[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> up other synthesis processes works against homochirality. The   
   >>>>> source of homochirality remains an unsolved mystery.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)