Chirality - death knell for evolutionary origins

[BroCope]

Not only is it magic, it is black magic. It is malevolent, and will cause your eternal death.

[BroCope]

If enough left handed amiono acids are present , the cell will die. There are intelligent mechanisms to repair proteins, but the protein itself does not rebuild itself. The protein is dragged into a "garage" and worked on by molecular machines that know how to rebuild the proteins. If the protein is too badly damaged, it is dismantled and recycled.  All of that is evidence of intense enginerring and design, not some hocus pocus magic in some primordial slime. Evolution is a belief in magic.

[BroCope]

No, sorry, having the other handed amino acid in a protein makes the protein non-functional. Same with nucleotides. If enough proteins are non-functional, the cell dies. There is no selection going on. Cross chirality means death. In your myth, there has never been any evidence ever put forth to show that there has ever been a living thing made up other handed amino/nucleotides. None exist. It is a statement of blind faith, not science. But without design, one cannot explain WHY.

[GreedyCapybara7]

-We use Right handed amino-acids because we use left handed neucliotides

-No if a left handed amino-acid is within a right handed protein then the protein does not sense to function it decomposes and rebuilds until it is either constructed entirely from right or left handed amino-acids

-The kid was right, those that can create only one type of amino-acid are selected for as they can feed easier and create proteins at will, this is called protein synthesis

vote up so this guy can see

[ZebrasFirst]

Whether he's right or wrong, couldn't he get in trouble with security or the school for standing anywhere on campus and just shouting at students? It seemed most didn't care, and the others were just commenting back just to provoke him all over again.

[BroCope]

@ZebrasFirst You must not be from the USA. Or if you are there is this quaint little document called the Constitution that protects the people from yahoos like you. The second amendment gives me the right to speak anywhere there is a public forum. Penn State, being a state supported school, is one such forum. They have recognized my right to speak freely since I began preaching in 1977. Most don't care, to their own detriment. They will wind up in hell, as you will also.

[ZebrasFirst]

@BroCope, Sorry, only the Lord can judge me, not you. If you took the time to simply click into my Channel, you would have discovered I'm a Christian Creationist, not a supporter or believer of Evolution. Instead, you took it upon yourself to judge me and sentence me to Hell already! Thank you.

I'd advise you to reach/preach more effectively, not stand in a crowd and shout at people. They will not take you seriously; that's all I meant by my first comment.

[BroCope]

@ZebrasFirst You are as ignorant of the Bible as you are of the Constitution. The judging will be done by Christians. 

1Co 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

I've come acros muslims that believed in creation. Doesn't impress me. You are still most likely to end up in hell because...

[BroCope]

@BroCope you have no idea of how Jesus judges the church. If you judge my approach, you are judging the Lord. He is the one who commanded it, and initiated it.. That you judge the Lord's methods to be wrong shows me just how much you are still married to the world, and an enemy of the Lord. I'm afraid you are still in deep darkness. While you think you see, you are still blinded by sin.

[ZebrasFirst]

@BroCope, I wasn't trying to impress you! What an ignorant, arrogant clown you are!! You boast about The Constitution and your Freedom of Speech, but did you know establishments have the right to throw your annoying butt out of there?! Perch yourself in a Wal*Mart and start shouting at the customers with your nonsense and see what happens.

You're not a saint to be judging any body else. If that's you in the video, you come off as a crazy, old man that CANNOT be taken seriously.

[gregrutz]

If they were all right handed would that make you happy. It had to be one or the other.

Natural Selection is only a part of Evolution. The theory is about change in species, not chemicals.

[gregrutz]

No one seems to care that his argument is silly.

[BroCope]

@gregrutz Sorry, but the argument is hardly silly - only unanswered. Apart from intelligent assembly, there is nothing in nature or physics that can explain not just a bias, but an absolute exclusion of other-handed molecules in the formation of proteins and amino acids. That is what I am waiting for. But pubicman below only wanted to compare oranges and soft coal. Scientists think, he did not.

[pubuman]

@BroCope Are you still on about that? Even after I explained how it might work? So you ignore the actual answer to your question and continue to lie? Wow... so sad...

[ZebrasFirst]

@BroCope, I take the Bible and the Lord seriously, not you. But, I'm not going to be stupid enough to judge and sentence you to Hell like you did me. John 3:16 applies to the entire world, including evolutionists.

