Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2015, 10:11 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 09:25 PM)thebraveatheist Wrote:  ...
Respectfully,
...

Now, now! No need for that kinda language!

Wink

Welcome to TTA.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 11:58 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 08:56 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(17-07-2015 08:16 PM)Godexists Wrote:  If its legitimate, why have we not created life yet ??

You mean why have we not duplicated a process that had to occur with trillions of reactions worldwide, over millions of years, in just-ideal conditions we haven't even fully nailed down yet (thus all these discussions you quote-mined, as we try to unlock a giant jigsaw puzzle piece-by-piece), on a tabletop full of glassware in a basement lab somewhere?
[Image: 200_s.gif]


(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  http://labquimica.files.wordpress.com/20...alidad.pdf
The origin of the homochirality of amino acids is still an unsolved issue. There must have been a definite process to ensure that the sequence-based mechanism functioned in the RNA world. Future experiments will provide insights regarding the basis using which this mystery can be solved.

http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/...bial_World
Enantiomers are molecules that are mirror-images of each other. Today, amino acids and sugars exist in only one enantiomeric form in most biological systems on earth. This homochirality remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries to scientists.

The conclusion of the article you're quote-mining (in full, when I do it) :

While the data supporting many of the arguments regarding the origins of a homochiral microbial world are enough to convince some people, there are many critiques that prevent this question from closing. For example, some argue that UV-CPL experiments for isovaline are not applicable, because the formation of isovaline enantiomer enrichment within the meteorite parent body would be shielded from CPL in interstellar space. Some also argue that amino acid symmetry breaking and amplification could have instead occurred physically, in processes such as crystallization. In brief, Kondepudi, et al (1990), reported that spontaneous chiral symmetry arises with rigorous stirring. When a solution of racemic crystals is not stirred, however, there is no rapid autocatalyzation. Asymmetric autocatalysis (the Soai reaction) with stirring, however, provided the first experimental evidence that small initial imbalances can be amplified under aqueous conditions to produce enantiomeric excess of up to 90 % .

The vast questions that still exist after decades of searching and researching make the origins of a homochiral microbial world a hot topic in microbiology. Though scientists are making strides to find solutions, it remains to be seen whether this question will ever be answered in full. The world is full of homochiral molecules—very specific with precise roles, asymmetry, and function. These molecules must have arisen out of a universe of ‘nothing.’ Implications as to how this occurred are only just beginning to be understood. Circular polarized light, transferring chirality to proteinogenic amino acids, and the aqueous amplification of enantiomers are subjects that should be pursued in ensuing research to answer the question, 'how did a homochiral microbial world form?'
(Internal citations omitted.)

Notice carefully that they are not saying it did not occur naturally, only that the mechanism is not known, and thus potential (competing) mechanisms for this process are still a hotly-contested debate in microbiology. But not one of those contestants thinks that it's "a problem" for the evolution of life. You're insane if you think that's what they're saying.

(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  http://www.cnrs.fr/Cnrspresse/n386/html/en386a11.htm
However, the question of the origin of biological homochirality remains as yet unanswered.


Here's the rest of the sentence after the comma, not the period, where you quote-mined. It goes on for some time before and after that half-sentence you quoted-mined.

"However, the question of the origin of biological homochirality remains as yet unanswered, although these results show that magnetochiral anisotropy offers one possible explanation."

So, yeah. That's just straight *L*Y*I*N*G*, dude.

(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  http://origins.harvard.edu/event/physica...ochirality
left and right-handed molecules of a compound will form in equal amounts (a racemic mixture) when we synthesize them in the laboratory in the absence of some type of directing template.

Oops! Heeeeeeeeeeeere's the rest of the quote:
"Single chirality is critical for molecular recognition and replication processes and would thus seem to be a a signature of life. Yet left and right-handed molecules of a compound will form in equal amounts (a racemic mixture) when we synthesize them in the laboratory in the absence of some type of directing template. Our work has led to the development of several plausible mechanisms for how one enantiomer might have come to dominate over the other in the prebiotic world, highlighting mechanisms for enantioenrichment by either chemical or physical processes. (Bold emphasis my own.)


