Question about probabilities and the conditions of life

Please try and pay attetnion.

Nothing you have said about amino acids and proteins matters. This is because no one says that they came first.

RNA came before proteins.

I have given you a reference on how a common substance cataylzes and stabilizes optically pure RNA and furthermore how a common clay then organizes RNA strands and lipids into what can be described as protocells.

I have given you another reference where a group has shown that these protocells can reproduce and grow.

Is it possible that you can respond to what I have actually posted and to what science actuallt proposes?

Or do you prefer to continue knocking over strawmen. I realize that it is easier to knock over strawmen but surely it cannot be very satisfying.

I addressed this in my first post on this thread. If you insist on making this same claim over and over, perhaps once you can respond to the objections to your method that have already been raised.

 

You claimed that it was not possible to make optically pure sequences. I gave you a refernce that shows otherwise. Will you either withdraw the claim or show that they really did not make optically pure sequences as claimed.

----------------------

You claimed that banded iron was found in basement rock. I showed instead that such iron was actually found in formations about half the current age of the earth and represent a transition from anoxic to oxidizing conditions. I then showed that rocks older than this contain materials such as uranite that only form in anoxic conditions.

WIll you either show that there are no rocks older than the band iron formations and that the oldest rocks do not contain materials formed under reducing conditions or will you withdraw the claim.

 

----------------------

You keep claiming that utter failure to produce the valid (Chiral correct) proteins for an actual living cells is some kind of "SUCCESS" for you!

Why do you do that?

You keep IGNORING the problem of "concentration" and preserving it in nature AS IF your failure in that regard is some kind fo "SUCCESS" for you...

Why do you do that?

Why do you keep coming back with this vaccuous post time after time in the midst of all your failures???

You keep coming back with your utter failure to conduct anything like succesful abiogenesis experiments for a single living cell -- and referncing instead - "Strands of RNA" as IF that failure on the part of atheist darwinists PROVES they could fabricate (no matter how artificially contrived) the abiogenesis "story they tell" -- as a contrived experiment in the lab!!

Why do you do that?

Why do you continually claim failure AS IF you had done something good??

Why hide and run from your own bogus 52 card failure to apply statistics?
'

 

Wrong! (But just for the glaringly obvious reasons as usual)

#1. When you "make stuff up" you can not use your own imagination "as data"!!! Saying "RNA came first" is just storying telling NOT a "discovery" in fact!!

#2. When we SEE ACTUAL living cells - single celled creatures we see NONE that are comprised of just strands of RNA!! Obviously.

#3. FAILING to actually produce the viable proteins NEEDED to MAKE the "living cell" that is fabled to have assembled itself in the abiogenesis story telling - you continually parade your failure AS IF it was SUCCESS!

Again!

No Wonder FLEW was compelled to decry the hypocrisy of your cult of atheist darwinism in its wild tales of abiogenesis!!

No wonder God says that the "invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been made" - your repeated claims to failure AS IF you had done well is merely the PROOF!

I repeate - living cells today DO have cell walls DO have cellular structures (made up of proteins) including nuclei and DO have the NEED to consume proteins. You seem to fail in getting "the parts" to pop into being and then claim that as "victory" time after time!!!

 

In order for life to arise, all of the left-handed molecules would have to gather on one side of the lagoon and all the right on the other. The problem is, this can't happen because they will be out of equilibrium with each other and the homochiral mixtures will begin to convert into their optical isomers trying to recreate a racemic environment. So how do we get the two opposites to break up? Introduce a new substance. Because the isomers are essentially the same, they will bond to it the same. Now the two chiral particles are no longer dependant on each other. So now we know that the two can separate, but that still leaves the question of how. What mechanism would cause these particles, identical in nature, to separate? There is no known mechanism for doing this. What irks scientists even more are the odds. The probability of a protein being homochiral (all left handed in our case) is 2-N where N equals the number of amino acids in the protein. A short protein uses about 100 amino acids so the odds of this forming is 2-100 or 10-30. Now, you should know that this is just the odds of any homochiral protein forming at all. Many homochiral amino combinations produce inactive proteins (useless) so the odds drop rather dramatically when this is taken into consideration. Then you consider the number of different kinds of homochiral polypeptides required for life and you have outrageous odds.

Since UTEOTW declares himself to be "incapable" of mastering even the most BASIC concepts of statistical science and now seems to pretend to be incapable of mastering the "Details" in this quote above -- I will once again -- come to his aid.

NOTICE that the problem above is NOT that there is no way to contrive a local area of mono-chiral concentrations - the problem is TWO fold.

#1. It is impossible to MAINTAIN it.

#2. It has NEVER been shown that this results in the actual PROTEINS needed for actual cells!!

UTEOTW LIVES to obfuscate the obvious - not because of a character flaw unique to him - but because this is the REQUIRED model for junk science practitioners of that faith based system we call atheist darwinism!

 

The horrible problem facing the cult of atheist darwinism in its claims to the myths of abiogenesis may be accurately compared to the following.