Christ was humble and TALKED to people, not SHOUT at them and come off as someone who just escaped from the insane asylum.

[pubuman]

Lol.. Brocope has been well and truly shown to be wrong - he must be rushing off to learn some science, after all as an intelligent human he apparently goes where the real science and evidence points him to...

[BroCope]

None of you have addressed the issue: How can you explain by natural means the use of only left handed amino acids and right handed nucleic acids. When you point to a bias, that does not answer the question.

As far as the god of the gaps argument, which is more ridiculous? The application of intelligence or resorting to anti-scientific magic. You say natural law can explain the phenomenon, so produce any natural law that overcomes the laws of chemical probability.

[pubuman]

Your ignorance of physics doesn't mean that its non natural. What magic are you talking about? If something as large as graphene infused with N, O has selective chirality AND can be explained by QFT considerations of symmetry, how is that non natural? Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean its wrong. If that were the case all of science I suspect would be wrong! You like repeating yourself without making a point huh? Have you done those calculations to show they are incorrect yet?

[BroCope]

You claimed that a bias toward L type amino acids answers the question of why only L types are incorporated into living systems. It does not. No matter how you phrase it you can not equate a bias with a complete exclusion. You, numb nuts, are the ignorant one.

Your magic is your assertion that it "just happens" without giving any plausible naturalistic cause for why. I do not have to produce a natural explanation - you do.

[pubuman]

No, what I said was that using symmetry principles and QFT one can explain why there are ONLY a certain type of chirality in graphene. A system much larger than amino acids... learn to read!

[BroCope]

Graphene is a one-atom-thick planar sheet of sp2-bonded carbon atoms that are densely packed in a honeycomb crystal lattice. It can be viewed as an atomic-scale chicken wire made of carbon atoms and their bonds. stacked together.

Chiarality does not apply to graphene. Chirality is the fact that identical molecules are mirror images of each other. The crystalline structure of graphene does not come in L and R types.

[pubuman]

Chirality doesn't apply to graphene? What the? You really need to stop copying and pasting from the internet about things you don't know about. The chiralities of graphene is precisely what gives rise to the ballistic electrons and momentum independent energies. The chiralities give rise to band edge structures that have such properties. Do you know how spinors relate to chirality? When you understand that you will get what I mean. I recommed Weinberg, he does a good explanation of it.

[pubuman]

And like I said, graphene is easily dopable with N, O - also you don't get large sheets of graphene, learn about what you are talking about before spouting more nonsense!

[BroCope]

Even if you can get L and R types of graphene, which I contest, you still have not answered how only L type amino acids are incorporated. Last I looked graphene is not one of the amino acids. It would be like me claiming to prove the global flood because I can fill my tub. I can't believe anyone as stupid as you ever graduated from grade school.

Now, stop trying to explain anomalies in amino acids by pointing to supposed behaviors in non-related other chemicals. apples and meadow muffins

[pubuman]

You are really really stupid aren't you? You can't even keep up with a single argument. You said that things like CP violations only apply to subatomic particles. I was using graphene to show that they can apply to chirality of molecules. I'm not saying that getting only a single type of chirality in graphene means amino acids have to behave the same way. I'm saying that one can explain chiralities in large structures (O, N doped graphene) with CP considerations and the appropriate QFT calcs.

[pubuman]

You asked how there could possibly be a naturalistic explanation for the existence of one type of chirality - when I pointed out CP assymetry and QFT, you said that (because you are an idiot) they only apply to subatomic particles. I used graphene to show you that they dont only apply to subatomic particles. Idiot! In conclusion there is a naturalistic explanation. I'm not saying that's 100% true, but you asked for a naturalistic explanation. QFT Chemistry is still in its infancy btw.

[pubuman]

Why do you need to change what I say around to make your idiotic argument work?

Also even if it wasn't a 100%, life having only a certain chirality makes sense, because out of all the life that has existed, how much do you think remains? ... even with a bias around 60% the probability of finding other chirality is extremely low.. work it out, since you are so "good" at these calculations - anyway, my original point was something else.

[pubuman]

@BroCope - so worked anything out yet? or is that rotting slow old brain still weighing you down?!

[BroCope]

I have more important things to do with my time than trying to redeem your twisted wasted mind.