(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  http://www.teknoscienze.com/Articles/Chi...qvM17Qucvk

Several mechanisms have been proposed for elucidating the origins of the chirality of organic compounds, such as circularly polarized light (CPL) (3) and quartz (4); however, a suitable amplification process for chirality is required to reach single-handedness of biological compounds (biological homochirality)

*sigh* More quote-mining. Ready for the next several sentences after you cut off poor Dr. Kawasaki? Heeeeeeere it is:

"Enantiomers with (S)- and ®-configurations show the same physical properties except for their optical rotation. If these enantiomers preferentially form a dimeric (or greater) aggregation, such as S·S (or R·R) and S·R, the aggregates possess different physical properties. Via the self-disproportionation induced by these diastereomeric interactions, the optical self-purification phenomenon has been observed in several processes, such as crystallization (5), distillation (6), sublimation (7) and chromatography (8), to afford enantiomerically amplified compounds.
Moreover, there are reactions in which the enantiopurity of the product is higher than that of the chiral catalyst; such phenomena are referred to as positive nonlinear effects (9). The first example of asymmetric amplification was reported by Kagan in 1986"
(Bold emphasis my own; internal citation numbers left in, to show what happened after #4 you cited, above, and that my quote is sequential).





(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  haha. How do you know they were not complex enough ? Laugh out loadBowing

Because they were single-celled organisms, and for a while everything was too genetically similar to itself to "invade" anything, in the sense you were using the term. Do I have to spell everything out for you? Geebus crisps, man! And actually, once things did diverge enough to invade other species, two events happened that are considered the greatest in the history of evolution, from a biochemical point of view: an invasion of the blue-green bacteria into larger cells formed early chloroplasts, which allowed algae and eventually plants to evolve, and purple bacteria invaded pre-animal cells to form what we today call mitochondria, in a symbiotic relationship that gives eukaryotic cells their energy. I'm too tired from hunting down your quote-mines to show you a link, but it's part of any college-level Biology 101.

So you can scoff and call it pseudoscience all you like, but if it is, I wasted a Dogdamned lot of study time trying to learn it all to pass that course about science.

Ugh, I'm done chasing down your quote-mines. I think I've proved my point.

[Image: bro-do-you-even-science.jpg]

Their facial expressions say it all.

Bro, I haven't said welcome to the board yet.

WELCOME TO THE BOARD!

Here, have ALL the likes! Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
18-07-2015, 12:42 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 08:16 PM)Godexists Wrote:  ...
If its legitimate, why have we not created life yet ??
...

I have two children (I think). And does sperm count as 'life'?

Undecided

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2015, 12:54 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(18-07-2015 12:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(17-07-2015 08:16 PM)Godexists Wrote:  ...
If its legitimate, why have we not created life yet ??
...

I have two children (I think). And does sperm count as 'life'?

Undecided

Well technically, we've engineered sperm. Well, sperm-like cells. It's a start. Something something jurassic park, life will find a way, etc.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/sperm-...s-1.799666

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logisch's post
18-07-2015, 04:58 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 07:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You see, fool

last post to you. Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2015, 05:01 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 08:02 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(17-07-2015 07:14 PM)Godexists Wrote:  there is no evidence for a reduced atmosphere.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1556-wh...atmosphere

Over the last 20 years though, geologists have more carefully studied those lower rock layers of the earth called the Precambrian strata and they have concluded generally that those oldest rocks are very rich in oxygen. For example, one of the oldest sedimentary rocks de­scribed and discovered by geologists on the earth has banded iron formation, and the major element in this rock is not iron, but is oxygen. And there are very many oxygen-rich rocks buried in the earth.

In fact, geologists have recently discovered sulfate deposits, sulfur and oxygen combined together and not sulfur combined with a metal such as lead or zinc. And geologists have discov­ered these oxidized iron deposits. Evidences of oxidation like soil development and many things are causing the evolutionists to question the whole reducing atmosphere scenario.

