Am I being dazzled by science or baffled by bullshit?

Ruud Jalving R.Jalving at bioledu.rug.nl
Wed Jul 10 08:06:32 EST 1996


In article <01bb6b16.48305440$bd8d25ca at sgazza.internet.co.nz>, "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.

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

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 the workforce of an organism.
Proteïns are coded by genes.
The DNA that codes for these proteïns is not directly translated
into proteïns, but this happens by an intermediar, 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    





More information about the Mol-evol mailing list