Anyone believes this has to be retarded. Molecules coming together all by itself and creating animals and people. She has been drinking too much cooking sherry and now coming up with total nonsense.
@neilwani Scientist have since done this again and created even more of the necessary building blocks of life. Science isn't retarded. What's retarded is believing some invisible guy in the sky created anything. If things can't exist without a creator then who created the creator?
SO GLAD this is on the inter-tubes. Please Julia don't cut off your fingers OH GOD OH GOD here take this plastic spoon and just hand over that knife...
SO GLAD this is on the inter-tubes. Please Julia don't cut off your fingers OH GOD OH GOD here take this wooden spoon and just hand over that knife...
Any chemistry students out there know why she ignored the trap when describing the chain of flow? (which I'm sure she was advised to do) or her description of a reducing atmosphere? Unfortunately it doesn't mention that these amino acids were a racemic mixture and were never able to produce any proteins.
@benthemiester Why is a racemic mixture unable to produce proteins? I didn't learn that nugget in organic chemistry. My professor must've forgotten to mention it when he was discussing how amino acids can spontaneously form into short sequence proteins. Do you have a good reference for this?
@Weaseldog2001 "Why is a racemic mixture unable to produce proteins?"
If you professor told you that a racemic mixture of amino acids can spontaneously form into proteins or were not taught the basics concerning homchirality and how it aplies to proteins & peptides etc. then I definitely file a lawsuit against the college you atended. Proteins in living things require left handed forms of amino acids & with very few exception. Look up these terms & this will answer your first question.
@benthemiester I did look up the terms. It seems there is a great body of research, showing that peptides and proteins can in fact be formed formed from racemic mixtures. How does life prevent this reaction when the environment in the flask is sterile? If you're right, and all those researchers are wrong, surely you can demonstrate that a solution of mixed amino acids can never spontaneously form peptides in a sterile environment. Right?
@Weaseldog2001 "It seems there is a great body of research, showing that peptides and proteins can in fact be formed formed from racemic mixtures"
I challenge you to provide even one example of what you claim. I have never heard anyone make this claim. I know that many hypothesize that racemic mixtures some how had to evolve into a homochirial mixture but no one has ever demonstrated empirical evidence for this. This is called a "just-so story" A fable for adults. Even you have fallen for it.
@benthemiester First you were saying that in a racemic mixture, amino acids can't bond to for proteins. No proteins of any kind at all. Not a hetero-chiral mixture or a homo-chiral mixture.
Now you're moving the goal posts and saying sure, this mixture will produce proteins, but they won't be homochiral. Duh.
Well why didn't you just say that, rather than saying something you don't believe, then calling people stupid for not believing what you don't believe?
@Weaseldog2001 "Now you're moving the goal posts and saying sure, this mixture will produce proteins, but they won't be homochiral. Duh."
When exactly did I say this? Are you sure you are speaking to the right person? You might want to reread my threads. I have no idea how you came up with this because I have never said or even implied what is quoted above.
@Weaseldog2001 You have said that all these researcher have proved that racemic/racemate (same thing) mixtures produce proteins, but you offer not even one study that demonstrates this assumption or faith based hypothesis. Again I ask for citation. Surely you can provide one from this great body of work you suggest exist.
Also can you please quote me correctly. I never used any kind of name calling or accused you or any other of being stupid.
@benthemiester I find it a bit funny, that you make fantastic claims, and feel that you don't need to provide any evidence at all to back up your arguments, but anyone who disagrees with you, needs to provide proof. Further you take an insulting tone with anyone who asks you to provide references.
And right, you didn't call me stupid. More accurately, you implied that I am ignorant. And that my professors in college were also ignorant.
@Weaseldog2001 cont..... and only exist in proposition or conjecture, that is why you cannot provide any citation. Many are even looking towards outer space to try to find a solution for this well known problem. Maybe it was little green men. You can laugh, but thats what some evolutionary scientist are using their "hail Mary pass" on, like the late great Francis Crick and his Pan Spermia proposition. If you want more citations just ask. You might want to learn how to use Google Scholar.
Your original argument was that peptides can't form in conditions found in the experiment. i provided a citation for that.
You jumped the shark and started arguing that life mostly uses homochiral proteins, and sometimes uses heterochiral proteins, as proof that peptides can't form form amino acids.
You jumped from basic organic chemistry to biology for no good reason.
@Weaseldog2001 "You jumped the shark and started arguing that life mostly uses homochiral proteins, and sometimes uses heterochiral proteins, as proof that peptides can't form form amino acids"
I have never used the term heterochiral proteins Again I think your either not reading threads or your just making this stuff up.
@Weaseldog2001 It is you who has changed the goal post from OOL origins of life, to synthetic chemistry which requires intelligent design by an intelligent agent.
@benthemiester Really? Because I've been pretty clear that life won't form in that flask. Which leads to my confusion about your argument that cells that don't exist there, somehow have the power to prevent certain chemical reactions. How does a cell that's not in the flask, prevent two right handed amino acids in the flask from hooking up?
You first argument is that amino acids in this flask can't chemically bond (proteins). Later you said the reason is, because cells don't like that.
@Weaseldog2001 cont.......proteins, and even if it contained even one right handed AA it still would not form a protein.
I don't think you understand this subject well enough to argue it yet. I don't even understand your question about "How does a cell that's not in the flask, prevent two right handed amino acids in the flask from hooking up?" If you don't have a basic understanding of stereochemistry you will never understand this subject. Take some time out to learn about it.
@benthemiester How does the presence of a single right handed amino acid somewhere in the solution, prevent two left handed amino acids from forming a bond?
I'm not certain that it is impossible for some right handed amino acids to bond to a certain left handed amino acids. You probably won't find that much in nature. The left and right handedness is a human classification, based on what we commonly see in nature.
@Weaseldog2001 I already told you that Glycine is the exception. "How does the presence of a single right handed amino acid somewhere in the solution, prevent two left handed amino acids from etc
I am not going to attempt to give you a crash course on stereochemistry nor am I smart enough to tell answer one of the great mysteries of OOL. Because they are non superimposable. Think of amino acids as your hands. Now try to fit your left your hand into a right handed glove.
@benthemiester Yes but your argument is that I can't fit my left hand into a my left handed glove, so long as my right hand exists.
Beyond that, tough I understand the analogy you're making, it doesn't apply well to simple amino acids. It sort of works when complex proteins are put together to make complexes. But even that is subject to PH, assembly order and other factors.
@benthemiester I'm beginning to understand you. These things are impossible, and I'm ignorant for thinking that they aren't. When I explain myself, you argue that I'm still ignorant, because that's on of the many exceptions to the impossible. Then when I mention the many other exceptions, you go back to calling me ignorant again, after throwing in some unrelated factoid.
Thank you the insults and your very creative flip flopping, to score points.
