[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".   
   >   
   > I first heard of this group to my surprise in a book I was reading.  I   
   > found E-S did carry it, and I have been trying to read the well over   
   > 3000 posts they carry to get a feel for what gets discussed here, and   
   > the value of subscribing.  The control documents explain the group as this:   
   >   
   > "The newsgroup talk.origins is meant as a venue for discussion of the   
   > scientific, religious, and political issues pertaining to various   
   > theories of the origins and development of life and the universe. Within   
   > such basic guidelines, wide-ranging discussions over a large number of   
   > topics are covered, all relating back to the main purpose of the group."   
   >   
   > That sounded fine, so I started trying to catch up on posts.  The   
   > charter documents also claim that the discussion here is "(sometimes   
   > hot!)."  That's also fine, as most of Usenet is nowadays.  But after   
   > reading the reply above, I realized I could have written it myself. I've   
   > read almost the same thing over and over again in the posts I've read,   
   > and I'm only a small way through them.   
   >   
   > What I find interesting in the reply above is what appears to be this   
   > posters usual tactic of disregarding the issue and turning it into a   
   > religious attack.  The original post by Mark had nothing to do with   
   > religion.  It was from a scientist who has found some very real problems   
   > in his years of work regarding Naturalistic OoL, even though he   
   > initially began his adult life accepting most of the Darwinian Evolution   
   > he was taught.  Though he does speak of the very big problems science   
   > has to overcome in OoL research, he is kind enough to offer an   
   > explanation of how he thinks evolution minded scientists should proceed   
   > in the future.  Where progress might be found.  He seems fairly   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)