Amino acid synthesis

Note also that the above link confirms both Venus and earth have the same CO2 content, but that on earth it has been deposited in the crust while on Venus it is in the atmosphere.

Thank Jehovah earth did not turn out like Venus and the reverse happened on earth which is why there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere at this time!
 
Ign
Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. - Thomas Edison

Please see the similarity in schematics between a NEC monitor and that of a single cell
here.
With the plans, humans can build a NEC monitor. A living cell, not so much.

Darwin's Tautologists have been uncharacteristically silent regarding the NEC monitor/single cell analogy comparison. Building man's machine, simple. Building Nature's God's creations, not so much.

And yet, as Hebrews 3:4 states, even a house requires a builder - houses do not assemble by chance!
Sure it does, you have heard of sperm and eggs, turning into embryos, then infants, then kids, then adults with no brain like you

You are my Doctoral toy for the day

Bill Gates dropped out doofy


You are the babe, esalla!

After esalla showed her true colors in another thread, I retract the comment above forcefully.
Lol. Nothing changes the fact that amino acids can not be formed from elements without the arranging code of DNA arranging them

So shake the bucket all you want

Yes, it is true that some chemical evolutionists favor RNA (and nucleic acid synthesis) first, while others still hold to Miller's model of protein (and amino acid synthesis) first.

However, as I posted, some amino acids - notably Alanine and Glycine, have been synthesized without selection by DNA or RNA. You would be accurate if you posted proteins rather than amino acids.

The primary problem with any synthesis experiments is a lack of reporting of the actual chemical reaction product proportions - for example, in amino acids synthesis experiments the predominance of formic acid over amino acids, not to mention the proportions of amino acids not used in proteins.
I'm surprised that the religionist creationists spend such inordinate amounts of time trying to tear down peer reviewed science as opposed to offering something.... anything, to support their claims to supernatural creator gods.

Ignoring your rhetoric, which model do you prefer: protein first, RNA first, or something else?
I prefer the model that can pass peer review. An inquisitive science will likely discover the viable model.

But, ya' never know. Maybe your gods will wipe the planet clean of those vile humans again, because they're gods of love.
Nice dodge Hollie. I'll ask again:

Which model do you prefer: Protein first or RNA first?

Is that question too difficult for you to answer?

See this link for a discussion of some of the chemistry details and their implications for the origin of life on earth:


A few excerpts:

"it has often been suggested that chemical transformation of reactive species in the atmosphere was a significant source of prebiotic organic molecules. Experimental and theoretical studies over the past half century have shown that atmospheric synthesis can yield molecules such as amino acids and nucleobases, but these processes are very sensitive to gas composition and energy source. Abiotic synthesis of organic molecules is more productive in reduced atmospheres, yet the primitive Earth may not have been as reducing as earlier workers assumed, and recent research has reflected this shift in thinking. ...

The idea of the prebiotic Earth as a roiling organic “soup” with a highly reduced atmosphere of H2, H2O, methane (CH4), and ammonia (NH3) was first presented by Oparin [32]. Such an atmosphere was part of his model of chemical evolution in which reduced gases led to the production of organic molecules, providing an environment more conducive to the evolution of life. The landmark experiments by Miller and Urey, partially modeled on Oparin’s hypothesis, demonstrated production of amino acids via the action of an electric discharge on a H2, H2O, CH4, and NH3 gas mixture, supporting the theory of prebiotic synthesis in a reduced primitive atmosphere [33-35]. Sagan and Mullen [24] determined that moderate quantities (ppm) of NH3 would resolve the Faint Young Sun Paradox. However, since the early 1980s, it has been thought that the primitive atmosphere was more oxidized, and contained large quantities of carbon dioxide. Comparisons of the carbon reservoirs on Earth and Venus (the former being equivalent in magnitude, but sequestered largely in the crust) suggest that CO2 on the early Earth could have provided the needed warming if it was more abundant in the atmosphere [36]. NH3 was shown to have a very short lifetime in the atmosphere of the early Earth due to photodissociation [37]. CO2, however, was assumed to be abundant and long-lived in the ancient atmosphere; as long as volcanic emissions were as high as those seen today and weathering was low, CO2 could have accumulated to large concentrations in the atmosphere [38]. A partial pressure of 0.20 bar CO2, more than 500 times the present atmospheric level, would have been needed to maintain a surface temperature above the freezing point of water [38]. Such an atmosphere may have been less favorable to the formation of organic molecules, although not necessarily prohibitive depending on ocean chemistry [39, 40]."

Still think the famous Miller experiment is irrelevant? Note that earth's crustal carbonates were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle which required earth's primordial oceans - but this also required Calcium ions which Thaxton et al pointed out destroy organic molecules.

Note that this extensive (and likely peer reviewed which you seem to care about [not me]) gives plenty of detail but does not mention that photolysis of water would produce free Oxygen, and even more noteworthy does not mention the chemical reaction product proportions produced in Miller type experiments including the predominance of formic acid.