@Weaseldog2001 I'm not calling you ignorant for the sake of insulting you. I'm calling you ignorant for trying to argue something that you dont really understand. You didn't understand the glove analogy and instead of ask you gave a sarcastic response that shows you didn't even understand the question. I should have said try fitting your right hand into your left glove but the out come is the same, they are non superimposable. Why dont u spend a couple of years of research if your so interested?
@Weaseldog2001 cont.....You said that your professor told you that right handed amino acids form proteins. Your professor was wrong.
"You first argument is that amino acids in this flask can't chemically bond (proteins) Later you said the reason is, because cells don't like that"
Your confused, I never said that, and by the way, please quote me correctly. I said racemic amino acids which contain 50% right handed amino acids cannot form
@Weaseldog2001 "Proteins and peptides can't form unless living cells are present"
Proteins can be synthesized manually by an intelligent agent. Natural proteins are manufactured through the transcription process which requires DNA mRNA & ribosome which is a part of the living cell & that is putting it simply......
@benthemiester That is the mechanism necessary to make them bond in a specific order. Amino acids can bond in random order in the presence of various catalysts like clay or minerals, or at a very slow rate, simply in a solution.with no contaminates. The ribosomes are simply a catalyst. Catalyst speeds or controls a reaction that would happen anyway, at a slower rate.
@Weaseldog2001 "That is the mechanism necessary to make them bond in a specific order. Amino acids can bond in random order in the presence of various catalysts like clay or minerals, or at a very slow, etc"
You read this somewhere but yet you still dont understand what I am saying. Please give e.g. of study that show racemic AA can form proteins. Ribosome's are simply a catalyst etc? WTF.
Please tell me how proteins would form anyway without the ribosome. Someone is feeding you nonsense.
@Weaseldog2001 cont..... allow a protein to form, with I believe the exception of glycine. What I have stated about racemic AA are well known and cited in the literature. Your a grown man I shouldn't have to hold your hand, this information is easily obtainable and is common knowledge, but if your to lazy to do your own research, I will be more than happy to send you a citation that you can understand. The claims you made are completely unknown to me as empirical evidence,
@Weaseldog2001 You are confused. It is you who doesn't understand what is being said by myself, or this video. You were taken in by the title. You don't even know what a racemic mixture is. I thought you took chemistry and realized that it was fifty% L/ left handed and D/ right handed forms of amino acids. Life requires left handed amino acids for virtually all proteins and nutrients. Even one right-handed aa in the chain will not
@Weaseldog2001 I dont mean to be rude but I have a low tolerance for having to answer the same questions over and over. I maintain that a racemic mixture does not produce proteins. That has been my argument the subject is OOL/ origin of life studies. I have not changed goal post. To tell you the truth I dont even know what your talking about anymore. You dont name the alleged change of goal post. You still dont get it. They have to be left handed amino acids exclusively.
@Weaseldog2001 "Yet there is no life involved in the basic chemistry in the flask"
Yes exactly, that was my point. These experiment & subsequent experiments never produced anything close to a living cell. I have backed up everything I have said and can offer more citations on the subject if needed, however you have said that a great body of work has proven that racemic AA can produce proteins, yet you offer not even one studie to back up your claim.
@Weaseldog2001 You tube does allow you to post links in your personel message box. It doesn't matter. You will never be able to back your shit up. You will never be able to prove that racemic AA can produce proteins. I have tried to be patient with you but you just dont get it. Dont blame it on me.
@benthemiester "In the 1950s and 1960s, Sidney W. Fox studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structure". You don't know what a peptide is do you? I'll help you out. A peptide is a short protein. the only difference between a protein and and a peptide is the number of amino acids. The reason there is a distinction, is that proteins are long enough to fold into complex shapes and peptides are not.
@Weaseldog2001 I already answered your Sydney Fox question. Your starting to repeat yourself again. I will not any longer. "The reason there is a distinction, is that proteins are long enough to fold into complex shapes and peptides are not" I am sorry that you do not understand what a complex protein is. I have asked you repeatedly to to prove what you claim and you just throw anything at the wall and tried to find what sticks. Nothing can stick because u dont know what your talking about.
@benthemiester Thank you for your time in this. Yes, in the experiments where Fox was studying proteins he created form these mixtures, you say he didn't create proteins. It looks like now you meant to say, 'Complex Protiens'. Is that what you meant?
@Weaseldog2001 I see. You dont really understand what Fox did do you? Please tell me in your own words exactly what you think he was able to achieve. Your first statement makes no sense. If your claiming he created proteins from a racemic mixture then your going to have to do more than echo it. Please cite study, again this is confirmation that u dont know what your talking about. I dont even know what you are arguing anymore. You said that racemic AA produced proteins yet still cite no study.
@Weaseldog2001 cont......They are nothing but useless, irregular chemical stains. It was explained that even if such molecules had formed in the early ages, they would definitely be destroyed. 263
He also used purified amino acids from a living animal which kind of defeats the purpose.
Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to unite the amino acids in the shape of "proteinoids" by using very special heating techniques under conditions which in fact did not exist at all in the primordial stages of Earth. Also, they are not at all similar to the very regular proteins present in living things.
@benthemiester Right, he was using racemic mixtures, which probably didn't actually exist when the Earth was formed. At that time, scientists were in the early stages of figuring these things out.
@benthemiester You're not here to learn anything. You don't really understand what peptides and proteins are. you know a lot of buzzwords, but you don't really understand them.
I've learned more than you have in this conversation, because I've read more about Fox than I ever had in the past.
You seem to be here for three things
1. Tell lies about me.
2. Throw out random straw man arguments.
3. Call me ignorant.
So what are you getting out of this? Are you doing this to represent Christians?
From the BookRags Biography, "Arguably Sidney Fox's best-known research was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, when he studied the spontaneous formation of protein structures. His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides—"
From the BookRags Biography, "Arguably Sidney Fox's best-known research was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, when he studied the spontaneous formation of protein structures. His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides—the first step on the road to the assembly of large proteins. The result was significant because his experimental conditions duplicated conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history. "
@Weaseldog2001 cont..... Your trying to use reductionism to make a case but you are wrong, in fact we still know very little about protein folding. No one even takes the "DNA protein world" seriously anymore. Everyone is now looking at the "RNA world hypothesis". Your fifty years behind the times, and do not blame me if you dont know what your talking about. I have never heard anyone repeat what you have repeated. No one knows how the living cell arose and were not even close.
@Weaseldog2001 You have provided no evidence that racemic AA acids form into any proteins. This was your original point. I asked that you cite the peer review study but you provided an autobiography instead. Peptides are not proteins. Macro molecules like Proteins fold into highly complex structures.............
@benthemiester "Peptides are not proteins". You have no clue as to what either are, o4r why they are different. you don't know what a peptide is. You do not know what protein is. I've asked you several times if you could explain what they are and what makes them different, and you couldn't do it.
