Jump to content


Photo

Chirality


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

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 25 May 2012 - 06:27 AM

The nature of chemical compounds to be chiral defy the claims that a naturalistic unguided ( as of now unknown) process that brought about the existence of DNA and proteins.

Whilst this problem has been mentioned before with no actual answers to defend the evolutionary paradigm, it will be asked again here.

How does this naturalistic unguided ( as of now unknown) process, defy the nature of the very compounds it seeks to make use of?

#2 joman

joman

    Junior Member

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

Posted 25 May 2012 - 09:12 AM

The problem is the form of the proteins to be made. I like the chirality evidence against abiogenics because of the way that nature, left to chance, produces two images of the molecules in equal numbers. Which fact shows that chance produces no trend up, or down, left or right, forward or back.

Given enough time chance forces are asserted with a resulting zero natural effectiveness.

But, a design parameter for proteins would have to be something decided upon by someone, one way or another, because otherwise, the effectiveness of one selected molecule image would defeat the haphazard selection of the other choice.

Of course, we say "image" because a mirror, mirrors this chiral situation quite well.
It is only when I part things in the middle that the mirror exhibits the truth.
So it is with the chiral choices of amino acids in strings of proteins. If I choose the wrong one I defeat the design. That is, I will produce, not a fine string with which to fold appropriate to some definte plan, but, instead I will have knots wherever wrong molecules sit along the protein string. There will not be any consistent correspondences.

It would be like a jewelry chain where the links tend to favor a few limited planes of motion.
If I insert opposite favorabilities the chain knots and is distorted. This will often destroy the design of the jeweled chain when but a little tension is applied.

I think it can be conceivable that such small strings as proteins ones is extremely delicate and susceptible to vagaries of forces contrary to the seemingly designed goal.

Evolutionists seem to claim that there is no plan, no design, no prior decision made as to which choice, (as if jewlery could arise without intention for beauty that will be thought valuable. Yet, I note that there is no rationale for supposing seemingly designed things can't be actually designed as they seem.

I don't see how it is that aimlessness can be thought a profoundly effective source of possibilities, since, there is no logic that can assert that aimlessness is useful force of seemingly designed things.

The nature of the protein strings require fitness, form and function as structures able to be arranged in such manner as to result in a higher fitness, form and function within a higher systematic function, This cannot be logically thought to be accomplished by chance since, the result is measurably constructive.

Some folks attempt to mislead about chance by asserting that there are infinite possibilites and so, all things must be possible. This would be true if the brutal finiteness of limitations were not the profound truth of existence exhibited as restictive to all things in nature. A sort of designed, 'design entropy', where, chance is ruled out, and infinity is forbidden even of almost all the basest structures of matter.
That is, that, as with the jewlery example I proposed above, there are no a inifinity of possibilities allowed since, design itself, limits choices. In fact, as all designers must admit, all designs must accord with prescribed parameters.
So, I think that fact that nature is evidently finite proves that that finiteness is by design.
There are only so many choices and there are always consequences.

A true realm of chance, chaos, (if one allowed some level of structured things to exist in it, theoretically) would exhibit infinite possibilites but, no seemingly designed things. For, a seemingly designed thing could only be supposed to exist according to some idea of measure, but, chance cannot produce any trend to measure.
At best, a group of science minded men in that realm would find that it would be as if one of them did indeed observe in a cloud, for a moment of thought, something causing him to exclaim loudly, "I think I see something!...Where?, would be the response of the others seeking evidences of the rise of something within the swirl of nonsensical chaos. But, the observer would find that the evidenced thing dispersed, and quicdly or slowly drifted away, ever changing into becoming nothing at all, really.

So, the way I see it, debate with evolutionists, naturalism believers, and atheists, must always be marred by illogic on their part.

It may be admitted that scripture describes by its narratives, a time when there occurred the creation of things in a manner not provable today scientifically. For those were once upon a time creation events not witnessed by any man then, and not known to be ongoing today.
But, I noticed that the scipture presents a profoundly logical sequence of events (believable) corresponding accurately with the existence of all the things we see today in nature.

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 30 May 2012 - 09:34 PM

.....tumbleweed...blowing...... :farmer_girl:

No evolutionist responses...

Its ironic that when confronted with a real and serious contradiction with evolution that people turn tail and hide...

This is the "head in sand" mentality that really frustrates me, since if people claim to be scientists then they MUST be open to all ideas and investigate all loop holes and contradictions in order to define, expand or correct an idea, hypothesis or theory. Failure to do so renders that person or group of persons literally unscientific.

Science is much more than just using data. It is about a state of mind, taking a neutral stance on everything, (which is nigh impossible to do), and being willing to admit that your initial hypothesis is wrong if the data doesn't fit. Following the data, and just the data, is a very basic but important aspect. It is a shame that evolution deviates from this.

#4 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 23 June 2012 - 11:22 AM

Chirality depends on the mechanism of the chemcal reaction. If the reagents are held in position on a substrate during a catalytic step, a homochiral product is no mystery. You could think of the catalyst/substrate as a pattern or template. If you used your left hand as a pattern for making gloves, you wouldn't be surprised if all of the gloves turned out to be left-handed.

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 24 June 2012 - 06:20 PM

Chirality depends on the mechanism of the chemcal reaction. If the reagents are held in position on a substrate during a catalytic step, a homochiral product is no mystery. You could think of the catalyst/substrate as a pattern or template. If you used your left hand as a pattern for making gloves, you wouldn't be surprised if all of the gloves turned out to be left-handed.


How does that explain the problem of chirality to the self-formation of DNA / proteins, (I also believe RNA fits here)... (Lets forget for a moment that they all require each other to be formed in the first place)

#6 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:30 AM

How does that explain the problem of chirality to the self-formation of DNA / proteins,


I'm ot sure why you think there's a problem. Chirality is more of a clue into the mechanism of how things happen than an "obstacle" to them happening.

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:19 PM

I'm ot sure why you think there's a problem. Chirality is more of a clue into the mechanism of how things happen than an "obstacle" to them happening.


Consider the OP if DNA / Proteins / RNA use only one form of enantiomer, and in nature nucleotides and amino acids are found with a 50-50 mix of both enantiomers then this means that there is always the potential for the wrong enantiomer to be used. If DNA / RNA / Proteins formed via an unguided and random process (as evolution dogma dictates), then the fact that there is a 50% mix of the wrong enantiomer is a huge problem.

Furthermore the more the proper enantiomer is used then that would slightly increase the chance of getting a wrong enantiomer as there is now statistically more of the wrong enatiomers building up as the proper ones are used.

#8 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 27 June 2012 - 09:13 AM

Consider the OP if DNA / Proteins / RNA use only one form of enantiomer, and in nature nucleotides and amino acids are found with a 50-50 mix of both enantiomers then this means that there is always the potential for the wrong enantiomer to be used.


As I mentioned, whether the product is homochiral or racemic depends on the mechanism of the reaction. You could think of the DNA molecule as a pattern or jig on which proteins are made. A left-handed jig only produces left-handed products. There is no possibility of a "wrong" enantiomer.

If DNA / RNA / Proteins formed via an unguided and random process (as evolution dogma dictates), then the fact that there is a 50% mix of the wrong enantiomer is a huge problem.


It isn't a "random" process. It's a natural process using a natural "jig", which needs no guidance.

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 27 June 2012 - 06:59 PM

As I mentioned, whether the product is homochiral or racemic depends on the mechanism of the reaction. You could think of the DNA molecule as a pattern or jig on which proteins are made. A left-handed jig only produces left-handed products. There is no possibility of a "wrong" enantiomer.



It isn't a "random" process. It's a natural process using a natural "jig", which needs no guidance.


