Article <1046jsc$9s13$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<1046jsc$9s13$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is legitimate about the ID bait and switch scam at this
 time?
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2025 13:58:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 177
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <1046jsc$9s13$1@dont-email.me>
References: <102kqi6$edbo$1@dont-email.me> <102nmm2$16t4n$1@dont-email.me>
 <102nu75$1c1ki$1@dont-email.me> <102pg24$1ntga$2@dont-email.me>
 <102u8qu$33fpm$2@dont-email.me> <102uhag$35qm7$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="7698"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZKHTgwHrhSFGQnYGvZVPUAkQAzA=
In-Reply-To: <102uhag$35qm7$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
	DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO,
	FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,
	URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,
	USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org

On 6/18/2025 9:09 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 6/18/2025 6:44 AM, MarkE wrote:
>> On 17/06/2025 2:17 am, RonO wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2025 9:06 PM, MarkE wrote:
>>>> On 16/06/2025 9:57 am, MarkE wrote:
>>>>> On 15/06/2025 7:45 am, RonO wrote:
>>>>>> https://evolutionnews.org/2025/06/jonathan-wells-cleared-the- 
>>>>>> ground- for- intelligent-design/
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Denial seems to be all that the ID perps ever had, and the only 
>>>>>> thing that creationists like Tour and MarkE can continue with, 
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ron, speaking of denial, Tour and OoL, here's a real example of 
>>>>> denial, in this case denial of the OoL chirality problem: https:// 
>>>>> www.youtube.com/shorts/ArnQyn5tdT4
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The origin of life, based on the homochirality of biomolecules, is 
>>>> a persistent mystery."
>>>> — Devínsky, F. (2021). https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/13/12/2277
>>>>
>>>> “Homochirality remains one of the central unsolved problems in 
>>>> origin- of-life research.”
>>>> — Lahav, N. (1999). Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origin
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think that these guys just do not understand that lifeforms need 
>>> enzymes to exist, and it was the first enzymes that set the chirality 
>>> of the molecules used.  Why doesn't life use all D forms of every 
>>> molecule?   why use L forms of amino acids and D forms for sugars? 
>>> Anyone can look to see that the existing enzymes use the L form of 
>>> amino acids, so what is the mystery?  All the enzymes that use or 
>>> produce amino acids would be selected to use L forms.  The exception 
>>> are the enzymes that convert D forms to L forms.  The two chiral 
>>> forms will spontaneously change in solution, so life has evolved 
>>> enzymes that make the D forms into L forms that can be used by the 
>>> existing enzymes.
>>>
>>> This denial will never support your Biblical beliefs.  Nothing about 
>>> chirality is in the Bible, only things that make the chirality issue 
>>> something that does not support Biblical creationism.  It doesn't 
>>> matter if some god set the chirality because it was not the god 
>>> described by the Bible.
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>>
>>
>> I've asked LD this same question. I'd be interested in your comments 
>> in the my logic and understanding of the issue, as follows.
>>
>> Life's molecules are now strictly homochiral (e.g. proteins composed 
>> of only L-amino acids), therefore either they developed this way from 
>> the beginning, or were purified by a later process.
>>
>> If the former, this implies either an enantiomerically pure source of 
>> monomers, or a prebiotic polymerisation process that selected only one 
>> form. You suggest "specific catalysts [which] produce chirally 
>> specific reactions", but what reactions exactly, in what prebiotically 
>> plausible situation, and with what necessary amounts of material and 
>> time?
> 
> It does not imply any pure source.  Life and the initial self 
> replicators would have depended on catalyitic activity in their 
> environment or that could be found in the conglomerate of molecules that 
> they were made of.  It turns out that only one form (L or D) fit into 
> reactive sites of a lot of enzymes in a way that the reaction can occur. 
>   D and L forms have different shapes, and this often means that the 
> reactive portion is not in the right position for the enzymatic reaction 
> to occur for one or the other.  In the case that I was wrong about it 
> turned out that both D and L amino acids could be polymerized by the 
> ribozyme peptidase, and it was the ribosome and how it bound the 
> acylated tRNA that made it so the D form was not held in the correct 
> position for the reaction to occur.
> 
> My take is that the L amino acids were first selected for cellular 
> metabolism.  L amino acids would have been the ones used by the enzymes 
> needed for things like making nucleotides.  The RNA world would have 
> been using L amino acids to make the nucleotides that formed the RNA 
> polymers with the catylitic activity needed to maintain "life" or 
> molecular self replication.  This is likely what set the use of L amino 
> acids in the production of proteins during the evolution of the genetic 
> code.  Eventually the proteins evolved replacements for nearly all the 
> ribozymes, but they would have been selected to keep using L amino acids 
> because they would have had to work within the system that was already 
> working.
> 
> You do not need a pure source.  You only need enzymes that use one or 
> the other.
> 
>>
>> If the latter, this would involve the complete substitution of L for R 
>> units and/or removal of R units. But this would change the structure 
>> of say a protein and erase its evolved function. This alone rules out 
>> this option.
>>
> 
> As I noted L amino acids are used in the synthesis of nucleotides.  Life 
> has evolved mechanisms to change D forms of some of these nucleotide 
> making amino acids from D to L so that the biosynthetic enzymes can use 
> them.  In solution L and D forms can convert to one or the other at a 
> low rate, and they can be made in some reactions, so you have to deal 
> with D amino acids.  Some bacteria even use D amino acids for a sort of 
> defense mechanism.  In some cases that I recall only L amino acids work 
> in the reaction, but in others you need to use L amino acids to make the 
> product whose structure can be used for the next step, and is likely why 
> some D amino acids are changed to L.  It is likely important to change 
> from D to L because some of the pathways for getting this done are at 
> least two steps where you have to break down the amino acid and then put 
> it back together into the L form.
> 
> The proteins produced by the genetic code just use the amino acids that 
> were being used before the code evolved.  There would have been positive 
> selection for that to occur.
> 
> Any god responsible for the chirality of life on earth is not the god 
> described in the Bible, so it doesn't matter how it arose in terms of 
> your religious belief.  The Bible is obviously wrong, and however it 
> occurred it would be the way that the Biblical God actually did it.  As 
> Denton concedes his Biblical designer could have just gotten the ball 
> rolling with the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have today.
> 
> The Bible does not describe how life actually arose on this planet. What 
> is described did not happen.  Land plants were not created before sea 
> creatures, the sun and moon were not created after land plants were 
> created, and the earth is not less than 10,000 years old.  Biological 
> evolution is not mentioned in the Bible and neither is chirality.  You 
> just have to accept what theologians since Saint Augustine have 
> accepted.  The Bible isn't a science textbook, and you can't use the 
> Bible to deny what you can figure out for yourself about nature. 
> Augustine accepted that because he was not a flat earther, and he knew 
> that the Bible was wrong about that aspect of nature, but Augustine was 
> still wrong about geocentrism, and other aspects of the creation, but my 
> guess is that he would have accepted what has subsequently been figured 
> out about nature.
> 
> Ron Okimoto

MarkE, you likely owe everyone a straight forward statement on how you 
intend to integrate the god that would have been responsible for setting 
chirality into the initial lifeforms over 3 billion years ago into your 
Biblical beliefs.  Such a god would not be the god described in the 
Bible, so what good would filling that gap with a god do for you?  Gap 
denial was all that the ID perps ever had, and the only thing that 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========