JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,830
- 2,220
- Thread starter
- #161
lol, you are not only ignorant as a dry turd, you relish your ignorance and wallow in it.
The Evolution Big Lie; Evolution Proves Metapysical Nauralism
- Thread starter JimBowie1958
- Start date
lol, you are not only ignorant as a dry turd, you relish your ignorance and wallow in it.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
And nothing proving his claim about the 17 either. I will address these links tomorrow.
And that's just one of the problems with your notion that life was generated in deep space, if I understand you correctly: some of the vital precursors to be sure, but not life. The latter can't be assembled in deep space. Objectively speaking, that has to occur in an environment that can sustain it. On the other hand, that puts everything right back into a cross-contaminated environment.
However, I can mostly agree with the emboldened sentences in that other paragraph above, insofar as you are talking about the precursors that He seeded the Earth with.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Dude.
Indeed, it is, but you're talking about your faith, not mine, and of course it is scientifically unfalsifiable, assuming you understand what the term evidence means and are using it accordingly. One cannot be sure since you obviously don't know what metaphysical naturalism is. You are an atheist, aren't you and, therefore, a materialist? Right?
Last edited:
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Well, that would be guys like orogenicman and you. I just don't have the time today to show you just how wrong he is. Tomorrow. It's Easter and I got quests coming.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Perplexing!
BTW, orogenicman, how is it that you imagine that so many of the vital organic precursors of biology were born on this planet, and of all places in the oceans, and yet write what you did in response to Jimbowie's musings?
You do understand--don't you?--that the reason scientists have shifted their focus to deep space is precisely because it has become increasingly manifest that a significant number of vital organic precursors could not have been synthesized, let alone maintained their compositions and served as the bases of polymerization, in the primordial world on which an oxidizing atmosphere and life itself appeared dramatically earlier than was previously thought possible.
And these things would have been most especially true in the oceans . . . despite your lack of appreciation for the daunting actualities and challenges thereof.
That also raises a question about the traditional evolutionary scenario that life arose from the primordial soup of the oceans first and then migrated to land. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that was the order of things given the evidence and, by the way, the testimony of God's word.
But given the staggeringly complex and, dare I say, insurmountable challenges for polymerization in the ocean depths, away from all that ultra violet light. . . . Talk about running away from one insurmountable problem and diving head first into another. . . . And the deeper you go, the worse things get, but you can't go shallow either.
Perplexing.
Life in that order, by the strictly natural processes and mechanisms of chance variation and fortuity, eh?
BTW, orogenicman, how is it that you imagine that so many of the vital organic precursors of biology were born on this planet, and of all places in the oceans, and yet write what you did in response to Jimbowie's musings?
You do understand--don't you?--that the reason scientists have shifted their focus to deep space is precisely because it has become increasingly manifest that a significant number of vital organic precursors could not have been synthesized, let alone maintained their compositions and served as the bases of polymerization, in the primordial world on which an oxidizing atmosphere and life itself appeared dramatically earlier than was previously thought possible.
And these things would have been most especially true in the oceans . . . despite your lack of appreciation for the daunting actualities and challenges thereof.
That also raises a question about the traditional evolutionary scenario that life arose from the primordial soup of the oceans first and then migrated to land. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that was the order of things given the evidence and, by the way, the testimony of God's word.
But given the staggeringly complex and, dare I say, insurmountable challenges for polymerization in the ocean depths, away from all that ultra violet light. . . . Talk about running away from one insurmountable problem and diving head first into another. . . . And the deeper you go, the worse things get, but you can't go shallow either.
Perplexing.
Life in that order, by the strictly natural processes and mechanisms of chance variation and fortuity, eh?
Last edited:
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
I don't have a beef with gays as such. Where did you get that idea? Certainly you didn't get that from an accurate reading of anything on my blog. I would that all men be saved and set free of the bondage of sin and death as I was.
Politically, I have a problem with leftists who assert civil rights protections, enforced by the government of course, against the free exercise of inalienable, natural rights.
Every sane and moral person should oppose that.
I do have a question for you. What was the point you were trying to make about vitamin B3 being post-biotic? Presumably you think there's something obvious about this that I should get, but just humor me.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #167
Dude.
