Atheism is the Fastest dying religion on earth(statistics/Studies)

[monfret]

its called desecularization.


its a combination of low atheist birthrates and the conversion of tens of millions of atheists around the world especially China ,Natural spiritual thirst in a consumerist dead society and the Triumph of Creation science and increasingely read Literature challenging Blind Faith in Neo-Darwinism and MacroEvolution.


www.conservapedia.com/Desecularization

[monfret]

www.conservapedia.com/Causes_of_desecularization

[Linebacker]

Listen religion subhuman,whatever false and disingenuous articles you find on lowly rat places such as conservativepedia (lmao) the real statistics by the real organizations show atheism as the fastest growing belief in the world.

And the thing about atheism is it doesent need birth rates to grow,atheism is growing from religion itself,the smarter ones with actual human potential who can see through the lies and the fairytale,and the greed,corruption and power lust that goes behind the scenes of religion.

Corrupt,hypocrite and disgusting religious people make atheists

[monfret]

Listen religion subhuman,whatever false and disingenuous articles you find on lowly rat places such as conservativepedia (lmao) the real statistics by the real organizations show atheism as the fastest growing belief in the world.

And the thing about atheism is it doesent need birth rates to grow,atheism is growing from religion itself,the smarter ones with actual human potential who can see through the lies and the fairytale,and the greed,corruption and power lust that goes behind the scenes of religion.

Corrupt,hypocrite and disgusting religious people make atheists

Looks Like I hit a Nerve . China has the world's largest agnostic populace and is set to be majority christjan by 2060 .Indonesia and Latin America are becoming Pentecostal.Europe is becoming Traditionalist Catholic(see SSPX birthrates),Orthodox(tens of millions of Russians became Christian since the fallof the godless ussr) and Fundementalist Muslim.in the 60's atheism and communism were popular in the Arab world,now they are fundementalists.

Africa has turned from a muslim and animistic continent last century to near complete Christian .Irreligion only grows among middle class and upper classed European descended people,and even then 60% of Swedes Believe God exists.

[monfret]

Worldwide Atheism's Numbers declined by 50% since the 60s.

[monfret]

Listen religion subhuman,whatever false and disingenuous articles you find on lowly rat places such as conservativepedia (lmao) the real statistics by the real organizations show atheism as the fastest growing belief in the world.

And the thing about atheism is it doesent need birth rates to grow,atheism is growing from religion itself,the smarter ones with actual human potential who can see through the lies and the fairytale,and the greed,corruption and power lust that goes behind the scenes of religion.

Corrupt,hypocrite and disgusting religious people make atheists

Atheism is only marginally growing among Western Europeans.even Eastern Europe is having a Christian revival.

[Linebacker]

You are posting lies and makeshift arguments.

It's very befitting actually,because this is all religion is ever good for - lies,deception,manipulation,mass control.

Here is the real statistics of atheisms unstoppable growth since the early 90s:

Nat Geo proper
https://www.google.bg/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion

Go back to imaginary land,because people like you don't do so well in the real world

[Luca]

Listen religion subhuman,whatever false and disingenuous articles you find on lowly rat places such as conservativepedia (lmao) the real statistics by the real organizations show atheism as the fastest growing belief in the world.

And the thing about atheism is it doesent need birth rates to grow,atheism is growing from religion itself,the smarter ones with actual human potential who can see through the lies and the fairytale,and the greed,corruption and power lust that goes behind the scenes of religion.

Corrupt,hypocrite and disgusting religious people make atheists

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

― Werner Heisenberg

[monfret]

You are posting lies and makeshift arguments.

It's very befitting actually,because this is all religion is ever good for - lies,deception,manipulation,mass control.

Here is the real statistics of atheisms unstoppable growth since the early 90s:

Nat Geo proper
https://www.google.bg/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion

Go back to imaginary land,because people like you don't do so well in the real world

Your article did not post studies or statistics like the conservopedia article.it even admitted religion is growing in the Third World lmao.only the Westernized world is having a atheist surge. latin america is becoming pentecostal.africa catholic.asia evangelical etc eastern europe is having a christian revival.the youth are more religious than the old folks.

[monfret]

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

― Werner Heisenberg

This.....anyone with a basic working knowledge of chemistry cannot believe in chemical evolution.

[Luca]

This.....anyone with a basic working knowledge of chemistry cannot believe in chemical evolution.