Nor does it mention that the amino group (in amino acids, etc.) would have reacted with the carbonyl group (the group is mentioned, but not the chemical reaction) (in aldehydes and sugars) and thus destroys chemical pathways both to amino acids and sugars (as in RNA for example).
Not sure of the necessity (the reason is obvious), for cross posting the same article in multiple threads.

What purpose do you believe the article serves? You spend a lot of time posting these articles and don't seem to have any real understanding of the material.
 
Note also that the above link confirms both Venus and earth have the same CO2 content, but that on earth it has been deposited in the crust while on Venus it is in the atmosphere.

Thank Jehovah earth did not turn out like Venus and the reverse happened on earth which is why there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere at this time!
Can you post an article that supports the need to thank an imaginary, supernatural being for the atmosphere on this planet?
 
Thanks for such a great description and so many formulas of synthesis here! Do you use any tools or specific products for the mentioned process? Or anything not complicated to mention here?
 
Last edited:
You all - the law of large numbers also makes the rate of formation more predictable the larger the universe or number of universes.

For example, let us say that a specific polypeptide with the correct 3-d shape, L- chirality, and correct isomerization has a probability of 10^21 at any give time.

No, let us NOT say the probability is as huge as 1 IN 10^21, which you misstated.

A polypeptide of only 300 amino acid residues in length, consisting of various links of the 20 amino acids found in humans, could only have been randomly produced by some process of 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20..... or in other words 1/20 to the 300th power. This is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th, NOT COUNTING chirality which is 1/2 to the 300th power.

Richard Dawkins' definition of "impossible" is 1 in 10 to the 40th.
Let's add 10 orders of magnitude to that impossibility. 10^50th grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Could a spaceman hypothetically plunge into one of these spheres and pick a unique and special grain of sand on his first and only try? Not an infinite number of tries. Only 1.
That's the definition of "1 in".




Then too there is the issue of folding. WHO determines where the polypeptide folds and how it attaches to other parts? No organic chemist could possibly make such a priori determinations for a new synthesis. How could a random process accomplish it?

By way of comparison, the number of fundamental particles in the universe is 'only' 10^80th.

Human hemoglobin is 574 amino acid residues in length. What is 1/20 to the 574th?

Answer: 1 in 6.18 x 10 to the 746. This is, shall we say, somewhat smaller than 1 in 10^21.

Titin, in your muscles, is 33,450 amino acid residues in length.
 
Last edited:
You all - the law of large numbers also makes the rate of formation more predictable the larger the universe or number of universes.

For example, let us say that a specific polypeptide with the correct 3-d shape, L- chirality, and correct isomerization has a probability of 10^21 at any give time.

No, let us NOT say the probability is as huge as 1 IN 10^21, which you misstated.

A polypeptide of only 300 amino acid residues in length, consisting of various links of the 20 amino acids found in humans, could only have been randomly produced by some process of 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20..... or in other words 1/20 to the 300th power. This is equal to 1 chance in 10 to the 390th, NOT COUNTING chirality which is 1/2 to the 300th power.

Richard Dawkins' definition of "impossible" is 1 in 10 to the 40th.
Let's add 10 orders of magnitude to that impossibility. 10^50th grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. Could a spaceman hypothetically plunge into one of these spheres and pick a unique and special grain of sand on his first and only try? Not an infinite number of tries. Only 1.
That's the definition of "1 in".




Then too there is the issue of folding. WHO determines where the polypeptide folds and how it attaches to other parts? No organic chemist could possibly make such a priori determinations for a new synthesis. How could a random process accomplish it?

By way of comparison, the number of fundamental particles in the universe is 'only' 10^80th.

Human hemoglobin is 574 amino acid residues in length. What is 1/30 to the 574th?

Titin, in your muscles, is 33,450 amino acid residues in length.

Enzymes ...
 
Then too there is the issue of folding. WHO determines where the polypeptide folds and how it attaches to other parts? No organic chemist could possibly make such a priori determinations for a new synthesis. How could a random process accomplish it?
As you have, no doubt been told many times, evolution is NOT a random process. All your probabilities are based on a fundamental misunderstanding. You're welcome.
 
Then too there is the issue of folding. WHO determines where the polypeptide folds and how it attaches to other parts? No organic chemist could possibly make such a priori determinations for a new synthesis. How could a random process accomplish it?
As you have, no doubt been told many times, evolution is NOT a random process. All your probabilities are based on a fundamental misunderstanding. You're welcome.
Well he is not going to just acquiesce after cross-posting the same steaming pile of copypasta across 100 message boards.
 
Over a week on the board and no dissent or corrections to my statistical analysis of polypeptide synthesis.
 
Over a week on the board and no dissent or corrections to my statistical analysis of polypeptide synthesis.
It’s the same cut and paste nonsense you have dumped into the board previously and which was shown to be formula ID’iot creationer rambling.
 

Forum List

Back
Top