Indeed, it is, but you're talking about your faith, not mine, and of course it is scientifically unfalsifiable, assuming you understand what the term evidence means and are using it accordingly. One cannot be sure since you obviously don't know what metaphysical naturalism is. You are an atheist, aren't you and, therefore, a materialist? Right?
Dear, you are babbling. Faith is not factual evidence.
Metaphysical naturalism posits a premise, moral certainty in the universe, that can be suggested but not proved.
No Christian should be threatened.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #168
Still hung on your misunderstanding of metaphysical naturalism, I see.
Run along and prepare.
R
rdean
Guest
OK, there are Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Romans. I missed the part about the Christians.
And besides, I suspect they only washed to smell better. They thought disease came from "bad spirits". Like Casper, but not "friendly".
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,830
- 2,220
- Thread starter
- #170
Dude.
Indeed, it is, but you're talking about your faith, not mine, and of course it is scientifically unfalsifiable, assuming you understand what the term evidence means and are using it accordingly. One cannot be sure since you obviously don't know what metaphysical naturalism is. You are an atheist, aren't you and, therefore, a materialist? Right?
Metaphysical naturalism is the philosophical belief that there is nothing outside of nature. No miraculous and nothing outside what science can measure and it is among the most deluded philosophies on the planet aside from materialism and atheism themselves.
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,830
- 2,220
- Thread starter
- #171
Christianity is a sect of Judaism and the form most familiar in the West grew from a Roman adaptation of ancient Jewish Christianity.
IT is absurd to assume they just abandoned the cultural practices regarding hygiene 'just because.' roflmao
They washed to get their skin free of various matter, and smell is a good indicator of infection and bacteriological contamination. They not only washed themselves free of bad smells and visible dirt, but they also did it for health, something they did not understand scientifically but knew through experience; bad smelling dirty people are more unhealthy than clean people. And most Christians practiced the OT practices of cleanliness because they thought the laws were given for the physical benefit as well as spiritual.
Dude, you are really out of your depth here.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
My misunderstanding?!
In this instance, I was alluding to orogenicman's post containing the links that he's trying to pass off as proof for his ridiculous claim about the 17 amino acids that can be synthesized in experimental apparatuses. "Run along and prepare"?! Are you a danger to yourself at home around kitchens knives as well? I wrote my response to that rash of duplicity in my head as I went through the links. I shall tap it out and post it tomorrow.
As for your gibberish about metaphysical naturalism. . . .
Dude.
Indeed, it is, but you're talking about your faith, not mine, and of course it is scientifically unfalsifiable, assuming you understand what the term evidence means and are using it accordingly. One cannot be sure since you obviously don't know what metaphysical naturalism is. You are an atheist, aren't you and, therefore, a materialist? Right?
Dear, you are babbling. Faith is not factual evidence.
Metaphysical naturalism posits a premise, moral certainty in the universe, that can be suggested but not proved.
No Christian should be threatened.
I'm babbling?
Metaphysical naturalism, which you claim to be "a fancy term for faith", is necessarily your ontological presupposition, not mine. And it's not subject to scientific falsification; i.e., it's actuality cannot be affirmed, substantiated, verified or demonstrated by science.
"No Christian should be threatened"?!
You poor, confused child, no one should be threatened by these facts of cognition. But you don't appear to understand what Jimbowie and I are talking about anyway. We're talking about the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism as it pertains to the concerns of science.
Metaphysical naturalism is not "a fancy term for faith", no more than "[f]aith" is synonymous to "factual evidence"; rather, it's arguably held to be true as a matter of faith. Metaphysical naturalism is the assertion/belief that the only thing that exists is nature; i.e., the only thing that exists is the physical substance or properties of the space-time continuum: mass-energy. There is no supernatural or transcendent realm of being; nature is the only thing that's real.
In any event, DEAR, I never said any such stupid thing in my life, i.e., that "[f]aith is . . . factual evidence."
But we clearly have you making this incoherent baby talk: "Metaphysical naturalism posits a premise, moral certainty in the universe, that can be suggested but not proved."
So what is this "moral certainty in the universe" allegedly asserted by metaphysical naturalism "that can be suggested but not proved"?
Last edited:
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Dude.
Indeed, it is, but you're talking about your faith, not mine, and of course it is scientifically unfalsifiable, assuming you understand what the term evidence means and are using it accordingly. One cannot be sure since you obviously don't know what metaphysical naturalism is. You are an atheist, aren't you and, therefore, a materialist? Right?