You've been a zero. you've provided no knowledge, just strawmen arguments. you whiz all over the place with no coherence.
@Weaseldog2001 I have a l ready went through this many times with you, and you still claim that I'm not answering. Give it a break. Do you even know what you are arguing? I have already explained the difference between peptides bonds & proteins which are complex macro molecules with a very complicated folding structure. I have even directed you to 2 simple introductory videos on stereo chemistry & one on transcription. I have also cited peer review Journals and you continue to repeat yourself.
@Weaseldog2001 Lying..... are you speaking of the fact that you said your professor told you that racemic amino acids form into proteins. Why is it that I have to answer all your questions? Why can't you provide any evidence for this? Instead your trying to bust my balls over definitions. Your logic is that if you keep talking about peptide bonding maybe I'll forget that you were actually arguing that an AA racemate mixture could produce proteins.
@benthemiester Peptides are short chained proteins. A protein is a chain of bonded amino acids. Amino acids can spontaneously bond in solution, though the rate would be slow without a catalyst. If you want the sequence to be order you need a ribosome and an RNA strand, though it's been shown that some proteins can self replicate with RNA. That is what I learned in college. Amino acids don't care what other chemicals are in the mix, if they bump up against another compatible AA, a bond may form.
@benthemiester But sure, if we ignore the definitions of words, and pretend that language and concepts and ideas don't matter, then sure, you can declare victory. You can say, "dclndc hc84 kuvbrvyub winning!"
@Weaseldog2001 "If you want the sequence to be order you need a ribosome and an RNA strand" I already told you this when I spoke of DNA RNA and ribosomes. You said you didn't need a ribosome.
"Amino acids don't care what other chemicals are in the mix, if they bump up against another compatible AA, a bond may form"
This is false. One of the biggest obstacles to OOL research are negative chemical reactions. This is why both controlled conditions & chemical reactions are required.
@benthemiester It's false that they'll react because they may react wrong? Yes, I said that amino acids can randomly bond without a ribosome. If you want them in order, you need something more.
Now you've agreed that amino acids can bond to form peptides. What stops the peptide growth, before the chains get long enough to call them proteins?
@benthemiester the biggest obstacle to OOL experiments is the lack of virgin planet. On the scale of a planet, even the most unlikely reactions are going to happen once in a while. Like the lottery. No given ticket has much of a chance to be a winner. With odds of 16 million to one or so, you might think it stupid that anyone wins. But with enough tickets sold and the lottery going on week after week, it nearly 100% certain there will be a winner.
@Weaseldog2001 "Amino acids don't care what other chemicals are in the mix, if they bump up against another compatible AA, a bond may form"
As for negative chemical reactions Charles Thaxton gives a great talk on this well known subject. I dont know where your getting your info, but its not helping your credibility, again negative chemical reactions in Origins of life studies is well known. I'm watching Jack Szostack give a lecture on this problem right now as we speak.
@Weaseldog2001 Third point..... You concede that RNA and ribosome's produce amino acids, then you say that if compatible amino acids bump up against each other they dont care whats in the mix they just form.
Is this what you think happens during the transcription process, codon sequence through the ribosome into the formation of proteins? You think they just bump up against each other and Wala.
@Weaseldog2001 You told me that racemic AA can produce proteins. You have provided zero evidence of this. At the same time you didn't even understand what racemic amino acids were. I had to explain it to you several times and you still don't get it.. You have produced no evidence for this racemic AA producing protein hypothesis of yours) and you call me a liar. OK buddy. I cant baby sit you anymore, go and educate yourself man.
So where did you learn these little tidbits of information. If you took any molecular biology classes in college, you'd have better grasp of what you're preaching about. You wouldn't have to call me ignorant every time you get in over your head. Did you learn this in a Creationist Seminar or Camp?
@Weaseldog2001 "How does life prevent this reaction when the environment in the flask is sterile?"
Please explain what you mean. Your automatically assuming that this experiment had anything to do with a living thing. This is a false assumption. As I said before these amino acids remained inert, and never formed into any proteins. Another problem is that life is not steril. Sterility in OOL simulation is no friend to living things. I'm not sure what your point is.
@Weaseldog2001 "surely you can demonstrate that a solution of mixed amino acids can never spontaneously form peptides in a sterile environment. Right?"
One of the first things your science teacher should have taught you is that you can never prove a negative.
Its like saying prove that pigs will never be a able to fly. Its non falsify able and non empirical.
The burden of proof is on the person who supports and advocates the proposition.
@benthemiester From the Wikipedia Article on Spontaneous_generation
In the 1950s and 1960s, Sidney W. Fox studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structures under conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history. He demonstrated that amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides. These amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called proteinoid microspheres, which show many of the basic characteristics of 'life'.[45]
@Weaseldog2001 You offered a footnote & didn't provide citation in Mag OR Journal. If u are speaking of synthetic proteins, then your speaking of a different subject, where an intelligent agent has to determine optically or some other way which form of AA whether it is D+ or L+ and then has to utulize synthetic chemistry which is purposeful & requires an intelligent agent to do. We have been able to produce synthetic proteins this way for years. I told you I was speaking of racemic AA & OOL.
@Weaseldog2001 Another possible explanation is that your professor was using conjecture rather than empirical science when speaking on the subject of OOL i.e. origin of life. This happens many times in universities, & students are often confused between empirical science and were conjecture, hypothesis and other propositions leave off, especially when trying to expound on a solution to some of these extremely difficult questions concerning this subject. Personally stories like this sadden me.
@Weaseldog2001 Just to be clear, you're not saying that life is spontaneously created in the experiment and it excretes something that blocks the bonding of amino acids, right? Or are you?
@Weaseldog2001 I think you may be getting hung up on the idea that the first self replicating molecules had to be perfect. The first ones would've had no competition. Imperfect copies of imperfect forms, would still tend to produce viable self replicating molecules. In fact errors would drive evolution forward. As more competition arises, the forms would become more efficient and complex.
@Weaseldog2001 "I think you may be getting hung up on the idea that the first self replicating molecules had to be perfect"
No, I'm hung up on the proposition that some people could still believe that inert non living material can produce life on its own. Pasteur & Reddi proved scientifically that living things only come from other living things.
We now know the answer to the lottery number, & we still cant produce life. Oxygen itself would have produced a poisonous chemical reaction.
@benthemiester Life is here now. Life was not here 4 billion years ago. Therefore, Life must have come from somewhere, and if nonliving material was the only thing around when there was no life (obviously) then you don't need to be a scientist to figure out that life must have arisen from non-living matter.
@Anthonyk312 "Life was not here 4 billion years ago. Therefore, Life must have come from somewhere, and if nonliving material was the only thing around when there was no life (obviously) then you don't need to be a scientist to figure out that life must have arisen from non-living matter"
That isn't the question. The question is, did this happen through purely natural causes, or was there an intelligent agent involved. We know the chemistry of life, but even human scientist cannot create it.
