[continued from previous message]   
      
   > these would impair the proper folding of the proteins into the enzymatic   
   > active forms.   
   >   
   > Meanwhile, there are competing reactions that destroy the sugars. We   
   > have already seen that the Maillard reaction of amino acids with sugars   
   > yields a variety of melanoid products. And unless the environmental   
   > conditions are just right and the pH gets too high, the Cannizzaro   
   > reaction will consume sugars in pairs yielding an alcohol and a   
   > carboxylic acid. Moreover, high temperatures (like are found in   
   > hydrothermal vents) will cause the sugars to dehydrate and char and,   
   > yes, this does happen even underwater at high pressures. The principal   
   > products were intractable materials composed of melanoids, tars and   
   > carbon soot around the electrodes. This was not the kind of materials   
   > biologists and chemists were looking for as they are not components of   
   > living organisms. Later it would be shown that the amino acids were   
   > racemic, not the pure L-isomers used by living organisms. More recent   
   > analyses have revealed a total of about 50 different amino acids were   
   > formed, but only 20 are used by living organisms. So, while he did find   
   > amino acids, they were not solely the ones living organisms use. There   
   > was a lot of chaff mixed in with the wheat. While Miller was very open   
   > and straightforward about these problems, they tend to get over-looked   
   > in origin-of-life discussions. There is a tendency to focus on the path   
   > to life ignoring all the problems: the competing reactions and   
   > sidetracks along the way. This was not Miller’s fault, but it is common   
   > behavior among those that argue for a solely naturalistic origin of   
   > life, where it is assumed that time and “natural selection” will take   
   > care of all the problems.   
   >   
   > Has my view on whether life’s emergence was a natural, unguided process   
   > shifted with time? Of course. One starts out young and naïve. I believed   
   > pretty much everything I read in books and was taught in class. But as I   
   > learned more, I developed a healthy skepticism and learned to think for   
   > myself. Not so much in high school, but more so in college and graduate   
   > school. It was all part of being a scientist: you learn to not always   
   > take everything at face value. Instead, I learned to ask questions: Do   
   > the conclusions fit the data? What is the evidence for this?   
   >   
   > [Etc...]   
   >   
   > https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/interview-with-edward-peltzer-on-   
   > the-origin-of-life/   
   >   
      
   What good does the gap denial do for you?  It only allows IDiotic   
   Biblical creationists to lie to themselves about reality.  You know this   
   for a fact, so why keep up the IDiotic stupidity.  It doesn't matter how   
   the origin of life occurred on this planet.  Whatever happened is not   
   Biblical, so it does not support your Biblical beliefs.  Wallowing in   
   denial is never going to support your religious beliefs.  That is why   
   the other IDiots quit the ID scam.  Why you continue to go to the ID   
   perps in order to be lied to is stupid and dishonest.  The only IDiots   
   left after the bait and switch started to go down were the ignorant,   
   incompetent and or dishonest.  Competent, informed, and honest IDiotic   
   creationists do not exist.  The fact that the bait and switch IDiotic   
   scam still goes down on their own creationist support base is proof of that.   
      
   You have to deal with the reality in which you have to deny the science.   
     No matter what happened with respect to the origin of life on this   
   planet the Bible is wrong once again.  The earth is not flat, we do not   
   live in a geocentric universe, and the earth is much older than a few   
   thousand years.  The earth was known not to be flat since before Christ   
   was born.  Geocentrism lost out centuries ago.  YEC was dead before   
   Darwin came up with natural selection.  Even Kelvin's estimates were in   
   the hundreds of millions of years.  The actual origin of life on this   
   planet is not mentioned in the Bible, nor is the evolution of that life   
   over billions of years.  The Biblical order of the creation of life on   
   earth is as wrong as the shape of the earth and it's place in the   
   universe.  Nothing about nature will support your Biblical beliefs.  You   
   have to acknowledge that nature is not Biblical, and this fact does not   
   matter for some reason when it is the basis for your denial of reality.   
      
   Gap denial is never going to support your religious beliefs when the god   
   that fills the gaps is not Biblical.  The Supreme court was correct in   
   their comments in scientific creationist gap denial.  Just because we do   
   not currently understand something about nature, is not any support for   
   your religious beliefs.  This is obviously the case with gaps that need   
   to be filled by gods that are not Biblical.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)