Actually I would disagree. You know how immensely big the universe is, so even if the chance of chemical evolution (that some molecules suddenly stick together and create life) is very very very slim, it is still almost certain that somewhere in the universe that must have happened.
I think what Werner Heisenberg wants to say is, the more you understand about the universe, the more you will come to understand that there must be some reason for all of it.
Why should there be a universe? Why is there even a universe?
Is there something OUTSIDE of the universe? And if there is something outside the universe, what is outside of that?
Where do we exist? Sure, in the universe, but what does the universe exist in?
These are some questions you might had some time before. And Werner Heisenberg had them as well. And it might even make sense that some god created us for some reason, which we cannot even understand

[monfret]

Actually I would disagree. You know how immensely big the universe is, so even if the chance of chemical evolution (that some molecules suddenly stick together and create life) is very very very slim, it is still almost certain that somewhere in the universe that must have happened.
I think what Werner Heisenberg wants to say is, the more you understand about the universe, the more you will come to understand that there must be some reason for all of it.
Why should there be a universe? Why is there even a universe?
Is there something OUTSIDE of the universe? And if there is something outside the universe, what is outside of that?
Where do we exist? Sure, in the universe, but what does the universe exist in?
These are some questions you might had some time before. And Werner Heisenberg had them as well. And it might even make sense that some god created us for some reason, which we cannot even understand

How do Atheists explain :

1.Genetic entropy.This pretty much destroys Evolutionism and Old earth claims.species degenerate with each generation,if we were as old as atheists claim we would be extinct a long long long time ago.

2.How did Sex evolve?I didn't ask ''why''I asked How.How did two sexes simultenouesly evolve of a new species?how did they find each other?For evolution to be true, every animal had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going .this is pretty much common sence.

3.There has never been a documented case of a beneficial mutation,ALL mutations are harmfull,some are beneficial as a side effect of a greater harm.for example a Beetle that loses its wing due to heavy winds,but now its liable to being prey.

4.Fine tuning.why is the earth fine tuned for life?I didn't as why the universe isn't fine tuned for life because the Bible has a Geocentric theology.

5.How do evolutionist atheistcels explain Irreducible complexity and molecular machines?

6.I have never and will never meet a atheist that is scientifically literate.To Blindly accept Chemical Evolution when this is chemically impossible is absurd,and they're teaching this stuff to our kids.

for life to have evolved:

Homochirality has to be perfect.all sugars must be a certain handedness,and all amino acids a crtain handedness.however both the elements cause racemization and in experiments all sugars and smino acids are racemized.its literally chemically impossible to create Homochiral sugars or acids randomly.THIS IS KNOWN AS THE RACEMIZATION PROBLEM.

sugars and amino acids destroy each other upon contacting each other.both are neccassery for a cell to exist and function.How did the cell evolve its complex timing and release to avoid such destruction?a CELL CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT SUGARS AND AMINOACIDS,HOW DID A CELL FORM WITH NUNFUNCTIONAL GOO CREATED BY THE CONTACT OF THESE TWO COMPOUNDS .ANSWER THE QUESTION

How did aminoacids and proteins evolve in a oxygen environment?oxygen inhibits their creation and function.the failed Uri Miller experiments had to inhibit oxygen.

How did aminoacids and proteins evolve in a oxygenless environment?without Ozone you have destruction caused by UV.

What about the Polymerization problem?If we evolved in a soup or water,how would you stop the breakdown of peptide bonds known as HYDROLYSIS?

7.How do evolutionists posit the origin of the genome code?life is a code.its a abstract message.

8.the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen.adeninine is neccassery for even the simplest forms of life.


8.How do Evolutionists Explain the multiple finds of intact cells and DNA in Dinosaur bones?DNA denigrates in a couple of hundred years.over thousands of years,its completely gone.


9.why do 99% of earth/universe dating methods point to a Young earth less than a 100,000 years old?





10,why when you date the mutation rates of mitochondrial eve,it points to her exisiting 6000 years ago?

[monfret]

GENETIC ENTROPY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLG7hMJK1UU


FINAL BIG NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF EVOLUTION


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY98io7JH-c

Mutation and natural selection lead to a loss of information over time in the human genome. Why the real nature of DNA and mutation points to a young human race and refutes Neo-Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory.

[monfret]

http://www.geneticentropy.org/

https://creation.com/time-no-friend-of-evolution

https://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in- crisis

https://creation.com/genetic-entropy

https://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-simple-organisms

[monfret]

http://www.geneticentropy.org/

https://creation.com/time-no-friend-of-evolution

https://creation.com/from-ape-to-man-via-genetic-meltdown-a-theory-in- crisis

https://creation.com/genetic-entropy

https://creation.com/genetic-entropy-and-simple-organisms

[Linebacker]

Your article did not post studies or statistics like the conservopedia article.it even admitted religion is growing in the Third World lmao.only the Westernized world is having a atheist surge. latin america is becoming pentecostal.africa catholic.asia evangelical etc eastern europe is having a christian revival.the youth are more religious than the old folks.

Because the Third World is some of the most devolved and backwards place on earth,averaging 70-80 in IQ scores.

The Westernized world is having an Atheist growth spree because of the higher quality of Human development and education.The more intelligent a person is,the less predisposed he is to be manipulated and indoctrinated with religion,extreme political views,sectism.

[monfret]

Because the Third World is some of the most devolved and backwards place on earth,averaging 70-80 in IQ scores.

The Westernized world is having an Atheist growth spree because of the higher quality of Human development and education.The more intelligent a person is,the less predisposed he is to be manipulated and indoctrinated with religion,extreme political views,sectism.

So why is china christianizing..................You can´t dismiss this just by saying´´oh theyre just all dumb´´.the lies of Evolution are taught in the west where alternative and competing evidence´´Creation Science´´' is banned by law.children cannot decide for themselves so are indoctrinated.same reason atheism surged in the USSR.