Metaphysical naturalism is the philosophical belief that there is nothing outside of nature. No miraculous and nothing outside what science can measure and it is among the most deluded philosophies on the planet aside from materialism and atheism themselves.
Yes, Jim, I know what it is. I've written a number of articles that touch on it, including Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism. Though atheism as such is not synonymous to metaphysical naturalism, all atheists necessarily hold it to be true, unless of course they're babbling some subjectivist nonsense that they exist only as a disembodied mind floating around in a field of nothingness . . . in which case I need not bother wasting a moment of my time on them. Materialism necessarily follows from metaphysical naturalism. Yes, I know, there are those who argue that one can hold to metaphysical naturalism and simultaneously eschew materialism, but how exactly does the pertinent distinction make any material difference, ultimately? Whether mental states ultimately supervene on the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the neurological system as the whole, or may be reduced to the same as the whole. . . . Let me know when the materialist stops picking at the lint in his belly button and allows that the only distinction that makes any real difference is whether or not there be a spiritual mind that supervenes on the sum of the physiological structures and biochemical processes of the neurological system as the whole.
Last edited:
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,830
- 2,220
- Thread starter
- #174
Bullshit. Facts state otherwise.
The majority set the spread on sporting events and do a far better job than 99% of professional gamblers.
But elitists like you want to think that the rest of us are idiots to justify your craven degeneracy.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you are immortal? So if you jumped off of the top of a 50 story building, you would not die? Sorry I'm not convinced.
Explain the difference between civil rights and inalienable natural rights? And why should every "sane and moral person should oppose that" (civil rights)?
The vitamin B3 found in the meteorite was pre-biotic. That was the point.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Amino Acids: The Building Blocks of Life
orogenicman posted some links! To bad they don't back his absurd claim that all 17 of life's amino acids that can be synthesized under the controlled conditions of the laboratory are commonly found in nature.
(Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism by Michael David Rawlings at Prufrock's Lair)
Let's get something straight right now, orogenicman's game, with which JimBowie is apparently very familiar, is to incessantly camouflage pseudoscientific claims behind insinuations that those with whom he disagrees are stupid or are ignorant about the pertinent facts and ramifications of science, particularly when his adversaries are theists.
I'm a former evolutionist who knows the pertinent science, and I'm current. None of the information cited by orogenicman is news to me, and I touch on all of the relevant concerns in the information cited by him in my article at Prufrock's Lair, except, of course, for the discovery of cyanomethanimine, which occurred after its writing. (By the way, it's discovery is of no major significance to the Herculean challenges to the prebiotic formulations of an abiogentic origin of life on Earth.)
In other words, orogenicman thinks he can pull another fast one here, but he still doesn't seem to grasp the level of intellectual firepower he's up against.
The reason that Jimbowie and I don't have a problem with each other, even though we disagree over the mechanism of origin: we are the sort who grasp the actualities and implications of the underlying metaphysical concerns and approach science from our respective premises in good faith with an eye on the fact that the evidence, objectively speaking, may reasonably be interpreted to support either alternative . . . insofar as each is accurately portrayed in the light of a scientifically informed hermeneutics.
This is also the reason both of us have a huge problem with orogenicman, who, as one who thinks he's above it all, doesn't heed the flashing red signs of the metaphysics, let alone approach science or the discussion of it with integrity.
I shall address the contents of these links below. . . .
orogenicman posted some links! To bad they don't back his absurd claim that all 17 of life's amino acids that can be synthesized under the controlled conditions of the laboratory are commonly found in nature.
(Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism by Michael David Rawlings at Prufrock's Lair)
Let's get something straight right now, orogenicman's game, with which JimBowie is apparently very familiar, is to incessantly camouflage pseudoscientific claims behind insinuations that those with whom he disagrees are stupid or are ignorant about the pertinent facts and ramifications of science, particularly when his adversaries are theists.
I'm a former evolutionist who knows the pertinent science, and I'm current. None of the information cited by orogenicman is news to me, and I touch on all of the relevant concerns in the information cited by him in my article at Prufrock's Lair, except, of course, for the discovery of cyanomethanimine, which occurred after its writing. (By the way, it's discovery is of no major significance to the Herculean challenges to the prebiotic formulations of an abiogentic origin of life on Earth.)
