I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  Soai only makes a very small contribution to a particular part of the process leaving the rest unknown.- Ruby

  No he doesn't. You obviously haven't done much research.

  I agree with her conclusions that there is something contrived/artifical/made rather than natural about the process

  That's because you don't understand it. Lot's of things Kate has written on this thread shows she doesn't get it either.
  

  Soai totally solved the puzzle. Kate is 20 years behind the science with her fingers in her ears singing "lalalala I can't hear you"

  
  
  
• 

  Ruby456

  cofty Soai is significant for the thesis I am offering - self organizing systems - but apparently not for Kate's. So in her absense I am trying to make sense of her position. I would love to hear her comments while giving her the respect she is due.

  btw did you read my most recent link on page 7 of this thread? I wish you wouldn't just dismiss things...
• 

  Ruby456

  coded logic, cofty

  not making strict distinctions between natural and artificial process is also important for self organizing systems and this connects very well to to Darwin's ideas on sexual reproduction and evolution.
• 

  KateWild

  Interesting read here and support for my thesis re self organizing systems. Please tell me what you think Kate - but don't make it too complex as I am no chemist/biologist anything-Ruby

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857173/
  

  Where Do We Go from Here?

  The pathway to life may be seen as a saga of increasing chemical and physical complexity (see, for example,Hazen 2010). The modern field of “systems chemistry” (von Kiedrowski 2005) seeks to understand the chemical roots of biological organization by studying the emergence of system properties that may be different from those showed individually by the components in isolation. The implications of the single chirality of biological molecules may be viewed in this context of complexity. Whether or not we will ever know how this property developed in the living systems represented on Earth today, studies of how single chirality might have emerged will aid us in understanding the much larger question of how life might have, and might again, emerge as a complex system.

  Thanks for asking my advice about your thesis. Seeking the chemical roots of biological organization sounds very complex to me. I don't know anything about biological organisation. I didn't even know it was a subject of scientific learning. As far as chemical roots are concerned. All I really know is what I have learned in physical chemistry, inorganic chemistry, and organic chemistry. I would expect organic chemistry is the branch you would be best to learn from, but also physical chemistry is good too, as that concentrates on the make up of the atom and sub atomic particles, so the roots go back further.

  I am no chemist or biologist either. I am a chemical analyst. May I ask why you are doing this thesis?
• 

  Ruby456

  May I ask why you are doing this thesis? kate
  

  kate

  I say my thesis because it the one I am adopting at present after thoroughly investigating it - in other words it makes great sense to me, it helps me to enchant my life, enables me to accept that the ancients had enormous wisdom. Also on this understanding nature produces artefacts just as humans do indeed animals, humans, birds, insects and and all creatures make and act upon their artefacts. If we think in terms of sexual reproduction and the many strategies that living things adopt to choose mates then here we have an interesting example. Darwin also thought like this - so I do have some backing

  What i think of regarding God/divinity is that people are simply showing that they are aware of otherness and the impact of others upon their lives. I don't intend to offend though....
• 

  KateWild

  Conclusions shouldn't be based on what "satisfies" us. They should be based on what is most likely true. - codedlogic

  This statement doesn't make sense to me, what satisfies us is what is most likely true. There is no difference. Something we determine as most likely, is determined by the evidence that satisfies us.

  But really proof of god or proof of no god is relatively less important than other things in life so it really depends on how much effort people want to put into gathering evidence to prove a point to other people about God or atheism.

  Postulating that evolution was "guided" to satisfy something we don't understand isn't an explanation. It's an argument from ignorance. - codedlogic

  Telling people who believe in God that they are ignorant is called intellectual intimidation and it shuts down sensible scientifc debate. It's what some atheists do to make themselves feel more intelligent for not believing in God
  
  
  
  
• 

  Ruby456

  evolution can be guided by memory so I don't agree with atheists who say evolution is unguided. Even some chemicals hold memory long enough for a change to occur and this is what got me interested in your discussions of homochirality kate
• 

  KateWild

  cofty,

  I responded two days ago to your post explaining Soai's reaction and explained to you there is more to chemistry than just his paper. Sadly you completely ignored the science and made some other comments to try and discredit my credentials.

  Here it is again, if you think I am wrong and want to prove I am wrong please explain to me succinctly in chemical terms with evidence why you feel my conclusions are wrong.

  Autocatalysis makes it inevitable that if there is the slightest difference in the balance of chiral products then you will get 999 heads out of a thousand. No guidance required.- cofty
  

  The chemistry is correct, but you have drawn your conclusion based limited chemistry, In amino acids, alanine for example the slight difference in balance is always in the l-enantiomer e.g

  

  So autocatalysis always occurs one way in Alanine. However in racemic mixtures such as thalidomide, even though there is a slight imbalance autcatalysis does not occur. And both the enantiomers are formed. e.g.

  

  Since the 70's I am sure chemists found ways to isolate the mutagenic d-enantiomer probably with autocatalysis. So Soai highly likely was not the first to discover autocatalysis in 1995.