Yes there are "wrong" enantiomers... what would you call a right handed nucleotide bonding to a succession of left handed nuclotides as single stranded DNA?

What is this natural "jig"? Do you have evidence of this or is it merely a knee-jerk claim?

#10 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:51 AM

Yes there are "wrong" enantiomers... what would you call a right handed nucleotide bonding to a succession of left handed nuclotides as single stranded DNA?


What I meant is that a reaction with a certain type of mechanism will only produce one enantiomer. It is true that enantiomers of one chemical species reacting with enantiomers of a different chemical species will have different chemistry for each combination of enantiomers.

What is this natural "jig"? Do you have evidence of this or is it merely a knee-jerk claim?


Elementary catalysis. Suppose we have three chemical species, X, Y and Z. A three-body collision with the proper geometry to make XYZ in one step is pretty improbable - i.e. the reaction rate will be slow. But if we introduce a catalyst C, we can reduce the three-body collision to a series of two-body collisions:

X + Y + Z + C >>> XY + ZC >>> XYZ + C

The catalyst C is the "jig", holding the molecule Z in the proper geometry to bond to the other intermediate XY.

#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:25 AM

What I meant is that a reaction with a certain type of mechanism will only produce one enantiomer. It is true that enantiomers of one chemical species reacting with enantiomers of a different chemical species will have different chemistry for each combination of enantiomers.



Elementary catalysis. Suppose we have three chemical species, X, Y and Z. A three-body collision with the proper geometry to make XYZ in one step is pretty improbable - i.e. the reaction rate will be slow. But if we introduce a catalyst C, we can reduce the three-body collision to a series of two-body collisions:

X + Y + Z + C >>> XY + ZC >>> XYZ + C

The catalyst C is the "jig", holding the molecule Z in the proper geometry to bond to the other intermediate XY.




Thus my point. If DNA / RNA / Proteins are formed by one type of enantiomer, (which they are), then you would require pure solutions of that enantiomer to form the complex you want... However the kicker to this is that pure solutions do not exist naturally, even if we make a pure solution over time it will revert to a 50-50 mix meaning that this problem lies in the laws of chemistry. Thus the naturalistic "evolution" of DNA / RNA / protein from nothing defies scientific law.


So you claim that there was some other molecule that "evolved" as the "jig" before DNA formed... You do realise that proteins have the same problem with enantiomers hence therefore you would require a jig for the formation of your jig for DNA.. Do you see how absurd this concept is?

#12 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:56 AM

However the kicker to this is that pure solutions do not exist naturally, even if we make a pure solution over time it will revert to a 50-50 mix meaning that this problem lies in the laws of chemistry.


As I've been saying, pure solutions do exist naturally if they're made by a catalytic process - e.g. enzyme action. There is also selection - i.e. only the "proper" enantiomer is reproduced.

So you claim that there was some other molecule that "evolved" as the "jig" before DNA formed...


That's what the chemists say. They don't see chirality as a problem.

#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 28 June 2012 - 11:35 AM

As I've been saying, pure solutions do exist naturally if they're made by a catalytic process - e.g. enzyme action. There is also selection - i.e. only the "proper" enantiomer is reproduced.



That's what the chemists say. They don't see chirality as a problem.


Where did you state previously that you claimed that pure solutions do exist naturally? Or are you making it sound like I have been ignoring you?

Considering that my post you are replying to was the only mention between us of 100% solutions then I am a bit worried about your grip on reality and what you say or you think you say. Furthermore I'd also like to see some info about this enzyme, lest this was merely a knee-jerk claim.



Ah so before DNA there was the enzyme that made all the enantiomers a pure solution for the enzyme to "evolve" properly... Then there is the jig that existed before a jig existed for the synthesis of the initial jig... Do you admit how absurd these claims are?

Its not even rational thought its ..... I actually don't even know what to call it....



Oh so you quickly went and asked some chemists hey, this is also an argument from authority. Arbitrarily stating that all chemists around the world agree with your view is utter nonsense.

