[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> Another problem for abiotic synthesis is that some amino acids have   
   >>> two amino groups, and some have two carboxylic acid groups. This   
   >>> leads to the possibility that the carboxlic acid group can bind with   
   >>> the wrong amino group (or vice-versa) and thus branches can form in   
   >>> undirected syntheses. None of the proteins in living systems have   
   >>> “branches” as 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   
   >>   
   >   
   > Ron, this post is not about the Bible or any particular interpretation   
   > of it. The interview cited is only science. Ironically, your bluster and   
   > misdirection serve to "deny the science".   
   >   
   You are just lying to yourself again.  The only reason that Peltzer is   
   into the gap denial is due to his religious beliefs.  He is worse than   
   Tour.  Tour understands that there is no such thing as ID science.  This   
   guy is still an IDiot.  After the Top Six came out and demonstrated that   
   the gap denial was never going to support their religious beliefs most   
   of the IDiots quit supporting the creationist scam on TO.  You are among   
   the minority of creationists that can't give up on the denial even when   
   that denial doesn't support your religious beliefs.  You might want to   
   consider why someone as dishonest as Kalkidas quit the ID scam when it   
   became apparent that the gap denial did not support his religious   
   beliefs.  Kalk is still a Biblical creationist, he just no longer   
   supports the bogus gap denial that is never going to support his   
   religious beliefs.  Peltzer is so badly off that he acknowledges that   
   the earth is billions of years old (the Bible is wrong about a recent   
   creation), but he is still in denial of biological evolution.  He is   
   worse off than Behe and Denton.  Peltzer understands that the actual   
   origin of life and biological evolution are not mentioned in the Bible,   
   but he can still lie to himself about the origin of life gap (that is   
   inconsistent with the Biblical order of creation of life on earth) while   
   denying biological evolution when neither one supports his Biblical   
   beliefs.  He is dishonest enough to continue to deny biological   
   evolution even though any replacement god-did-it scenario means that the   
   Bible is wrong about the order of creation of existing lifeforms.  Behe   
   and Denton understand that it doesn't matter if descent with   
   modification is a fact of nature because no matter how life diversified   
   on this planet the diversification was not Biblical, and biological   
   evolution is just a fact of nature.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)