[monfret]

creation science is banned from school curriculum in the west so children get a one sided false view of science wich leads to atheism.

[Linebacker]

So why is china christianizing..................You can´t dismiss this just by saying´´oh theyre just all dumb´´.the lies of Evolution are taught in the west where alternative and competing evidence´´Creation Science´´' is banned by law.children cannot decide for themselves so are indoctrinated.same reason atheism surged in the USSR.

They are not.

Christianity is about 2% in China.

80% of Chinese are irreligious.(over a billion people)

These are real statistics.

[Luca]

How do Atheists explain :

1.Genetic entropy.This pretty much destroys Evolutionism and Old earth claims.species degenerate with each generation,if we were as old as atheists claim we would be extinct a long long long time ago.

2.How did Sex evolve?I didn't ask ''why''I asked How.How did two sexes simultenouesly evolve of a new species?how did they find each other?For evolution to be true, every animal had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going .this is pretty much common sence.

3.There has never been a documented case of a beneficial mutation,ALL mutations are harmfull,some are beneficial as a side effect of a greater harm.for example a Beetle that loses its wing due to heavy winds,but now its liable to being prey.

4.Fine tuning.why is the earth fine tuned for life?I didn't as why the universe isn't fine tuned for life because the Bible has a Geocentric theology.

5.How do evolutionist atheistcels explain Irreducible complexity and molecular machines?

6.I have never and will never meet a atheist that is scientifically literate.To Blindly accept Chemical Evolution when this is chemically impossible is absurd,and they're teaching this stuff to our kids.

for life to have evolved:

Homochirality has to be perfect.all sugars must be a certain handedness,and all amino acids a crtain handedness.however both the elements cause racemization and in experiments all sugars and smino acids are racemized.its literally chemically impossible to create Homochiral sugars or acids randomly.THIS IS KNOWN AS THE RACEMIZATION PROBLEM.

sugars and amino acids destroy each other upon contacting each other.both are neccassery for a cell to exist and function.How did the cell evolve its complex timing and release to avoid such destruction?a CELL CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT SUGARS AND AMINOACIDS,HOW DID A CELL FORM WITH NUNFUNCTIONAL GOO CREATED BY THE CONTACT OF THESE TWO COMPOUNDS .ANSWER THE QUESTION

How did aminoacids and proteins evolve in a oxygen environment?oxygen inhibits their creation and function.the failed Uri Miller experiments had to inhibit oxygen.

How did aminoacids and proteins evolve in a oxygenless environment?without Ozone you have destruction caused by UV.

What about the Polymerization problem?If we evolved in a soup or water,how would you stop the breakdown of peptide bonds known as HYDROLYSIS?

7.How do evolutionists posit the origin of the genome code?life is a code.its a abstract message.

8.the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen.adeninine is neccassery for even the simplest forms of life.


8.How do Evolutionists Explain the multiple finds of intact cells and DNA in Dinosaur bones?DNA denigrates in a couple of hundred years.over thousands of years,its completely gone.


9.why do 99% of earth/universe dating methods point to a Young earth less than a 100,000 years old?





10,why when you date the mutation rates of mitochondrial eve,it points to her exisiting 6000 years ago?

1. genetic entropy. That is why we have sexual organs "Genetic Entropy is the theory that genetic mutations are accumulating to an eventual extinction of all species. The theory was originally proposed by Joseph Muller in 1932 and named Muller's Ratchet[1], he imagined it as a means by which selection forced asexual populations to evolve sexual reproduction."-http://creationwiki.org/Genetic_entropy

2. I don't know really. I admit that i don't know how sexual organs evolved. But if we look at snails, and other hermaphrodites, we can see that sexual reproduction using clear males and females may come from that. But that is just a guess.

3. after some digging I found this example of beneficial evolution. These tibetan people produce different blood, in order to live better in the high mountains : http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/101001_altitude

4. The earth is fine tuned for life? Sadly that is not the case... Many people die every day because of animals/natural catastrophies. Actually, every day is just a struggle to survive for most people :(

5. I dont know that irreduceable complexity, but I assume evolution would do the trick maybe? The most efficient thing survives after all?

6. Dude, I am no atheist, neither am I scientifically literate haha. Are you? Well, I assume there are many literate atheists, just like there are many literate religious folk.

Hm, I do not have timer to answer the rest of the questions. But I have a question for you, ok? Why do you think that evolution cannot exist, when there is a god? Why should a god not want his creations to grow and flourish in whatever conditions they live in.
Didn't God/Allah create men after HIS IMAGE? Well, if that is so, then it would only make sense if his creations can live everywhere, but would need to adapt for that environment first, because they are not really gods. This adaptiation would be evolution then.

[monfret]

1. genetic entropy. That is why we have sexual organs "Genetic Entropy is the theory that genetic mutations are accumulating to an eventual extinction of all species. The theory was originally proposed by Joseph Muller in 1932 and named Muller's Ratchet[1], he imagined it as a means by which selection forced asexual populations to evolve sexual reproduction."-http://creationwiki.org/Genetic_entropy

2. I don't know really. I admit that i don't know how sexual organs evolved. But if we look at snails, and other hermaphrodites, we can see that sexual reproduction using clear males and females may come from that. But that is just a guess.

3. after some digging I found this example of beneficial evolution. These tibetan people produce different blood, in order to live better in the high mountains : http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/101001_altitude

4. The earth is fine tuned for life? Sadly that is not the case... Many people die every day because of animals/natural catastrophies. Actually, every day is just a struggle to survive for most people :(

5. I dont know that irreduceable complexity, but I assume evolution would do the trick maybe? The most efficient thing survives after all?

6. Dude, I am no atheist, neither am I scientifically literate haha. Are you? Well, I assume there are many literate atheists, just like there are many literate religious folk.

Hm, I do not have timer to answer the rest of the questions. But I have a question for you, ok? Why do you think that evolution cannot exist, when there is a god? Why should a god not want his creations to grow and flourish in whatever conditions they live in.
Didn't God/Allah create men after HIS IMAGE? Well, if that is so, then it would only make sense if his creations can live everywhere, but would need to adapt for that environment first, because they are not really gods. This adaptiation would be evolution then.

Microevolution exists,macroevolution doesn´t and never has been observed.


there are beneficial mutations in the sence of turn on or off certain existing genes.not copying errors.



also adding genetic data has never been observed.

[Sokoli]

How do Atheists explain :

6.I have never and will never meet a atheist that is scientifically literate.To Blindly accept Chemical Evolution when this is chemically impossible is absurd,and they're teaching this stuff to our kids.

A fighter jet can fly higher and faster than any God-created bird. So in the competition of creating flying creatures, we have surpassed God. Not only that, but our creations are products of a finite number of simple steps: heating materials, mixing them, pressing them, exposing to magnetic fields, etc. There's no magic in our recipes, and yet, the final products are better than God's creations.

All the ingredients that it takes to create a fighter jet are found in the lifeless Nature. And all forces needed to transform them are part of Nature too. So a fighter jet is a product of Nature. Nothing outside of Nature is required to create them. But instead of waiting zillions of years that randomness comes up with the right combination, we drive the processes ourselves using learned recipes.

There's only one thing we haven't surpassed yet: natural intelligence. But it won't take long before artificial intelligence surpasses that too.

[Luca]

Microevolution exists,macroevolution doesn´t and never has been observed.


there are beneficial mutations in the sence of turn on or off certain existing genes.not copying errors.



also adding genetic data has never been observed.

Arent many small changes = one big change?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

This.....anyone with a basic working knowledge of chemistry cannot believe in chemical evolution.

Aren't you the guy who declared he was Roman Catholic and argued for its validity but then no more than a week later declared he was an Orthodox Christian and attacked the Catholic Church for being false?

[Herr Abubu]

A fighter jet can fly higher and faster than any God-created bird. So in the competition of creating flying creatures, we have surpassed God. Not only that, but our creations are products of a finite number of simple steps: heating materials, mixing them, pressing them, exposing to magnetic fields, etc. There's no magic in our recipes, and yet, the final products are better than God's creations.

All the ingredients that it takes to create a fighter jet are found in the lifeless Nature. And all forces needed to transform them are part of Nature too. So a fighter jet is a product of Nature. Nothing outside of Nature is required to create them. But instead of waiting zillions of years that randomness comes up with the right combination, we drive the processes ourselves using learned recipes.

There's only one thing we haven't surpassed yet: natural intelligence. But it won't take long before artificial intelligence surpasses that too.

Very faulty reasoning. A lion could never outrun a cheetah—doesn't mean one is inferior and the other is superior, simply that one is faster than the other. Since the argument also assumes that God exists, the argument is completely inconsistent seeing as the making of a fighter jet would only possible if God allowed it. Typical neo-Gnostic idiocy.

[Oneeye]

Alright buddy,

I am an atheist.. one that sees value in people congregating and sharing in "spiritual" and moral values on a weekly basis. And find many online atheists to be insufferable leftist or libertarian twats, but this shit annoys me like no other.



How do Atheists explain :

1.Genetic entropy.This pretty much destroys Evolutionism and Old earth claims.species degenerate with each generation,if we were as old as atheists claim we would be extinct a long long long time ago.



Sexual (as opposed to the older form, asexual) reproduction helps with that. It helps with DNA repair from meiosis and hybrid vigor from heterosis. BTW, species do not "degenerate" with each generation. It would take thousands of generations in an unchanging environment in a small gene pool to have noticeable effect for that species.


And since environmental demands do regularly change, many mutations can be beneficial. Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is an example.

Furthermore, Drake's Rule is that the size of a genome is inversely correlated with mutation rate. Mammals, including humans, have billions of base pairs in our genomes.

It is absurd to believe we would have "gone extinct" from our genome generations ago.




2.How did Sex evolve?I didn't ask ''why''I asked How.How did two sexes simultenouesly evolve of a new species?how did they find each other?For evolution to be true, every animal had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going .this is pretty much common sence.