@Weaseldog2001 "I said that amino acids can randomly bond without a ribosome. If you want them in order, you need something more"
We're speaking of complex proteins and how they are formed. There is nothing random about this. It is highly specific and intricate. AA acids are brought to the Ribosome via tRNA this occurs outside the cytoplasm. I'm not even sure what your trying to say. Where is your racemic AA forming into protein citation? Why do you continue to ignored this?
@Weaseldog2001 It seems by some of your comments you think that perfect ribosomes have to already exist. RNA has been shown to be able to produce proteins without ribosomes. the proteins just have more errors and are produced slower.
@Weaseldog2001 "RNA has been shown to be able to produce proteins without ribosomes"
Please cite your source, Google Scholar would be fine. It has been a while now and you still have not cited any case were racemic amino AA produced a single protein. In fact you have completely ignored every citation I have asked for, or have tried to change the subject. Will it be the same with this statement above?
@Weaseldog2001 All amino acids in proteins are 'left-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'right-handed'.homochirality
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!!!. Which is toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!..
Julia Child ignited my curiosity for good cooking with her six part video series "The Way to Cook." Hers remain my favourite cookbooks of all time. She truly taught me "the way to cook."
There is truth in this, but there is much more than should be added. Primordial soup can also be generated around "black smokers" at the bottom of the ocean. Primordial soup, though, is oversimplification concerning biogenesis.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So where did the water, sun and other molecules come from to start with ? Everything needs to have a starting point ..... and that's why I believe in God. He created everything from "scratch".
@RedlineMMA I've heard the argument that we can't apply our limited, and fairly modern, measures of time to God but never anything about God's existance outside of time. That's a new one on me.
Damn, so it wasn't about a guy and a girl eating an apple in a garden? 1976, uh? It might have been censored in our days. Don't try this at home, I made primordial soup for dinner to my boss and he said not to come back to work next day. Maybe I missed something... I liked the video, though.
She reminds me of miss doubtfire...
audiosyncracy 1 week ago
I love how she uses her knife as a pointer.
paraplegicgiraffe 1 week ago
Anyone believes this has to be retarded. Molecules coming together all by itself and creating animals and people. She has been drinking too much cooking sherry and now coming up with total nonsense.
neilwani 2 months ago
@neilwani Scientist have since done this again and created even more of the necessary building blocks of life. Science isn't retarded. What's retarded is believing some invisible guy in the sky created anything. If things can't exist without a creator then who created the creator?
xexixk 1 month ago
@neilwani Learn basic chemistry. Then come back and say the same thing.
yichella 5 days ago
Scientific Pinch device. :3 That made my day.
Avbrv22 2 months ago
Wauw ... Primordial soup ... You'd have to be really educated to be that naive ...
jamiesbond007 2 months ago
glad to know she's not some creationist moron
thenewrapstyle 4 months ago
She constantly sounds out of breath.
Coffeeeggsbacon 5 months ago
Quarter of a teaspoon, 3/4 of a teaspoon, a scant teaspoon... why America WHY? We have a perfectly normal system for measuring quantities.
milosQaX 5 months ago
@milosQaX teaspoons are volumetric measurement. grams measure mass. what did you expect?
vaxeh 3 months ago
Happy birthday, Julia!
cmasterson83 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
She is boring.
GuitarHero34353 6 months ago
She sounds strange.
GuitarHero34353 6 months ago
that pointy knife, mg.
katsandroses 7 months ago
SO GLAD this is on the inter-tubes. Please Julia don't cut off your fingers OH GOD OH GOD here take this plastic spoon and just hand over that knife...
campbelltron 8 months ago
SO GLAD this is on the inter-tubes. Please Julia don't cut off your fingers OH GOD OH GOD here take this wooden spoon and just hand over that knife...
campbelltron 8 months ago
6:22 What was that Julia?
SovietStatic 8 months ago
Comment removed
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
Comment removed
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
I'm coming to You Tube soon! Request recipes and Sub now!
CookingWithKelly 8 months ago
#LOL
unkhl3 9 months ago 8
Oh my, she was getting all Franenstein on me!
iluvharpokitty 9 months ago
One gram is a pinch. And this is a scientific pinch machine.
Krispy785 10 months ago 12
@Krispy785 A gram is a little more than that. A packet of sugar is one gram
niceworkmicrosoft 7 months ago
oh, i love it!
yelenickj1 10 months ago
Any chemistry students out there know why she ignored the trap when describing the chain of flow? (which I'm sure she was advised to do) or her description of a reducing atmosphere? Unfortunately it doesn't mention that these amino acids were a racemic mixture and were never able to produce any proteins.
benthemiester 10 months ago
@benthemiester Why is a racemic mixture unable to produce proteins? I didn't learn that nugget in organic chemistry. My professor must've forgotten to mention it when he was discussing how amino acids can spontaneously form into short sequence proteins. Do you have a good reference for this?
Weaseldog2001 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 "Why is a racemic mixture unable to produce proteins?"
If you professor told you that a racemic mixture of amino acids can spontaneously form into proteins or were not taught the basics concerning homchirality and how it aplies to proteins & peptides etc. then I definitely file a lawsuit against the college you atended. Proteins in living things require left handed forms of amino acids & with very few exception. Look up these terms & this will answer your first question.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester correction...... homochirality not homchirality.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester I did look up the terms. It seems there is a great body of research, showing that peptides and proteins can in fact be formed formed from racemic mixtures. How does life prevent this reaction when the environment in the flask is sterile? If you're right, and all those researchers are wrong, surely you can demonstrate that a solution of mixed amino acids can never spontaneously form peptides in a sterile environment. Right?
Weaseldog2001 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 "It seems there is a great body of research, showing that peptides and proteins can in fact be formed formed from racemic mixtures"
I challenge you to provide even one example of what you claim. I have never heard anyone make this claim. I know that many hypothesize that racemic mixtures some how had to evolve into a homochirial mixture but no one has ever demonstrated empirical evidence for this. This is called a "just-so story" A fable for adults. Even you have fallen for it.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester First you were saying that in a racemic mixture, amino acids can't bond to for proteins. No proteins of any kind at all. Not a hetero-chiral mixture or a homo-chiral mixture.
Now you're moving the goal posts and saying sure, this mixture will produce proteins, but they won't be homochiral. Duh.
Well why didn't you just say that, rather than saying something you don't believe, then calling people stupid for not believing what you don't believe?
Weaseldog2001 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 "Now you're moving the goal posts and saying sure, this mixture will produce proteins, but they won't be homochiral. Duh."
When exactly did I say this? Are you sure you are speaking to the right person? You might want to reread my threads. I have no idea how you came up with this because I have never said or even implied what is quoted above.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 You have said that all these researcher have proved that racemic/racemate (same thing) mixtures produce proteins, but you offer not even one study that demonstrates this assumption or faith based hypothesis. Again I ask for citation. Surely you can provide one from this great body of work you suggest exist.