#1. If we should ask a skilled artist to take 8 or 9 sand samples of different shades and drizzle out in general outline a striking recreation of one of Da Vinci's works of art - and then film it. We could then play the stupid atheist darwinist game of trying to guess how many billions of years it would take nature to blow that sand around until it came out with the solution we had just filmed.

#2. Now imagine that you could not even DRIZZLE THE SAND to make the solution as contrived as it was - you still had no way to do it because it was "beyond your technology". THAT is where atheist darwinists are today. They have to IMAGINE success in nature over billions of years to CREATE what they can not artificially fabricate in the lab. Without even being able to CONTRIVE the solution they want to HAPPEN BY ITSELF in nature they MUST IMAGINE nature doing it anyway.

How sad that the blind gods of atheist darwinism have so successfully blinded the minds of the cultist devotees to that religion.

And "why" do they have to go down that stupid path? Because for the atheists they have NO choice. In their world "There IS NO GOD". They must BELIEVE they will one day be successful no matter how pathetic their plight in the lab.

Why then to some compromised Christians join them?

Why indeed!

 

Their story telling would have been within "REASON" IF they could

#1. MAKE the parts of a REAL living CELL!
#2. ASSEMBLE those parts into a REAL living CELL.
#3. Show that this could happen in nature with some "probability".

They are stuck - failing time after time on part 1.

Their plane never got off the ground before it crashed!

 

So you plan to stick with your strawman, I see. Good luck with that.

You just keep arguing how something is not possible that no one actually claims happened. I am not sure what you think you are accomplishing.

Well, from my perspective, you are doing a very good job of showing that you have no ability to deal with actual data and actual refrences. I guess that if I were in your position, with no data on my side and all data and sources against me, and with a dogmatic need to maintain an untenable position, I'd have to follow in the same manner as you do.

Luckily, I don't need to depend on logical fallicies to make a point.

--------------------------

But since you are unwilling to address the actual data that refutes your supposed "chiral" problem, maybe you will have an answer based on some sort of facts for another disproved assertion of yours.

You claimed that banded iron was found in basement rock. I showed instead that such iron was actually found in formations about half the current age of the earth and represent a transition from anoxic to oxidizing conditions. I then showed that rocks older than this contain materials such as uranite that only form in anoxic conditions.

WIll you either show that there are no rocks older than the band iron formations and that the oldest rocks do not contain materials formed under reducing conditions or will you withdraw the claim.

 

You ARE in the position of having NO DATA to support your abiogenesis story telling. FAILING to actually HAVE a living cell and the proteins needed to comprise one - you declare success over your little mounds of failure.

And the amazing thing is -- you keep doing it!

 

Hmmm let's see.

#1. YOU DID that with Patterson.

#2. You DID that with your 52 card failure here.

#3. You DID that with your bogus claims "all wrong" and "had to be discarded" really means "nothing fundamental wrong with it".

#4. You DID that here with your bogus claims that RNA strands are a good substitute for actually DOING the abiogenesis work of creating a living cell.

#5. you DID that with your own claims not to understand the science of statistics and measuring "probabiltiy".

The fact is - you never stop relying on logical fallacies to make your case!

 

Can't get away from your strawman, eh?

I have actual lab data that show how many of the hypothesized steps really do work as thought.

You, on the other hand, cannot refute this actual lab data so you instead make up things that no one in science says and refute that instead.

How sad that you think that is a convincing argument.

Are you talking about where Patterson recites the very quote of his you give and then declares your interpretation "wrong."

How sad that you must cling to the noting that you better know how to interpret Patterson than Patterson.

I told you already that if you don't understand how the odds of any 52 card arrangement has a probability that makes it impossible by your standards then there is really nothing left to discuss.

The thread clearly shows that you werefailing to preserve the opinion and original intent of the authors.

I gave a set of references that shows how basic compounds can be formed into optically pure RNA strands, stabilized and then placed into lipid protocells with the ability to reproduce and grow.

You, on the other hand, have to ignore this data and continue to peddle your strawman about not being able to make proteins when no one actually claims they came first.

You have also, in the past, been given references about how randomly made strands of RNA have been shown to be able to copy themselves and to act as catalyst for useful processes.

I pointed out the problems with your probability argument in my first post in this thread and you have yet to address them.

 

You claimed that it was not possible to make optically pure sequences. I gave you a refernce that shows otherwise. Will you either withdraw the claim or show that they really did not make optically pure sequences as claimed.

----------------------

You claimed that banded iron was found in basement rock. I showed instead that such iron was actually found in formations about half the current age of the earth and represent a transition from anoxic to oxidizing conditions. I then showed that rocks older than this contain materials such as uranite that only form in anoxic conditions.

WIll you either show that there are no rocks older than the banded iron formations and that the oldest rocks do not contain materials formed under reducing conditions or will you withdraw the claim.

 

Quote:
You ARE in the position of having NO DATA to support your abiogenesis story telling. FAILING to actually HAVE a living cell and the proteins needed to comprise one - you declare success over your little mounds of failure.

