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?