Also can you please quote me correctly. I never used any kind of name calling or accused you or any other of being stupid.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester I find it a bit funny, that you make fantastic claims, and feel that you don't need to provide any evidence at all to back up your arguments, but anyone who disagrees with you, needs to provide proof. Further you take an insulting tone with anyone who asks you to provide references.
And right, you didn't call me stupid. More accurately, you implied that I am ignorant. And that my professors in college were also ignorant.
Weaseldog2001 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 cont..... and only exist in proposition or conjecture, that is why you cannot provide any citation. Many are even looking towards outer space to try to find a solution for this well known problem. Maybe it was little green men. You can laugh, but thats what some evolutionary scientist are using their "hail Mary pass" on, like the late great Francis Crick and his Pan Spermia proposition. If you want more citations just ask. You might want to learn how to use Google Scholar.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester I did provide a citation.
Your original argument was that peptides can't form in conditions found in the experiment. i provided a citation for that.
You jumped the shark and started arguing that life mostly uses homochiral proteins, and sometimes uses heterochiral proteins, as proof that peptides can't form form amino acids.
You jumped from basic organic chemistry to biology for no good reason.
Weaseldog2001 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Weaseldog2001 "You jumped the shark and started arguing that life mostly uses homochiral proteins, and sometimes uses heterochiral proteins, as proof that peptides can't form form amino acids"
I have never used the term heterochiral proteins Again I think your either not reading threads or your just making this stuff up.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 It is you who has changed the goal post from OOL origins of life, to synthetic chemistry which requires intelligent design by an intelligent agent.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester Really? Because I've been pretty clear that life won't form in that flask. Which leads to my confusion about your argument that cells that don't exist there, somehow have the power to prevent certain chemical reactions. How does a cell that's not in the flask, prevent two right handed amino acids in the flask from hooking up?
You first argument is that amino acids in this flask can't chemically bond (proteins). Later you said the reason is, because cells don't like that.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 cont.......proteins, and even if it contained even one right handed AA it still would not form a protein.
I don't think you understand this subject well enough to argue it yet. I don't even understand your question about "How does a cell that's not in the flask, prevent two right handed amino acids in the flask from hooking up?" If you don't have a basic understanding of stereochemistry you will never understand this subject. Take some time out to learn about it.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester How does the presence of a single right handed amino acid somewhere in the solution, prevent two left handed amino acids from forming a bond?
I'm not certain that it is impossible for some right handed amino acids to bond to a certain left handed amino acids. You probably won't find that much in nature. The left and right handedness is a human classification, based on what we commonly see in nature.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 I already told you that Glycine is the exception. "How does the presence of a single right handed amino acid somewhere in the solution, prevent two left handed amino acids from etc
I am not going to attempt to give you a crash course on stereochemistry nor am I smart enough to tell answer one of the great mysteries of OOL. Because they are non superimposable. Think of amino acids as your hands. Now try to fit your left your hand into a right handed glove.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Yes but your argument is that I can't fit my left hand into a my left handed glove, so long as my right hand exists.
Beyond that, tough I understand the analogy you're making, it doesn't apply well to simple amino acids. It sort of works when complex proteins are put together to make complexes. But even that is subject to PH, assembly order and other factors.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@benthemiester I'm beginning to understand you. These things are impossible, and I'm ignorant for thinking that they aren't. When I explain myself, you argue that I'm still ignorant, because that's on of the many exceptions to the impossible. Then when I mention the many other exceptions, you go back to calling me ignorant again, after throwing in some unrelated factoid.
Thank you the insults and your very creative flip flopping, to score points.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 I'm not calling you ignorant for the sake of insulting you. I'm calling you ignorant for trying to argue something that you dont really understand. You didn't understand the glove analogy and instead of ask you gave a sarcastic response that shows you didn't even understand the question. I should have said try fitting your right hand into your left glove but the out come is the same, they are non superimposable. Why dont u spend a couple of years of research if your so interested?
benthemiester 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Weaseldog2001 cont.....You said that your professor told you that right handed amino acids form proteins. Your professor was wrong.
"You first argument is that amino acids in this flask can't chemically bond (proteins) Later you said the reason is, because cells don't like that"
Your confused, I never said that, and by the way, please quote me correctly. I said racemic amino acids which contain 50% right handed amino acids cannot form
benthemiester 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 "Proteins and peptides can't form unless living cells are present"
Proteins can be synthesized manually by an intelligent agent. Natural proteins are manufactured through the transcription process which requires DNA mRNA & ribosome which is a part of the living cell & that is putting it simply......
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester That is the mechanism necessary to make them bond in a specific order. Amino acids can bond in random order in the presence of various catalysts like clay or minerals, or at a very slow rate, simply in a solution.with no contaminates. The ribosomes are simply a catalyst. Catalyst speeds or controls a reaction that would happen anyway, at a slower rate.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 "That is the mechanism necessary to make them bond in a specific order. Amino acids can bond in random order in the presence of various catalysts like clay or minerals, or at a very slow, etc"
You read this somewhere but yet you still dont understand what I am saying. Please give e.g. of study that show racemic AA can form proteins. Ribosome's are simply a catalyst etc? WTF.
Please tell me how proteins would form anyway without the ribosome. Someone is feeding you nonsense.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Many protein complexes act as catalysts.
Why would anyone today, bother to do a study to show that racemic mixtures can form proteins?
It's already been demonstrated by the scientist I referred you to earlier.
If amino acids couldn't bond, then ribosomes couldn't force them to.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
Try a search on 'peptide bonding catalyst'. I found research on this topic by doing that.
Youtube doesn't let us post links, so you'll have to do some hard work of googling and reading your self if you really care. I don't think you do..
Or even better, search 'peptide bonding clay'.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 By the way, this is not my argument. This is a scientific fact, and well known. I have nothing to do with it.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 cont..... allow a protein to form, with I believe the exception of glycine. What I have stated about racemic AA are well known and cited in the literature. Your a grown man I shouldn't have to hold your hand, this information is easily obtainable and is common knowledge, but if your to lazy to do your own research, I will be more than happy to send you a citation that you can understand. The claims you made are completely unknown to me as empirical evidence,
benthemiester 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 You are confused. It is you who doesn't understand what is being said by myself, or this video. You were taken in by the title. You don't even know what a racemic mixture is. I thought you took chemistry and realized that it was fifty% L/ left handed and D/ right handed forms of amino acids. Life requires left handed amino acids for virtually all proteins and nutrients. Even one right-handed aa in the chain will not
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester At least you're consistent in continuing to insult me by implying I'm ignorant, while telling lies about what i do and don't know.
I'll repeat this one more time. you claimed that simple proteins (peptides), can't form in a racemic mixture.
