Does God Exist?

[james bond]

I think at this I will wrap it up with the icons of evolution argument presented by Jonathan Wells, an ID proponent, to strictly deride evolutionists (including God believers) and their thinking that life began from abiogenesis instead of Genesis. I presented his short video earlier.



Now, I present a lengthier discussion presented by Dr. Wells.

 

[Hollie]

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Wells is an intelligent design creationist (in fact, he is just as often described as an “anti-evolution activist”, which is revealing) and a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is also a pronounced Moonie – indeed, a “Unification Church Marriage Expert” – and has been known to be involved in AIDS denialism together with his old friend and mentor Phillip Johnson. It is as a creationist (or “intelligent design proponent”) that he has made the biggest impact, however – though it was allegedly his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers that convinced him to devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”.


Wells is the author of “Icons of Evolution” and “Regnery Publishing’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, both of which failed to survive even cursory glances from people who actually know anything about evolution; a truly substantial analysis and critique if Icons can be found here. But then, the purpose of the former was explicitly to argue that creationism should be taught in public schools – and for those purposes the actual science is of course less important, since the creationists cannot win on that battlefield anyways (a point that is well made in this review of the Politically Incorrect Guide; after all, the whole frame is that Darwinism has declared war on traditional Christianity; the science is just a pretense). Wells’s lack of understanding of development and evolution (and science) is duly documented; he does, in short, not have the faintest idea, and can obviously not be bothered to look it up either (because, you know, fact checks won't yield the results he wants).

 

[Newtonian]

The 20 amino acids in life (proteinous) are listed, along with their functions, here:

The 20 Amino Acids and Their Functions

The amino acids are organic compounds formed by carboxyls and amines. These compounds bind to form proteins and other macromolecules....

www.lifepersona.com

Lists are here (the first in alphabetic order, the second according to properties):

The Twenty Amino Acids

www.cryst.bbk.ac.uk

The Twenty Amino Acids

www.cryst.bbk.ac.uk

"The Twenty Amino Acids

The twenty amino acids (that make up proteins)each have assigned to them both three-letter (can be upper or lower case) and one-letter codes (upper case). This makes it quicker and easier for notation purposes and are worth learning. The following list gives these notations along with hypertext references to download amino acid gif images and also interactive molecules.

The format of the list is: amino acid name - 3 letter code - 1 letter code (reference to gif image, reference to interactive molecule)

alanine - ala - A (gif, interactive)
arginine - arg - R (gif, interactive)
asparagine - asn - N (gif, interactive)
aspartic acid - asp - D (gif, interactive)
cysteine - cys - C (gif, interactive)
glutamine - gln - Q (gif, interactive)
glutamic acid - glu - E (gif, interactive)
glycine - gly - G (gif, interactive)
histidine - his - H (gif, interactive)
isoleucine - ile - I (gif, interactive)
leucine - leu - L (gif, interactive)
lysine - lys - K (gif, interactive)
methionine - met - M (gif, interactive)
phenylalanine - phe - F (gif, interactive)
proline - pro - P (gif, interactive)
serine - ser - S (gif, interactive)
threonine - thr - T (gif, interactive)
tryptophan - trp - W (gif, interactive)
tyrosine - tyr - Y (gif, interactive)
valine - val - V (gif, interactive)

Sometimes it is not possible two differentiate two closely related amino acids, therefore we have the special cases:

asparagine/aspartic acid - asx - B
glutamine/glutamic acid - glx - Z

Here is list where amino acids are grouped according to the characteristics of the side chains:

Aliphatic - alanine (gif, interactive), glycine (gif, interactive), isoleucine (gif, interactive), leucine (gif, interactive), proline (gif, interactive), valine (gif, interactive)

Aromatic - phenylalanine (gif, interactive), tryptophan (gif, interactive), tyrosine (gif, interactive)

Acidic - aspartic acid (gif, interactive), glutamic acid (gif, interactive)

Basic - arginine (gif, interactive), histidine (gif, interactive), lysine (gif, interactive)

Hydroxylic - serine (gif, interactive), threonine (gif, interactive)

Sulphur-containing - cysteine (gif, interactive), methionine (gif, interactive)

Amidic (containing amide group) - asparagine (gif, interactive), glutamine (gif, interactive)"

===================
As I have already posted, Glycine is the simplest amino acid which would account for its relative ease in synthesis. From google search:

""Glycine (symbol Gly or G; /ˈɡlaɪsiːn/) is an amino acid that has a single hydrogen atom as its side chain. It is the simplest amino acid (since carbamic acid is unstable), with the chemical formula NH2‐CH2‐COOH. Glycine is one of the proteinogenic amino acids.
Chemical formula: C2H5NO2"

Note that NH2-CH2-COOH involves the 2-d structure (it is actually 3-d) while C2H5NO2 is the relative proportion of each element (C=carbon; H = hydrogen; N - Nitrogen; O = Oxygen).

From the above 20 amino acid list, Glycine is aliphatic. From Bing search:
"relating to or denoting organic compounds in which carbon atoms form open chains (as in the alkanes), not aromatic rings. Compare with alicyclic....Open-chain compounds contain no rings of any type, and are thus aliphatic."

As noted, Glycine is one of the 20 amino acids needed for life. It is logical that the Chemist (God) who created life would use this simplest amino acid.

The product proportion in Miller's experiment: 440.

=========================

Alanine, the most prevalent amino acid produced by Miller (790) - in my next post:

 

[Newtonian]

The list above is NOT from lifepersona but from cryst.bbk.ac.uk

In case this forum format messes this up - it is from:

cryst
bbk
ac
uk

education - amino acid -- twenty

 

[alang1216]

I'm not an organic chemist so the issues people have with Miller-Urey are of little interest to me. I just consider them to be a God-of-the-gaps issue. We can't explain it so it must have been God.

Sorry, you lost me as someone credible with your much false discussion on a paper you presented to me and which I read. You admit now that it isn't anything which you can discuss and furthermore I do not think you understand. That makes me very disappointed in you because you are a faker. I did the work to look at Miller-Urey and understand it and found the link where one can actually do their experiment.

