Dawkins trying to arrest Pope Benedict Xvi

FoxEye said:
"There could be a build up" but you aren't presenting a reason why that would be the case. If I mix blue ink with red ink in some water, perhaps the red will stay on one side, perhaps they'll mix, who's to say? If I was randomly creating ink molecules in situ, being randomly distributed in the jar, what reason would they have to collect into pools of their respective colour? Chance?

About the reactions; I'm not assuming. I read that LH and RH aminos can bond together. I didn't just make that up :p
Click to expand...

Often with ink the substances stay separate, and don't react with one another. They just move around and appear to be doing so, but you can separate them out with chromatography. So it's not the best analogy. You're assuming that these reactions are taking place in a controlled environment, and they actively go out seeking a LH or RH 'partner'. But on a small scale such as this water becomes thick, and to move often they would have to be alive, whereas they are just necessary for life. Unless an external factor was forcing them to mix then why wouldn't there be more of one in a certain are than another?
 
Because they are being randomly created from collisions between atoms/molecules.

There is no thought nor planning to their creation. Thus, RH and LH are mixed. You don't get RH created over there and LH created over here.

And just a single RH amino messes everything up. You have to have 100% LH. And this is just to make one protein.

Apparently there are 20 in a protein. Thought it was more than that.

OK, so you get lucky and have a pool of 20 LH aminos successfully form one protein. Now I believe you need several thousand of those proteins to make one cell.

So you have to get lucky on a colossal scale.

[edit: I keep forgetting to quote :p]
 
FoxEye said:
Because they are being randomly created from collisions between atoms/molecules.

There is no thought nor planning to their creation. Thus, RH and LH are mixed. You don't get RH created over there and LH created over here.

And just a single RH amino messes everything up. You have to have 100% LH. And this is just to make one protein.

Apparently there are 20 in a protein. Thought it was more than that.

OK, so you get lucky and have a pool of 20 LH aminos successfully form one protein. Now I believe you need several thousand of those proteins to make one cell.

So you have to get lucky on a colossal scale.

[edit: I keep forgetting to quote :p]
Click to expand...

You seem to contradict yourself. You say that it is random, and yet you can guarantee that 100% of them will meet their counterparts? I don't understand.

What then, is the alternative?
 
No, you've not understood what I've written.

I could type it all out again, but if it didn't make sense the first time, I'm probably not going to do a better job the second time.
 
You've said that the reaction is 'perfect'. You go on to say that the odds are against you. Admittedly, none of us a seriously qualified to solve this but i ask you again:

What's the alternative?
 
Lightnix said:
Not really, evolution isn't a belief system, nor does it describe how life originated. It only describes how we believe life to have developed. Moreover, it describes the origin of species and biological diversity, but not life itself. If you want to attack a theory that attempts to describe how life first naturally developed, you want to look at abiogenesis - which is a closely related, but still independent field to evolution.
Click to expand...

Evolution doesn't really explain how we are what we are tho to be fair, we still have no evidence of what step happened to give us sentience which other living organisms seem to lack

I was at a interesting lecture not so long ago of a guy giving a lecture about the different interpretations of "created by god" and he implied one belief that our "creation" refers to that missing step as arguably we weren't human (or in his image) until we had this sentience
 
Chronictank said:
Evolution doesn't really explain how we are what we are tho to be fair, we still have no evidence of what step happened to give us sentience which other living organisms seem to lack

I was at a interesting lecture not so long ago of a guy giving a lecture about the different interpretations of "created by god" and he implied one belief that our "creation" refers to that missing step as arguably we weren't human (or in his image) until we had this sentience
Click to expand...

Erm... the step from non sentience to sentience? Homo erectus was arguably the first species we would call 'human' today.
 
Superewza said:
You've said that the reaction is 'perfect'. You go on to say that the odds are against you. Admittedly, none of us a seriously qualified to solve this but i ask you again:

What's the alternative?
Click to expand...

You've lost me. I didn't even use the word perfect once. Having read again what I posted, I don't really see what the problem you're having is?

There are two types of aminos which would occur in equal numbers if they were being created by chance collisions, which is the only way they could be created without any intelligent design.

Half of them, if included in any protein, render it useless. There is no way to "filter out" the desired half from the undesired half, since they behave the same and bond together the same.
 
There are actually a number of explanations, i.e. evaporation in primordial pools has some kind of effect but I aint sure how that works. Maybe a better one is here http://www.scientificblogging.com/n...thanded_amino_acids_space_says_astrobiologist.
Amino acids can actually change from RH to LH under certain conditions i.e. exposure to radiation and more LHs were found where more water was abundant. This supports the theory that life came from meteorites due to the subjection of high levels of radiation and different consistencies of water on varying meteorites.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
Why do you assume god is listening/cares/is a murderous nutter?

I will prove right now that there is no Bhavesh Patel.

If there is a such thing as Bhavesh Patel, then let him strike me dead right now.

Nope, nothing, I'm still here. Therefore, no Bhavesh Patel.
Click to expand...

Except that a Bhavesh Patel can actually be seen, heard, smelt, felt, and even tasted, but they probably dont taste very good.

Whereas God cannot be sensed with any of the 5 senses, hence not real.

The 'striking dead' part only applies to God though as Bhavesh Patels dont have super powers such as lightning bolts, but apparantly an omnipotent being such as God does.

Seriously, if something cannot even be sensed at all, then it isnt real. Cant think anything smaller than electrons or quarks can physically exist. You remove all matter, and you are left with nothing, a vacuum. You dont get spirits, ghosts, gods, boogeymen, fairies or flying spaghetti monsters.

*Apologies to the mighty and noodly creator, he with a thousand and one appendages, Ramen*.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom