Dev team in the shins.
Argument from Personal Incredulity. Dismissed.

But when you start thinking about it closely, there has to be just enough similarity, and just enough difference, for the argument to be valid. For a while, 98% seemed like the magic number. More recently, some evolutionists have thought that number is too high. If humans and chimps aren?t as closely related as previously thought, then the 98% figure is certainly too high, and must be revised lower. This means the DNA analysis has to be ?corrected? somehow.

They do this using circular logic. By making an assumption and confirming their own assumption. Evolutionists believe that differences in so-called ?junk DNA? are the result of irrelevant mutations which happen at a fixed rate. How do they know this fixed rate? Well, they have compared chimp DNA to human DNA and determined the average number of differences in particular stretches of junk DNA. ?Knowing? the number of generations since the presumed split between apes and humans, they have calculated the mutation rate. Using that mutation rate, they ?confirm? the date of the split. (The confirmation is bogus, of course, because they have simply used invalid circular logic.)
Strawman. Dismissed.

If they don?t change the presumed mutation rate, then the DNA analysis of when apes and humans split will not match the new time suggested by the discovery of Ardi. So, they will use circular logic to realize that the mutation rate is actually slower than previously thought, and using the new clock rate, the DNA analysis will again match the paleontologists? analysis.
Strawman. Dismissed.
Wasn't it covered in Genisis how the Serpent had it's legs taken away? Just saying.
Irrelevant. Dismissed.

I could be wrong. Lets look at some similar experiments. One by Louis Pasteur. He had a sterilized broth of amino acids, proteins, and DNA that he kept the air out of by using water in a bent tube. As seen here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v5i11g1.jpg

Note that there is no growth within the broth (dead things stayed dead) until the neck is broken and air is introduced. (life is introduced into a dead space and life grew) Pasteur proved that life only comes from pre-existing life.
Pasteur falsified spontaneous generation. Your point? This does not falsify abiogenesis at all.

Which brings us back to Dr. Miller.. Even if Stanley Miller?s experiment showed that all the amino acids, proteins, sugars, etc., found in living things today could be produced in high concentrations in water by natural processes, it would not matter because Pasteur?s experiment proved that those organic molecules would not come to life.

Organic molecules did appear after a few days. But only 8 of the 20 required amino acids were produced.
Please update yourself on current abiogenesis study. Dismissed.

According to my research, life requires 20+ amino acids to form the proteins required for solid bodies to form and stay stable. Most Scientists agree. Until you can show proof that they have changed, then I must go with what I know.
Why don't you show proof?

teal deer: Validity of evolution does not depend on validity of abiogenesis, monfang uses a bunch of fallacies, monfang says some irrelevant stuff, monfang's info is outdated, and monfang makes a claim without supporting it.

Also, I'm going to post this again.

 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
UPDATE:

Apparently my experiment on L-type and D-type amino acids as edible substances is continuing well. I believe I am still living, an observation that is backed up by me posting in this thread.

I, however, am not satisfied so this morning I had another 500g of mocha yogurt.

The subject, me, seems to enjoy the sourness of the yogurt, combined with the bittersweetness of the mocha.

If I die, can someone else continue my experiment on eating sour things with bittersweet things to see if they are delicious?

Whoever said 'left-handed' (really right-handed) amino acids are poisonous to life? Consuder that myth BUSTED.
Real cute, Draco. But it should be noted that your belly, according to my reserach, doesn't have the ability to digest the D-type amino acids into their basic form. That is why time and time again, I keep reading that life only works with L-type amino acids.
Except of course, the bacterial cultures IN that yogurt. You kinda glossed over that part. The living bacteria in the yogurt I was eating is based on D-type amino acids.

There IS life that is based on D-type amino acids. It exists. I hate a kilogram of food rife with that life.

You were disproven the moment I said 'yogurt' not the moment I ate it.

An important exception occurs in a component in cell membranes of eubacteria. There the amino acids are right-handed. This has led many to conclude that they must have evolved separately from all other bacteria. Because evolving the first living cell is so improbable, having it happen twice, in effect, compounds the improbability. [See Adrian Barnett, ?The Second Coming: Did Life Evolve on Earth More Than Once?? New Scientist, Vol. 157, 14 February 1998, p. 19.]
Recent discoveries have found that some amino acids, most notably aspartic acid, flip (at certain locations in certain proteins) from the normal left-handed form to the right-handed form. Flipping increases with age and correlates with disease, such as Alzheimer?s disease, cataracts, and arteriosclerosis. As one ages, flipping even accumulates in facial skin, but not other skin. [See Noriko Fujii, ?D-Amino Acid in Elderly Tissues,? Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, Vol. 28, September 2005, pp. 1585?1589.]
If life evolved, why did this destructive tendency to flip not destroy cells long before complete organisms evolved?
Because it's not as destructive to life forming as you claim?

Amino acids can form in either left-handed or right-handed molecular symmetry, but it is notable that all life on the Earth contains left-handed amino acids as the building blocks of its proteins. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/amino.html
The amino acids that form the building blocks of life come in two forms: a left-hand and a right-hand version. But nearly all living organisms only use the left-handed form. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5448305
So, you admit then, that life can exist based on D-type OR L-type amino acids. And you admit that the handedness of amino acids can flip one way, or the other, thus causing life with it to either evolve or die.

Seems to me you've admitted your point on the 'handedness' of amino acids is not a barrier to the formation of life, and you'v admitted that the handedness of amino acids changing could become a facter that forces the adaptation of a species or it will meet extinction.

Glad to see you've joined the winning team.


Oh, and as for that 'external energy source' you claim is necessary for Abiogenesis? Well, I was thinking about how geothermal currents affect the heat and weather of the world... but then I looked at the perfectly blue sky, let the wind blow through my hair, as I basked in the light of the sun.

Then I thought... man, what a stupid rebuttal. External energy sources. Where could those be?
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
Thaliur said:
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
UPDATE:

Apparently my experiment on L-type and D-type amino acids as edible substances is continuing well. I believe I am still living, an observation that is backed up by me posting in this thread.

I, however, am not satisfied so this morning I had another 500g of mocha yogurt.

The subject, me, seems to enjoy the sourness of the yogurt, combined with the bittersweetness of the mocha.

If I die, can someone else continue my experiment on eating sour things with bittersweet things to see if they are delicious?

Whoever said 'left-handed' (really right-handed) amino acids are poisonous to life? Consuder that myth BUSTED.
Real cute, Draco. But it should be noted that your belly, according to my reserach, doesn't have the ability to digest the D-type amino acids into their basic form. That is why time and time again, I keep reading that life only works with L-type amino acids.
What exactly is the basic form of an amino acid?
The basic form is ether L-type or D-type. Commonly, based on my research and what I quoted, the unused D-type Amino Acids pass though the body as waste and aren't used.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
UPDATE:

Apparently my experiment on L-type and D-type amino acids as edible substances is continuing well. I believe I am still living, an observation that is backed up by me posting in this thread.

I, however, am not satisfied so this morning I had another 500g of mocha yogurt.

The subject, me, seems to enjoy the sourness of the yogurt, combined with the bittersweetness of the mocha.

If I die, can someone else continue my experiment on eating sour things with bittersweet things to see if they are delicious?

Whoever said 'left-handed' (really right-handed) amino acids are poisonous to life? Consuder that myth BUSTED.
Real cute, Draco. But it should be noted that your belly, according to my reserach, doesn't have the ability to digest the D-type amino acids into their basic form. That is why time and time again, I keep reading that life only works with L-type amino acids.
Except of course, the bacterial cultures IN that yogurt. You kinda glossed over that part. The living bacteria in the yogurt I was eating is based on D-type amino acids.

There IS life that is based on D-type amino acids. It exists. I hate a kilogram of food rife with that life.

You were disproven the moment I said 'yogurt' not the moment I ate it.