You argued that this is true, because life tends (not always) to prefer protiens to be left handed.
Yet there is no life involved in the basic chemistry in the flask..
Weaseldog2001 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 I dont mean to be rude but I have a low tolerance for having to answer the same questions over and over. I maintain that a racemic mixture does not produce proteins. That has been my argument the subject is OOL/ origin of life studies. I have not changed goal post. To tell you the truth I dont even know what your talking about anymore. You dont name the alleged change of goal post. You still dont get it. They have to be left handed amino acids exclusively.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 "Yet there is no life involved in the basic chemistry in the flask"
Yes exactly, that was my point. These experiment & subsequent experiments never produced anything close to a living cell. I have backed up everything I have said and can offer more citations on the subject if needed, however you have said that a great body of work has proven that racemic AA can produce proteins, yet you offer not even one studie to back up your claim.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester Tell me if I understand you: Here's how I understand your argument.
Proteins and peptides can't form unless living cells are present.
Right handed amino acids can't form proteins.
The presence of right handed amino acids prevent left handed amino acids from bonding.
Because Living cells exist, it is impossible for right handed amino acids to bond.
I never argued that living cells will be produced in this experiment. So I've been confused as to why you keep bringing this up.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 Fox never produced proteins and neither am I speaking of synthetic proteins, but OOL simulation.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester You're moving goal posts again.
It's been a great game of Calvin Ball. I appreciate your love for the sport, but not interested in playing Calvin Ball with you anymore.
So long as what you mean to write, and what you write, are completely different, no one will know what you mean to express.
Weaseldog2001 9 months ago
@benthemiester If you create a racemic solution of amino acids ina flask, it's obviously an entirely synthetic set up.
Is that your point? It's impossible to demonstrate a natural formation of life, because experiments are all synthetic because they are man made?
An OOL simulation? I don't know what you're referring to. But wouldn't that be synthetic?
The experiment here simply demonstrates that amino acids can be formed by simple processes found in nature.
These amino acids are synthetic.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 You tube does allow you to post links in your personel message box. It doesn't matter. You will never be able to back your shit up. You will never be able to prove that racemic AA can produce proteins. I have tried to be patient with you but you just dont get it. Dont blame it on me.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "In the 1950s and 1960s, Sidney W. Fox studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structure". You don't know what a peptide is do you? I'll help you out. A peptide is a short protein. the only difference between a protein and and a peptide is the number of amino acids. The reason there is a distinction, is that proteins are long enough to fold into complex shapes and peptides are not.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 I already answered your Sydney Fox question. Your starting to repeat yourself again. I will not any longer. "The reason there is a distinction, is that proteins are long enough to fold into complex shapes and peptides are not" I am sorry that you do not understand what a complex protein is. I have asked you repeatedly to to prove what you claim and you just throw anything at the wall and tried to find what sticks. Nothing can stick because u dont know what your talking about.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Thank you for your time in this. Yes, in the experiments where Fox was studying proteins he created form these mixtures, you say he didn't create proteins. It looks like now you meant to say, 'Complex Protiens'. Is that what you meant?
Do you know what the following are?
1. Peptide
2. Protein
3. Complex Protein
4. Protein Complex
I don't think you do.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 I see. You dont really understand what Fox did do you? Please tell me in your own words exactly what you think he was able to achieve. Your first statement makes no sense. If your claiming he created proteins from a racemic mixture then your going to have to do more than echo it. Please cite study, again this is confirmation that u dont know what your talking about. I dont even know what you are arguing anymore. You said that racemic AA produced proteins yet still cite no study.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester What you're looking for is, "Origins of the protein synthesis cycle" - Sidney W. Fox
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 cont......They are nothing but useless, irregular chemical stains. It was explained that even if such molecules had formed in the early ages, they would definitely be destroyed. 263
He also used purified amino acids from a living animal which kind of defeats the purpose.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 Chemical Engineering News June 22, 1970
Chemical Origin of Cells
Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to unite the amino acids in the shape of "proteinoids" by using very special heating techniques under conditions which in fact did not exist at all in the primordial stages of Earth. Also, they are not at all similar to the very regular proteins present in living things.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Right, he was using racemic mixtures, which probably didn't actually exist when the Earth was formed. At that time, scientists were in the early stages of figuring these things out.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@benthemiester You're not here to learn anything. You don't really understand what peptides and proteins are. you know a lot of buzzwords, but you don't really understand them.
I've learned more than you have in this conversation, because I've read more about Fox than I ever had in the past.
You seem to be here for three things
1. Tell lies about me.
2. Throw out random straw man arguments.
3. Call me ignorant.
So what are you getting out of this? Are you doing this to represent Christians?
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
From the BookRags Biography, "Arguably Sidney Fox's best-known research was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, when he studied the spontaneous formation of protein structures. His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides—"
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
From the BookRags Biography, "Arguably Sidney Fox's best-known research was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, when he studied the spontaneous formation of protein structures. His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides—the first step on the road to the assembly of large proteins. The result was significant because his experimental conditions duplicated conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history. "
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 cont..... Your trying to use reductionism to make a case but you are wrong, in fact we still know very little about protein folding. No one even takes the "DNA protein world" seriously anymore. Everyone is now looking at the "RNA world hypothesis". Your fifty years behind the times, and do not blame me if you dont know what your talking about. I have never heard anyone repeat what you have repeated. No one knows how the living cell arose and were not even close.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester said, "We still know very little about protein folding."
Are you claiming to be a research scientist now?
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 You have provided no evidence that racemic AA acids form into any proteins. This was your original point. I asked that you cite the peer review study but you provided an autobiography instead. Peptides are not proteins. Macro molecules like Proteins fold into highly complex structures.............
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester "Peptides are not proteins". You have no clue as to what either are, o4r why they are different. you don't know what a peptide is. You do not know what protein is. I've asked you several times if you could explain what they are and what makes them different, and you couldn't do it.
You've been a zero. you've provided no knowledge, just strawmen arguments. you whiz all over the place with no coherence.
And you're a liar. You keep telling lies.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 I have a l ready went through this many times with you, and you still claim that I'm not answering. Give it a break. Do you even know what you are arguing? I have already explained the difference between peptides bonds & proteins which are complex macro molecules with a very complicated folding structure. I have even directed you to 2 simple introductory videos on stereo chemistry & one on transcription. I have also cited peer review Journals and you continue to repeat yourself.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester I want to thank you for your sincere dishonesty and insults. You are very good at concocting strawman arguments, and telling lies.
And now you lie about posting references.
When you're telling lies, do you actually believe them?
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 Lying..... are you speaking of the fact that you said your professor told you that racemic amino acids form into proteins. Why is it that I have to answer all your questions? Why can't you provide any evidence for this? Instead your trying to bust my balls over definitions. Your logic is that if you keep talking about peptide bonding maybe I'll forget that you were actually arguing that an AA racemate mixture could produce proteins.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Peptides are short chained proteins. A protein is a chain of bonded amino acids. Amino acids can spontaneously bond in solution, though the rate would be slow without a catalyst. If you want the sequence to be order you need a ribosome and an RNA strand, though it's been shown that some proteins can self replicate with RNA. That is what I learned in college. Amino acids don't care what other chemicals are in the mix, if they bump up against another compatible AA, a bond may form.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@benthemiester But sure, if we ignore the definitions of words, and pretend that language and concepts and ideas don't matter, then sure, you can declare victory. You can say, "dclndc hc84 kuvbrvyub winning!"
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 "If you want the sequence to be order you need a ribosome and an RNA strand" I already told you this when I spoke of DNA RNA and ribosomes. You said you didn't need a ribosome.
"Amino acids don't care what other chemicals are in the mix, if they bump up against another compatible AA, a bond may form"
This is false. One of the biggest obstacles to OOL research are negative chemical reactions. This is why both controlled conditions & chemical reactions are required.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester It's false that they'll react because they may react wrong? Yes, I said that amino acids can randomly bond without a ribosome. If you want them in order, you need something more.
Now you've agreed that amino acids can bond to form peptides. What stops the peptide growth, before the chains get long enough to call them proteins?
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@benthemiester the biggest obstacle to OOL experiments is the lack of virgin planet. On the scale of a planet, even the most unlikely reactions are going to happen once in a while. Like the lottery. No given ticket has much of a chance to be a winner. With odds of 16 million to one or so, you might think it stupid that anyone wins. But with enough tickets sold and the lottery going on week after week, it nearly 100% certain there will be a winner.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 "Amino acids don't care what other chemicals are in the mix, if they bump up against another compatible AA, a bond may form"
As for negative chemical reactions Charles Thaxton gives a great talk on this well known subject. I dont know where your getting your info, but its not helping your credibility, again negative chemical reactions in Origins of life studies is well known. I'm watching Jack Szostack give a lecture on this problem right now as we speak.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 Third point..... You concede that RNA and ribosome's produce amino acids, then you say that if compatible amino acids bump up against each other they dont care whats in the mix they just form.
Is this what you think happens during the transcription process, codon sequence through the ribosome into the formation of proteins? You think they just bump up against each other and Wala.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 You told me that racemic AA can produce proteins. You have provided zero evidence of this. At the same time you didn't even understand what racemic amino acids were. I had to explain it to you several times and you still don't get it.. You have produced no evidence for this racemic AA producing protein hypothesis of yours) and you call me a liar. OK buddy. I cant baby sit you anymore, go and educate yourself man.
benthemiester 8 months ago
So where did you learn these little tidbits of information. If you took any molecular biology classes in college, you'd have better grasp of what you're preaching about. You wouldn't have to call me ignorant every time you get in over your head. Did you learn this in a Creationist Seminar or Camp?
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@benthemiester said "I am sorry that you do not understand what a complex protein is."
So what is it? And how is it different than a peptide or a protein complex?
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 "How does life prevent this reaction when the environment in the flask is sterile?"
Please explain what you mean. Your automatically assuming that this experiment had anything to do with a living thing. This is a false assumption. As I said before these amino acids remained inert, and never formed into any proteins. Another problem is that life is not steril. Sterility in OOL simulation is no friend to living things. I'm not sure what your point is.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 "surely you can demonstrate that a solution of mixed amino acids can never spontaneously form peptides in a sterile environment. Right?"
One of the first things your science teacher should have taught you is that you can never prove a negative.
Its like saying prove that pigs will never be a able to fly. Its non falsify able and non empirical.
The burden of proof is on the person who supports and advocates the proposition.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@benthemiester From the Wikipedia Article on Spontaneous_generation
In the 1950s and 1960s, Sidney W. Fox studied the spontaneous formation of peptide structures under conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history. He demonstrated that amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides. These amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called proteinoid microspheres, which show many of the basic characteristics of 'life'.[45]
Weaseldog2001 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 You offered a footnote & didn't provide citation in Mag OR Journal. If u are speaking of synthetic proteins, then your speaking of a different subject, where an intelligent agent has to determine optically or some other way which form of AA whether it is D+ or L+ and then has to utulize synthetic chemistry which is purposeful & requires an intelligent agent to do. We have been able to produce synthetic proteins this way for years. I told you I was speaking of racemic AA & OOL.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 Another possible explanation is that your professor was using conjecture rather than empirical science when speaking on the subject of OOL i.e. origin of life. This happens many times in universities, & students are often confused between empirical science and were conjecture, hypothesis and other propositions leave off, especially when trying to expound on a solution to some of these extremely difficult questions concerning this subject. Personally stories like this sadden me.
benthemiester 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 Just to be clear, you're not saying that life is spontaneously created in the experiment and it excretes something that blocks the bonding of amino acids, right? Or are you?
Weaseldog2001 9 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 I think you may be getting hung up on the idea that the first self replicating molecules had to be perfect. The first ones would've had no competition. Imperfect copies of imperfect forms, would still tend to produce viable self replicating molecules. In fact errors would drive evolution forward. As more competition arises, the forms would become more efficient and complex.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago 6
@Weaseldog2001 "I think you may be getting hung up on the idea that the first self replicating molecules had to be perfect"
No, I'm hung up on the proposition that some people could still believe that inert non living material can produce life on its own. Pasteur & Reddi proved scientifically that living things only come from other living things.
We now know the answer to the lottery number, & we still cant produce life. Oxygen itself would have produced a poisonous chemical reaction.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@benthemiester Life is here now. Life was not here 4 billion years ago. Therefore, Life must have come from somewhere, and if nonliving material was the only thing around when there was no life (obviously) then you don't need to be a scientist to figure out that life must have arisen from non-living matter.
Anthonyk312 8 months ago
@Anthonyk312 "Life was not here 4 billion years ago. Therefore, Life must have come from somewhere, and if nonliving material was the only thing around when there was no life (obviously) then you don't need to be a scientist to figure out that life must have arisen from non-living matter"
That isn't the question. The question is, did this happen through purely natural causes, or was there an intelligent agent involved. We know the chemistry of life, but even human scientist cannot create it.
benthemiester 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 "I said that amino acids can randomly bond without a ribosome. If you want them in order, you need something more"
We're speaking of complex proteins and how they are formed. There is nothing random about this. It is highly specific and intricate. AA acids are brought to the Ribosome via tRNA this occurs outside the cytoplasm. I'm not even sure what your trying to say. Where is your racemic AA forming into protein citation? Why do you continue to ignored this?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 It seems by some of your comments you think that perfect ribosomes have to already exist. RNA has been shown to be able to produce proteins without ribosomes. the proteins just have more errors and are produced slower.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Weaseldog2001 "RNA has been shown to be able to produce proteins without ribosomes"
Please cite your source, Google Scholar would be fine. It has been a while now and you still have not cited any case were racemic amino AA produced a single protein. In fact you have completely ignored every citation I have asked for, or have tried to change the subject. Will it be the same with this statement above?
benthemiester 8 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 All amino acids in proteins are 'left-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'right-handed'.homochirality
A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture!!!!. Which is toxic to life!!.there is ZERO chance of RNA forming by chance or on a primordial earth or even under amazing conditions in labs.and ZERO chemistry to support it..all we do is copy information,thats not creating anything!!..
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I want to thank all of you for giving me insight into the current state of Bible School teaching on organic chemistry.
Our conversation has been very enlightening.
Weaseldog2001 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5tonyvvvv You have ZERO idea what you are talking about
MRLfromhell 6 months ago
@Weaseldog2001 The Moronic atheist believes in some Chemistry Unknown to life and science! Chirality destroys time and chance and evolution!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
I love her voice and accent. I wish I had teachers and professors who spoke like that!
APStreiff 11 months ago
Where is the interview with Julia child By Larry King in 2002?
meatisdeliciouse 11 months ago
If I saw "Primordial Soup" in a menu I would order it right away.
uberathlete 1 year ago
scientific pinch machine
nightynightnigh 1 year ago 2
at 3:35 she is so into her lesson that she grabs the sharp edge of the knife with her other hand, hence the Saturday Night Live skit idea is born
ushouldntjudgeme 1 year ago
Making life is cool, but the preparation time is a drag.
civver3 1 year ago 2
Yummy! I want some of that soup:)
babofeen 1 year ago
LOL soupy sea...
mMinng 1 year ago
julia childs was such a great,intelligent person. too bad she was british
MrHarry46 1 year ago
@MrHarry46 british? she was born in Pasadena, CA!
mooshpak 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
ryanomics 1 year ago
@MrHarry46 haha she doesnt even sound british
hellman108 1 year ago
@MrHarry46 What?! Check your facts, you boob!
heula1 1 year ago
@MrHarry46 moron
05swanbe 8 months ago
Too Tall has landed.
Bla31n 1 year ago
@comsciguy
Apparently, you missed my point.
Morcowbelle 1 year ago
Julia Child ignited my curiosity for good cooking with her six part video series "The Way to Cook." Hers remain my favourite cookbooks of all time. She truly taught me "the way to cook."
I love her endorsement of science here too.
bagelboi66 1 year ago
WOW! She was a truly versatile person.
Welcome24thCentury 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bon Apetit !!! Looks like Meth Lab!! lol
InfernoRed08 1 year ago
OMG it looks like a meth lab!
InfernoRed08 1 year ago
reproduce it on the moon or another sterile environment it will be even more credible
jibrilz 1 year ago
There is truth in this, but there is much more than should be added. Primordial soup can also be generated around "black smokers" at the bottom of the ocean. Primordial soup, though, is oversimplification concerning biogenesis.
kanajlo 1 year ago
I love how she signs this one off with her signature " Bon Apetit "...LOL...no thanks!
wetdigestive 1 year ago 4
@wetdigestive Maybe she was referring to us all now being able to enjoy predator-prey relationships, LOL.
abdulmuhib 1 year ago
she is fantastic woman and wonderfull cientific
nalalokita 1 year ago
I love Julia Child:)
foreveryoung477 1 year ago
ha ha ha. It would have been great to have her as a Chemistry teacher.
impeachbushco 1 year ago 5
@impeachbushco It reminds me of my High School and College Chemistry classes
bhuang8 1 year ago
Science and Julia...MMMmmm! Heaven!
Christheatheist1 1 year ago
"...and this is a scientific pinch machine..." heehee
fatamoeba 1 year ago
You are very right,TheMshannon7!!! She has my first name also...
mrburgundy1 1 year ago
fanciful!
frenchfrye2000 1 year ago
Primordial soup, just like Grandma Ape used to make :)
ilovetruffles99 1 year ago
You infer she is an atheist. Why? She never said she was. Man will never be able to form man from the chemicals produced. Absurd.
MrJetco 1 year ago
She's so cool, I didn't know she was an atheist! smart and sweet woman...
mmanson1979 1 year ago
Shes not an athiest lol...
nicktabus1000 1 year ago
i can never get this soup right when i add the lighting do i put one bolt or two?
pavilj 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So where did the water, sun and other molecules come from to start with ? Everything needs to have a starting point ..... and that's why I believe in God. He created everything from "scratch".
ruruhon 1 year ago
Soooo .... God's starting point was ..... ?
Morcowbelle 1 year ago 2
@Morcowbelle
god exists outside of time. Just saying.
compsciguy 1 year ago
@compsciguy
What evidence is these for anything existing outside of time? There is no such thing as outside of time.
RedlineMMA 1 year ago
@RedlineMMA I've heard the argument that we can't apply our limited, and fairly modern, measures of time to God but never anything about God's existance outside of time. That's a new one on me.
thegirl44 1 year ago
@compsciguy That mean's he doesn't exist.
MegaAnitoon 1 year ago
Where did the "scratch" come from? ;-)
werdnativ 1 year ago
@ruruhon It's exactly why I don't believe in God.
scannon1111 1 year ago
looks like she is making a bomb....... lol
DaniH3arts 1 year ago
Damn, so it wasn't about a guy and a girl eating an apple in a garden? 1976, uh? It might have been censored in our days. Don't try this at home, I made primordial soup for dinner to my boss and he said not to come back to work next day. Maybe I missed something... I liked the video, though.
boumbh 1 year ago 2
all throughout her explanation I was staring at the knife XD
clicheisticSPAZZ 1 year ago
jesus, this feels just like a Monty Python gag...
qarusel 2 years ago 2
fantastic!! cooking and science!!! only two things that I love!!
heels2583 2 years ago 2
I wish my teachers would use a butcher knife to point out pictures on a diagram. She's too awesome!
myassbelongstoslug 2 years ago 18
looks like we would have to wait for a billion years for a fish to come out of that soup.
swordmonkey05 2 years ago
She was brilliant. Love this.
jeffnstasia 2 years ago 3
She was a wonderful person
allumina 2 years ago
You gotta love Julia...using a chef's knife as her pointer...
TheMshannon7 2 years ago 25
Her intitials are JC. She IS Jesus Christ.
Boonedaba 2 years ago
no. it's JC as in just charismatic. She's truly gifted.
spirithybrid 2 years ago
I just made some primordial soup in my pants.
sufoodse 2 years ago 3
Maybe you could share your primordial soup with the rest of us.
bdavfava 2 years ago
there is plenty to go around.
bon appetit
sufoodse 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I just made some primordial soup on your moms face. She loved it but commented that it was a bit too salty...
Phletcher100 2 years ago
Phletcher makes primodrial soup while he's still asleep.
sufoodse 2 years ago