What stellar story telling!

What amazing revisionism!!

Having FAILED to conduct ANY experiment SHOWING the formation of the proteins NEEDED by single celled living organism's you simply "declare victory on your pile of failures" -- again.

How sad.

Having FAILED to solve the chiral problem for proteins NEEDED by all living cells -- you simply "declare that failure IS VICTORY"!

How "predictable" for those with nothing to show while remaining devoted to their atheist darwinist masters.

 

Quote:
you Failed here as YOU DID with that Patterson quote.

Where you claim it -- and then we SEE that that the details you are "once again glossing over" is the part of the quote that Patterson is ENDORSING is the VERY part I am promoting!

Sadly you aversion to "detail" and reason - have prevented you from defending your OWN test case.

So once again - you ran away -- and then here we see you "Again" ascending your mound of failures and "declaring victory" over them -- anyway!

How predictable.

How sad.

 

Quote:
You failed again here - with your 52 card failure.

Wrong "again".

Failure "again"

And yet you dare to hold up your failure as if you were proud of failing!!???

You claim that the HARD sciences like statistics CAN NOT be relied upon to show valid probability - while your unproven JUNK SCIENCE myths about "cells forming on their own" are "BELIEVED ANYWAY"!!

Your "proof" in your attack on a SOLID science like stastics is to pretend that you know nothing about probability and statistics (which apparently you don't). You claim that stastics PROVES you can not get a 52 card sequence form a deck of 52 cards!!!

How pathetic! (to quote you on another thread).

You did the classic atheist darwinist "bait and switch" you CLAIMED to show one thing while ACTUALL doing ANOTHER!!!

How deceptive. How COMMON for atheist darwinists!

Statistics ACTUALLY says that you have a 100% chance of getting a 52 cards sequence from a deal of 52 cards. It says you have NO chance of PREDICTING what that sequence IS!

And clearly you "example" PREDICTS NOTHING - it only DEALS the cards claiming that DEALING 52 and GETTING a random 52 sequence was declared by statistics to be IMPOSSIBLE!! How pathetic.

This has been pointed out to you repeatedly so that your continued "pretense" that you do not understand this basic concept is clearly a form of dishonesty!

Having said all of that -- I really don't blame you much. You are merely practicing the methods and tactics taught to you by your atheist darwinist masters.

My counsel to you is to step into the light. Join the Bible believing Christians here that do not have to attack solid sciences like statistics to defend their faith-based notions.

 

Quote:
You DID that with your bogus claims "all wrong" and "had to be discarded" really means "nothing fundamental wrong with it".

Wrong - again.

I was not that one that had to "twist and spin" those statements from your OWN atheist darwinists declaring the horse series was "All wrong" and "never happened in nature" and "had to be discarded" with the wild and twisted UTEOTW conclusion "YES maybe so but nothing fundamentally wrong with it"!!!

Any reader can see you painted yourself into a corner - failed miserably then ran away from that thread as well!!

Your pattern of holding up each of your failures proudly as IF you were doing something right hits the limit!

And in this case - this is you having drifted farther from reason than EVEN your own atheist darwinist masters!!

How sad!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UTEOTW
Luckily, I don't need to depend on logical fallicies to make a point.

.


Hmmm let's see.

#1. YOU DID that with Patterson.

#2. You DID that with your 52 card failure here.

#3. You DID that with your bogus claims "all wrong" and "had to be discarded" really means "nothing fundamental wrong with it".

#4. You DID that here with your bogus claims that RNA strands are a good substitute for actually DOING the abiogenesis work of creating a living cell.

#5. you DID that with your own claims not to understand the science of statistics and measuring "probabiltiy".

The fact is - you never stop relying on logical fallacies to make your case!

 

I claimed your atheist darwinist friends failed to make viable chirally pure proteins NEEDED by all living cells.

My claim stands.

Glossing over this detail does not turn another one of your failures into "victory"

 

This is becoming depressing.

What part do you fail to understand?

No one in science claims that you had to make useful proteins to get life started.

That is a strawman of you own invention.

RNA came first.

I have shown you how the correct, all right handed RNA can be made using common materials as a catalyst.

I have shown you how lab experiments with RNA have shown them to be able to act in the role that proteins serve today.

I have shown you how some extant life still uses RNA instead of proteins for some roles.

I have shown you how another common material can stimulate the RNA to be put inside of lipid protocells that can grow and reproduce.

But you ignore all this and instead invent your own stories to refute.

 

Look, I am not going to waste any more time on those topics from other threads. You have been thoroughly and completely exposed and there is no need to waste any more time on those topics. There is nothing more to say, it has all been said.

And for that matter, I probably won't respond anymore to your attempts to refute things that you yourself have made up either.

If you want to have a discussion, well then actually respond to what has been posted and what actually is said by scientists.

If you want to live in your delusions and fallacies, go ahead, but there is no longer any need to waste time pointing out that you are not even attacking what science really says. You are happy in you delusions and I cannot get you away from them.