An important exception occurs in a component in cell membranes of eubacteria. There the amino acids are right-handed. This has led many to conclude that they must have evolved separately from all other bacteria. Because evolving the first living cell is so improbable, having it happen twice, in effect, compounds the improbability. [See Adrian Barnett, ?The Second Coming: Did Life Evolve on Earth More Than Once?? New Scientist, Vol. 157, 14 February 1998, p. 19.]
Recent discoveries have found that some amino acids, most notably aspartic acid, flip (at certain locations in certain proteins) from the normal left-handed form to the right-handed form. Flipping increases with age and correlates with disease, such as Alzheimer?s disease, cataracts, and arteriosclerosis. As one ages, flipping even accumulates in facial skin, but not other skin. [See Noriko Fujii, ?D-Amino Acid in Elderly Tissues,? Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, Vol. 28, September 2005, pp. 1585?1589.]
If life evolved, why did this destructive tendency to flip not destroy cells long before complete organisms evolved?
Because it's not as destructive to life forming as you claim?

Amino acids can form in either left-handed or right-handed molecular symmetry, but it is notable that all life on the Earth contains left-handed amino acids as the building blocks of its proteins. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/organic/amino.html
The amino acids that form the building blocks of life come in two forms: a left-hand and a right-hand version. But nearly all living organisms only use the left-handed form. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5448305
So, you admit then, that life can exist based on D-type OR L-type amino acids. And you admit that the handedness of amino acids can flip one way, or the other, thus causing life with it to either evolve or die.

Seems to me you've admitted your point on the 'handedness' of amino acids is not a barrier to the formation of life, and you'v admitted that the handedness of amino acids changing could become a facter that forces the adaptation of a species or it will meet extinction.

Glad to see you've joined the winning team.


Oh, and as for that 'external energy source' you claim is necessary for Abiogenesis? Well, I was thinking about how geothermal currents affect the heat and weather of the world... but then I looked at the perfectly blue sky, let the wind blow through my hair, as I basked in the light of the sun.

Then I thought... man, what a stupid rebuttal. External energy sources. Where could those be?
So Evolution scientists who say that the majority of life is based on L-type Amino acids and the introduction of D-type into L-type is destructive? I'm quoting evolutionists. I'm getting my facts from them. Based on my research the only part of cells that have D-type amino acids are the "power houses" of a eukaryotic cell, the mitochondria. Bacteria don't have Mitochondria. Bacteria are prokaryote and thus has no nucleus, and no membrane bound organelles.

Now you might wonder about the Mitochondria you eat in lets say meat, an enzyme named D-Amino Acid Oxidase (DAAO) breaks them down and the breakdown products are eliminated by the kidneys. They are not in your body long enough to do any damage.
 

Hyper-space

New member
Nov 25, 2008
1,361
0
0
kidd25 said:
yep of course men who study something you don't even know about. they must always tell the truth these men use science which i don't use of so it must be true. this argument will lead us nowhere, so i say i'm done. have a nice day :/
Burying your head in the sand and saying that its all a conspiracy is the height of ignorance.

kidd25 said:
for example breaking the laws of nature so far has been done by Jesus. but things like science and math, is reasoning and making thesis and hypothesis on different things.
Who told you that? your parents? your preacher? THEY MUST BE TELLING THE TRUTH CAUSE THEY KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING, screw those guys who spend years and years ACTUALLY studying this shit instead of going from a book that is essentially a text-book example on circular logic.

But yes, Luddites and philistines told you something when you were little and had yet to fully develop your mental faculties, so you took it on face-value instead of questioning it. So you struggle to maintain your fairy-tale explanation of the world and its intricacies, even in this age of unlimited information and scrutinization, running away from anything that might challenge your world-view.

So go away, you are only here to reinforce your world-view, not have it challenged by petty things like "facts" and "evidence".
 

tjcross

New member
Apr 14, 2008
342
0
0
the only research i've willingly done and maintained is my own theory of creation and evolution which is basicly god guided evolution honestly it's the only thing that makes sense to me that lets me sleep without fear of death keeping me awake and as a lot of other people said there is no scientific evidence just a few storybooks
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
monfang said:
The basic form is ether L-type or D-type. Commonly, based on my research and what I quoted, the unused D-type Amino Acids pass though the body as waste and aren't used.
It doesn't matter what happens to the D-type amino acids in my body. What matters is that they are there at all because of their existence as the building blocks of the bacterial cultures.

In other words, your insistance that life could not form based on D-type amino acids because they, in your own assertion, cannot sustain life, is rediculous in the face of that fact there exist living organisms that are based on D-type amino acids.

It becomes non-important whether the experiment produced L OR D-type amino acids. All that is necessary is that whatever is form is of a type any life could use as its building blocks.

Not a single amino acid was formed that no life on this planet could use. All were types used by one species or another. As for the homochirality of the original life form... that's not something you can comment on. You can't presume the initial life for had homochirality,

Also, those 20 amino acids you mention? Those are for human life. There exist other species, many plants and fungi, that use other amino acids, some with more complex, and others simpler, systems.

But, at its heart, your assertions are flawed because of one small fallacy: You assume that evolution (the process of the changing of life over time) is wrong because, in your assertion, life didn't change.

Life, as it is in modern occurance, could not have spontaneously formed as is. This is true. In fact, scientists do not believe life, as it exists, spontaneously formed. They believe that it was formed over a long time through a slow process of occasional mutation and large scale adaptation to changing environments through natural selection.

See, that's the fundamental flaw in your argument. It's like if I tried to argue that global wind currents cannot exist because air cannot teleport across the globe. Wind is the process of air travelling across the globe over time, there's no instantaneous anything going on there.

And yet, here you (and many creationists) are trying to argue against a slow, gradual change in life over a long period of time is impossible because life could not spontaneously change through magic hooey.

Um, that's what evolution pretty much says, that no, things don't just spontaneously occur because of magical hooey, and that things happen gradually over time. And yet, isn't that what creationism is? The spontaneous creation of stuff because of magical hooey?

But go on, and keep putting forth proof that life could not spontaneously occur. Every time you do, you only further disprove creationism, and support evolution.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
The basic form is ether L-type or D-type. Commonly, based on my research and what I quoted, the unused D-type Amino Acids pass though the body as waste and aren't used.
It doesn't matter what happens to the D-type amino acids in my body. What matters is that they are there at all because of their existence as the building blocks of the bacterial cultures
I had to stop here because you aren't listening. I already stated that the ONLY part of a cell that uses D-type amino acids are the Mitochondria in complex organisms. Bacteria don't have those. Unless you can quote a source that contradicts me and the scientists I looked up, then you have no ground to stand on with this subject.
 

Thaliur

New member
Jan 3, 2008
617
0
0
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
The basic form is ether L-type or D-type. Commonly, based on my research and what I quoted, the unused D-type Amino Acids pass though the body as waste and aren't used.
It doesn't matter what happens to the D-type amino acids in my body. What matters is that they are there at all because of their existence as the building blocks of the bacterial cultures
I had to stop here because you aren't listening. I already stated that the ONLY part of a cell that uses D-type amino acids are the Mitochondria in complex organisms. Bacteria don't have those. Unless you can quote a source that contradicts me and the scientists I looked up, then you have no ground to stand on with this subject.
I think that should be enough. The sources are listed at the bottom of the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(biology)#In_biology

I can't believe people are still mistaking discussion forums as soap boxes with built-in search engines...
 

Pyro Paul

New member
Dec 7, 2007
842
0
0
Scientific evidence that supports creationism?

Pick up a rock.
We evolved from that...
that is exactly what evolution is saying.

Turn back the clock a few billion years and Earth was a volatile ball of lava, rock, and gas devoid of all life.

Then one day... inexplicably from the swirling torrent of inorganic matter... we have life.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
monfang said:
So Evolution scientists who say that the majority of life is based on L-type Amino acids and the introduction of D-type into L-type is destructive? I'm quoting evolutionists. I'm getting my facts from them. Based on my research the only part of cells that have D-type amino acids are the "power houses" of a eukaryotic cell, the mitochondria. Bacteria don't have Mitochondria. Bacteria are prokaryote and thus has no nucleus, and no membrane bound organelles.

Now you might wonder about the Mitochondria you eat in lets say meat, an enzyme named D-Amino Acid Oxidase (DAAO) breaks them down and the breakdown products are eliminated by the kidneys. They are not in your body long enough to do any damage.
It doersn't MATTER if the majority of life uses one OR the other. What matters is that BOTH can be used by some form of life out there. There was NO amino acid created in that experiment that isn't used in some form of life.

The ONLY claim you can make, the ONLY assertion, is that not all those amino acids are -currently- used in modern life.

However, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be used in proto-life. Homochirality within a life form may have evolved, but the idea here is that the first life was random. It doesn't matter what occurs in modern life regarding L or D-type amino acids.

What matters is this: Can they react to each other and form polymer bonds? Yes. Can those polymer bonds get trapped in pockets of lipid acid? Yes. Okay. And can nucleotide amino-polymers self replicate? Yes.

So, all you need now is some form of environment or system that favors one given random polymer strand over another. Like, say, one that replicates faster and easier. Thusly, eventually, homochirality will form not because L- and D-types are poisonous to each other... but merely because homochiral strains reproduce faster. Thus, there will be more of them over time.

This is just simple chemistry. You really need to watch EvilNeko's video so helpfully provided on this page.

Because every rebuttal and recant you have? It's either answered in the video, or has nothing to do with the theories science is actually putting forth. So you should probably understand what you're rebutting, before you step in and say dumb stuff like 'It requires an outside energy source' (protip: I can name three off the top of my head that would be plentiful) or 'there's no oxygen' (again, oxygen is only required for combustion, the original protolife didn't use combustion) or chirality, or any of that nonsense that has nothing to do with the current theories of abiogenesis.

Watch. Video. Then. Comment.
 

Bigsmith

New member
Mar 16, 2009
1,026
0
0
Mr Brain... it hurts.

That guy, Kent Hoven (not spelt right) is in prison at the moment for Tax fraud.

He's out this year.

So I'm getting ready for some more "Why people laugh at Creationist videos" on youtube.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
Thaliur said:
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
The basic form is ether L-type or D-type. Commonly, based on my research and what I quoted, the unused D-type Amino Acids pass though the body as waste and aren't used.
It doesn't matter what happens to the D-type amino acids in my body. What matters is that they are there at all because of their existence as the building blocks of the bacterial cultures
I had to stop here because you aren't listening. I already stated that the ONLY part of a cell that uses D-type amino acids are the Mitochondria in complex organisms. Bacteria don't have those. Unless you can quote a source that contradicts me and the scientists I looked up, then you have no ground to stand on with this subject.
I think that should be enough. The sources are listed at the bottom of the page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(biology)#In_biology

I can't believe people are still mistaking discussion forums as soap boxes with built-in search engines...
There is nothing in that link that shows that Bacteria are made up of D-type Amino Acids. Sugars are partually made up of D-type sugars, sure. But once again, I already stated that D-type Amino Acids are passed though the body as waste.

Going deeper, I find Homochirality and where it states:
In biology homochirality is found in the chemical building blocks of life, the amino acids and sugars. All amino acids encoded by the genetic code have the same configuration about the chiral center, and are labeled S, with the exception of cysteine, which is labeled R only because the sulfur in the side chain changes the priority of that group. Typically, the alternative form is inactive and sometimes even toxic to living things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality
 

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
monfang said:
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
The basic form is ether L-type or D-type. Commonly, based on my research and what I quoted, the unused D-type Amino Acids pass though the body as waste and aren't used.
It doesn't matter what happens to the D-type amino acids in my body. What matters is that they are there at all because of their existence as the building blocks of the bacterial cultures
I had to stop here because you aren't listening. I already stated that the ONLY part of a cell that uses D-type amino acids are the Mitochondria in complex organisms. Bacteria don't have those. Unless you can quote a source that contradicts me and the scientists I looked up, then you have no ground to stand on with this subject.
This is actually really funny to me. Mitochondria (and chloroplasts for that matter) are strongly theorized to have been ancient strains of bacteria that were consumed by early cells and for one reason or another were not destroyed, and they created a mutually beneficial relationship that helped make modern cells as successful as they are.

Mitochondria have their own DNA, RNA, and they are self-replicating.

I find it hilarious that you say that bacteria don't have mitochondria. Of course, you're right about this, but that's because mitochondria USED to BE bacteria, and therefore certain strains of bacteria likely contain VERY similar metabolic pathways to mitochondria.

Look up the endosymbiotic theory if you don't believe me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory

Now, I havn't ever heard that bacteria the opposite chirality of amino acids, so I won't comment specifically about that, but you act all smart saying all these things that sound relatively scientific, when you don't even understand many basic and well proven scientific principles. go do more research before you decide to spew more nonsense.