Genetics, my good friend. What we call the "sex chromosomes" are in fact the reason for it. The y chromosome is so much smaller than the x, that when it is paired with an x, it results in a great difference from when two matching x chromosomes are paired. (Y and x result in most of the x chromosome being left unpaired) Being male is a mutation. ;)

I'll use the the beginning of the development of sexual reproduction for that tired "irreducible" argument you're going to surely ask later.





3.There has never been a documented case of a beneficial mutation,ALL mutations are harmfull,some are beneficial as a side effect of a greater harm.for example a Beetle that loses its wing due to heavy winds,but now its liable to being prey.



There are mutations that can be advantageous for a new environment without reducing competitiveness in the old.

Nonetheless, in the case of that beatle, the wind was a bigger threat than predators, and it is able to thrive better as a crawling species than flying. If not, the flying beatles without that mutation will outperform them. If both are able to thrive, then that is an example of the diversification of life. :D




4.Fine tuning.why is the earth fine tuned for life?I didn't as why the universe isn't fine tuned for life because the Bible has a Geocentric theology.



We're not at the center of the solar system, we're not at the center of our galaxy, we're not at the center of our universe. We're moving, in our solar system orbiting the sun, in our galaxy our solar system orbiting a black hole, in an expanding universe.

We're not fine tuned and we wouldn't be living if we were literally geocentric.




5.How do evolutionist atheistcels explain Irreducible complexity and molecular machines?


In the case of sexual reproduction, it is such an old and advantageous evolutionary trait, that it spans microorganism, plants, and animals. There is much advantage in mixing genes and the resulting competition to mix them. Asexual reproduction did not need to be discarded before sexual reproduction came to be, but it became so prominent that future species of all kinds became reliant on it to propagate.


To dumb it down for you: We got by on much less long ago, and have became dependent on things from their superior benefits after they have been proven.




6.I have never and will never meet a atheist that is scientifically literate.To Blindly accept Chemical Evolution when this is chemically impossible is absurd,and they're teaching this stuff to our kids.


I'm going to interject right here: It's easy go through an encylopedia and basically shout a few terms demanding a detailed response arguing against your misconception of it. You're wanting to race where you do one lap while your strawman atheist does a 1600m.


Also, chemical evolution is a funny term. It refers to the most common elements forming with carbon resulting in organic molecules. The atomic structure of carbon allows for a vast number of different molecules to be formed, woth not only the number of molecules, but the resulting shape having an effect on its properties. It is not impossible.




for life to have evolved:

Homochirality has to be perfect.all sugars must be a certain handedness,and all amino acids a crtain handedness.however both the elements cause racemization and in experiments all sugars and smino acids are racemized.its literally chemically impossible to create Homochiral sugars or acids randomly.THIS IS KNOWN AS THE RACEMIZATION PROBLEM.


sugars and amino acids destroy each other upon contacting each other.both are neccassery for a cell to exist and function.How did the cell evolve its complex timing and release to avoid such destruction?a CELL CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT SUGARS AND AMINOACIDS,HOW DID A CELL FORM WITH NUNFUNCTIONAL GOO CREATED BY THE CONTACT OF THESE TWO COMPOUNDS .ANSWER THE QUESTION

How did aminoacids and proteins evolve in a oxygen environment?oxygen inhibits their creation and function.the failed Uri Miller experiments had to inhibit oxygen.

How did aminoacids and proteins evolve in a oxygenless environment?without Ozone you have destruction caused by UV.

What about the Polymerization problem?If we evolved in a soup or water,how would you stop the breakdown of peptide bonds known as HYDROLYSIS?[/U][/B]





What elements? Sacharrides and amino acids? You're talking about molecules. If you're going to preemptively suggest I'm scientifically illiterate, then learn the damned difference first. Every kid learns that in chemistry, dunce.


I'm not going to take the time to research and argue over racemate if you can't even tell the difference between elements and organic compounds. It would be pearls before swine. You're arguing well above your own comprehension.





7.How do evolutionists posit the origin of the genome code?life is a code.its a abstract message.


It's a code that all life has, that we share 98% of with other primates, and that we share 50% of with bananas. We're all related, and it points to a common origin of which we all came from.

That's all the argument evolution requires.




8.the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen.adeninine is neccassery for even the simplest forms of life.


8.How do Evolutionists Explain the multiple finds of intact cells and DNA in Dinosaur bones?DNA denigrates in a couple of hundred years.over thousands of years,its completely gone.




Obviously not.

Why do you have two number eights? Was trying to make sense of someone else's argument over primordial soup too fatiguing to catch it?





9.why do 99% of earth/universe dating methods point to a Young earth less than a 100,000 years old?





Source? I feel foolish for giving more detailed answers above. This is wildly inaccurate.




10,why when you date the mutation rates of mitochondrial eve,it points to her exisiting 6000 years ago?


Bullshit.


(I'm removing your underscoring woth bolds so it doesn't affect my responses. I am using my cell phone for this response, and don't care enough to preserve such a pointless nuance when it would make my own writing such an eyesore or require adding brackets)

[Chev Chelios]

Since when did Atheism become a religion?

[Black Panther]

Listen religion subhuman,whatever false and disingenuous articles you find on lowly rat places such as conservativepedia (lmao) the real statistics by the real organizations show atheism as the fastest growing belief in the world.

And the thing about atheism is it doesent need birth rates to grow,atheism is growing from religion itself,the smarter ones with actual human potential who can see through the lies and the fairytale,and the greed,corruption and power lust that goes behind the scenes of religion.

Corrupt,hypocrite and disgusting religious people make atheists

Couldn't have said it better.

[Oneeye]

This is a good read on homochirality.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857173/#!po=12.1053




The Origin of Biological Homochirality

Donna G. Blackmond

Additional article information

Abstract

The single-handedness of biological molecules has fascinated scientists and laymen alike since Pasteur's first painstaking separation of the enantiomorphic crystals of a tartrate salt more than 150 yr ago. More recently, a number of theoretical and experimental investigations have helped to delineate models for how one enantiomer might have come to dominate over the other from what presumably was a racemic prebiotic world. This article highlights mechanisms for enantioenrichment that include either chemical or physical processes, or a combination of both. The scientific driving force for this work arises from an interest in understanding the origin of life, because the homochirality of biological molecules is a signature of life.

INTRODUCTION

Homochirality as a Signature of Life

For centuries, symmetry concepts have fascinated scientists as well as artists, mathematicians and writers, laymen and children. The property of chirality—nonsuperimposable forms that are mirror images of one another, as are left and right hands—is manifest in both molecular and macroscopic objects As early as 1874, and a quarter century after Pasteur showed that salts of tartaric acid exist as mirror image crystals, van't Hoff and Le Bel independently postulated the existence of chiral molecules (Heilbronner and Dunitz 1993) (Fig.1). Chirality held Alice's attention as she pondered the macroscopic world she glimpsed through the looking glass, and her musings over whether looking-glass milk would be good to drink presaged our quest to understand the molecular importance of chirality.

Figure 1.

The two mirror-image enantiomers of the amino acid alanine.

The two forms of a chiral molecule, called enantiomers, have identical physical and chemical properties, but they manner in which each interacts with other chiral molecules may be different, just as a left hand interacts differently with left- and right-hand gloves. Chiral molecules in living organisms in Nature exist almost exclusively as single enantiomers, a property that is critical for molecular recognition and replication processes and would thus seem to be a prerequisite for the origin of life. Yet left and right-handed molecules of a compound will form in equal amounts (a racemic mixture) when we synthesize them in the laboratory in the absence of some type of directing template.

The fact of the single chirality of biological molecules—exclusively left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars—presents us with two questions: First, what served as the original template for biasing production of one enantiomer over the other in the chemically austere, and presumably racemic, environment of the prebiotic world? And second, how was this bias sustained and propagated to give us the biological world of single chirality that surrounds us?

Short of constructing a Time Machine, we have no way of elucidating precisely the chain of events that led to life on earth today. What we may do instead is highlight the modern experimental and theoretical work that has attempted to probe these questions. After a brief discussion of the first question, this review focuses primarily on the second of the two questions raised earlier: the discussion of plausible mechanisms for the evolution of molecular homochirality as exemplified by thed-sugars andl-amino acids found in living organisms today.

BACKGROUND

How It All Got Started: Chance versus Determinism

“Symmetry breaking” is the term used to describe the occurrence of an imbalance between left and right enantiomeric molecules. This imbalance is traditionally measured in terms of theenantiomeric excess, or ee, where ee = (R−S)/(R+S) andRandSare concentrations of the right and left hand molecules, respectively. Proposals for how an imbalance might have come about may be classified as either terrestrial or extraterrestrial, and then subdivided into either random or deterministic (sometimes called “de facto” and “de lege” respectively). Evidence of small enantiomeric excesses in amino acids found in chondritic meteor deposits (Pizzarello 2006) (seeZahnle et al. 2010) allows the hypothesis that the initial imbalance is not of our world (although it begs the question of where and how it did originate). Discussions of how an imbalance could have originated here on earth often debate the question of whether life was preordained to be based ond-sugars andl-amino acids or whether this happened by chance, implying that a life form based on the opposite chirality might have been just as likely at the outset. Here, physics enters the picture: the discovery of parity violation and the elaboration of one of its consequences, that the two enantiomers have a very small energy difference between them, led many to consider the implications for biological homochirality (Quack 2002). Quantitative estimates of this energy difference have been made and revised in the intervening years, but it is clear that it is very, very small; whereas experimental and theoretical work is ongoing, and the question is not yet settled, a relationship between biological homochirality and parity violation is not yet supported by experimental findings.

