Jump to content


Photo

Chirality


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#41 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 06 July 2012 - 03:59 AM

That's weird. I typed the first part of my post, but not the second section (although I agree with it 100%) Someone must have been typing the second part as a response when I edited my post to change it from "stayed out of this post" to "stayed out of this thread" and it got incorporated into my original post.

Whoever wrote "Yes, a fallacious argument...he repeats it.", please step forward so I may add my assent to your post Posted Image


Whoops, I edited your post instead of posting one. My mistake.

#42 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:44 AM

It seems to me that examples of determinism in nature proves that unseen mechanisms of law are overruling any possibility of chance.

Thus, I think that the true enigma evident in nature is presented by the question, How is it that there always appears to be natural laws ordaining order without the visible use of any natural mechanisms?

The strange phenomenon of natural laws seen everywhere in nature, dominating all causation, and results, without any palpable means discernible is proven by the fact that all natural phenomenon remain ultimately inexplicable.

We can define the measure of the "strong nuclear force", and where it will be found, but, can't explain what produces it.
We can define "electric charge" and "polarities of electric charge" and what the carriers of such charges are, but, nothing independently existing as charge.
We measure gravities, but, find nothing in between gravitational bodies.
We find codes in dna, but no outside source of codes in dna.
We know heat seeks the widest distribution and is ultimately prevented from doing so by nothing whatsoever.

We impress one another with our knowledge of how things work and can be made useful or controllable.
But, isn't it true that mankind is merely defining, and obeying higher laws inexplicably being imposed on nature?

Antimatter should have as much a chance to gain a foothold as matter, but, it didn't and it can't, and I suspect it shouldn't.
That there is a reason for the law that commands that, Thou shalt not use the wrong kind of molecule".

I consider the existence of natural law proof of the existence of a law maker existing above and beyond natural order and natural things.

#43 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 06 July 2012 - 09:24 AM

Its not the same. Since rolling downhill is observed to be a natural phenomena, furthermore it is predicted based on natural laws and the characteristics of reality.


The chemical reactions involved are also observed to be natural phenomena and their behaviour can be predicted based on natural laws and the characteristics of reality. The only part that still needs work is the exact sequence of those observed reactions. Its like a stone rolling downhill and being diverted by various obstacles. We need to figure out which diversions will get the stone to a specific point. The diversions are all perfectly natural and don't need our input.

Yes tests can be done and if it was proven wrong then would you admit that further belief in that claim is deluded?.....


Proving a negative is always difficult.

What I am pointing out is that this "science" opens the door for anything to be claimed scientific furthermore it negates the requirement of evidence (as demanded by the scientific method), since even when it is empirically demonstrated that the proposition is shown to be false, people still cling to their hope that one day it will happen.


It hasn't been empirically demonstrated.

#44 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 July 2012 - 12:20 PM

1. The chemical reactions involved are also observed to be natural phenomena and their behaviour can be predicted based on natural laws and the characteristics of reality. The only part that still needs work is the exact sequence of those observed reactions. Its like a stone rolling downhill and being diverted by various obstacles. We need to figure out which diversions will get the stone to a specific point. The diversions are all perfectly natural and don't need our input.



2. Proving a negative is always difficult.



3. It hasn't been empirically demonstrated.


1. Yet you have failed to give any reference of evidence of these supposed observed reactions, hence this is yet another knee-jerk claim with little substance. You words are not golden, just because you claim it so doesn't make it so. If you feel that your claim here does have merit then please demonstrate the empirical evidence by which it is based.

2. Yet we have done so here, we have shown how chirality defies observed characteristics of reality. Until you have evidence to the contrary it really is that simple. We have the evidence you have none.

3. Serious?.... Playing dumb may have worked before but it won't now... Go reread all three pages of this thread and see how we have demonstrated abiogenesis to be in direct defiance of natural law and characteristics of reality... (All of which ARE empirical)

#45 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:34 PM

Go reread all three pages of this thread and see how we have demonstrated abiogenesis to be in direct defiance of natural law and characteristics of reality... (All of which ARE empirical)


Chirality is produced by the mechanism of the reaction. Fixed geometry produces homochirality. Those are the characteristics of reality. There is no defiance of natural law.

#46 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:34 PM

Chirality is produced by the mechanism of the reaction. Fixed geometry produces homochirality. Those are the characteristics of reality. There is no defiance of natural law.


Law of Biogenesis.... It was mentioned in the first page....... (As I said go re-read, since we are now covering the same things over and over since you continue to beat around the bush)



We have already covered this and you forgot to reply to my response in post# 31

"6. NO! Chirality is due to the physical nature of the compound, yes the compound is created via components, however chirality itself is an innate characteristic based on the compounds physical form. It is merely a property of asymmetry, asymmetry isn't "created" within something it is a characteristic of it.

If you claim that it is created then there would be a time when the compound existed and yet had no enantiomers which is an absurd notion since asymmetry cannot be created. As I said your hands are enantiomers, now consider have your hands always been like that? Were there a process to make them to become chiral? or is being chiral just a product of their physical form? (which I have been stating many posts back)"


Chirality is a property of asymmetry, asymmetry is a physical property of the molecule itself. Like your hands they are enantiomers of each other because that is the way they are.

However even IF you are correct it still does nothing to support your argument, the fact of the matter is that even in a solution of 100% of one form of enantiomers, it changes to the 50-50 mix over time. Basically you are beating around the bush. You have to deal with enantiomers and there is no known method for dealing with them.... Hence your position is solely based on faith.



Here it is simply

- nucleotide bases and aminoacids are asymmetrical, (enantiomers)
- DNA / RNA / proteins require one form of enantiomer
- if the "wrong" enantiomer bonds to a chain then the chain is useless
- naturally enantiomers are found as a 50-50 mixture
- there is no known natural process outside of life that creates 100% solutions of enantiomers
- therefore the chance of a "wrong" enantiomer is at least 50% each time (increasing slightly as the "right" ones get used up)
- based on this the chances of creating a strand of workable DNA / RNA / protein is impossible based on statistics.


This is for a 150 unit long chain.... (consider that DNA requires much much more)

.5^150 = 7x10^-46

Now this probability is only based on the chirality ie- 50% at each unit... There are other statistical impossibilities
Such as genetic chaos, (or entropy)

http://www.mathemati...ic_Chaos__.html




Furthermore here are some scientists who disagree with your position leading to demolish your claims about how all scientists support abiogenesis

"Harold Morowitz, a biophysicist, compared the number of interactions needed to randomly produce a living cell with the number of interactions available since the beginning of the universe. The mathematical probabilities are so small that we ought to see no life at all at this stage of the earth’s history. The probability of assembling amino acid building blocks into a functional protein is also too small to consider possible. Random assembly is therefore ruled out of the question.


Hoyle comments, “The current scenario of the origins of life is about as likely as the assembly of a fully functional (Boeing) 747 by a tornado whirling about in a junkyard.” The Darwinian theory of evolution fails to predict what we actually currently observe. Schutzenberger, a mathematician writes, “There is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe the gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged by the current conception of biology."


http://www.pilgrimto...mathematics.htm




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users