The Miller-Urey links allows one to replicate their experiment in an easy and safe environment online. All one has to do is click on the gas they want to add. The sparker and boiling water for water vapor is all set up for you. You would've discovered any oxygen presence would cause an explosion. Moreover, I used the gases you presented in your paper and it caused an explosion. It means they produced oxygen.

It means to me that you have no clue in what you are talking about haha.

I think you've confused me with another poster. I never brought up or discussed Miller-Urey and the link that you seem to refer to, the Carbon Cycle, was not 'presented' to you. However, if you fused Miller-Urey to the Carbon Cycle, frankly I'd be very impressed. As I stated, I'm not a chemist so I'm missing the significance of what you've done.

 

[alang1216]

Atheism is a dangerous path.
If you don't believe in God, God doesn't believe in you.

I have trouble believing that something that can create a universe of galaxies cares about what I think and do. I created a nice aquarium for my fish but I don't expect him to worship me and I certainly don't care what he does with the other fish. He is a fish, he does what fish do.

I keep forgetting to ask you and other atheists...
Could you do me a favor and post that I can have your connection to God when I pass away at 120?
This is based on the verses that indicate bringing someone to appreciate God increases one's connection with God in the metaphysical portion of our existence.
Since you don't believe in God I would appreciate you, and any other atheist reading this, to give me your connection.
I'm not being sarcastic.

Simply post, "You can add my connection to God to your own connection to God."
Thanks in advance!

Not a problem, Paypal or Venmo? Actually, as soon as I get a connection to God you can add it to your own connection to God, gratis. My getting a connection to God has been taking a while so you may have to wait until you're 120, hang in there.

 

[Newtonian]

Hollie - concerning the 4 or 10 (etc) of 20 amino acids for life produced by Miller - I posted above about Glycine. Now for the most abundant amino acid produced by Miller: Alanine (proportion: 790).

From Google:

"Alanine is an α-amino acid that is used in the biosynthesis of proteins. It contains an amine group and a carboxylic acid group, both attached to the central carbon atom which also carries a methyl group side chain. ... Formula: C3H7NO2"

[Glycine: C2H5NO2}

From:

Amino Acids - Alanine

"

Alanine is a hydrophobic molecule. It is ambivalent, meaning that it can be inside or outside of the protein molecule. The α carbon of alanine is optically active; in proteins, only the L-isomer is found.

"

As I have posted, isomers are not limited to polarization as the above quote implies - L-isomer is left handed polarization. Isomers also include variation in 3-d structure, as in the case of the amino acid I posted about above with 8 structural isomers - none of which are used in life (see my earlier post on this).

See also:

Alanine | Amino Acid, Protein, Metabolism | Britannica

Alanine, either of two amino acids, one of which, L-alanine, or alpha-alanine (α-alanine), is a constituent of proteins. An especially rich source of L-alanine is silk fibroin, from which the amino acid was first isolated in 1879. Alanine is one of several so-called nonessential amino acids for

www.britannica.com

For the 2-d structure and 3-d structure of alanine, see:

L-Alanine

L-Alanine | C3H7NO2 | CID 5950 - structure, chemical names, physical and chemical properties, classification, patents, literature, biological activities, safety/hazards/toxicity information, supplier lists, and more.

pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Concerning Alanine's role in the natural antifreeze in cold-water fish, see our literature (in 1975) here:

Insight on the News — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Human chemists have produced antifreeze solutions. But in the last five years scientists have learned more about the way that cold-water fish survive winter by producing their own natural “antifreeze”—certain proteins in their bloodstreams. Scientists still do not understand exactly how it works, but they theorize that a high content of the amino acid alanine in these proteins helps to link “antifreeze” molecules with ice crystals in a way that keeps the crystals from growing. One fact is clear—it works."

In my next post I will consider the 3rd most prevalent amino acid produced by Miller: a- - pAmino-n-butyric acid - proportion: 270 [=alpha aminobutyric acid]

And then: a-Hydroxy-')'-aminobutyric acid - proportion: 74 [= alpha Hydroxy aminobutryic acid]

 

[Newtonian]

Yo

I'm not an organic chemist so the issues people have with Miller-Urey are of little interest to me. I just consider them to be a God-of-the-gaps issue. We can't explain it so it must have been God.

Sorry, you lost me as someone credible with your much false discussion on a paper you presented to me and which I read. You admit now that it isn't anything which you can discuss and furthermore I do not think you understand. That makes me very disappointed in you because you are a faker. I did the work to look at Miller-Urey and understand it and found the link where one can actually do their experiment.

The Miller-Urey links allows one to replicate their experiment in an easy and safe environment online. All one has to do is click on the gas they want to add. The sparker and boiling water for water vapor is all set up for you. You would've discovered any oxygen presence would cause an explosion. Moreover, I used the gases you presented in your paper and it caused an explosion. It means they produced oxygen.

It means to me that you have no clue in what you are talking about haha.

I think you've confused me with another poster. I never brought up or discussed Miller-Urey and the link that you seem to refer to, the Carbon Cycle, was not 'presented' to you. However, if you fused Miller-Urey to the Carbon Cycle, frankly I'd be very impressed. As I stated, I'm not a chemist so I'm missing the significance of what you've done.

You lost me on that one! Hollie brought Miller up, then claimed not to, then brought Miller up! But carbon was in the environment Miller used - in the form of Methane = CH4. Actually, early earth's atmosphere was mostly CO2 not CH4 - but chemical evolutionists prefer no Oxygen though earth's geology proves oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust. Also carbonates in earth's crust contain over 64 million petagrams of carbon! But carbonates contain more oxygen than carbon and were formed by the geologic carbon cycle when earth's ocean(s) absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and precipitated it out due to reactions with Sodium, Potassium and Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters.

To simplify for you:

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is). The oceans contain salts (e.g. NaCl - sodium chloride = common table salt) which become separate ions of Sodium (or Calcium or Potassium) and Chlorine (Cl). The Sodium ions combine (react with) the CO3 (carbonate) ions in the oceans to produce carbonates in earth's sediments.

I can simplify or explain further if you would like me to. I am not a chemist either - but I love chemistry (along with science in general).

