Poll: Evolution and the other side

[Sight Unseen]

So Evolution scientists who say that the majority of life is based on L-type Amino acids and the introduction of D-type into L-type is destructive? I'm quoting evolutionists. I'm getting my facts from them. Based on my research the only part of cells that have D-type amino acids are the "power houses" of a eukaryotic cell, the mitochondria. Bacteria don't have Mitochondria. Bacteria are prokaryote and thus has no nucleus, and no membrane bound organelles.

Now you might wonder about the Mitochondria you eat in lets say meat, an enzyme named D-Amino Acid Oxidase (DAAO) breaks them down and the breakdown products are eliminated by the kidneys. They are not in your body long enough to do any damage.

It doersn't MATTER if the majority of life uses one OR the other. What matters is that BOTH can be used by some form of life out there. There was NO amino acid created in that experiment that isn't used in some form of life.

The ONLY claim you can make, the ONLY assertion, is that not all those amino acids are -currently- used in modern life.

However, that doesn't mean they wouldn't be used in proto-life. Homochirality within a life form may have evolved, but the idea here is that the first life was random. It doesn't matter what occurs in modern life regarding L or D-type amino acids.

What matters is this: Can they react to each other and form polymer bonds? Yes. Can those polymer bonds get trapped in pockets of lipid acid? Yes. Okay. And can nucleotide amino-polymers self replicate? Yes.

So, all you need now is some form of environment or system that favors one given random polymer strand over another. Like, say, one that replicates faster and easier. Thusly, eventually, homochirality will form not because L- and D-types are poisonous to each other... but merely because homochiral strains reproduce faster. Thus, there will be more of them over time.

This is just simple chemistry. You really need to watch EvilNeko's video so helpfully provided on this page.

Because every rebuttal and recant you have? It's either answered in the video, or has nothing to do with the theories science is actually putting forth. So you should probably understand what you're rebutting, before you step in and say dumb stuff like 'It requires an outside energy source' (protip: I can name three off the top of my head that would be plentiful) or 'there's no oxygen' (again, oxygen is only required for combustion, the original protolife didn't use combustion) or chirality, or any of that nonsense that has nothing to do with the current theories of abiogenesis.

Watch. Video. Then. Comment.

I state again, these are not my words. These are the words of evolutionists, of biologists, of scientists. They say, from the beginning, the world favored L-type Amino Acids. D-type are shown to be toxic to the L-type organisms. This is why the bodies of living organisms that take in D-type organisms are designed so they deal with and eliminate the toxic types before they can harm the body.

That is why the human body reacts negatively when the types flip leading to Alzimers and aging skin. That is why cancers are formed when the body starts flipping inside out. That is why people have allergies. These are the words of scientists. So don't be mad at me. Be mad at them. I'm just the messenger.

There is nothing inherently toxic about D-type amino acids. The reason why they are at best useless and at most toxic is because all of our enzymes have evolved to use L-type amino acids for protein synthesis. Enzymes are sensitive to chirality, and so if the wrong chirality amino acids are used then that would throw a metaphorical wrench into the gears of protein synthesis and that's why they can be harmful.'

In ancient life, this would not have been necessarily an issue, since all of the enzymes would not yet have been evolved to favour L-type amino acids, and there very well may have been some divergent evolution and some bacterial strains which evolved to use D-type amino acids instead of L-type amino acids, and according to some other posters, apparently it did with some types of bacteria, though I havn't heard this for myself and so I will refrain from commenting on that.

You saying that D-type amino acids are inherently toxic and that it makes evolution impossible is just showing your own ignorance of how life actually works and evolved.

 

[Monkey lord]

what scientific evidence ?

can you please ask for what? for evolution, or for creationism?

creationism

well people seem to want science to prove somehow that their is a God, well if you take a look at all he created. Everything created can be made sense of through science, people say no its this and this, but i wonder why is it hard to say God worked logically? In another words, the proof is us, and everything in the universe says the creationist.

just because we don't have a perfict explination for evrything then it dosen't mean that the invisible wizard did it.
And have you read the bible?
if there is a god then he doesn't know the meaning of the word logic.