Proponents on the “chance” side of this question point out that absolute asymmetric synthesis—defined as the production of enantiomerically enriched products in the absence of a chemical or physical chiral directing force—could occur stochastically (Mislow 2003). A trivial example is that any collection of an odd number of enantiomeric molecules has, by definition, broken symmetry. Fluctuations in the physical and chemical environment could result in transient fluctuations in the relative numbers of left- and right-handed molecules. However, any small imbalance created in this way should average out as the racemic state unless some process intervenes to sustain and amplify it. Thus, whether or not the imbalance in enantiomers came about by chance, arising on earth or elsewhere, an amplification mechanism remains the key to increasing enantiomeric excess and ultimately to approaching the homochiral state. A description of mechanisms for how this imbalance might be amplified is the main subject of this review.

Amplifying the Imbalance

Theoretical models for how a small initial imbalance in enantiomer concentrations might ultimately be turned into the subsequent production of a single enantiomer have been discussed for more than half a century (Frank 1953;Calvin 1969), but only more recently have experimental studies begun to address this question directly. In the past two decades several distinct models with strikingly different features have emerged, leading to the comment that scientists are now “spoilt for choice” (Ball 2007) among possible explanations for how one enantiomer came to dominate over the other in biological molecules. These models draw on both the chemical and the physical behavior of chiral molecules, and they may be classified according to their relative emphasis on kinetics vs. thermodynamics of the processes involved. “Far-from-equilibrium” models involving autocatalytic chemical reactions or crystallization processes lie at one end of the spectrum. At the other end, a model based on equilibrium phase behavior proposes a physical explanation. And in between lies a model that invokes an interplay between thermodynamics and kinetics to explain how a combination of physical and chemical processes can drive a system of near-equal numbers of enantiomeric molecules to the left or to the right.

CHEMICAL MODELS

Homochirality via Autocatalysis

More than 60 yr ago, Frank developed a mathematical model for an autocatalytic reaction mechanism for the evolution of homochirality. The model is based on a simple idea: a substance that acts as a catalyst in its own self-production and at the same time acts to suppress synthesis of its enantiomer enables the evolution of enantiopure molecules from a near-racemic mixture. The experimental challenge to discover a reaction with these features was posed in the last sentence of this purely theoretical paper: “A laboratory demonstration may not be impossible” (Frank 1953;Wynberg 1989).

Mutual Antagonism

Frank's proposal serves to highlight the critical role played by an inhibition mechanism in autocatalytic models for the evolution of homochirality.Figure2illustrates this point using an example of a small group of l and d enantiomers that act as autocatalysts in an unlimited pool of substrate molecules. Each enantiomer is capable of reproducing itself in a reaction with a substrate molecule. In addition, there is “mutual antagonism” between l and d such that when they react together, both become deactivated and lose their capacity to self-replicate. The original pool shown inFigure2has an imbalance of one extralmolecule compared with the total number ofdmolecules, or 3:2 for this simple example. Let's say that one l and one d meet by chance and deactivate, whereas the remaining molecules feed on the pool of substrate and reproduce themselves. The active pool of enantiomers has now become 4:2. When these same processes repeat, the active pool becomes 6:2, then, then 10:2, and so on. Oneland onedenantiomer are paired off in each mutual antagonism event, and hence the self-production of enantiomers will cause the ratio ofl:dto grow as long as an initial imbalance was present at the beginning of the process. Together, autocatalysis and mutual antagonism propagate and amplify the imbalance in enantiomers. The only catch is that the smaller the initial imbalance, the greater the number oflanddmolecules lost in the deactivation process before significant enantioenrichment can occur. If the substrate pool is large enough, however, productivity can remain high, and the selectivity of autocatalytic production of one enantiomer will eventually dominate.

Figure 2.

Schematic representation of the Frank model for the evolution of homochirality based on autocatalytic replication and mutual antagonism of enantiomers.

Proof of Concept

This model might be considered trivial, and no experimental system is known to follow the process inFigure2. But Frank's understated exhortation to experimental chemists to discover an autocatalytic reaction with these key features captivated several generations of chemists. More than forty years later, the first experimental proof of this concept was found when Soai and coworkers reported the autocatalytic alkylation of pyrimidyl aldehydes with dialkylzincs (Soai et al. 1995) (Scheme 1), in which the reaction rate is accelerated by addition of catalytic amounts of its alcohol product. In addition, and most strikingly, this reaction was shown to yield the autocatalytic product in very high enantiomeric excess starting from a very low enantiomeric excess in the original catalyst.

Scheme 1.

The Soai autocatalytic reaction, in which the product catalyzes its own formation. The –CH3group in the pyrimidyl aldehyde may be replaced with other groups such as alkynyl groups.

Since this initial discovery, Soai's group has gone on to present remarkable further observations of asymmetric amplification in the reaction that now bears his name. Enantiomeric excesses as high as 85% were reported for a reaction initiated with an initiator produced at 0.1% ee from exposure to circularly polarized light (Shibata et al. 1998). Asymmetric amplification has also been observed for the reaction initiated by inorganic chiral materials such as quartz (Soai et al. 1999). Most recently Soai has shown that the reaction may be selectively triggered solely by the minute mirror-image difference provided by12C/13C carbon isotope chirality of an initiator molecule (Kawasaki et al. 2009), demonstrating that the reaction needs only an extremely small nudge to direct it consistently to the left or to the right.