 

[Newtonian]

OK, the third amino acid in relative proportion (270) is alpha-aminobutyric adid. [the proportions of Glycine: 440 & Alanine: 790]

OK, from google search:

"alpha-Aminobutyric acid
Chemical compound
Description
α-Aminobutyric acid, also known as homoalanine in biochemistry, is a non-proteinogenic alpha amino acid with chemical formula C₄H₉NO₂. The straight two carbon side chain is one carbon longer than alanine, hence the prefix homo"

Hence the term for humans: homo-sapiens. Just kidding btw.

Seriously, alpha-aminobutyric acid NOT found in proteins - it is not biologic - hence referred to as non-proteinogenic.

For comparison:
alpha-aminobutyric acid is C₄H₉NO₂
Glycine - C₂H₅NO₂
Alanine - C3H7NO2

So how did Glycine and Alanine get selected for life but not the other proteins Miller's experiment produced - i.e. how did God do it - or how could any chemist do this?

This difficulty (requiring an intelligent chemist) is increased as we consider the other amino acids Miller produced. Next in proportion (74) from google search:

"2-Hydroxybutyric acid, also known as alpha-hydroxybutyrate and α-hydroxybutyrate, is a hydroxybutyric acid with the hydroxyl group on the carbon adjacent to the carboxyl. It is a chiral compound having two enantiomers, D-2-hydroxybutyric acid and L-2-hydroxybutyric acid. ... chemical formula C4H8O3.

It is also non-proteinous/biologic - not found in proteins.

Notice in this list of the 20 amino acids that no butyric acids are among them:

1. alanine - ala - A
2. arginine - arg - R
3. asparagine - asn - N
4. aspartic acid - asp - D
5. cysteine - cys - C
6. glutamine - gln - Q
7. glutamic acid - glu - E
8. glycine - gly - G
9. histidine - his - H
10. isoleucine - ile - I
11. leucine - leu - L
12. lysine - lys - K
13. methionine - met - M
14. phenylalanine - phe - F
15. proline - pro - P
16. serine - ser - S
17. threonine - thr - T
18. tryptophan - trp - W
19. tyrosine - tyr - Y
20. valine - val - V

 

[alang1216]

Yo

I'm not an organic chemist so the issues people have with Miller-Urey are of little interest to me. I just consider them to be a God-of-the-gaps issue. We can't explain it so it must have been God.

Sorry, you lost me as someone credible with your much false discussion on a paper you presented to me and which I read. You admit now that it isn't anything which you can discuss and furthermore I do not think you understand. That makes me very disappointed in you because you are a faker. I did the work to look at Miller-Urey and understand it and found the link where one can actually do their experiment.

The Miller-Urey links allows one to replicate their experiment in an easy and safe environment online. All one has to do is click on the gas they want to add. The sparker and boiling water for water vapor is all set up for you. You would've discovered any oxygen presence would cause an explosion. Moreover, I used the gases you presented in your paper and it caused an explosion. It means they produced oxygen.

It means to me that you have no clue in what you are talking about haha.

I think you've confused me with another poster. I never brought up or discussed Miller-Urey and the link that you seem to refer to, the Carbon Cycle, was not 'presented' to you. However, if you fused Miller-Urey to the Carbon Cycle, frankly I'd be very impressed. As I stated, I'm not a chemist so I'm missing the significance of what you've done.

You lost me on that one! Hollie brought Miller up, then claimed not to, then brought Miller up! But carbon was in the environment Miller used - in the form of Methane = CH4. Actually, early earth's atmosphere was mostly CO2 not CH4 - but chemical evolutionists prefer no Oxygen though earth's geology proves oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust. Also carbonates in earth's crust contain over 64 million petagrams of carbon! But carbonates contain more oxygen than carbon and were formed by the geologic carbon cycle when earth's ocean(s) absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and precipitated it out due to reactions with Sodium, Potassium and Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters.

To simplify for you:

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is). The oceans contain salts (e.g. NaCl - sodium chloride = common table salt) which become separate ions of Sodium (or Calcium or Potassium) and Chlorine (Cl). The Sodium ions combine (react with) the CO3 (carbonate) ions in the oceans to produce carbonates in earth's sediments.

I can simplify or explain further if you would like me to. I am not a chemist either - but I love chemistry (along with science in general).

I think the disconnect is free oxygen (O2) verses oxides where oxygen is combined with another element (e.g., CO2). Oxygen is very reactive and readily combines so unless there is a continuous source of free O2 (e.g., photosynthesis) it will gradually disappear from the environment. I think it is generally agreed that there was little O2 in the early atmosphere.

 

[Hollie]

OK, the third amino acid in relative proportion (270) is alpha-aminobutyric adid. [the proportions of Glycine: 440 & Alanine: 790]

OK, from google search:

"alpha-Aminobutyric acid
Chemical compound
Description
α-Aminobutyric acid, also known as homoalanine in biochemistry, is a non-proteinogenic alpha amino acid with chemical formula C₄H₉NO₂. The straight two carbon side chain is one carbon longer than alanine, hence the prefix homo"

Hence the term for humans: homo-sapiens. Just kidding btw.

Seriously, alpha-aminobutyric acid NOT found in proteins - it is not biologic - hence referred to as non-proteinogenic.

For comparison:
alpha-aminobutyric acid is C₄H₉NO₂
Glycine - C₂H₅NO₂
Alanine - C3H7NO2

So how did Glycine and Alanine get selected for life but not the other proteins Miller's experiment produced - i.e. how did God do it - or how could any chemist do this?

This difficulty (requiring an intelligent chemist) is increased as we consider the other amino acids Miller produced. Next in proportion (74) from google search:

"2-Hydroxybutyric acid, also known as alpha-hydroxybutyrate and α-hydroxybutyrate, is a hydroxybutyric acid with the hydroxyl group on the carbon adjacent to the carboxyl. It is a chiral compound having two enantiomers, D-2-hydroxybutyric acid and L-2-hydroxybutyric acid. ... chemical formula C4H8O3.

It is also non-proteinous/biologic - not found in proteins.