God are you talking about the laws of nature, if a thing did create the universe then why is it impossible for it to break the laws of nature, laws of nature and logic aren't the same thing :/

well no just because we don't have a perfect explication for something, doesn't mean that it was just God and that is it. there is somethings that are like that, for example breaking the laws of nature so far has been done by Jesus. but things like science and math, is reasoning and making thesis and hypothesis on different things.

there are no arcilogical evidence of jesue ever existing except for the bible and the bible is not hard evidence. And as far as creationism goes the only so called evidence they have is the bible says so.

 

[evilneko]

Even debunking abiogenesis in its entirety would not prove or support creationism, nor would it affect the validity of evolution.

 

[randomrob]

There's scientific evidence for creation? Really? I was under the impression there was just a pile of ad hoc explaining away of tangible evidence using theology, conformation bias and wank. Let me ask you a question in turn, has any creationist, ever actually understood the theory of evolution by natural selection? If you can provide a link of such a thing, I will eat my own shoes.

 

[Thaliur]

There's scientific evidence for creation? Really? I was under the impression there was just a pile of ad hoc explaining away of tangible evidence using theology, conformation bias and wank. Let me ask you a question in turn, has any creationist, ever actually understood the theory of evolution by natural selection? If you can provide a link of such a thing, I will eat my own shoes.

Yes, there is such evidence. Here's a great explanation of it, even in comic form:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2330

Basically, this is all there is...

To bad though, that shoe-eating video might have made millions of pageviews on youtube.

 

[Mandalore_15]

I got to the bit in the video that said "Berkeley hears the truth" (i.e. 8 second in) and couldn't take any more...

 

[riles481]

Sixteen pages. Sixteen GODDAMN FREAKING PAGES. Not only that, but this is at least the second major thread in the past week to pop up about evolution v. creationism. This shit is tired, if you believe in creationism and religion, cool beans. If you prefer science and evolution, cool beans. No matter the evidence each side presents will convince the other side in an online "debate." Now go away and stop feeding the fire.

 

[monfang]

[There is nothing in that link that shows that Bacteria are made up of D-type Amino Acids.

Fine. Here's a study on V. Cholera [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5947/1552.abstract] that kinda proves my point.

V. Cholera is deadly because it causes Cholera which just reasserts my point that D-type Amino Acids are toxic. When V. Cholera enters the body, it infects the cell with it's D-type and that causes negative reactions in the body.

 

[monfang]

Even debunking abiogenesis in its entirety would not prove or support creationism, nor would it affect the validity of evolution.

That is true. All I ask is that Abiogenisis be removed from Evolutionary books and talks. I want to end all talk on it. Lets stick to something that is a little less speculative like Evolution.

 

[DracoSuave]

[There is nothing in that link that shows that Bacteria are made up of D-type Amino Acids.

Fine. Here's a study on V. Cholera [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5947/1552.abstract] that kinda proves my point.

V. Cholera is deadly because it causes Cholera which just reasserts my point that D-type Amino Acids are toxic. When V. Cholera enters the body, it infects the cell with it's D-type and that causes negative reactions in the body.

If it's so toxic and antithetical to life, why is the cholera alive?

Just answer that question. Why is the cholera alive?

Just stop. The cholera is a living organism using D-type amino acids. You asked for a link to such an organism, I provided one, your point is disproven.

Go back to using argument forms that boil down to tautologies such as 'In a universe where evolution does not happen, evolution does not happen.'

I have satisfied your test, in finding a life form that is based on D-type amino acids. You asked for it, it is done. Your point is debunked and arguing about whether or not cholera is bad for humans doesn't actually advance your original point that life cannot exist with D-type amino acids. It can, it does, go eat some spearmint gum if you need EVEN MORE proof.

You are proven wrong. There IS no further discussion on the point of the chirality of amino acids, because your thesis on it is absolutely incorrect, and it's not relevant to abiogenesis anyways. Stop mentioning it, it is not a valid argument.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Scientific evidence that supports creationism?

Pick up a rock.
We evolved from that...
that is exactly what evolution is saying.

Turn back the clock a few billion years and Earth was a volatile ball of lava, rock, and gas devoid of all life.

Then one day... inexplicably from the swirling torrent of inorganic matter... we have life.

Abiogenesis.... You don't understand it.

Look at the video this guy has graciously posted twice now.

Also, I'm going to post this again.