  Other racemic copounds exist such as methanol, ketamine, camphor and tartaric acid. All of which do not have a refractive index of zero all the time. Refractive index is a way to measure chirality using a polorimeter, the l-enantiomers and d-enantiomers rotate in different directions. And when racemic mixtures are measured they are usually slightly positive or negative, but no autocatalysis occurs. So the probability that autocatalysis in alanine to always form the l-enantiomer is guided is high for me.

  Do you understand the implications of autocatalysis and how it results in exponential growth? - Cofty

  Yes. Do you understand not all enantiomeric compounds are homochiral and racemic mixtures also have slight differences in balance of the stereo ismoers?

  This so-called problem was solved by Kenso Soai in 1995. Why have you totally ignored his work in this thread? - Cofty

  I have referred to it in other threads and you didn't see my responses. You often say people have ignored you or not responded when in fact you just missed their posts. Only you, me and cantleave on this forum have read it. You're using it to confirm your bias, I am using it to confirm my bias, and cantleave doesn't think it's proof of anything and he is still an atheist.

  By the way, if anyone on this thread want to read it post a request for a link and me or cofty will supply it.

  cofty, did Soai specifically write his paper to solve the problem of the existence of a creator, or did he write the paper because he wanted to explain how homochirality and chiral compounds are formed and are different?

  I never twist facts. My policy is to seek out the very best arguments against my position and follow the evidence wherever it leads. I don't want to be wrong any longer than necessary.- cofty

  I see cofty, so you admit you have a position? But you deny being bias? You claim you seek out arguments against your bias, oops sorry position, well it must be true because cofty said it and it's on the internet. Having a position and being biased are completely different. I totally believe you that you don't seek out arguments to confirm your bias, oops sorry position.

  Kenso Soai (21 years ago) - Look I have shown how replicating stuff can end up all left-handed. We can now explain exactly how that happens naturally. Lot's of things Kate has written on this thread shows she doesn't get it either. Soai totally solved the puzzle. Kate is 20 years behind the science with her fingers in her ears singing "lalalala I can't hear you" - cofty

  This is just hillarious cofty, having a debate with you about chemistry is like I am playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon struts all over the board shitting everywhere and thinks it's won. When are you going to talk about the chemistry cofty? What part of my post is wrong chemistry? I don't think there is a right or wrong about drawing conclusions, but you insist on trying to prove me wrong. Are you ever going to talk about chemistry?
• 

  OneGenTwoGroups

  The probability that autocatalysis in alanine to always form the l-enantiomer is guided is around 50% for me, as of this morning.

  The probability that it was guided by an intelligent being that is playing intergalactic peek-a-boo with us is around .01% for me.

  The probability that this has any impact on my life on this planet, or a future one, is 0% for me.
• 

  Giles Gray

  KateWild-" But glad to see you're fascinated enough to quote mine other threads and post my comments out of context."

  The quote I cited was your own. If I quoted you out of context then please show me where I have.

  KateWild-" It's nice that both me and cofty have our cheer leaders"

  I have never spoken to the chap.

  You brought him up. I just used your previous conversation with Cofty to highlight yet another example of your aversion to being challenged.

  I'd only been referring to your accusations to k99 and notsurewheretogo up until then.

  But to keep all quotes pure and in context, you accused them of wanting to prove you wrong.

  KateWild-" Notsure and K99,

  You have both got an agenda. You are both biased with views of your own. You both don't believe in a creator. That's fine.

  The problem with both of you is that you both think you are right and your agenda is to prove that on this thread."

  KateWild-" You are both trying to prove I can't explain my position."

  KateWild-"... you're both out to try and prove me wrong not show a genuine interest."

  KateWild-" The problem with people who want to prove a point online is that they like to hide behind anonymity and don't care about the people their talking to.

  When you first enquired I knew you weren't genuine...

  Your problem is that you're not genuine about your interest. Perhaps you think you are but you're not."

  Neither of them professed that was what they were trying to do.

  k99-" Myself and other posters have been trying to get this explanation from you, not as some kind of game, not to try and trick you but simply to try and understand."

  k99-" The only thing I will repeat is that I did not engage with you on this thread with some kind of predetermined atheist agenda. I have no interest in proving you right or wrong."

  notsurewheretogo-" I just want to echo these sentiments as they are exactly mine...I too have no agenda..."

  Yet you continued to be adamant and accuse them both. Dont you think you should publically apologise to both of them for accusing them of something they were not in fact doing? Particularly considering one of them claims to be your 'online buddy'?

  The implications of the observations I have highlighted about your response to others are quite damaging to your reputation. Whenever you claim in the future that people are unfairly challenging you, it will be tainted by your evident 'persecution complex', clearly manifest in this thread.

  This is true of your overreaction and subsequent false accusation of k99 and notsutewheretogo.

  Your paranoia of being challenged is overtly evident and because of this k99 and notsurewheretogo have been inappropriately and unfairly maligned by you. You haven't responded reasonably in the least.