Notice in this list of the 20 amino acids that no butyric acids are among them:

1. alanine - ala - A
2. arginine - arg - R
3. asparagine - asn - N
4. aspartic acid - asp - D
5. cysteine - cys - C
6. glutamine - gln - Q
7. glutamic acid - glu - E
8. glycine - gly - G
9. histidine - his - H
10. isoleucine - ile - I
11. leucine - leu - L
12. lysine - lys - K
13. methionine - met - M
14. phenylalanine - phe - F
15. proline - pro - P
16. serine - ser - S
17. threonine - thr - T
18. tryptophan - trp - W
19. tyrosine - tyr - Y
20. valine - val - V

I should point out that a common tactic of ID creationists is to cut and paste volumes of "stuff" they have no understanding of in the desperate hope of denigrating science.

Nothing in your cutting and pasting brings one any closer to a conclusion of "the gawds did it".

 

[james bond]

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Wells is an intelligent design creationist (in fact, he is just as often described as an “anti-evolution activist”, which is revealing) and a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is also a pronounced Moonie – indeed, a “Unification Church Marriage Expert” – and has been known to be involved in AIDS denialism together with his old friend and mentor Phillip Johnson. It is as a creationist (or “intelligent design proponent”) that he has made the biggest impact, however – though it was allegedly his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers that convinced him to devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”.


Wells is the author of “Icons of Evolution” and “Regnery Publishing’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, both of which failed to survive even cursory glances from people who actually know anything about evolution; a truly substantial analysis and critique if Icons can be found here. But then, the purpose of the former was explicitly to argue that creationism should be taught in public schools – and for those purposes the actual science is of course less important, since the creationists cannot win on that battlefield anyways (a point that is well made in this review of the Politically Incorrect Guide; after all, the whole frame is that Darwinism has declared war on traditional Christianity; the science is just a pretense). Wells’s lack of understanding of development and evolution (and science) is duly documented; he does, in short, not have the faintest idea, and can obviously not be bothered to look it up either (because, you know, fact checks won't yield the results he wants).

Dr. Wells is better and more credible than some unscientific atheist blogger whose opinions mean diddly. Yet, he is your credible source as I've seen you post before. Does the idiot post his credentials or who he is? You are such a maroon.

 

[Hollie]

Yo

I'm not an organic chemist so the issues people have with Miller-Urey are of little interest to me. I just consider them to be a God-of-the-gaps issue. We can't explain it so it must have been God.

Sorry, you lost me as someone credible with your much false discussion on a paper you presented to me and which I read. You admit now that it isn't anything which you can discuss and furthermore I do not think you understand. That makes me very disappointed in you because you are a faker. I did the work to look at Miller-Urey and understand it and found the link where one can actually do their experiment.

The Miller-Urey links allows one to replicate their experiment in an easy and safe environment online. All one has to do is click on the gas they want to add. The sparker and boiling water for water vapor is all set up for you. You would've discovered any oxygen presence would cause an explosion. Moreover, I used the gases you presented in your paper and it caused an explosion. It means they produced oxygen.

It means to me that you have no clue in what you are talking about haha.

I think you've confused me with another poster. I never brought up or discussed Miller-Urey and the link that you seem to refer to, the Carbon Cycle, was not 'presented' to you. However, if you fused Miller-Urey to the Carbon Cycle, frankly I'd be very impressed. As I stated, I'm not a chemist so I'm missing the significance of what you've done.

You lost me on that one! Hollie brought Miller up, then claimed not to, then brought Miller up! But carbon was in the environment Miller used - in the form of Methane = CH4. Actually, early earth's atmosphere was mostly CO2 not CH4 - but chemical evolutionists prefer no Oxygen though earth's geology proves oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust. Also carbonates in earth's crust contain over 64 million petagrams of carbon! But carbonates contain more oxygen than carbon and were formed by the geologic carbon cycle when earth's ocean(s) absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere and precipitated it out due to reactions with Sodium, Potassium and Calcium ions in earth's primordial waters.

To simplify for you:

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is removed from the atmosphere by the oceans (thankfully or global warming would be much worse than it is). The oceans contain salts (e.g. NaCl - sodium chloride = common table salt) which become separate ions of Sodium (or Calcium or Potassium) and Chlorine (Cl). The Sodium ions combine (react with) the CO3 (carbonate) ions in the oceans to produce carbonates in earth's sediments.

I can simplify or explain further if you would like me to. I am not a chemist either - but I love chemistry (along with science in general).

Actually, it was you who insisted (erroneously), I brought up Miller -Urey when that was not the case.

It seems that was a tactic to allow you to cut and paste volumes of material from creationist hacks who do no peer review. Its a dishonest tactic but one I've seen before.

It seems we're back to tasking you with identifying how any of your cutting and pasting suggests "the gawds did it"

 

[Newtonian]

So, to review the chemical reaction product proportions in Miller's experiment in descending order of occurrence I have posted on so far:

Glycine - C₂H₅NO₂ - proportion: 440
Alanine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 790
alpha-aminobutyric acid - C₄H₉NO₂ - proportion: 270
a(alpha)-Hydroxy-aminobutyric acid - C4H8O3 - proportion: 74

Next in proportion from table 3-2 on page 23 is Norvaline - proportion: 61

Like the latter 2 above, Norvaline is NOT found in proteins - so why wasn't it selected?

From Google:

"Norvaline is an amino acid with the formula CH₃(CH₂)₂CHCO₂H. The compound is an isomer of the more common amino acid valine. Like most other α-amino acids, norvaline is chiral. It is a white, water-soluble solid ... Chemical formula‎: ‎C5H11NO2"

============================

Next in proportion is Sarcosine - proportion 55.

Sarcosine is also NOT found in proteins - why didn't it get selected?

From Google search:

"Sarcosine, also known as N-methylglycine, is an intermediate and byproduct in glycine synthesis and degradation. ... Formula: C3H7NO2"

As a side point,, Sarcosine can stimulate prostate cancer cells to go from benign to malignant. It has also been proposed in combination with other drugs to treat schizophrenia. It effects the brain.