Spoiler: Primer on Abiogenesis

i know what abiogenesis is.

the idea has never been proven nor replicated. while through the Miller?Urey experiment simple amino acids where produced, thus proving amino acids existed on ancient earth, ultimatly how these amino acids bound to other chemical compounds and created sustainable reproducable life (if at all) is entirely arguable.

further more, even in biopoesis, the 'spark' which sets off the catalyst is still unknown. some reaction has to occur to set off the chemical reactions so that Amino acids start making protin chains of RNA.

and i am not stating that i am of the mind of creationism, i strongly believe in evolution as there is simply too much evidence to say other wise.

i'm just playing devils advocate here.

In which the point still remains.
Pick up a rock... We evolved from that.

inexplicably we have life... there is no call for life, there is no need for life... yet, there in we find genesis of life in the primordial soup of ancient earth.

 

[KouThan]

Actually I can't say that the other side has any scientific evidence. If you read it, you can clearly see that it does't even use the scientific methodystematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses) so I can't accept it or even call it science by any means.

 

[DracoSuave]

further more, even in biopoesis, the 'spark' which sets off the catalyst is still unknown. some reaction has to occur to set off the chemical reactions so that Amino acids start making protin chains of RNA.

Peptide bonds can form between amino acids from simple water condensation. The 'spark' doesn't have to be anything dramatic. And over the millions of years that amino acids took to form, I think at some point, there was condensation, somewhere, on an entire planet.

It's not exactly hard to get amino acids to polymerize. That's kinda the thing they like to do.

 

[evilneko]

Even debunking abiogenesis in its entirety would not prove or support creationism, nor would it affect the validity of evolution.

That is true. All I ask is that Abiogenisis be removed from Evolutionary books and talks. I want to end all talk on it. Lets stick to something that is a little less speculative like Evolution.

Is there a better, scientific explanation?

That's a rhetorical question. The answer is no. Abiogenesis is the best available science for the origin of life. There is no reason to remove it from any science textbook.

If you have a better hypothesis, by all means--write a paper, submit it to a journal. If your idea has any merit at all, it will be picked up and tested by those far more qualified than you, and maybe in several years or so a new hypothesis based on your idea might actually survive the peer review process and turn current models on their heads.

I highly doubt it, though, especially since you've not put forward any alternative.

 

[Thaliur]

Could anyone please tell my why, just in this thread, the same explanations have to be reiterated about five times until the creationists ignore them and move on to another completely unrelated topic?

 

[navyjeff]

What i can never understand is why people write all these extra long responses to ID arguments. It's a monumental waste of time

Because every once in a while, you'll actually get through to someone who was raised (or indoctrinated) in a hard-core fundamentalist/creationist environment for 18 years. Then that person will have an epiphany and be inspired to do something cool, like go to a university and pursue a PhD in science or engineering.

These people have my thanks. Truth is a liberating.

 

[evilneko]

Could anyone please tell my why, just in this thread, the same explanations have to be reiterated about five times until the creationists ignore them and move on to another completely unrelated topic?

Standard creationist tactic. Either shift the goalposts or try to change the topic.

 

[monfang]

Even debunking abiogenesis in its entirety would not prove or support creationism, nor would it affect the validity of evolution.

That is true. All I ask is that Abiogenisis be removed from Evolutionary books and talks. I want to end all talk on it. Lets stick to something that is a little less speculative like Evolution.

Is there a better, scientific explanation?

That's a rhetorical question. The answer is no. Abiogenesis is the best available science for the origin of life. There is no reason to remove it from any science textbook.

If you have a better hypothesis, by all means--write a paper, submit it to a journal. If your idea has any merit at all, it will be picked up and tested by those far more qualified than you, and maybe in several years or so a new hypothesis based on your idea might actually survive the peer review process and turn current models on their heads.

I highly doubt it, though, especially since you've not put forward any alternative.

There is just one little problem. Who decides what has merits and what doesn't? If those people have a bias or an agenda, then only what they approve of gets though. Sad but true.

 

[evilneko]

There is just one little problem. Who decides what has merits and what doesn't? If those people have a bias or an agenda, then only what they approve of gets though. Sad but true.

Quit watching Ben Stein's Expelled. It's nigh 100% lies, misrepresentations, and other miscellaneous bullshit.