Am I being dazzled by science or baffled by BS?

David Beorn dbeorn at freenet.vcu.edu
Wed Aug 28 16:25:46 EST 1996


On 10 Jul 1996, Ruud Jalving wrote:

> From: Ruud Jalving <R.Jalving at bioledu.rug.nl>
> Newgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution, nz.molbio
> 
>  "Gary Elmes" <gazza at iconz.co.nz> says:
> 
> >Can anyone enlighten me as to whether Chris's assertions are
> >supportable/refutable. Replies by e-mail would be appreciated, since I
> >tend not to hang out in this NG.
> >
> >The statement in question is:
> >
> >> All amino acids manufactured or discovered are 50%/50% left hand/right
> >hand 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> >> which proves them to be *dead*, like the hypotheses of evolution.
> 
> First of all life is a definition, and so is dead.
> Dead material is material than has lived once.
> This gives us the follow conclusion:
> Living material lives
> Dead material has once been part of a living organism.
> Lifeless material has never been part of life
>
> >>The dead 
> >> state of 50/50 A.A. is *proven* in Pasteur's work with milk, and
> >sardines, 
> >> and now used by forensic science for determining an organisms time of
> >death.
> 
> Could be. I don't know
> 
> >> It is the basis of modern pasteurisation and ultra longlife (very dead)
> >milk.
> 
> This isn't correct. The effect of pasteurisation is the unfolding of a
> proteïn and so disturb it's active centers.
> 
> >> *Living* amino acids must be 100% right handed or left, and never 50/50.
> 
> Could be. But I want to protest against the term living amino acids
> Amino acids don,t live. They can only be a part a living organism.

Exactly - amino acids are NOT living matter - they are building blocks 
for life, specifically, I think, DNA - right?  
 
> >>The few manufactured base components are hopelessly lacking for use
> >>as the 20 million components essential to a DNA.
> 
> I don't understand this line: a certain gene can be amplified in a lab
> and inserted in an organism again, without disturbing it's function.
> So a gene can be produced in lab, and still work.
> 
> >>This point was conceded by an ardent scientific evolutionist during 
> >>a university seminar by Institute of
> >>Creation Research (The Origin of Life, recording available)

I'd like info on where this can be obtained - maybe a transcript??

> >>Evolutionists faith in these components becoming anything
> >>else is merely faith, not science.

Evolution has always been a matter of faith since there is no CONCRETE 
evidence for it - it is just one INTERPRETATION of the evidence we have 
and is a theory - not fact.  

> He's now refering to a theorie that says how single organic molecules
> started to work together and so created the first organisms.
> This is only a theorie.
> The theorie is based upon many assumptions, so I agree that there
> is not much science about it.
> But still I will explain the theorie in brief:
> 
> Proteïns a[re] the workforce of an organism.

You mean proteins here???

> Proteïns are coded by genes.
> The DNA that codes for these proteïns is not directly translated
> into proteïns, but this happens by an intermediar[y], RNA.
> So DNA is transcribed in RNA and the RNA is translated in proteïns.
> It is now proven that RNA has katalytic functions like proteïns, only
> less efficïent. And also can function as genetic code, only RNA is
> less stable as DNA. So the theorie suggest that life started with an
> set of RNA molecules wich could replicate themselves and gain energy
> from there environment.    
> 
> >>Vague and unsupportable faith that base chemicals could be developed
> >>into more complex units is said to only have succeeded in *creative*ly
> >>manufacturing those units by applying intelligence and organisational
> >>energy, random processes do not tend to organisation. 
> 
> 
> There is nothing creative about it. The "unit's" which are most effective
> will survive in competition for energysources. The change's in the genes
> during evolution are not creative either they are random.
> In most cases those changes will be destructive, and only a few (very few)
> will these changes a positive change.
>  
>  
> >>Statistics of random processes tends toward 50/50 outcomes; certainly
> >>not 100%, upheld by any university level stats book.
> 
> This doesn't surprise me
> 
> >>The second law of thermodynamics teaches that in the absense of 
> >>non-random energy all systems tend toward chaos; cf the entropy
> >>of a system.
> 
> The total entropy of a isolated system will not decrease.
> It will only increase, through lose of heat. 
> The thermodynamica does state that all systems tend toward chaos
> So the above statement is correct. 
> 
> >> Organisational energy is essential to cause and maintain anything
> >> but a dead or decaying state for a system, and certainly a 100% state. 
> 
> I don't know what he means with "organisational energy".
> But living organism get there energy from there surroundings by using food
> With this energy they can maintain there ordered structure.
> When they are not able to get enough energy they will die (= selection).
> 
> 
> >>Organisational energy essential to cause and maintain 100% organic
> >>systems has been attributed to God by Institute of Creation Research.
> >>Random energy, such as the lowest and most randomly organised form of
> >>energy called heat, does not lend organisation to a system.
> >>The laws of thermodynamics insist that random energy in heat can never
> >>become the pure forms of energy such as that which is a useful motive
> >>force; let alone a life force.
> 
> Now I know what he means with organisational energy.
> Well if organisational energy, which is given by God,
> maintains an organism, why then do we eat?
> For fun? Just because we like it?
> No, we do not keep or body in shape by "organisational energy"
> But by chemical energy, which can be suplied by food.
> This chemical energy is the energy that is necesary to break or
> will be retrieved by breaking an chemical bonding between two atoms.
> By coupling this to create a new chemical bonding organism are
> capable of using this chemical energy. Heat is a wasteproduct that
> is lost in that proces. Which explains the increase of entropy.
> 
> >> This is the law of conservation of energy, firmly linked to the
> >> entropy of a system. Natural processes are defeated by entropy,
> >> statistics, and proofs of scientific biological investigation.
> 
> Energy is always conserved. The lose of heat increases entropy
> of the total system (what is environment and organism). The
> organism maintains his constant entropy, or even decreases it
> by increasing the entropy of his environment. But this is becoming
> to theoretical, and I don't think that a person without knowledge of
> thermodynamics will understand this. 
> 
> 
> But enough crap, the only reason why proteïns in organisms are 100% right
> handed is because they are made by other proteïns which have a defined
> structure. This defined structure can only create right handed proteïns.
> But because the proteïns are not stable they will slowly become
> 50% right/50% left handed. The diference between living and dead
> organisms is that in living organisms old proteïns are constanly
> replaced by new once, and these new ones are 100% right handed again.
> In an organic lab proteïns are created by a different pathway in
> which no enzymes with a defined structure are used. So there is
> nothing that directs the proteïns in the right handed structure.
> But this tell us nothing about the 'living' state of the proteïn
> 
> 
>                            Ruud Jalving    


         *-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^
        *        David Beorn, dbeorn at freenet.vcu.edu (internet)       *
        *        Virginia FREENET                                     *
         *-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^

~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'








More information about the Mol-evol mailing list