Again, sarcosine is not found in proteins.

======================

The next 4 amino acids in proportion are 34, 33, 30 and 30 again - most are not found in proteins but:

Aspartic acid is in proportion: 34. It IS one of the 20 amino acids found in proteins (we have 3 so far in proportion). From google:

"Aspartic acid (symbol Asp or D; the ionic form is known as aspartate), is an α-amino acid that is used in the biosynthesis of proteins. Similar to all other amino acids, it contains an amino group and a carboxylic acid. ... Formula: C4H7NO4"

==================

Next in proportion: a:y-Diaminobutyric acid (format changed alpha gamma to a:y) - proportion 33.

From:

CID 158725018

CID 158725018 | C8H20N4O4 | CID 158725018 - structure, chemical names, physical and chemical properties, classification, patents, literature, biological activities, safety/hazards/toxicity information, supplier lists, and more.

pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"2,4-diaminobutyric acid is a diamino acid that is butyric acid in which a hydrogen at position 2 and a hydrogen at position 4 are replaced by amino groups. It is a diamino acid, a gamma-amino acid and a non-proteinogenic alpha-amino acid. It derives from a butyric acid....C4H10N2O2 "

It is fairly complex but is NOT used in proteins.

So, why wasn't it selected? (in its isomers and polarizations)

 

[james bond]

The 20 amino acids in life (proteinous) are listed, along with their functions, here:

The 20 Amino Acids and Their Functions

The amino acids are organic compounds formed by carboxyls and amines. These compounds bind to form proteins and other macromolecules....

www.lifepersona.com

Lists are here (the first in alphabetic order, the second according to properties):

The Twenty Amino Acids

www.cryst.bbk.ac.uk

The Twenty Amino Acids

www.cryst.bbk.ac.uk

"The Twenty Amino Acids

The twenty amino acids (that make up proteins)each have assigned to them both three-letter (can be upper or lower case) and one-letter codes (upper case). This makes it quicker and easier for notation purposes and are worth learning. The following list gives these notations along with hypertext references to download amino acid gif images and also interactive molecules.

The format of the list is: amino acid name - 3 letter code - 1 letter code (reference to gif image, reference to interactive molecule)

alanine - ala - A (gif, interactive)
arginine - arg - R (gif, interactive)
asparagine - asn - N (gif, interactive)
aspartic acid - asp - D (gif, interactive)
cysteine - cys - C (gif, interactive)
glutamine - gln - Q (gif, interactive)
glutamic acid - glu - E (gif, interactive)
glycine - gly - G (gif, interactive)
histidine - his - H (gif, interactive)
isoleucine - ile - I (gif, interactive)
leucine - leu - L (gif, interactive)
lysine - lys - K (gif, interactive)
methionine - met - M (gif, interactive)
phenylalanine - phe - F (gif, interactive)
proline - pro - P (gif, interactive)
serine - ser - S (gif, interactive)
threonine - thr - T (gif, interactive)
tryptophan - trp - W (gif, interactive)
tyrosine - tyr - Y (gif, interactive)
valine - val - V (gif, interactive)

Sometimes it is not possible two differentiate two closely related amino acids, therefore we have the special cases:

asparagine/aspartic acid - asx - B
glutamine/glutamic acid - glx - Z

Here is list where amino acids are grouped according to the characteristics of the side chains:

Aliphatic - alanine (gif, interactive), glycine (gif, interactive), isoleucine (gif, interactive), leucine (gif, interactive), proline (gif, interactive), valine (gif, interactive)

Aromatic - phenylalanine (gif, interactive), tryptophan (gif, interactive), tyrosine (gif, interactive)

Acidic - aspartic acid (gif, interactive), glutamic acid (gif, interactive)

Basic - arginine (gif, interactive), histidine (gif, interactive), lysine (gif, interactive)

Hydroxylic - serine (gif, interactive), threonine (gif, interactive)

Sulphur-containing - cysteine (gif, interactive), methionine (gif, interactive)

Amidic (containing amide group) - asparagine (gif, interactive), glutamine (gif, interactive)"

===================
As I have already posted, Glycine is the simplest amino acid which would account for its relative ease in synthesis. From google search:

""Glycine (symbol Gly or G; /ˈɡlaɪsiːn/) is an amino acid that has a single hydrogen atom as its side chain. It is the simplest amino acid (since carbamic acid is unstable), with the chemical formula NH2‐CH2‐COOH. Glycine is one of the proteinogenic amino acids.
Chemical formula: C2H5NO2"

Note that NH2-CH2-COOH involves the 2-d structure (it is actually 3-d) while C2H5NO2 is the relative proportion of each element (C=carbon; H = hydrogen; N - Nitrogen; O = Oxygen).

From the above 20 amino acid list, Glycine is aliphatic. From Bing search:
"relating to or denoting organic compounds in which carbon atoms form open chains (as in the alkanes), not aromatic rings. Compare with alicyclic....Open-chain compounds contain no rings of any type, and are thus aliphatic."

As noted, Glycine is one of the 20 amino acids needed for life. It is logical that the Chemist (God) who created life would use this simplest amino acid.

The product proportion in Miller's experiment: 440.

=========================

Alanine, the most prevalent amino acid produced by Miller (790) - in my next post:

Certainly, I'm not discrediting what amino acids do and the abundance of them on Earth or outer space. However, proteins just do not just pop out of nowhere as amino acids come together to form them. For one, chirality discredits the forming of proteins from loose amino acids. I've already posted that amino acids are dissolved in water so one doesn't want water in a primordial Earth atmosphere. Dr. Gish said that twenty three amino acids have been identified to form a protein molecule. However, this does not happen in nature due to chirality.

 

[Hollie]

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Wells is an intelligent design creationist (in fact, he is just as often described as an “anti-evolution activist”, which is revealing) and a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is also a pronounced Moonie – indeed, a “Unification Church Marriage Expert” – and has been known to be involved in AIDS denialism together with his old friend and mentor Phillip Johnson. It is as a creationist (or “intelligent design proponent”) that he has made the biggest impact, however – though it was allegedly his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers that convinced him to devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”.


Wells is the author of “Icons of Evolution” and “Regnery Publishing’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, both of which failed to survive even cursory glances from people who actually know anything about evolution; a truly substantial analysis and critique if Icons can be found here. But then, the purpose of the former was explicitly to argue that creationism should be taught in public schools – and for those purposes the actual science is of course less important, since the creationists cannot win on that battlefield anyways (a point that is well made in this review of the Politically Incorrect Guide; after all, the whole frame is that Darwinism has declared war on traditional Christianity; the science is just a pretense). Wells’s lack of understanding of development and evolution (and science) is duly documented; he does, in short, not have the faintest idea, and can obviously not be bothered to look it up either (because, you know, fact checks won't yield the results he wants).

Dr. Wells is better and more credible than some unscientific atheist blogger whose opinions mean diddly. Yet, he is your credible source as I've seen you post before. Does the idiot post his credentials or who he is? You are such a maroon.

Sorry, but Wells is a dishonest, unethical hack. His association with the Disco'tute, an organization of religious extremists, has a well deserved reputation as a collection of buffoons. Their involvement with the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial was an utter embarrassment as the creationist testimony was little more than appeals to religious fundamentalist doctrine long rejected by the courts.

 

[james bond]

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Wells is an intelligent design creationist (in fact, he is just as often described as an “anti-evolution activist”, which is revealing) and a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is also a pronounced Moonie – indeed, a “Unification Church Marriage Expert” – and has been known to be involved in AIDS denialism together with his old friend and mentor Phillip Johnson. It is as a creationist (or “intelligent design proponent”) that he has made the biggest impact, however – though it was allegedly his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers that convinced him to devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”.


Wells is the author of “Icons of Evolution” and “Regnery Publishing’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, both of which failed to survive even cursory glances from people who actually know anything about evolution; a truly substantial analysis and critique if Icons can be found here. But then, the purpose of the former was explicitly to argue that creationism should be taught in public schools – and for those purposes the actual science is of course less important, since the creationists cannot win on that battlefield anyways (a point that is well made in this review of the Politically Incorrect Guide; after all, the whole frame is that Darwinism has declared war on traditional Christianity; the science is just a pretense). Wells’s lack of understanding of development and evolution (and science) is duly documented; he does, in short, not have the faintest idea, and can obviously not be bothered to look it up either (because, you know, fact checks won't yield the results he wants).

Dr. Wells is better and more credible than some unscientific atheist blogger whose opinions mean diddly. Yet, he is your credible source as I've seen you post before. Does the idiot post his credentials or who he is? You are such a maroon.

Sorry, but Wells is a dishonest, unethical hack. His association with the Disco'tute, an organization of religious extremists, has a well deserved reputation as a collection of buffoons. Their involvement with the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial was an utter embarrassment as the creationist testimony was little more than appeals to religious fundamentalist doctrine long rejected by the courts.

That's just your opinion. Nothing scientific behind it.

That said, this is the R&E forum, so you can hold to your atheist religious beliefs and opinions.

 

[Hollie]

So, to review the chemical reaction product proportions in Miller's experiment in descending order of occurrence I have posted on so far:

Glycine - C₂H₅NO₂ - proportion: 440
Alanine - C3H7NO2 - proportion: 790
alpha-aminobutyric acid - C₄H₉NO₂ - proportion: 270
a(alpha)-Hydroxy-aminobutyric acid - C4H8O3 - proportion: 74

Next in proportion from table 3-2 on page 23 is Norvaline - proportion: 61

Like the latter 2 above, Norvaline is NOT found in proteins - so why wasn't it selected?

From Google:

"Norvaline is an amino acid with the formula CH₃(CH₂)₂CHCO₂H. The compound is an isomer of the more common amino acid valine. Like most other α-amino acids, norvaline is chiral. It is a white, water-soluble solid ... Chemical formula‎: ‎C5H11NO2"

============================

Next in proportion is Sarcosine - proportion 55.

Sarcosine is also NOT found in proteins - why didn't it get selected?

From Google search:

"Sarcosine, also known as N-methylglycine, is an intermediate and byproduct in glycine synthesis and degradation. ... Formula: C3H7NO2"

As a side point,, Sarcosine can stimulate prostate cancer cells to go from benign to malignant. It has also been proposed in combination with other drugs to treat schizophrenia. It effects the brain.

Again, sarcosine is not found in proteins.

======================

The next 4 amino acids in proportion are 34, 33, 30 and 30 again - most are not found in proteins but:

Aspartic acid is in proportion: 34. It IS one of the 20 amino acids found in proteins (we have 3 so far in proportion). From google:

"Aspartic acid (symbol Asp or D; the ionic form is known as aspartate), is an α-amino acid that is used in the biosynthesis of proteins. Similar to all other amino acids, it contains an amino group and a carboxylic acid. ... Formula: C4H7NO4"

==================

Next in proportion: a:y-Diaminobutyric acid (format changed alpha gamma to a:y) - proportion 33.

From:

CID 158725018

CID 158725018 | C8H20N4O4 | CID 158725018 - structure, chemical names, physical and chemical properties, classification, patents, literature, biological activities, safety/hazards/toxicity information, supplier lists, and more.

pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"2,4-diaminobutyric acid is a diamino acid that is butyric acid in which a hydrogen at position 2 and a hydrogen at position 4 are replaced by amino groups. It is a diamino acid, a gamma-amino acid and a non-proteinogenic alpha-amino acid. It derives from a butyric acid....C4H10N2O2 "

It is fairly complex but is NOT used in proteins.

So, why wasn't it selected? (in its isomers and polarizations)

On the other hand:

Icon of Obfuscation

Chapter 2: Miller-Urey experiment
Prebiotic Oxygen. A key question in origin-of-life research is the oxidation state of the prebiotic atmosphere (the current best guess is that the origin of life occurred somewhere around 4.0-3.7 bya (billion years ago)). Wells wants you to think that there is good evidence for significant amounts free oxygen in the prebiotic atmosphere (significant amounts of free oxygen make the atmosphere oxidizing and make Miller-Urey-type experiments fail). He spends several pages (14-19) on a pseudo-discussion of the oxygen issue, citing sources from the 1970's and writing that (p. 17) "the controversy has never been resolved", that "Evidence from early rocks has been inconclusive," and concluding that the current geological consensus -- that oxygen was merely a trace gas before approximately 2.5 bya and only began rising after this point -- was due to "Dogma [taking] the place of empirical evidence" (p. 18). None of this is true (see e.g. Copley, 2001).

