(February 18, 2016 at 4:02 pm)AAA Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 3:47 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: Please see my previous post, AAA. I did graduate from High School.

In fact, I went on to graduate from University. In chemistry.

I know how these molecules are formed. I don't need to speculate. I don't simply believe what I was told by my tutors. I verified what they told me in the laboratory.

Ok, well then tell me is the formation of a phosphodiester bond a spontaneous reaction?  Yup.
https://www.chem.wisc.edu/deptfiles/genc.../dna13.htm

What about the formation of a peptide bond? Standard chemical bond. No god required

Do you know that amino acids have a chiral carbon, meaning they have stereoisomers? Yes I do thanks.
Did you know that only the L form isomer makes proteins? Yes.

What are the odds that a long polypeptide would form with only the L handedness in nature? No odds required. It just does it. Whatever would come out from a D-handed chiral centre is immaterial. We are talking about the product of an L-Chiral center.

Also I am skeptical that you graduated from a University yet you make such an inaccurate statement as saying that DNA can replicate itself. It replicates itself semi-conservatively.

That is just a blatant lie. You need helicases, single stranded binding proteins, DNA polymerases, ligases, topoisomerases, and many more. Also if you formed DNA and proteins in the lab, then congratulations, you should be up for your nobel prize soon, because you are the first one. Except for Meselson and Stahl, ibid. And they basically sat back and watched it happen of it's own accord.


Also if you graduated in chemistry, then you may know about the catalytic efficiency of enzymes. Some of them are literally kinetically perfect, meaning that they catalyze reactions as fast as reactants diffuse and contact them. Have you ever seen a catalyst that reacts that perfectly? Which ones are perfect? Are they really perfect or just very efficient?

(February 18, 2016 at 3:45 pm)AAA Wrote:

---

(February 18, 2016 at 3:35 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Well of course it's just hopelessly speculative, because without any data it just isn't possible!  Well at least the speculations of actual scientists don't write their own biased laws of physics and chemistry. The sum of all the statements which you have made here imply only one thing clearly, which is that you love nothing more than not knowing. If you had a good answer, that us one with a good and thorough explanation, then this would render your mysterious God useless, and you really, really don't want to do that, do you? Admit it, you're frightened of us!

Oh, Lawd, please save us from that big, bad evil-lootionist! Oh....why won't he just leave us alone and let us go back to being the humble and ignorant barbarians which we were the first time you led us to sack and burn the cities of the scientists?

---

I'm not the one running from science. I bring in scientific phenomena every response, while you just put words in my mouth and act as though you are so high and mighty, yet you have said nothing to demonstrate that you've graduated from high school. And your speculations go against what we see with how these molecules are formed, so that's why I don't like them. I never said I had a thorough explanation for how it happened, just that your explanation is wrong.

No. You. Don't! You don't bring in any science at all, you bring in obstructionist ignorance only, and that is all you ever do with science. You will never be any true scientist as long as you maintain your prejudice in favor of ideas which science cannot explain. The very thought of science explaining away your precious deity frightens you so badly that you are more willing to infiltrate and destroy science, for all of the benefits which it has brought society, than to allow it to squeeze any thinner the beliefs which you need othersnto agree with you on. You are therefore the most scurrilously dishonest, intellectually toxic and pathetic little coward ever to walk the the face of this planet!

By the way, please stop quoting everything - I'm really sick of having to put hide tags around, or try and cut away your no longer relavent shit while on my mobile!

(February 18, 2016 at 4:04 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: DNA needs Helicase to unwind it.

This is one enzyme.

I think you forgot to keep reading. Helicases, DNA polymerases, RNA primases, ligases, topoisomerases, single strand binding proteins. When you go onto how each of those proteins are made, you will see HUNDREDS of other proteins required to produce them.

(February 18, 2016 at 4:02 pm)AAA Wrote:

(February 18, 2016 at 3:47 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: Please see my previous post, AAA. I did graduate from High School.

In fact, I went on to graduate from University. In chemistry.

I know how these molecules are formed. I don't need to speculate. I don't simply believe what I was told by my tutors. I verified what they told me in the laboratory.