III. Appeal to Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam = argument toward
reverence)
"The power of authority is never more subtle and effective than when it
produces a psychological atmosphere or climate favorable to the life of
certain modes of belief, unfavorable and even fatal to the life of others." —
A. J. Balfour.
"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence." —Leonardo Da Vinci
"If you rely on expert opinion, at least choose experts who have been
relatively successful in the past." —Howard Kahane.
A. Definition
1. Proper use of authority
Since no one is omniscient, we all find it necessary from time
to time to appeal to an authority or expert to prove
something we believe. There is nothing wrong with this if the
authority is competent and trustworthy. We trust an authority
if he is trustworthy.

Keep in mind these considerations/rules when appealing to
authority in order to avoid its improper use:
a. You should not use an expert to prove something
unrelated to his field of expertise or competence. (e.g.
Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible)
b. You should not assume that an authority's opinion
is infallible, even when he is speaking in his field.
Authorities are still human, finite, fallen, subject to
error. the letters after a name do not necessarily
mean anything. Ph.D. = "Piled higher and deeper;"
"Post hole digger;" "Phenomenally dumb;"

c. Legitimate authorities will disagree and when they
do, you must do your own homework. "For every Ph.
D. there is an opposite and equal Ph.D."
d. There must be evidence that one really is an
authority before his testimony can be trusted. What
are your credentials?
e. Some experts are more trustworthy than others,
either because of training, experience, character, etc.
2. Improper use of authority
This fallacy simply says: "Accept this because some
authority said it." It is fallacious when the cited authority is
not qualified to address the issue in question. He/she is in
fact a "pseudo-authority." An internist may be qualified to
speak about diseases, but not about the stock market. An attorney's
political views are not necessarily fool proof, even
though his courtroom techniques may be. The basic form of
argument that commits this fallacy goes like this:
a. Person A is an expert on subject X.
b. Person A says that such-and-such is the case
about Z.
c. Therefore, such-and-such is the case about Z.
The trouble with the appeal to authority is that if freezes
thinking. The BIG name, thinker, book, quotation, etc.
attempts to make you feel that you are at the foot of Mt.
Sinai, and that any word of protest is blasphemy. This is not
so. The best approach, however, is suggested by a sign in
British schools as a safeguard against misuse of authority:
"The teacher could be wrong. Think for yourself." Another
response to someone who is called upon to speak as an
authority outside of his/her field is to take what is said cum
grano salis !

B. Examples
"My daddy said so."
"My teacher said so."
"My priest/pastor/rabbi said so."
"My analyst said so."
"Dawkins said so" (I added this one)

http://www3.dbu.edu/...s_relevance.pdf

#14 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 28 June 2012 - 12:15 PM

Where did you state previously that you claimed that pure solutions do exist naturally?


In practically every post in this thread I've said that the product, whether homochiral or racemic, depends on the mechanism. I tried to make it clear that a catalyst holds the reagants in a fixed geometry so that only one enantiomer is possible as the product. That's elementary chemistry. I thought you understood.

Ah so before DNA there was the enzyme that made all the enantiomers a pure solution for the enzyme to "evolve" properly... Then there is the jig that existed before a jig existed for the synthesis of the initial jig...


If you follow the series of reactions backwards, you come to compounds that don't have stereoisomers so no, there's no problem with an infinite regression of catalysts. You understand that these reactions do involve catalysts (enzymes), don't you?

Oh so you quickly went and asked some chemists hey, this is also an argument from authority. Arbitrarily stating that all chemists around the world agree with your view is utter nonsense.


Even if you cut and paste the whole dictionary, it still isn't an argument from authority. It's an argument from people who know what they're talking about versus people who don't. When you get on an airplane, do you want the pilot to be somebody with years of training and experience (credentials recognized by other pilots)? Or would you be perfectly happy if he was a homeless guy that the company is paying six bucks an hour? Would you believe him when he says he doesn't need ailerons to make a turn?

It isn't that chemists around the world agree with my view; it's me that accepts theirs. And I accept the professional pilots' view on ailerons too.

#15 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 28 June 2012 - 05:14 PM

In practically every post in this thread I've said that the product, whether homochiral or racemic, depends on the mechanism. I tried to make it clear that a catalyst holds the reagants in a fixed geometry so that only one enantiomer is possible as the product. That's elementary chemistry. I thought you understood.



If you follow the series of reactions backwards, you come to compounds that don't have stereoisomers so no, there's no problem with an infinite regression of catalysts. You understand that these reactions do involve catalysts (enzymes), don't you?



Even if you cut and paste the whole dictionary, it still isn't an argument from authority. It's an argument from people who know what they're talking about versus people who don't. When you get on an airplane, do you want the pilot to be somebody with years of training and experience (credentials recognized by other pilots)? Or would you be perfectly happy if he was a homeless guy that the company is paying six bucks an hour? Would you believe him when he says he doesn't need ailerons to make a turn?

It isn't that chemists around the world agree with my view; it's me that accepts theirs. And I accept the professional pilots' view on ailerons too.


And I was asking what is this mechanism, if it is not 100% wholly natural with no human intervention then you have no case.



Really, so what are these compounds and from where did they originate? Furthermore is there empirical evidence supporting what you claim?

Consider that you proposed the mechanism of a jig, (lets assume a protein / RNA jig since they are the observed mechanisms of action in the microbial world), as the mechanism for the initial formation of DNA / RNA / proteins it is utterly ridiculous. You are assuming the existance of something as the origin of the same thing which was used for its origin. Why can you not see how absurd that is?

Yes reactions occur from enzymes... but what are they? PROTEINS so you've just proven that by using your logic you need to assume the existence of proteins in order for the formation of proteins (or DNA or RNA.... which consequently are used to form proteins in the first place). I can't call it circular reasoning because there is no reason to it.


Again, arbitrarily stating that all chemists agree with you is..

i) a lie since you do not know every single chemist's views on the subject
ii) an argument from authority because you are pretty much claiming, (as the example was stating), 'believe this because X says so'. I have given you the definition, you cannot argue against that... (You can try however all I need to do is point you to your words and the definition to prove my point).

#16 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:10 AM

And I was asking what is this mechanism, if it is not 100% wholly natural with no human intervention then you have no case.


What do you mean by "this mechanism"?

Really, so what are these compounds and from where did they originate?


What do you mean by "these compounds"? Sorry, but your posting style isn't very clear.

You are assuming the existance of something as the origin of the same thing which was used for its origin.


Some interesting work has been done with building polypeptides step by step on the surface of polystyrene beads. Google "Robert Bruce Merrifield" if you're interested. The same "jig" principle applies - fixed geometry produces specific chirality.

Yes reactions occur from enzymes... but what are they? PROTEINS so you've just proven that by using your logic you need to assume the existence of proteins in order for the formation of proteins (or DNA or RNA.... which consequently are used to form proteins in the first place).


See above.

Again, arbitrarily stating that all chemists agree with you is..


Again, it isn't them agreeing with me; it's me agreeing with them. Feel free to cite a dozen chemists who disagree.

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:49 PM

1. What do you mean by "this mechanism"?



2. What do you mean by "these compounds"? Sorry, but your posting style isn't very clear.



3. Some interesting work has been done with building polypeptides step by step on the surface of polystyrene beads. Google "Robert Bruce Merrifield" if you're interested. 4. The same "jig" principle applies - fixed geometry produces specific chirality.





4. Again, it isn't them agreeing with me; it's me agreeing with them. Feel free to cite a dozen chemists who disagree.


1. You stated

"In practically every post in this thread I've said that the product, whether homochiral or racemic, depends on the mechanism. I tried to make it clear that a catalyst holds the reagants in a fixed geometry so that only one enantiomer is possible as the product."

If there was an enzyme or catalyst that was responsible for the pure enantiomer solution what is it? and where is the empirical evidence for it?
Furthermore how did the enzyme or catalyst form BEFORE having the 100% enantiomer solution?

The second question shows how absurd your claim is because it explains nothing, at some point there is a 50-50 mix of enantiomers which under normal natural processes cause a proper RNA/ DNA molecule or protein to never form correctly since they are only created using one form of enantiomer, once a wrong one bonds the entire DNA / RNA / protein is useless! This is the nature of chemicals we are discussing, I am the one with the empirical evidence here since I am basing my claim on the observed properties of enantiomers.


2. Not clear? I used the same word you stated.....You said

"If you follow the series of reactions backwards, you come to compounds that don't have stereoisomers so no, there's no problem with an infinite regression of catalysts. You understand that these reactions do involve catalysts (enzymes), don't you?"

I am asking for your evidence of these compounds that do not have enantiomers... (you must be talking about atoms since the building blocks of protein namely amino acids and the building blocks of DNA / RNA nucleic acids DO have enantiomers which is the entire trust of this thread).

It seems you're a bit confused, we are not talking about catalysts here, we are talking about the initial creation of DNA / RNA / protein BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE, BEFORE CATALYSTS / JIGS EXISTED.


3. How about YOU post some relevant information, asking me to do your work for you is lazy. Furthermore I'd rather you print it here since that way they are you're words so you cannot back out of it. I'll be waiting for your response. However I do hope that this pertains to what I clarified in point 2, we are talking about the creation of DNA / RNA / proteins de novo, in terms of your "jig" the creation of the jig itself (since before the initial jig there was not other jig.... unless you wish to get into an infinite regress of jigs).

4. As I said truth isn't decided on a popularity vote, your attempts to force this is an argumentum ad populus

#18 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

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

Posted 30 June 2012 - 12:27 AM

Again, it isn't them agreeing with me; it's me agreeing with them. Feel free to cite a dozen chemists who disagree.



You keep prevaricating by appealing to an ambiguous drove of expert chemists, which as it has been pointed out, is a shameless appeal to authority. You are being asked to back up your claims with evidence of a naturally occurring mechanism that has been shown to produce 100% enantiomer solutions, not by citing beliefs of other people, expert chemist or not. If there is any truth to your claim, or theirs, then providing this evidence should not be hard to do. So without prevaricating, have we found such evidence?

#19 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 30 June 2012 - 05:27 AM

there's no problem with an infinite regression of catalysts. You understand that these reactions do involve catalysts (enzymes), don't you?


I missed this point before so I apologise.

You do realise that an infinite regress is an absurd notion, especially in this context since we are talking about the origins DNA / RNA / proteins hence if an infinite regress existed there would be no origin since it is infinite... I guess that point of logic was missed with the knee-jerk statement above, unless you do not wish to live by natural laws in which it is unclaimed but universally recognized that everything natural has a first cause.... This is also a point based in logic and can be observed in everything in life.

I have a bed to sleep on because a person crafted it out of wood. The wood came from a tree, which grew from a seed, which came from another tree etc..


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)

http://www.metacafe....ress_of_things/

#20 ringo

ringo

    Member

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

Posted 30 June 2012 - 09:50 AM

If there was an enzyme or catalyst that was responsible for the pure enantiomer solution what is it?


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.

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.

I am asking for your evidence of these compounds that do not have enantiomers... (you must be talking about atoms since the building blocks of protein namely amino acids and the building blocks of DNA / RNA nucleic acids DO have enantiomers which is the entire trust of this thread).


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.

It seems you're a bit confused, we are not talking about catalysts here, we are talking about the initial creation of DNA / RNA / protein BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE, BEFORE CATALYSTS / JIGS EXISTED.


We are talking about catalysts, in the form of a substrate on which chiral molecules can form in fixed geometry.

How about YOU post some relevant information, asking me to do your work for you is lazy.


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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users