1. Every reaction has its own mechanism. That's high shool chemistry. There's no single enzyme responsible for all reactions. Every reaction in the cell has its own enzyme.
2. Again, the point I am trying to make is that the chirality (homo or racemic) depends on the mechanism of each reaction. If the result is racemic, the geometry of the intermediate isn't fixed - i.e. there is no "jig" action from a catalyst. On the other hand, if the result is homochiral, fixed geometry is infered. There will never be a 50-50 mix of enantiomers if that type of mechanism is involved.
3. Yes, I am talking about the atoms and/or simple molecules from which amino acids are formed. They are achiral. If the amino acids were formed on a solid substrate - e.g. polystyrene or clay, they would be homochiral. (The amino acids in the Miller-Urey experiment were racemic because they were formed in free solution - i.e. without a catalyst.) Similarly, if the polyeptides and proteins were formed on a solid substrate like in Merrifield's experiments, we'd expect them to be chiral too. It's a similar process to what happens inside the cell but it doesn't require RNA.
4. We are talking about catalysts, in the form of a substrate on which chiral molecules can form in fixed geometry.
5. No offense but that's what I'm saying to you. If you had done your homework and studied your chemistry, you'd know the answers to your own questions.
I don't like to post links because creationists always complain that I'm trying to lead them in a certain direction. If you do an honest Google - not just creationist sites - I trust you to find the answers for yourself.
You're later post takes my own post out of context, I never agreed that your belief in an infinte regress was ok, here is what you cut out.
"I think you're belief that an infinite regress is ok, comes from the atheist notion of infinite regresses on the topic of the origin of the universe... (see a common theme here, atheistic explanations about origins results in an infinite regress)"
You do realise that your action to cut a person's quote to take it out of context shows intellectual dishonesty.
1. Of course, and did I ever attempt to argue those points? This is an attempt at a red herring.
I was asking what is the reaction for getting a 100% solution of one form of enantiomer for the first instance of DNA / RNA / proteins to come about. You STILL haven't given any evidence of this mechanism
, rather you just claim that it exists... Using your logic I can also claim that I can fly to the moon, I don't need proof when I can just claim it is true.
Science requires evidence, not words!
Yes it occurs in cells, however we are discussing the origin of DNA / RNA / proteins therefore BEFORE cells existed. In order for any of these to form from an unguided process, (see the OP), then there would need to be some natural way, (without catalysts because they are proteins and at this point in time they do not exist because we are talking about their origin
), of forming these higher structures
2. so what is the mechanism you keep claiming, see point one. Words without evidence is merely words I have asked you time and again for evidence for your claims.... Why dodge this if what you say is true?
3. And? You've explained nothing here. All what you said was that they are chiral.... which is my point!! Yes atoms are not chiral however atoms are not the point here, (another red herring attempt). Even if we start with atoms we get to the amino acids which form proteins that are chiral, the nucleic acids which form DNA are chiral... Hence your "explanation" here does nothing of the sort, its a mrere deflection.
Unless there is a naturalistic mechanism that can form these compounds without the use of these compounds pre-existing then chirality debunks any form of unguided process of DNA / RNA / protein to form since all of these products require one form of enantiomer. Do you understand my point? Or will you continue to beat around the bush?
4. No if you read the OP and the subsequent posts after the OP we are talking about the FIRST INSTANCE OF DNA / RNA / PROTEINS... ie- how your "catalyst" appeared to help form DNA... Since the catalyst itself is a protein which is formed of amino acids which are chiral, if you claim a catalyst as the solution for the chirality problem for DNA formation then what solution do you have for the chirality problem with your initial catalyst? This is the infinite regress I mentioned, it is also a logical absurdity.
5. I'm not asking you to just post links, perhaps WRITE yourself the gist of the evidence that there is. Merely stating for someone to go look on the internet is much worse than just posting links, (which still isn't nice anyway since a forum is about exchange / debate about ideas not websites). Just do what I have done previously post a statement and use a quote from somewhere to back it up and reference the website for validity... it can't be too hard to back up your assertions with evidence can it?
All these points are mainly me repeating myself since you have failed to answer them previously or are attempting to use red herrings to deter away from the point of this thread.
My point, (and the only thing you should really be concerned about) is this. The initial formation
of DNA / RNA / proteins are done with nucleic acids / amino acids.. These building blocks display chirality and that one one enantiomer is required in the formation of these higher structures. In an unguided process there is nothing to stop the wrong enantiomer from bonding thus destroying the higher structure and rendering it useless. This effectively is evidence from the characteristics of the nature of molecules themselves that defy the abiogenesis concept. Perhaps consider reading the OP and other posts again so we don't need to repeat this information again.