Zircons have been identified that carry signatures identifying them with the Hadean – and zircons are remarkably stable once formed. Using zircons dated to almost 4.4 Ga, the researchers have analysed their redox state (a measure of the degree of oxygenation of the mineral). This gives a handle on the type of gases that would have been outgassed by the magmas, and so, according to these models of Earth history, the type of atmosphere that would have been formed.

It is important to realise what was predicted by prevailing theories: the redox state of the magmas with which the zircons were associated was expected to be strongly reducing. This prediction is a necessary part of the Earth having a reducing atmosphere in the Hadean. The research findings did not confirm the prediction.

The fact that you called it a "Reduced", rather than Reducing, Atmosphere (except when quoting someone else by cut-and-paste) tells me you don't know what you're talking about, and are just parroting things you don't understand. It's not a minor typo; it's a basic chemistry definition. It'd be like someone's girlfriend trying to fit in with her boyfriend's sports buddies by saying "Look, that guy scored a Touchpoint!"

Your article cited is a nightmare of quote-mining. For instance, the one that says "breathable atmosphere in ancient environment" cites presence of oxygen "as early as 3 billion years ago"... that'd be roughly ONE BILLION YEARS after the abiogenesis even we're talking about. It says the presents of sulfates in deep-well gold mines may indicate oxygen in the atmosphere as early as 3.5 billion years ago, much earlier than first thought... but that's still 500,000,000 years after the abiogenesis chemistry we're talking about.

So, deliberately dishonest? Or just poor english comprehension skills? Try again.

Going to have to throw the flag on that one. 15 yards for quote mining. Repeat First Down.
[Image: argument_out_contxt_quote_zps8mtcnyck.jpg]

So you have certainty that live began 4 bio years ago ?? amazing. Btw. the issue in question is, if there were a reduced atmosphere at all. The evidence says , most probably not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2015, 05:06 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 08:56 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  How do you know they were not complex enough ? Laugh out loadBowing
Because they were single-celled organisms,

LOL.... thats one of the dumbest and funniest inferences i can think of. Your meme, do you even science, you should apply it to yourself.

The make of pseudo science

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/the...95311.html

When certain biologists discuss the early stages of life there is a tendency to think too vaguely. They see a biological wonder before them and they tell a story about how it might have come to be. They may even draw a picture to explain what they mean. Indeed, the story seems plausible enough, until you zoom in to look at the details. I don't mean to demean the intelligence of these biologists. It's just that it appears they haven't considered things as completely as they should. Like a cartoon drawing, the basic idea is portrayed, but there is nothing but blank space where the profound detail of biological processes should be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2015, 05:07 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 09:25 PM)thebraveatheist Wrote:  Hello,
Respectfully, there is no way to suppose intelligent design, especially the god of Abraham. We do not, in science, suppose the supernatural in the absence of demonstrable evidence. We find the evidence to support our claims after tireless research. In other words, if the answer is not there, we will soon find it, but until then we say that we do not know the answer.

Outstanding problems in science

From a recent conversation i had at Evolution and Creationism Open Debate group :

Me: science cannot explain most things through evolution. Always, when science comes to a dead end of the road, it just says : we dont know yet, we have to search further. That is, because supernatural causes are not permitted as explanation. And guess what ?? When it comes to almos ALL relevant questions of origins, that will be the last answer of main stream scientific papers. I am collecting these answers btw. The list is far from complete. It does not even scratch the surface. But it provides good examples. If you replace each of these answers, rather than with we don't know, with its designed, it fits perfectly the bill.

Carrie Griego Not yet. That's why they're hypotheses. Hypotheses come first. At least we don't make crap up. We research and figure it out rather than saying goddidit.