[pubuman]

@BroCope - no, you have been challenged in your way of thinking. The actual science and evidence and mathematics stand against you, and you realize this. But your belief in a bronze age myth keeps you secure, because it makes you feel superior and safe. Your puny mind and gigantic ego can't handle that you are an insignificant little speck in the universe. So you simply ignore the evidence and pretend like you know what you are talking about! It would be funny were it not so pathetic!

[BroCope]

Challenged? Not hardly. Challenging is in working through errors in Einsteins special theory of realtiviy. Now that is challenging. Seeing through assertions of "evidence" that is only story telling masquerading as knowledge is no challenge at all.

Actual science offers no evidence against the Biblical account. I have a list of over 120 scientific facts that indicate a young earth and a global flood. So many in fact I can't get through them all before the evolutionists are howling at me

[pubuman]

@BroCope Not hardly aye? So you were challenged then? Working through errors in SR is challenging? I think you mean GR, SR is rather brilliant, but simple, even a fool like you would not have too much trouble with it surely. Science offers plenty of evidence, and as soon as you come to a point that you can't actually dismiss (which is every point I make) you revert to the "you are going to hell" rant. Just look at the pattern. Howl at you? You have started the hell rant every argument. Idiot!

[gregrutz]

@BroCope Name one thing that shows there was a global flood.

''Millions of dead things buried all over the earth'' is not proof, it is not even correct.

[5tonyvvvv]

@BroCope If homochirality happened by evolution it would be its own Paradox!!!..which would make it impossible!!!..biochemical chemistry has reached a dead end stalemate!!!!

[5tonyvvvv]

@BroCope right and left handed amino acids are toxic to life when together,this is why miller failed..most people dont know this they just think he made building blocks..thats bullshit..a living system uses both..but they cant be in contact with one another

[pubuman]

Hmm... Brocope is awfully quiet all of a sudden!

[magick205]

Additionally, the weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth. Finally, Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998). Nothing like actually reading the science to understand about which you speak.

[pubuman]

Not just that, even large structures (maybe 100 - 200 atoms) of graphene etc show selective chirality. Also, we have managed to infuse N, O etc into these structures (for us its a purely physics experiment - we want to extend the range of the ballistic electrons and make some funky ballistic transistors) - but even then the chirality pref remains. This is correctly predicted if one applies the principles of underltying QF with assymetry in CP.

[magick205]

"The only explanation for the problem of chirality is INTELLIGENCE making it happen in only that perfectly improbable way." This is a classic example of a "god of the gaps" argument as well simple personal incredulity. Perhaps you don't know amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999).

[BroCope]

There is a great massive gaping canyon between "significantly more of the left handed variety" and "use ONLY left handed amino acids". Intelligence is the only reasonable explanation to why there are only left handed amino acids used in living proteins. Even if there is a disproprotionate percenate of L-types, it is an insurmountable problem why no R-types are used at all. If both are present at the time of a naturalistic formation origin, then both would be present in living proteins.

[BroCope]

Again, since the L and R types are chemically identical, both should be present. Naturalistic explanations can not account for SELECTIVE inclusion. Selectivity requires intelligence in order to exclude the R types.

You can put your faith in something in the far distant past somewhere else in the universe. It is not science. It is a weird faith in fairy tales.

[pubuman]

Interesting how you continue to ignore my points as soon as I raise something actually scientific, and then repeat yourself. This is typical of imbeciles like you who believe in non sense and dont actually understand science! I already explained why both don't have to be present. Unless you actually go do the calculations and find the mistakes and point them out, you have a real problem. I suspect that you wont do this, because you are an idiot!

[BroCope]

No, pubicman, they must be present together. Any naturalistic process produces 50/50 distributions of L and R types. Living things only produce L types. Since naturalistic processes would not be able to produce only L types, then any living thing that evolved in that prebiotic soup would by definition have to contain both L and R types. I think you must be particularly ignorant of chemistry, as you are of all of the other branches.

[pubuman]

WTF?! I just explained how natualistic processes don't produce 50/50 distributions... see you just ignored that and repeated yourself. You really are very very stupid aren't you? Do you know how to read? Did you read what I said about what happens to graphene etc? (Graphene is 2-d carbon structure btw). I think you are particularly ignorant of all sciene, and apparently also the ability to read and understand something.

[pubuman]

Also like I said before, and you ignored this point as well, evolution doesn't say anything about inserting opposite chirality types into living things. So your point about things dying when that happens is not disproof evolution - idiot! Understand the science before you try to critisize it!