In other words, orogenicman thinks he can pull another fast one here, but he still doesn't seem to grasp the level of intellectual firepower he's up against.
The reason that Jimbowie and I don't have a problem with each other, even though we disagree over the mechanism of origin: we are the sort who grasp the actualities and implications of the underlying metaphysical concerns and approach science from our respective premises in good faith with an eye on the fact that the evidence, objectively speaking, may reasonably be interpreted to support either alternative . . . insofar as each is accurately portrayed in the light of a scientifically informed hermeneutics.
This is also the reason both of us have a huge problem with orogenicman, who, as one who thinks he's above it all, doesn't heed the flashing red signs of the metaphysics, let alone approach science or the discussion of it with integrity.
I shall address the contents of these links below. . . .
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Amino Acids: The Building Blocks of Life
Putting it kindly, orogenicman's imagination knows no bounds!
Below I address the contents of each of the articles and the peer-reviewed paper at the other end of orogenicman's links. Directly below each of the pertinent excerpts, the reader will find my notes. Please be patient and carefully think about the material as you read 'til you get to the end. As a matter of clarification owing to the ultimate concern, there's a reason why I have consistently used the phrase exist/persist in nature in this thread above orogenicman's latest stunt. Remember, in this OP, the issue is the metaphysics of evolutionary theory. And in this instance, chemical evolution (i.e., abiogenesis) is the issue relative to orogenicman's outlandish claims about the amino acids that are synthesized in the interstellar and Earth-bound laboratories of the cosmos—under both natural and controlled environments/conditions.
___________________________
(Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism by Michael David Rawlings at Prufrock's Lair)
Bear in mind the 6 durable and commonly found amino acids as you read: glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, valine and proline.
Link #1
Pertinent excerpt: "One of the newly-discovered molecules, called E-cyanomethanimine (E-HNCHCN) is one step in the process that chemists believe produces adenine, one of the four nucleobases that form the “rungs” in the ladder-like structure of DNA. The other molecule, called ethanamine, is thought to play a role in forming alanine, one of the twenty amino acids in the genetic code."
Note: Though we're jumping ahead of the amino acids here, cyanomethanimine is believed to be one of the catalysts for adenine. However, the synthesis for adenine also requires (1) cyanoacetylene (or its hydrolyzed form cyanoacetaldehyde) and/or (2) the anion cyanate.
Cyanoacetylene is a plentiful organic compound in the universe, but it's highly reactive with other chemicals or compounds, especially in its hydrolyzed form. Cyanate is derived from the hydrolysis of cyanogen, which has an estimated half-life of less than 30 seconds on Earth beyond laboratory conditions.
Alanine, of course, is one of the 6 durable amino acids of life commonly found in nature, albeit, in racemic mixtures outside of living cells. Nothing new here.
Check?
Link #2
Pertinent excerpt: "With only about 100 billionths of a gram of glycine to study, the researchers were able to measure the relative abundance of its carbon isotopes. It contained more carbon-13 than that found in glycine that forms on Earth, proving that Stardust's glycine originated in space."
Note: Glycine, of course, is one of the 6 amino acids of life commonly found in nature outside living organisms, albeit, in racemic mixtures. Nothing new here either, except what had long been suspected: all glycine, being the simplest and, therefore, the sturdiest of life's amino acids, with only two hydrogen atoms on its side chain, may have originated in space. I touch on this in my article at Prufrock's Lair. This is probably true about the durable amino acids alanine and glutamic acid as well.
Check?
Link #3
Pertinent excerpt: "A new experiment simulating conditions in deep space reveals that the complex building blocks of life could have been created on icy interplanetary dust and then carried to Earth, jump-starting life.
. . . In the new experiment, a vacuum chamber chilled to 10 degrees above absolute zero was used to house a mix of ice, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and various hydrocarbons such as methane, ethane, and propane. When zapped with high-energy electrons to simulate cosmic rays in space, the chemicals reacted to form complex, organic compounds.
. . . The analysis revealed the presence of complex molecules – nine different amino acids and at least two dipeptides. . . ."
Note: The dipeptides synthesized were Gly-Gly (glycine-glycine) and Leu-Ala (leucine-alanine). This detail was not included in the article cited by orogenicman.