We're getting more into molecular biology now apparently, and that's the area where I'm most knowledgeable, seeing as it's highly relevant for my university program, so bring it on.
 

monfang

New member
Jan 30, 2011
62
0
0
DracoSuave said:
monfang said:
So Evolution scientists who say that the majority of life is based on L-type Amino acids and the introduction of D-type into L-type is destructive? I'm quoting evolutionists. I'm getting my facts from them. Based on my research the only part of cells that have D-type amino acids are the "power houses" of a eukaryotic cell, the mitochondria. Bacteria don't have Mitochondria. Bacteria are prokaryote and thus has no nucleus, and no membrane bound organelles.

Now you might wonder about the Mitochondria you eat in lets say meat, an enzyme named D-Amino Acid Oxidase (DAAO) breaks them down and the breakdown products are eliminated by the kidneys. They are not in your body long enough to do any damage.
It doersn't MATTER if the majority of life uses one OR the other. What matters is that BOTH can be used by some form of life out there. There was NO amino acid created in that experiment that isn't used in some form of life.

The ONLY claim you can make, the ONLY assertion, is that not all those amino acids are -currently- used in modern life.

However, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be used in proto-life. Homochirality within a life form may have evolved, but the idea here is that the first life was random. It doesn't matter what occurs in modern life regarding L or D-type amino acids.

What matters is this: Can they react to each other and form polymer bonds? Yes. Can those polymer bonds get trapped in pockets of lipid acid? Yes. Okay. And can nucleotide amino-polymers self replicate? Yes.

So, all you need now is some form of environment or system that favors one given random polymer strand over another. Like, say, one that replicates faster and easier. Thusly, eventually, homochirality will form not because L- and D-types are poisonous to each other... but merely because homochiral strains reproduce faster. Thus, there will be more of them over time.

This is just simple chemistry. You really need to watch EvilNeko's video so helpfully provided on this page.

Because every rebuttal and recant you have? It's either answered in the video, or has nothing to do with the theories science is actually putting forth. So you should probably understand what you're rebutting, before you step in and say dumb stuff like 'It requires an outside energy source' (protip: I can name three off the top of my head that would be plentiful) or 'there's no oxygen' (again, oxygen is only required for combustion, the original protolife didn't use combustion) or chirality, or any of that nonsense that has nothing to do with the current theories of abiogenesis.

Watch. Video. Then. Comment.
I state again, these are not my words. These are the words of evolutionists, of biologists, of scientists. They say, from the beginning, the world favored L-type Amino Acids. D-type are shown to be toxic to the L-type organisms. This is why the bodies of living organisms that take in D-type organisms are designed so they deal with and eliminate the toxic types before they can harm the body.

That is why the human body reacts negatively when the types flip leading to Alzimers and aging skin. That is why cancers are formed when the body starts flipping inside out. That is why people have allergies. These are the words of scientists. So don't be mad at me. Be mad at them. I'm just the messenger.
 

DracoSuave

New member
Jan 26, 2009
1,685
0
0
monfang said:
[There is nothing in that link that shows that Bacteria are made up of D-type Amino Acids.
Fine. Here's a study on V. Cholera [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5947/1552.abstract] that kinda proves my point.

Just stop. I found that with a google search for "bacteria d-type amino acids." It wasn't even hard to find.

I'm sure I could find more, but it does not matter, because the existance of ONE single life form disproves your hypothesis. I don't need more than that. So stop.

You're out of your element here. Now, go watch EvilNeko's video. It's good. Go watch it. And, then, once you have watched it, THEN form your rebuttals, because THAT is what you need to rebut. Cause as it currently stand, while you continue to claim events to be impossible that actually occur billions of times a day, and are proven to do so... thne you'll only damage your case.

This ignores the central fallacy behind your argument, however. Debunking individual hypotheses of abiogenesis doesn't disprove evolution, nor prove, or even support, creation.

EDIT: Wait a minute, are you seriously going to assert that D-type amino acids cannot support life while simultaneously stating that the mitochondria IN that life uses D-type amino acids? Are you fucking kidding me? You've basically said 'All life cannot use D-type Amino Acids, except for those parts that use it in my body.' Seriously, at this point, you are contradicting yourself. Take a step back, realise that you've lost this argument, go watch EvilNeko's video, then come back.