[BroCope]

You understand nothing about science. Any living thing formed in an environment containing both L and R forms of amino acids would HAVE to incorporate both forms. The L and R forms are chemically identical, and there is no intelligence in a naturalistic explanation that could explain why the R types are completely excluded. I am going to enjoy the day of judgment simply because of morons like you. I'll be looking for you. I will know you. You will be the one drooling past your one tooth.

[pubuman]

You start with the incorrect assumption that there was an even distribution of L & R types. You also have a clear misunderstanding of evolution, because somehow you seem to think it tries to explain the origins of life.

And in graphene case the chirality is left handed, without exception... and we have a perfectly valid and testable naturilistic explanation for that - which I already explained to you... but of course you come out with the hell line, the last resort of all religious imbeciles!

[pubuman]

Its also interesting how you lie about post limits and all sorts of clap trap when you are getting your as kicked, intellectually... nice to see you ignored everything and left the other page... moron!

[pubuman]

Oh man .... brocope is getting owned but he's pretty much going "nyah nyah nyah nyah - im ignoring you, cos im right and you are wrong" - listen to what those kids are saying moron!

[BroCope]

Okay, then brainiac, explain how it is that evolution was able to produce living things that only incorporate left handed amino acids, while natural law requires a 50/50 distribution of left and right handed forms. You can't because you are as big a moron as those I was preaching to. And all to the detriment of your eternal soul. You would rather go to Hell then to understand what God has clearly made visible about his existence. You refuse to seek so as to know. Instead you choose death

[pubuman]

Why does it require 50/50 distribution? WTF? don't tell me you dont know about things like CP violation?!

[BroCope]

When amino acids are formed in nature, there is no filtering mechanism in the process to force all of one hand or the other. Since the formation of amino acids is random in nature, L and R forms are chemically identical, probability theory would predict that over the long haul, there would be 50% L and 50% R forms. It is like the distribution you would get tossing a coin a trillion times - 50% heads and 50% tails. Hope this isn't to technical for you.

[pubuman]

Er... that's not true. Like I said, things like CP symmetry issues dictate that there will not be a 50/50 distribution of left and right handed particles, let alone chemicals... while it is random, it is weighted... Like I said, surely with all your scienfitic endavours you understand these simple symmetry principles?

[BroCope]

In 1964, James Cronin and Val Fitch discovered a particle decay (the K0 meson) which is non-invariant under the CP operation, meaning that CP symmetry is not quite invariant - though very close. This work earned Fitch and Cronin the 1980 Nobel Prize in Physics.

This symmetry is also frequently related to a time reversal operation (T). When combined together, these three operations form a CPT symmetry, which does appear to be completely invariant.

CP symmetry deals with subatomic particle

[BroCope]

physics. It has to do with why there is much matter and little anti-matter. It has nothing to do with the the distribution of L/R forms in a chemical reaction. In which, there is symmetry. And even if there were not a 50/50 distribution, say it were only 80/20 distribution, it still presents a problem to evolution because living things use on L types of amino acids. R types are absent. You really are a moron grasping at straws.

[pubuman]

Wtf? No - CPT violations would address the matter anti matter issue, not CP violations. (In fact there is some news out of Los Alamos that they may have observed CPTv). What the hell is wrong with you? Do you know anything about what you are copying and pasting? Seriously? So if there is a far greater probability for L type amino acids (say) then why is it a problem for evolution that living things use that?

[pubuman]

You say if one introduces an opposite chirality then the living thing will die. How does evolution say that opposite chiral structures need to be introduced into already living things? It doesn't - its like the argument about tuning of parameters in the universe. eg if G changed everything would die. While that's true, the point is had G been different from the start (big bang) then we'd still have a stable universe. But I dont expect an utter idiot like you to understand that point!

[pubuman]

You are correct about that description of CP violations, but the QFT models of CP violations can be extended to condensed matter physics - for example using QFT models one can explain the differences in handedness (chirality) preferences of such complex structures as graphene tubes etc. This is also easily extended to molecules containing different types of atoms. Before copy pasting verbatim from websites, I suggest you actually learn what you are talking about! Lest you look an imbecile!

[pubuman]

I guess you don't .. oh well

[mordinvan]

Epic fail... I think a paper last month actually answered this question.....

[EmptyQue]

It's too bad we weren't standing closer to the camera.