In addition to the more durable 6 that commonly occur in nature and in the experimental apparatuses of synthesization, this is one of the potential ways that perhaps a few of the more fragile amino acids of life might be found in nature outside living organisms, albeit, always in racemic mixtures: that is to say, as chemically bonded to one of the durables or isolated in encapsulated deposits, thusly protected soon after the moment of synthesis from further chemical reactions or denaturation. Typically, they cannot maintain their composition in nature otherwise for any realistically useful period of time, except perhaps the semi-durable leucine, which is occasionally found in meteorites on Earth. In fact, leucine is sometimes counted as the seventh amino acid of life commonly found in nature, though it appears in significantly smaller concentrations than the other 6 in both nature and in the experimental apparatuses of synthesization. Also, isoleucine was found in the Murchison Meteorite (See below.).
Check?
Link #4
Pertinent excerpt: "The discovery of glycine in space suggests that interstellar molecules may have played a pivotal role in the prebiotic chemistry of the Earth."
Note: Ya think? Of course! Again, glycine is one of the 6 durable amino acids of life commonly found in nature, albeit, in racemic mixtures outside of living cells. Nothing new here either, though in the minds of atheists, the perbiotic chemistry that subsequently takes place on Earth from precursor to life . . . well, you know, nature did it! . . . all by itself.
Check?
Link #5
Pertinent excerpt: "The meteorite in question was born in a violent crash, and eventually crashed into northern Sudan.
. . . Life on Earth uses left-handed amino acids, and they are never mixed with right-handed ones, but the amino acids found in the meteorite had equal amounts of the left- and right-handed varieties."
Note: In other words, they're of a racemic mixture, which is always the case in nature outside of living cells. By the way, among the amino acids found in the Sudanese Meteorite were the 6 durables of life commonly found in nature—glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, valine and proline. Of course, none of the other 14 that occur in life were present, except, perhaps, leucine and isoleucine, either as chemically bonded to one of the durables or isolated in encapsulated deposits. However, I don't remember if the later were found in this meteorite or not.
Check?
Link #6:: Amino acids in meteorites, Cronin JR, Pizzarello S.; Adv Space Res.; 1983;3(9):5-18.
Pertinent excerpt: "Eight of the terrestrial protein amino acids have been found."
Note: Psst, orogenicman, did you not notice that when you posted the link? That's 8 of the 20, orogenicman, not 17 of the 20!
Now carefully read on and try to understand this time. . . .
Actually, this paper is dated. 10 of life's amino acids have been found in the Murchison Meteorite: the 6 durables, leucine, and also isoleucine, serine and threonine. Altogether, 92 different amino acids of the 500 known have been found in the Murchison. Of course, except for the 10 biotic amino acids found in the Murchison, the rest are abiotic. Of the 92, only 19 are also found on Earth.
Now, for the ones found in the Murchison that matter to life:
1. The standard 6, the most durable and commonly found in nature.
2. Leucine.
3. Isoleucine, Serine and Threonine.
Serine and threonine are known terrestrial contaminants that can maintain the integrity of their composition on Earth as long as they are encapsulated almost immediately. The environmental conditions have to be just right. Naturally, they're deposited by living organisms; hence, they don't count and were found in the Murchison in trace amounts. They simply weren't detected for years. We now have the technology to see it all. Isoleucine may also be a terrestrial contaminant. To my knowledge, it's only been found in the Murchison in trace amounts. For some, the jury is still out on that one, but like leucine, it's a semi-durable, so it might be legit.
Notwithstanding, as I cited from my article at Prufrock's Lair in the above, "[d]ue to the barely measurable presence and woeful instability of the other 11 [synthesized in experimental apparatuses], no one of any repute would have the temerity to argue that they could have existed in any significant concentrations in the primordial world beyond the environment of a living cell."
The issue here is abiogenesis! The problem with leucine and isoleucine is that they only show up in comparatively trace amounts in the experimental apparatuses of synthesization or in space debris. While geologists make a lot of hay over them, the leading lights of abiogenetic research know better. Though semi-durable, they are still more highly reactive and more subject to the forces of denaturation outside of living organisms or encapsulated deposits.
