RE: Science the Enemy (fwd)
Aubrey Matthews (paubrey@CASTLES.COM)
Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:08:31 -0800
>On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Walter Nusbaum wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> Once again, you are in error on your facts. Proteins, as you suggest,
>> have not been synthesized randomly. What you are referring to are
>> random sequences of amino acids. You are probably referring to Sydney
>> Fox's synthesis of proteinoids, which claimed to resemble shorter
>> proteins. His work, though helpful, has been dismissed as proving the
>> synthesis of biological proteins. Consider the following statement by
>> Leslie Orgel and Stanley Miller in their work "The Origins of Life on
>> Earth" p. 144:
>
>RJV 2/4
>Yet, even these protenoids destroy Aubrey's point-mass atom arguements.
>
>>
>> "The degree of nonrandomness in thermal polypeptides [proteinoids] so
>> far demonstrated is MINUTE compared to nonrandomness of proteins. It is
>> DECEPTIVE, then, to suggest that thermal polypeptides are similar to
>> proteins in their nonrandomness."
>>
>
>RJV 2/4
>Nonrandomness of protiens. That couldn't possibly have anything to do
>with the laws of chemistry could it?
>
>> Also, Fox's proteinoids had an equal number of L- and D-amino acids,
>> whereas biologically meaningful proteins in ALL organisms must have
>> exclusively L-amino acids. W. Stansfield, a respected evolutionist
>> himself, says:
>>
>
>RJV 2/4
>Yet they were created in a random manner, and destroy Aubrey's point-mass
>atom arguement.
>
>> "All proteins today consist entirely of amino acids that rotate
>> plane-polarized light to the left (L forms). However, NONE of the
>> prebiotic compounds synthesized in the laboratory under primitive earth
>> conditions have been reported to have optical activity because of
>> racemization (a mixture of D and L forms). ["The Science of Evolution",
>> p.57]
>>
>
>RJV 2/4
>Yet these facts destroy Aubrey's point-mass atom arguement.
>
>> So, these proteinoids have nonbiological forms of peptide bonds and have
>> very little resemblance to biological peptide bonds. Worse than that
>> Jason, guys like Miller and Orgel even rejected Fox's early earth
>> conditions as being innaccurate. Once again, you seem to make big
>> claims without any empirical justification. I will look forward to your
>> response to Aubrey again.
>
>RJV 2/4
>They are still enough to destroy Aubrey's point-mass atom theory.
>According to Aubrey's arguement, even these shouldn't be randomly possible
>- yet we can perform experiments that produce protiens in a random manner.
>
>-- R Jason Valentine ..ooOO miracle@procyon.com
>
>"Science has done more for the development of western civilization in
> one hundred years than Christianity did in eighteen hundred years."
>[John Burroughs (1837-1921) American naturalist, _The Light of Day_]
I am going to answer all of your above post with this simple reply.
According to Dr. Frank Allen, biophysicist, M.A. and Ph.D., Cornell
university and formerly a professor of biophysics of Universtiy of Manitoba,
Canada, Professor J. B. Leathes of England has calculated that the links in
the chain of quite a simple protein could be put together in millions of
ways. He said: "It is impossible of all these chances to have coincided to
build one molecule of protein." And it was done not by chance. Simply said.
Aubrey
>
>====================================================================
>For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
>"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
>ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
>"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.
>
>
>
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.