Cofty’s Challenge.
First of all I would like
to make very clear. Cofty’s challenge doesn’t
answer K99 questions about the specifics of my research and how it
supports the existence of a deity. From the thread that we have both linked
earlier today.
I just have formal
Applied Chemistry qualifications, cantleave can confirm this as he has the same
or better qualifications. I haven’t done
any specific research with regards to supporting the existence of a deity. I feel any google research I do would be bias
and I would not find it credible.
My OP is simply my opinions
based on my knowledge, which may be less extensive than cantleave’s knowledge
and he has the opposing opinions with similar chemistry background.
Even though Soai solved the puzzle of homochirality this http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar5003208
is not related to this ……….
The
fourth form — the DL mixture, is not a single molecule, but a mixture of equal
amounts of D and L isomers. It does not rotate polarized light (like the meso
form) because the rotation of light by the D and L forms is equal in amount but
opposite in direction. It is possible to separate the DL mixture into the two
isomers, each of which does rotate light. In the 1840s, Louis Pasteur
determined that each of the two isomers of tartaric acid rotated light in
opposite directions, and the meso form was inactive in this respect. He also
separated by hand, crystals of the racemic mixture to show that it was made of
equal amounts of the D and L forms, making it different than the meso form of
tartaric acid.
Cut
and pasted from here http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar5003208
This is what I said in my
word salad a few days ago when I discussed refractive index and racemic
mixtures I think my word salad, a few pages ago says the same as this. The word
meso has the exact same definition and the word racemic, which I just found out
today. But they are different. A racemic
mixture means the d-enantiomer and the l-enantiomer are not chemically bonded,
and a meso compound means that the enantiomers have positively and negatively
charged ions and this means the enantiomers are chemically bonded. I learnt
this today. It was fun. Another difference is that a meso compound apparently cannot
be separated and a racemic mixture can. Because Luis Pasteur said that the meso
compound is not optically active. But it’s very likely that a chemist has found
a way to do it today. People are on forums discussing it. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.chem/C_vvHxrufhQ
Cofty if you understand
your link I am confused why you don’t understand my cut and paste, my word
salad, and why my conclusion or opinion has nothing to do with solving the
puzzle of homochirality.
But you gave me a
challenge to put it in simple terms so I will.
Skip to simplification if you wish
I am going to explain it
in terms of a coin toss and probabilities. Cofty, I know you think it’s NOTHING
like a coin toss. I saw your caps lock comment before you deleted it, using
caps lock doesn’t substantiate your point. Explain succinctly why a coin toss explanation
is wrong. If you prefer to use caps lock
to explain it feel free to do so, but caps lock has no bearing on any
information I read.
I am going to assign…………….
l-enantiomer = heads
d-enantiomer = tails
Alanine = 2p
Glucose = 5p
Methanol = 10p
Tartaric acid = 20p
The size of the coins has
no bearing on scale in relation to the
size of the molecule. I just assigned the coins randomly. You could invert the
assignment too if you like.
Toss a 2p 100 times
autocatalysis always occurs you get 99 heads
Toss a 5p 100 times autocatalysis
always occurs you get 99 tails (never heads)
Toss a 10p 100 times
autocatalysis never occurs you get 48 heads 52 tails or 52 heads 48 tails
(slight imbalance)
Toss a 20p 100 times
autocatalysis never occurs you get 52 heads 48 tails or 48 heads 52 tails
(slight imbalance)
The probability of these
results without guidance is lower than the probability of these results with
guidance. Each different coin or chemical will always yield the same results.
The website I found my
word salad on is just a company that sells tartaric acid. It’s not an organic
chemistry book. So if you dispute it’s credibility that’s fine. I won’t argue
with that. But I know it’s right because I learnt my word salad from an organic
chemistry book that I can’t reference because I gave it away. But I might buy a
new one, because it’s useful.
K99 this in no way is evidence
that supports the existence of a deity. I don’t claim to have this evidence.
Angus I agree that this
is evidence of guidance by the laws of physics and chemistry perhaps the
creators name is Laws of Physics and Chemistry. Does that mean I am a deist or
pantheist, or believe in Spinoza’s God? I actually think I believe in Sam’s
God, a definition of my very own that no one else has.
Yes I agree also that life
is what chemistry does. If there was no chemistry there would be no life. But
that’s abiogenesis. A different thread.