On the other hand, the standard, more durable 6 are always present in greater concentrations in the experimental apparatuses of synthesization and commonly occur in nature: inside and outside of living organisms on Earth, or inside the planetoids, asteroids, meteorites, comets, space clouds/nebulae of outer space. Of these 6, the simplest and, therefore, the most durable and common are glycine and alanine.
Bottom line: vast amounts of usefully stable organic material would be required for the processes of an abiogenetic mechanism of origin on Earth, where all things would have had to come together regardless of where the precursors were "born"—an environment rife with cross-containments and other factors incessantly pushing against the tide of the conservation of indispensable chemical information, obstacles that are not present in the dramatically more pristine conditions of space or in those of the controlled laboratories on Earth.
And here I'm speaking objectively, as the mathematical probabilities of abiogenesis (given not only the staggering problem of concentration, but at least six other, impenetrably major problems) are astronomical.
So why do the proponents of abiogenesis go on asserting this hypothesis as an assumptive fact? It's as simple as this: we're here, so it must have happened just so! The apparent necessity or potentiality of intelligent design must not be allowed even a hint of a foothold . . . or else the entire apparatus of evolutionary origins premised on metaphysical naturalism collapses.
Nature did it!
The fact of the matter is that until recently most of the leading lights of abiogenetic research, those who do or have done the real grunt work of organic synthesis, including Miller, talk about the prospects of abiogenesis in a dramatically more hushed and sober tone.
Check?
_______________________________
In any event, orogenicman, we're still waiting for that link of yours that would back your ridiculous claim that all 17 of life's amino acids that can be synthesized under the controlled conditions of the laboratory are commonly found in nature.
Are you finally ready to move on to the actualities of "the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis" in nature outside of living organisms and the experimental apparatuses of synthesization?
Any interest yet in facing up to the unfettered realities of their polymerization on Earth? How about facing up to the actualities of their indispensable precursors under the unfettered conditions of nature?
Putting it kindly, orogenicman's imagination knows no bounds!
Below I address the contents of each of the articles and the peer-reviewed paper at the other end of orogenicman's links. Directly below each of the pertinent excerpts, the reader will find my notes. Please be patient and carefully think about the material as you read 'til you get to the end. As a matter of clarification owing to the ultimate concern, there's a reason why I have consistently used the phrase exist/persist in nature in this thread above orogenicman's latest stunt. Remember, in this OP, the issue is the metaphysics of evolutionary theory. And in this instance, chemical evolution (i.e., abiogenesis) is the issue relative to orogenicman's outlandish claims about the amino acids that are synthesized in the interstellar and Earth-bound laboratories of the cosmos—under both natural and controlled environments/conditions.
___________________________
(Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism by Michael David Rawlings at Prufrock's Lair)
Bear in mind the 6 durable and commonly found amino acids as you read: glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, valine and proline.
Link #1
Pertinent excerpt: "One of the newly-discovered molecules, called E-cyanomethanimine (E-HNCHCN) is one step in the process that chemists believe produces adenine, one of the four nucleobases that form the “rungs” in the ladder-like structure of DNA. The other molecule, called ethanamine, is thought to play a role in forming alanine, one of the twenty amino acids in the genetic code."
Note: Though we're jumping ahead of the amino acids here, cyanomethanimine is believed to be one of the catalysts for adenine. However, the synthesis for adenine also requires (1) cyanoacetylene (or its hydrolyzed form cyanoacetaldehyde) and/or (2) the anion cyanate.
Cyanoacetylene is a plentiful organic compound in the universe, but it's highly reactive with other chemicals or compounds, especially in its hydrolyzed form. Cyanate is derived from the hydrolysis of cyanogen, which has an estimated half-life of less than 30 seconds on Earth beyond laboratory conditions.
Alanine, of course, is one of the 6 durable amino acids of life commonly found in nature, albeit, in racemic mixtures outside of living cells. Nothing new here.
Check?
Link #2
Pertinent excerpt: "With only about 100 billionths of a gram of glycine to study, the researchers were able to measure the relative abundance of its carbon isotopes. It contained more carbon-13 than that found in glycine that forms on Earth, proving that Stardust's glycine originated in space."
Note: Glycine, of course, is one of the 6 amino acids of life commonly found in nature outside living organisms, albeit, in racemic mixtures. Nothing new here either, except what had long been suspected: all glycine, being the simplest and, therefore, the sturdiest of life's amino acids, with only two hydrogen atoms on its side chain, may have originated in space. I touch on this in my article at Prufrock's Lair. This is probably true about the durable amino acids alanine and glutamic acid as well.