Me: Carrie Griego We research and figure it out rather than saying goddidit.//thats the problem. God is NEVER permitted to get into the picture. He is excluded right from the beginning, and in the end, rather than admit that design is the best explanation, the design hypothesis is ignored, and replaced with " we don't know yet ". Nice evolution of the gaps..... btw.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1584-ou...in-science
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2015, 07:03 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(18-07-2015 05:06 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-07-2015 08:56 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  How do you know they were not complex enough ? Laugh out loadBowing
Because they were single-celled organisms,

LOL.... thats one of the dumbest and funniest inferences i can think of. Your meme, do you even science, you should apply it to yourself.

The make of pseudo science

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/the...95311.html

When certain biologists discuss the early stages of life there is a tendency to think too vaguely. They see a biological wonder before them and they tell a story about how it might have come to be. They may even draw a picture to explain what they mean. Indeed, the story seems plausible enough, until you zoom in to look at the details. I don't mean to demean the intelligence of these biologists. It's just that it appears they haven't considered things as completely as they should. Like a cartoon drawing, the basic idea is portrayed, but there is nothing but blank space where the profound detail of biological processes should be.

So, of the entire post, THAT'S what you respond to?

Not one attempt to clear yourself of the accusation of quote-mining? That was the main body of the post, showing all the bullshit you were rolling in. How every last example of the "details" you'd presented as shortcomings of evolution were, when actually examined in detail, you doing nothing more than maliciously and deliberately misquoting, out of context, studies that actually supported evolution?

Bottom line, you've been SHOWN to be lying to the world, to all and sundry in a public forum, about what science says. Not just lying, but doing so in an obnoxiously obvious way, utterly blind to how even the slightest effort of fact-checking would expose you as the fraud you are. Not just accused of it. SHOWN. And you can't even muster word one of apology or defense?

Screw it. Turnabout's fair play.

(18-07-2015 05:06 AM)Godexists Wrote:  When certain biologists discuss the early stages of life... They see a biological wonder before them and they tell a story about how it might have come to be. They draw a picture [of] the profound detail of biological processes.

Glad you agree! Welcome to our side!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Reltzik's post
18-07-2015, 07:40 AM (This post was last modified: 18-07-2015 07:50 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(18-07-2015 05:07 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Me: science cannot explain most things through evolution. Always, when science comes to a dead end of the road, it just says : we dont know yet, we have to search further. That is, because supernatural causes are not permitted as explanation. And guess what ?? When it comes to almos ALL relevant questions of origins, that will be the last answer of main stream scientific papers. I am collecting these answers btw. The list is far from complete. It does not even scratch the surface. But it provides good examples. If you replace each of these answers, rather than with we don't know, with its designed, it fits perfectly the bill.

LOL
It can explain a lot. Your "god' explains nothing, but thanks for proving yet again, that religion and "god" for you is nothing but a "god of the gaps" place holder, as you suffer from :

a. low ambiguity tolerance
b. an obsessive need for cognitive closure.

Those are BIG words for someone who spells "almost' as "almos", but you can google them.

If you replace "it's designed" with "Santa done it" and it fits better than "Jebus done it".

Go away. You offer NOTHING here but ignorant tripe. But thanks for demonstrating HOW utterly ignorant your troupe of ID/creationist wandering clowns really is.

I take back what I said. you couldn't even get into Biola. Weeping

Jebus has a noodlely appendage. THAT is how the universe came to be. Thumbsup

But for the passing guests, here why ID and creationism is utter crap.


http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ndent-dice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYphAH2tK...re=related ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-UIfkcg...re=related , http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007 , http://evolutionofdna.com/Evolution-Of-DNA.html , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC148579/ , http://www.dnafiles.org/node/551 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_DNA_evolution , http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life , http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/fiv...-evolution , http://www.evolutionfaq.com/videos/carl-sagan-evolution ,
http://www.evolutionfaq.com/videos/evolution-eye , http://video.pbs.org/video/1300397304 , http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/ ,
http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf , http://www.science20.com/philosophical_s...nd_fallacy ,
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_l...gin_chance , http://www.science20.com/science_20/evolution_evolution .

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: