Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum The Origins Of Life

Another bit of evidence supporting the fact that life is a normal and natural consequence of the chemistry and physics of the universe.

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn7895

Space radiation preferentially destroys specific forms of amino acids, the most realistic laboratory simulation to date has found. The work suggests the molecular building blocks that form the "left-handed" proteins used by life on Earth took shape in space, bolstering the case that they could have seeded life on other planets.

The Weak Interaction is 100% left-handed. Energetic beta-decay (~50keV and larger energies) gives chiral relativistic electrons. The higher the energy the greater the chiral excess. As they collide with and decompose the neighborhood their energy drops. Non-relativistic beta-rays have helicity not chirality. Early interactions give chiral excess in the products.

Willam Bonner, among others, in the 1970s demonstrated that chiral beta-rays preferentally decomposed one optical isomer of a given racemic amino acid mixture. Review article:

Chirality 12(3) 114-26 (2000)

Cosmic sources of deep UV and relativistic electrons tend to give chiral excesses in their emissions. One then has a consistent pervasive natural mechanism for a pan-cosmic excess of one optical isomer in alpha-amino acids when life starts poking around.

At last,...both your above letters, plus the previous topic "Proof that God did not create life", is confirming to us all, that DNA arose as a consequence of the physics of the natural universe.
Keep looking for these 'natural gems', the final proof is not too distant

Neither, no doubt, is the inquisition. ;-)

BTW: I'll be in London end of October and the
first week in November. Wanted to wait until
the weather got better.

"Another bit of evidence supporting the fact that life is a normal and natural consequence of the chemistry and physics of the universe."

Do we NEED evidence? what else could it be?

None of this really proves that some unknown entity didn't *create life*. It is just another thing that shows the magic sky-daddy notion of god is proposterous.

A number of years ago, a creationist I was arguing with used left-handed chirality as "a fact that evolution could not explain." That's when it first dawned on me that the word "evolution" was a synonym for "all of science" for these people.

That's funny.
I've had many arguments with creationists as well; their ignorance never ceases to amaze me. I frequently ask the obvious question; "who created the creator" to which they duly reply "no-one, he was just always there!" Then I ask why everything 'he created' couldn't have always been there. That shuts them up.

Come on Rob ... nothing shuts them up. ;-)

Ask them why men have nipples if they were intelligently designed.

Of course you could always just ask most women whether men were intentionally designed too but they often are too polite to say what they are thinking.

Wow... thats extremley interesting. I'm so glad this forum exists.

I too am amazed by how creationists can be so ignorant, but I would not waste my time arguing with one. You won't win. No matter what you say, they will not belive you. Might as well leave them be.

I personally know several women who would tell you men aren't intelligently designed.

Has anyone else noticed how almost all women are women chauvinists?

Has anyone else noticed how almost all men make broad generalizations?

I hope your not talking about me... I'm not a woman.

Has anyone else noticed how Rob doesn't seem to contribute anything useful to these conversations?

It's true that you won't change the mind of a dedicated creationist, but what I sometimes find is that a person is just woefully uninformed and essentially a scientific illiterate. These people should be handled with kid gloves.

Other than that, arguing with a died-in-the-wool creationist can serve to refresh my arguing skills and my limited knowledge of biology. Also, if you argue in a public message board, other people do pay attention and then start asking pertinent questions.

"Has anyone else noticed how almost all women are women chauvinists?"

-Sadly posted by "Rob".

"Has anyone else noticed how Rob doesn't seem to contribute anything useful to these conversations?"

-Insightfully posted by "Ric". True indeed.

So, Rob, are you saying that MOST women are man-hating lesbian feminazis? To paraphrase from DA, "it is a marvel that you can connect to the internet". Indeed it is.

Sincerely,

p.s. Sorry Rose if this is off-topic, but I could not resist.

ROFL

Ric,
I wasn't talking about you, and I didn't assume you were a woman.
So, I don't contribute anything useful to 'these' conversations do I? Do you mean I've never posted anything useful in general, or do you mean I never post anything useful on specific topics?
Plese tell me.

"you saying that MOST women are man-hating lesbian feminazis"
No, in fact, I don't even think that all women are women chauvinists. To explain the motive behind my post; I was merely trying to start one of those amusing 'men vs women' debates. I'd also like to take this oppertunity to point out Soilguy's signature.

Dear "Amaranth Rose"

Thank you for moving "The Origins Of Life"
thread to the appropriate "Origins" board.

Great idea! Cheers!

Well then I apologize Rob.

The Origins of Life
"Teaching Origins of Life"

November 9, 2005

Last night the Kansas Board of Education voted to adopt a new science curriculum for some state schools. The highly publicized decision is the first in the country.

George Ochs, the K-12 coordinator for science curriculum in the Washoe County School District, says they have strict standards regarding the science curriculum approved each year and mandated by the state for schools throughout Nevada to follow. "Science teachers are required to teach the scientific standards and the standards are very specific on what students should know and be able to do."

State standards require broad concepts about evolution actually begin in kindergarten with students learning to observe the world around them and try to sort things out in groupings.

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/1847831.html

Interesting how ego seems to creep into discussions which I presume devolve from a search for truth.
"Creationists" and "evolutionists" are merely labels, lets all be truthseekers. At the moment, the natural laws of chemistry and physics are still evolving and we have a lot to discover , in fact, even rewrite.
Till then, lets just focus on the facts, and not label each other with terms that do not necessarily reflect the nuances of an individuals thought. There is a high degree of intelligence that I see on this forum , on both aspects of the debate, and I look forward to propositions with equal interest. I do believe that women have as much to say on this topic and would like to hear all views irrespective of gender.
thank you!

Now, I think I understand why there is a special Forum for subjects dealing with "Origins". It looks very much like a place for anti religion to tout and shout anti religious stuff, both with and without merit or justification.

Based on my life?s work I sometimes feel compelled to defend concepts even though I may not personally believe in them. Comments like someone confronts a creationist with the view ?what was there before creation? is offered as some wall to reason barring response? The creationist should simply provide that it was the same stuff that was there before the Big Bang.

Another sharp cut at creation by a superior being is ?why does man have nipples?? First of all they look nice; secondly they serve to define the human form and more surprisingly have been known to actually nurse babies at time of emergencies as shown by Ripley?s ?believe it or not?.

Let?s hear some really serious argument against creationist other than the degree of their stupidity, their unprovable contentions (we are here are we not?) and ingredients that are not common to both science and creation.

I will concede one thing- the creationist do a poor job in their own defense.
jjw

think about this -maybe a rock is self aware. We can't prove it isn't, maybe the mechanism by which it works is so incredibly simple -or complicated that we can't see it. Maybe it takes 440000000 years for a rock to think one thought. We won't ever know. But does it concern us -no, life has too many real problems for us to be thinking whether rocks are alive. Unless we were to say that if we didn't worship this rock and give it all our money, we wouldn't have a good 'afterlife'. Likewise, the existance of an afterlife is just as unprovable as the living rock.

Kate, do your thing.