PM>Why not ? Please explain why these amino acids would change their
>left handedness ?
Stephen: <<The burden of proof is on those who claim it. The facts are:>>
And those who claim it, mentioned how left-handedness could have started. Why would the amino acids revert to an even-handed distribution ?
Stephen: <<1. No extra-terrestrial non-racemic (ie pure L- or R-handed ) amino acids
have ever been found. There has been claims of 90% L-amino acids
found but these were non-biological amino acids.>>
No one is talking about pure L or R handed amino acids.
Stephen: <<2. All terestrial amino acids that are not part of a living organism are
racemic (ie. a mixture of L- and R- handed).>>
Hence the hypothesized origin among the stars.
Stephen: <<3. All non-racemic amino acids become racemic over time after the
organism dies. There is even a test of which uses this to measure how long
ago the organism died.>>
And the mechanisms underlying this are ?
PM>You must surely aware of some of the excellent work which has
shown that such is hardly as far fetched as you sound it to be. Fox and
others have gone through many of the steps required.
Stephen: <<Please give *details* with *references*. If you are referring to Sidney's
Fox's so-called "proteinoids" theory, origin-of-life specialist Robert Shapiro
observed that Fox's it has the unique distinction of being criticised for its
lack of "relevance" by both evolutionists and creationists:>>
Irrelevant you are now arguing from authority not from fact. What is much harder is dealing with the findings of Fox
<<For example, if each step in the chain had an average probability of 10^-6
(ie. 1 in a million), for all five to happen in a series is the product of
all five multiplied together, ie:
10^(-6*5) = 10^-30. That is 1 chance in:>>
Of course you are quite aware of the many fallacies in these calculations ?
PM>Unlikely since Darwin's theory of evolution is not about 'warm little
>ponds' but about observations and data. The warm little pond hypothesis
>is about abiogenesis, the possible origins of life as we know it. Darwin
>envisioned the 'warm little ponds' others have found 'black smokers' which
>show a remarkable little biosphere.
Stephen: <<The fact is that a million people in Western Australian read on the front
page of their major newspaper that doubt was thrown on Darwin's origin of
life theory. I doubt that the layman would know the difference between
Darwin's origin of life theory and his evolution theory. That's why I said it
was "ironic".>>
You are presuming that the average Australian would see this as 'doubt of Darwin's origin of life theory'. And even more, that this would affect how they perceive Darwin's evolution of life theory.
Stephen: <<BTW I am not aware of any evidence that "smokers" even existed 3.5
billion years ago when life first appears in the rocks. Another article I
posted pointed out that the oldest "smokers" on Earth are only 27,000 years
old and they are only active for 2,000 years at a time.>>
Yep, some volcanoes of the past have since long gone dormant, haven't they.