Check?
Link #3
Pertinent excerpt: "A new experiment simulating conditions in deep space reveals that the complex building blocks of life could have been created on icy interplanetary dust and then carried to Earth, jump-starting life.
. . . In the new experiment, a vacuum chamber chilled to 10 degrees above absolute zero was used to house a mix of ice, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and various hydrocarbons such as methane, ethane, and propane. When zapped with high-energy electrons to simulate cosmic rays in space, the chemicals reacted to form complex, organic compounds.
. . . The analysis revealed the presence of complex molecules – nine different amino acids and at least two dipeptides. . . ."
Note: The dipeptides synthesized were Gly-Gly (glycine-glycine) and Leu-Ala (leucine-alanine). This detail was not included in the article cited by orogenicman.
In addition to the more durable 6 that commonly occur in nature and in the experimental apparatuses of synthesization, this is one of the potential ways that perhaps a few of the more fragile amino acids of life might be found in nature outside living organisms, albeit, always in racemic mixtures: that is to say, as chemically bonded to one of the durables or isolated in encapsulated deposits, thusly protected soon after the moment of synthesis from further chemical reactions or denaturation. Typically, they cannot maintain their composition in nature otherwise for any realistically useful period of time, except perhaps the semi-durable leucine, which is occasionally found in meteorites on Earth. In fact, leucine is sometimes counted as the seventh amino acid of life commonly found in nature, though it appears in significantly smaller concentrations than the other 6 in both nature and in the experimental apparatuses of synthesization. Also, isoleucine was found in the Murchison Meteorite (See below.).
Check?
Link #4
Pertinent excerpt: "The discovery of glycine in space suggests that interstellar molecules may have played a pivotal role in the prebiotic chemistry of the Earth."
Note: Ya think? Of course! Again, glycine is one of the 6 durable amino acids of life commonly found in nature, albeit, in racemic mixtures outside of living cells. Nothing new here either, though in the minds of atheists, the perbiotic chemistry that subsequently takes place on Earth from precursor to life . . . well, you know, nature did it! . . . all by itself.
Check?
Link #5
Pertinent excerpt: "The meteorite in question was born in a violent crash, and eventually crashed into northern Sudan.
. . . Life on Earth uses left-handed amino acids, and they are never mixed with right-handed ones, but the amino acids found in the meteorite had equal amounts of the left- and right-handed varieties."
Note: In other words, they're of a racemic mixture, which is always the case in nature outside of living cells. By the way, among the amino acids found in the Sudanese Meteorite were the 6 durables of life commonly found in nature—glycine, alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, valine and proline. Of course, none of the other 14 that occur in life were present, except, perhaps, leucine and isoleucine, either as chemically bonded to one of the durables or isolated in encapsulated deposits. However, I don't remember if the later were found in this meteorite or not.
Check?
Link #6:: Amino acids in meteorites, Cronin JR, Pizzarello S.; Adv Space Res.; 1983;3(9):5-18.
Pertinent excerpt: "Eight of the terrestrial protein amino acids have been found."
Note: Psst, orogenicman, did you not notice that when you posted the link? That's 8 of the 20, orogenicman, not 17 of the 20!
Now carefully read on and try to understand this time. . . .
Actually, this paper is dated. 10 of life's amino acids have been found in the Murchison Meteorite: the 6 durables, leucine, and also isoleucine, serine and threonine. Altogether, 92 different amino acids of the 500 known have been found in the Murchison. Of course, except for the 10 biotic amino acids found in the Murchison, the rest are abiotic. Of the 92, only 19 are also found on Earth.
Now, for the ones found in the Murchison that matter to life:
1. The standard 6, the most durable and commonly found in nature.
2. Leucine.
3. Isoleucine, Serine and Threonine.
Serine and threonine are known terrestrial contaminants that can maintain the integrity of their composition on Earth as long as they are encapsulated almost immediately. The environmental conditions have to be just right. Naturally, they're deposited by living organisms; hence, they don't count and were found in the Murchison in trace amounts. They simply weren't detected for years. We now have the technology to see it all. Isoleucine may also be a terrestrial contaminant. To my knowledge, it's only been found in the Murchison in trace amounts. For some, the jury is still out on that one, but like leucine, it's a semi-durable, so it might be legit.
