Replies

VadeRetro says: All you do here is make it obvious where your difficulties in comprehension arise. As LaPlace explained to Napoleon why his text on celestial mechanics omitted mention of God, "I have no need of that hypothesis." Where is annointing necessary? Catalysts happen. Something somewhere will catalyze formation of a molecule identical to itself. When that happens, the world changes.

But he is necessary under your model. There is no reason that--and I will say it again-- one molecule would suddenly be endowed with a unique gift amongst millions. If a hole region of molecules did somehow, then there are the intractable complications I mentioned regarding the catch-22 scenario (which is still refuse to address, or maybe cannot).

VadeRetro says: But I have analyzed your arguments in detail. For some time now, they've been arm-waving chemo-babble from a person who cannot tell "species" from "isomer," abiogenesis (pre-replication) from evolution (post-replication). There's really no there there.

I'm sorry, but you haven't even quoted them--so how could you analyze them. You made a big deal about me using the term species--a relevant term, though not the most precise. I have corrected this diction error but you are still hung up on it. Now please address my question in the original paragraph, replacing "species" with achiral/chiral molecule.

I said: Miller created certain non-polymerized, lower energy amino acids from polymerized precursors.

VadeRetro says: No, he didn't. He made aminos in a very unguided process, a little warmth and some elecrtrical arcing, from simple gasses and water. He went in a simulated early Earth environment from inorganics to organics, which was the significance of his experiment. That you get even this wrong, that you claim he broke his simple aminos down from polymers, shows you ain't never never never gonna get any of this. Hydrogen is not a polymer. Methane is not a polymer. Ammonia is not a polymer. Water is not a polymer. With the main article of this thread right in front of you, you state this falsehood. Here, look:

I made a terrible diction mistake here. I meant to say pre-polymerized (meaning before they were polymerized, not that they were polymerized before). Honestly, your rebuttal to this diction error is honest. I know they were not simply hydrolysized polymers--that is ridiculously apparent. I was meaning they were non-polymerized organic molecules. Sorry for this confusion.

VadeRetro says: [a diatribe of unwarranted ad homenims]

Are you sure you are not a DU liberal trolling here? I make a single (or perhaps two if you count the "species" word) diction error and automatically every argument I have made--without serious opposition--is discredited. That is not very honest. You have not touched my specific arguments at all, though you do give huge focus to specific wordings. I am beginning to wonder if you understand physics and chemistry at all, or if you just are reciting a set of talking points.

I would really appreciate you copying my specific chemical objections and then underneath telling me why those objections are not valid. Saying "it just had to be that way" or referrencing some cultural quotation doesn't help anyone. If you really have problems comprehending my specific arguments about thermochem and entropy then I could simplify them for you. I was just under the impression that you had some kind of scientific background to be able to debate this stuff. But since you continue to ignore specific chem/physics objections to the abiogenesis model I am led to believe that you have simply read abiogenesis talking points and just post the specific point prescribed by a keyword or heading.