Ok, well then tell me is the formation of a phosphodiester bond a spontaneous reaction? What about the formation of a peptide bond? Do you know that amino acids have a chiral carbon, meaning they have stereoisomers? Did you know that only the L form isomer makes proteins? What are the odds that a long polypeptide would form with only the L handedness in nature? Also I am skeptical that you graduated from a University yet you make such an inaccurate statement as saying that DNA can replicate itself. That is just a blatant lie. You need helicases, single stranded binding proteins, DNA polymerases, ligases, topoisomerases, and many more. Also if you formed DNA and proteins in the lab, then congratulations, you should be up for your nobel prize soon, because you are the first one. Also if you graduated in chemistry, then you may know about the catalytic efficiency of enzymes. Some of them are literally kinetically perfect, meaning that they catalyze reactions as fast as reactants diffuse and contact them. Have you ever seen a catalyst that reacts that perfectly?

Hold on, I'm getting to this point by point but the reply keeps disappearing.

Ok, well then tell me is the formation of a phosphodiester bond a spontaneous reaction? Yes. It's a condensation reaction. No god required.

What about the formation of a peptide bond? No different from the formation of any other chemical bond. No god required there either.

Do you know that amino acids have a chiral carbon, meaning they have stereoisomers? Yes thanks.

Did you know that only the L form isomer makes proteins? You mean only the Leavorotatory stereoisomer appears in proteins? If you say so.

What are the odds that a long polypeptide would form with only the L handedness in nature? No odds necessary. We are talking about the product of L-Handedness, not D-Handedness. You might as well speculate what the odds of seeing the license plate YR3445DR are on the way here.  But hang on, what's this?;

"nine of the nineteen L-amino acids commonly found in proteins are dextrorotatory (at a wavelength of 589 nm),"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextrorota...vorotation

and this?;
Occurrence of some d-amino acids in some natural materials
http://www.jbc.org/content/190/2/705.full.pdf

oops!

Also I am skeptical that you graduated from a University yet you make such an inaccurate statement as saying that DNA can replicate itself. That is just a blatant lie. You need helicases, single stranded binding proteins, DNA polymerases, ligases, topoisomerases, and many more. Also if you formed DNA and proteins in the lab, then congratulations, you should be up for your nobel prize soon, because you are the first one. Except of course for Meselson and Stahl, ibid.

Also if you graduated in chemistry, then you may know about the catalytic efficiency of enzymes. Yes I do thanks.

Some of them are literally kinetically perfect, meaning that they catalyze reactions as fast as reactants diffuse and contact them. Have you ever seen a catalyst that reacts that perfectly? Many chemical reactions are constrained by factors other than kinetics. The term "Kinetic perfection" refers only to the fact that the enzyme is not the limiting factor in the reaction, not that the enzyme itself is "perfect" in the sense of being unimprovable. An elephant can crush any ant. That is not an argument for the elephant being created by a divine being, just proof that it is bigger than any ant.

But what the hell. All the millions of careful investigations done by biologists and chemists the world over for the last 200 years are obviously without foundation. Some bloke on a cloud obviously did it all.

(February 18, 2016 at 4:12 pm)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: Hold on, I'm getting to this point by point but the reply keeps disappearing.

Sorry, your posts were caught by our anti-spam. Don't worry though, we can approve the posts when they get tangled in it. Thanks for letting us know ^_^

Nothing is outside the universe, by definition.

If we were created, that's one conclusion, although I don't think it's supported. It's another entire non-sequitur to announce that it's most likely a magic being that happens to be the main character in a popular story book. That is what Christians believe, after all. Pretending that has anything to do with science and reason is either incredibly naive or dishonest.

Technical question from the US - how is removing a fence (de-fence) supposed to make anything more secure? :-D

(February 18, 2016 at 4:43 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Technical question from the US - how is removing a fence (de-fence) supposed to make anything more secure? :-D

How come you get kudos for this, GoMH, but I get none!

(February 18, 2016 at 11:17 am)AAA Wrote: And you wonder why atheists get their reputation as arrogant and moral-less people.

Hate to break it to you shit face, but your opinion isn't a reputation it's worthless.

Quote:If I were another atheist on this forum

You'd be a hell of a lot more intelligent person.

Quote:I would be frustrated with you for bringing the rest of them down.

Says the manchild who constantly lies about his qualifications and knowledge on the fora. Protip for you, go take the plank out of your own eye before you try and extract the dustmote from mine.

Lamest argument I have ever heard, "In the beginning", then it all went downhill after that. Ok, I borrowed that sarcasm from a friend, but I like it, so I stole it from him.