Notwithstanding, as I cited from my article at Prufrock's Lair in the above, "[d]ue to the barely measurable presence and woeful instability of the other 11 [synthesized in experimental apparatuses], no one of any repute would have the temerity to argue that they could have existed in any significant concentrations in the primordial world beyond the environment of a living cell."
The issue here is abiogenesis! The problem with leucine and isoleucine is that they only show up in comparatively trace amounts in the experimental apparatuses of synthesization or in space debris. While geologists make a lot of hay over them, the leading lights of abiogenetic research know better. Though semi-durable, they are still more highly reactive and more subject to the forces of denaturation outside of living organisms or encapsulated deposits.
On the other hand, the standard, more durable 6 are always present in greater concentrations in the experimental apparatuses of synthesization and commonly occur in nature: inside and outside of living organisms on Earth, or inside the planetoids, asteroids, meteorites, comets, space clouds/nebulae of outer space. Of these 6, the simplest and, therefore, the most durable and common are glycine and alanine.
Bottom line: vast amounts of usefully stable organic material would be required for the processes of an abiogenetic mechanism of origin on Earth, where all things would have had to come together regardless of where the precursors were "born"—an environment rife with cross-containments and other factors incessantly pushing against the tide of the conservation of indispensable chemical information, obstacles that are not present in the dramatically more pristine conditions of space or in those of the controlled laboratories on Earth.
And here I'm speaking objectively, as the mathematical probabilities of abiogenesis (given not only the staggering problem of concentration, but at least six other, impenetrably major problems) are astronomical.
So why do the proponents of abiogenesis go on asserting this hypothesis as an assumptive fact? It's as simple as this: we're here, so it must have happened just so! The apparent necessity or potentiality of intelligent design must not be allowed even a hint of a foothold . . . or else the entire apparatus of evolutionary origins premised on metaphysical naturalism collapses.
Nature did it!
The fact of the matter is that until recently most of the leading lights of abiogenetic research, those who do or have done the real grunt work of organic synthesis, including Miller, talk about the prospects of abiogenesis in a dramatically more hushed and sober tone.
Check?
_______________________________
In any event, orogenicman, we're still waiting for that link of yours that would back your ridiculous claim that all 17 of life's amino acids that can be synthesized under the controlled conditions of the laboratory are commonly found in nature.
Are you finally ready to move on to the actualities of "the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis" in nature outside of living organisms and the experimental apparatuses of synthesization?
Any interest yet in facing up to the unfettered realities of their polymerization on Earth? How about facing up to the actualities of their indispensable precursors under the unfettered conditions of nature?
Last edited:
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
I didn't say we are biologically immortal.
Well, of course, the inalienable, natural rights of man are those that are innate: the right of life, the right of one's fundamental liberties and the right of private property. The fundamental liberties of man, the second category of innate rights, are the right of religious/ideological freedom, the right of free expression and the right of free movement. These are not derived/granted by government, but are at the very least imbued by nature.
As translated from the language of the state of nature into the language of the state of civil government under the terms of the social contract of the Constitution of the United States of America, for example, they are known as the unabrigable civil liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. These precede and, therefore, take precedence over the mere civil rights/protections afforded by government. Insofar as the latter do not unduly conflict with the free exercise of civil liberties, they're fine, but those that would suppress the free exercise of the same—that is to say, those that would trample on the prerogatives of free-association and private property—are the usurpative antics of statist bootlicks.
Indeed. So what is the point exactly? Virtually any organic element or compound you care to name was either prebiotic or prebiotically non-existent.
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,830
- 2,220
- Thread starter
- #179
Well, I am convinced that you are a moron if you don't grasp what he said.
The body dies but the soul lives on, shit for brains.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Amino Acids: The Building Blocks of Life
Let's review for the sake of those whom you have misled, orogenicman . . . like Old Rocks who gave you a thumbs up for what is nothing more than the trash talk of an embarrassingly ignorant atheist in desperate need of correction by an informed theist.
Let's review for the sake of those whom you have misled, orogenicman . . . like Old Rocks who gave you a thumbs up for what is nothing more than the trash talk of an embarrassingly ignorant atheist in desperate need of correction by an informed theist.
