The helix, of DNA fame, may have arisen with startling ease

8 posts were merged into an existing topic: Was Central Dogma Violated in Abiogenesis?

@Guy_Coe this is an article showing how homochirality can spontaneously arise.

1 Like

Notably, this follows some of the same patterns as here: How Homochirality Arises.

Still reads like a Rudyard Kipling “just so” story to me. It’s certainly far from settled, far from precise, far from from even being plausible as a process that took place within the timespan of, say, the entire universe’s history, resulting in as much specificity as we see today. There simply isn’t enough time.

Please show the evidence and math you used to reach this conclusion.

Please show the math you use to dispute it.

You left out evidence. More testimony that you never believed your claim that both sides are looking at the same evidence, Guy.

1 Like

I left out the word “evidence” because we already have the evidence of vastly complex, highly specific sequences necessary for the faithful replication of life’s essential proteins. Don’t dodge my reasonable question with attempts at character assassination, I’ll thank you. The evidence is there for everyone to see; its interpretation is a whole different matter.

We also have lots of evidence such sequences evolved over deep time through natural processes and no evidence they were POOFED into existence.


If you’re willing to look, you’ll find that I was the first on this forum to argue against the need for any kind of magical “poof” from God, theologically or otherwise, with regards to human life --way back in April of last year, if you search the term, so you can disabuse yourself of the notion that I’m referring to any such thing. I’m just saying that time is not deep enough for what you’re advocating. There are many whimsical means at God’s disposal to accomplish His desired teleological ends.
Feel free to disagree; I just wanted us to be clear on what we’re disagreeing about. It’s one thing to show the various means by which enantiomeric excesses may be achieved; another altogether to claim that, from those, you’ve demonstrated the likely route for biological homochirality. No “math,” yet?

Wait a second aren’t you supportive of a magical “poof” of GA in a garden a few thousand years ago?

No, you don’t do evidence.

Your question was a straw man. I’m not disputing the veracity of your claim, I’m asking if there’s any evidentiary and/or mathematical basis for it. My question was, “Please show the evidence and math you used to reach this conclusion.” Your fake indignation indicates that you used neither.

The Science Daily article had a link to the actual paper. You were obviously only reacting to the Science Daily article and never bothered to look at the paper, where the evidence is.

Yet despite personally disproving your own claim repeatedly, you won’t admit that your side isn’t bothering with the vast majority of evidence. You’re assassinating your own character, Guy.

Nope. Got in trouble with George for trying to nuance the situation differently than Josh’s “de novo” Adam, by noting that the Hebrew verb 'bara is completely absent regarding his (or Eve’s, for that matter) origin. Even went so far as to say I read them both as having had normal parents.
“Made from dust” is a normal Hebrew idiom used elsewhere, in conjunction with an explicitly normal embryological development, in the ancient literature regarding Job.
Hear as Job cries out to God in his distress:
‘Remember now, that You have made me as clay; And would You turn me into dust again? Did You not pour me out like milk And curdle me like cheese;Clothe me with skin and flesh, And knit me together with bones and sinews? You have granted me life and lovingkindness; And Your care has preserved my spirit. - Job 10:9-12 NASB

1 Like

Ships passing in the night. Pleasant voyage!

Same to you.

My ship has evidence, you just pretend to have evidence on yours.

1 Like

Oh, mine has evidence. We just take it a lot more seriously and wholistically in regards to what it signals.
You, of course, will deny that. It’s an ingrained habit.

That is what we call a shift in the burden of proof. You made the claim that there hasn’t been enough time for modern genomes to evolve, so it is up to you to support that claim. It isn’t up to the skeptic to disprove a claim that has no evidence to support it. As the Hitch puts it:

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”–Christopher Hitchens

I also don’t want to be completely dismissive, but instead give you something to sink your teeth into. Let’s use human evolution as our example. The chimp and human genomes are separated by 40 million mutations, so let’s assume that half of those mutations occurred in each lineage giving us 20 million mutations in the human genome. It has been around 5 million years since the two lineages went their own way, and with a generation time of 25 years there have been 200,000 generations generations in that time. Each person is born with 50 to 100 mutations, so let’s call it 75 mutations per person per generation. Let’s also say that there was a constant population of 100,000 individuals.

Let’s do the math. 100,000 individuals each have 75 mutations, so we have 15 million mutations per generation. There are 200,000 generations, so that gives us 3 trillion mutations that happened in the human lineage. There are only 20 million mutations that separate us and chimps. Out of the 3 trillion mutations that did happen only 1 in every 150,000 mutations needed to make it into the modern population.

Can you please tell us why there wasn’t enough time?


Are you claiming to have read the cited paper, then?

You ignore most of the evidence (as you clearly did here), cherry-pick a tiny bit of it (usually at the direction of others), but falsely claim that we’re looking at the same evidence.

I deny it because your claim is obviously false. I think you’re afraid to engage with the evidence directly.

There wasn’t enough time for RANDOM mutations to accomplish the task necessary, given the available factors, and the rarity of beneficial random changes. That is not a denial of process, only of the putative sufficiency of said process. Further scientific elucidation will hopefully clear that up.