• Certain minerals, such as uraninite, cannot form under significant exposure to oxygen. Thick deposits of these rocks are found in rocks older than 2.5 bya years ago, indicating that essentially no oxygen (only trace amounts) was present. On page 17 Wells notes that uraninite deposits have been found in more recent rocks, but neglects to mention to his readers that these only occur under rapid-burial conditions, whereas ancient deposits of uraninite occur in slow deposition conditions, for example in sediments laid down by rivers, so that the minerals were exposed to atmospheric gases for significant periods of time before burial.
• 'Red beds' are geologic features containing highly oxidized iron (rust) indicative of high amounts of oxygen. Wells (p. 17) notes that red beds are found before 2 bya, but fails to mention that the temporal limit of red beds is just a few hundred million years before 2 bya.
• Wells doesn't even mention the evidence that banded iron formations (incompletely oxidized iron indicative of ultralow-oxygen conditions) are very common prior to 2.3 bya and very rare afterwards.
• Wells also doesn't mention that early paleosols (fossil soils) from about ~2.5 bya contain unoxidized cerium, impossible in an oxygenic atmosphere (e.g., Murakami et al., 2001).
• Finally, Wells doesn't mention to his readers that pyrite, a mineral even more vulnerable to oxidation than uraninite, is found unoxidized in pre-2.5 bya rocks, and with significant evidence of long surface exposure (i.e. grains weathered by water erosion; e.g. Rasmussen and Buick, 1999).

Why does Wells leave out the converging independent lines of geological evidence pointing to an anoxic early (pre ~2.5 bya) atmosphere?

Was the prebiotic atmosphere reducing? Are the Miller-Urey experiments "irrelevant"? The famous Miller-Urey experiments used a strongly reducing atmosphere to produce amino acids. It is important to realize that the original experiment is famous not so much for the exact mixture used, but for the unexpected discovery that such a simple experiment could indeed produce crucial biological compounds; this discovery instigated a huge amount of related research that continues today.

Now, current geochemical opinion is that the prebiotic atmosphere was not so strongly reducing as the original Miller-Urey atmosphere, but opinion varies widely from moderately reducing to neutral. Completely neutral atmospheres would be bad for Miller-Urey-type experiments, but even a weakly reducing atmosphere will produce lower but significant amounts of amino acids. In the approximately two pages of text where Wells actually discusses the reducing atmosphere question (p. 20-22), Wells cites some more 1970's sources and then asserts that the irrelevance of the Miller-Urey experiment has become a "near-consensus among geochemists" (p. 21).

• This statement is misleading. What geochemists agree on is that if the early earth's mantle was of the same composition as the modern mantle and if only terrestrial volcanic sources are considered as contributing to the atmosphere, and if the temperature profile of the early atmosphere was the same as modern earth (this is relevant to rates of hydrogen escape) then there will be much less hydrogen compared to Miller's first atmosphere (20% total atm.). Even if this worst-case scenario is accepted, hydrogen will not be completely absent, in fact there is a long list of geochemists that consider hydrogen to have been present (although in lower amounts, roughly 0.1-1% of the total atmosphere). At these levels of H2 there is still significant (although much lower) amino acid production.
• Also, many geochemists think that these conditions do not represent the early earth, contrary to the impression given by Wells. For example, on p. 20, Wells mentions terrestrial volcanos emitting neutral gases (H2O, CO2, N2, and only trace H2), but he fails to mention that mid-ocean ridge vents could have been significant sources of reduced gases -- they are important sources of reduced atmospheric gases even today, emitting about 1% methane (Kasting and Brown, 1998) and producing reduced hydrogen and hydrogen sulfide (e.g. Kelley et al., 2001; Perkins, 2001; Von Damm, 2001) and potentially ammonia prebiotically (Brandes et al., 1998; Chyba, 1998). Why does Wells exclude oceanic vents from consideration?
• Another strange omission is that Wells completely fails to mention the extraterrestrial evidence, which is the only direct evidence we have of the kinds of chemical reactions that might have occurred in the early solar system. For example he neglects to mention the famous Murchison meteorite, which contains mixtures of organic compounds much like those produced in Miller-Urey style experiments, and which constitutes direct evidence that just the right kind of prebiotic chemistry was occurring at least somewhere in the early solar system, and that some of those products found their way to earth (see e.g. Engel and Macko, 2001 for a recent review).
• Wells asserts that since the 1970's, non-reducing atmospheres have become the "near-consensus." The latest article that Wells cites supporting this view, however, is a 1995 nontechnical news article in Science (Cohen, 1995). Why doesn't he quote Kral et al. (1998), who write,
  

  The standard theory for the origin of life postulates that life arose from an abiotically produced soup of organic material (e.g., Miller, 1953; Miller, 1992). The first organism would have therefore been a heterotroph deriving energy from this existing pool of nutrients. This theory for the origin of life is not without competitors (for a review of theories for the origins of life see Davis and McKay, 1996), but has received considerable support from laboratory experiments in which it has been demonstrated that biologically relevant organic materials can be easily synthesized from mildly reducing mixtures of gases (e.g., Chang et al., 1983). The discovery of organics in comets (e.g., Kissel and Kruger, 1987), on Titan (e.g., Sagan et al., 1984), elsewhere in the outer solar system (e.g., Encrenaz, 1986), as well as in the interstellar medium (e.g., Irvine and Knacke, 1989) has further strengthened the notion that organic material was abundant prior to the origin of life.

None of this is meant to convey the impression that no controversies exist (both Cohen (1995) and the Davis and McKay (1996) article cited by the above-quoted Kral et al. (1998) are about the various competing hypotheses about the origin of life). But textbooks generally mention some of these hypotheses (briefly of course, as there is only space for a page or two on this topic in an introductory textbook), and furthermore generally mention that the original atmosphere was likely more weakly reducing than the original Miller-Urey experiment hypothesized, but that many variations with mildly reducing conditions still produce satisfactory results. This is exactly what is written in the most popular college biology textbook, Campbell et al.'s (1999) Biology, for instance. In other words, the textbooks basically summarize what the recent literature is saying. The original Miller-Urey experiment, despite its limitations, is also repeatedly cited in modern scientific literature as a landmark experiment. So why does Wells have a problem with the textbooks following the literature? Wells wants textbooks to follow the experts, and it appears that they are.

The RNA world.Wells writes (p. 22) as if the RNA world is an alternative to failed Miller-Urey-style experimentation. He cites no source for this claim, because the claim is pure obfuscation.

• The RNA world hypothesis is complementary, not opposed, to Miller-style prebiotic syntheses, as it is meant to explain how genetic replication got going without DNA, several steps down the road after prebiotic syntheses.
• Wells gives the impression that there are only two possible starts to life on earth, Urey-Miller style syntheses and the RNA world. Wells misleadingly cites several quotes that taken alone suggest that the RNA world is impossible, and that there is no remaining scientific explanations for life on earth. However, most authorities agree that the RNA world was one stage of the origin of life, rather than the very first stage, and that it was proceeded by a pre-RNA world. Indeed, the very authors he quotes to suggest that the RNA world is impossible go on to explain the concept of a pre-RNA world and how an RNA world would arise from that, but Wells omits all mention of this. Wells doesn't bother to cite recent work on precursors to the RNA world, see for example Cavalier-Smith (2001) for an introduction and references to ideas on this such as the 'NA world' and 'lipid world' (for the latter, see e.g. Segre et al., 2001).

 

[Hollie]

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Wells is an intelligent design creationist (in fact, he is just as often described as an “anti-evolution activist”, which is revealing) and a prominent member of the Discovery Institute. He is also a pronounced Moonie – indeed, a “Unification Church Marriage Expert” – and has been known to be involved in AIDS denialism together with his old friend and mentor Phillip Johnson. It is as a creationist (or “intelligent design proponent”) that he has made the biggest impact, however – though it was allegedly his own studies at the Unification Theological Seminary and his prayers that convinced him to devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”.


Wells is the author of “Icons of Evolution” and “Regnery Publishing’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”, both of which failed to survive even cursory glances from people who actually know anything about evolution; a truly substantial analysis and critique if Icons can be found here. But then, the purpose of the former was explicitly to argue that creationism should be taught in public schools – and for those purposes the actual science is of course less important, since the creationists cannot win on that battlefield anyways (a point that is well made in this review of the Politically Incorrect Guide; after all, the whole frame is that Darwinism has declared war on traditional Christianity; the science is just a pretense). Wells’s lack of understanding of development and evolution (and science) is duly documented; he does, in short, not have the faintest idea, and can obviously not be bothered to look it up either (because, you know, fact checks won't yield the results he wants).

Dr. Wells is better and more credible than some unscientific atheist blogger whose opinions mean diddly. Yet, he is your credible source as I've seen you post before. Does the idiot post his credentials or who he is? You are such a maroon.

Sorry, but Wells is a dishonest, unethical hack. His association with the Disco'tute, an organization of religious extremists, has a well deserved reputation as a collection of buffoons. Their involvement with the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial was an utter embarrassment as the creationist testimony was little more than appeals to religious fundamentalist doctrine long rejected by the courts.

That's just your opinion. Nothing scientific behind it.

That said, this is the R&E forum, so you can hold to your atheist religious beliefs and opinions.

Its not my opinion. It was the conclusion of the courts which have ruled consistently that ID creationism is not science but fundamentalist Christianity under a burqa of "sciencey" obfuscation.

 

[Meriweather]

I have trouble believing that something that can create a universe of galaxies cares about what I think and do. I created a nice aquarium for my fish but I don't expect him to worship me and I certainly don't care what he does with the other fish. He is a fish, he does what fish do.

Here's a question I've never gotten a good answer to, what part do you think God had in MY creation? Did he create ME or did he create mankind and then stepped back and watched us generation after generation?

My thoughts: We are told that we are created in the image and likeness of God; that we are the children of God. We also know His ways are far above our own, but I still believe our own behaviors can give us clues about His.

As you know from your fish, animals and people can only interact with each other to a small degree. I once had a parakeet who was a single hatchling. I was able to spend a lot of time with that bird, carrying him around with me, playing with him, etc--getting him well used to me. Of course, one day he discovered he could fly and the last thing that interested him was being carried around by me. He was off to join the other parakeets full time. Yes, of all the birds, he was the one that would seek me out and sometimes perch over me or even on my head. But he was all bird. I think of God in the same way. I believe He does spend time with us and enjoys it when we spend time with Him. But we are human; He is God.

I also have a couple of chinchillas, also prey animals, who are not prone to wanting to be held or petted. Like you, with your fish, I let my parakeets be parakeets and my chinchillas be chinchillas, but unlike fish, parakeets and chinchillas are up to limited interactions with me--and we both seem to enjoy it.

Now, let us advance to children. From the day they were born, each of my girls had their own personalities. My purpose was to help them grow, develop, and create the best possible person/personality they could be. I am part of that creation, but only a part. They are part of their own creation as well, more so than I am. And God, I believe, if we spend time together is also a part of the creation that is the individual human being.

How much, I do not know. We read that He knows us from the womb. Like me, with my featherless, mosquito-sized baby parakeet, I was able to do a certain amount to affect his behavior, but parakeet he was and parakeet he remained. So, yes, I can easily picture God watching over us from the womb. What I do not have an answer to is how much of our personality is from genetics (sperm and egg) and how much is shaped by the hand of God.

I am fond of genealogy. One day I came across a letter, read it, and thought in amazement, "This is exactly like something I would write! That same quirkiness that surfaces in my own letters!" Turned out that letter was written by one of my great-great grandfathers. Seriously, it could have been me. (That is why I keep genetics and God both in mind when I think of who I am and who I am becoming.)