Mechanistic Corroboration of the Frank Model

Soai's observations continued to amaze and confound the community for several years before the first mechanistic rationalization of the reaction was reported by Blackmond and Brown in 2001 (Blackmond et al. 2001). A kinetic model was developed based on highly accurate in-situ measurements of the reaction's progress. What's more, the kinetic model independently predicted both the temporal degree of asymmetric amplification, confirmed by compositional analysis, as well as the relative concentrations of the catalyst species, confirmed by NMR spectroscopy.Figure3shows how the kinetic model compares with experimental data for asymmetric amplification in the Soai reaction performed with two different initial catalyst ee values. This work showed that the Soai reaction couples autocatalysis with a form of “mutual antagonism,” thus evoking the main features of the Frank model, albeit in a more sophisticated chemical scenario.

Figure 3.

Product enantiomeric excess as a function of reaction progress in the Soai reaction ofScheme 1. Reactions catalyzed by 10 mol% of the reaction product with an initial ee of 6% and 22% (Buono and Blackond, 2003). Prediction of the Blackmond/Brown kinetic...

The Blackmond/Brown model rationalizes asymmetric amplification in the autocatalytic Soai reaction based on an extension of Kagan's model for nonlinear effects in catalytic reactions (Girard and Kagan 1998), that is, cases in which the reaction product ee does not scale linearly with the catalyst ee. Such behavior may ensue when the catalyst molecules aggregate to form higher order species. The ML2model describes the formation of homochiral (RRandSS, Eqs.1and2) and heterochiral (SR, Eq.3) dimers from monomericRandSmolecules. The relative concentration of these dimers depends on an equilibrium constant, KD(Eq.4).

1

2

3

4

Kagan's model proposes that the two homochiral dimers act as enantiomeric catalysts, giving opposite product ee values with identical rate constants, whereas the heterochiral dimer catalyst produces racemic product and may show a rate constant different from that of the homochiral dimer catalysts. Some degree of asymmetric amplification will result for any system in which the heterochiral dimer catalyst is less active than its homochiral counterparts. A value ofKD= 4 indicates a stochastic or nonselective distribution of dimers, and larger values of KDskew the distribution toward a preference for the heterochiral species.

The upper limit attainable of ee amplification attainable in a catalytic reaction following this model occurs for when the heterochiral dimer is inactive and is dictated by the magnitude ofKD: thus for a 1% ee catalyst showing a stochastic distribution of dimers, the maximum amplification in the product ee is only twofold, to ca. 2% ee. Stronger amplification of ee may be realized only by creating a specific stereochemical bias toward a stable, inactive heterochiral dimer, that is, for systems showing KDvalues that are significantly higher than that for a stochastic distribution. For example, a 1% ee catalyst would require aKDvalue a million-fold higher than the stochastic distribution to approach a perfectly enantioselective reaction.

Selection Without Bias

Although this model provides a means for asymmetric amplification, it presents a quandary for the prebiotic evolution of homochirality. Today we can construct a strong bias in modern asymmetric catalysts to provide a highKDvalue by drawing on the extensive natural chiral pool of molecules for complex building blocks, but this resource would not have been available to prebiotic molecules. The simple chiral molecules present in the prebiotic soup would not necessarily be expected to form dimers with highly unequal homo/heterochiral stabilities. How could asymmetric autocatalysts have achieved the strong stereochemical bias in dimer formation presumably needed to ensure strong asymmetric amplification?

The simple answer is that they didn't! The basic finding of Blackmond and Brown's studies is that the Soai reactionRandSproducts form astochasticdistribution of homochiral and heterochiral dimers, with essentially no stereochemical bias between the dimers (KD= 4), and that the heterochiral dimer is inactive as a catalyst. The key to how this allows an approach to homochirality is provided by consideration of basic differences among catalytic reactions, which accelerate the formation of a species that is not the same as the catalyst, and autocatalytic reactions, in which the catalyst accelerates its own formation. Because the catalyst produces more of itself in autocatalysis, and because mutual antagonism allows the minor enantiomer to be siphoned off as an inactive heterochiral dimer (serving the role of “mutual antagonism” in the Frank model), the relative concentrations of the two enantiomers is not fixed at its initial value, as it is in a static catalytic system. Instead, in an autocatalytic system following this dimer model, catalyst concentration increases, and relative concentration of the two homochiral dimers changes, with reaction turnover. The ultimate product enantiomeric excess that may be achieved in such an autocatalytic reaction is limited only by the size of the substrate pool, not by the magnitude ofKD. Returning to our example of catalyst 1% ee withKD= 4, comparison with an autocatalyst with identical initial ee andKDshows that the autocatalytic system approaches homochirality after just 5000 cycles; strong robustness trumps mild intrinsic selectivity. Amplification of ee in autocatalysis requiresnotsophisticated stereoselection butonlyhigher activity for the homochiral dimers, repeated over many autocatalytic cycles.

Homochirality: Chance Aided by Luck

Thus the dimer model provides an elegant and simple solution to one mystery of the evolution of homochirality (Blackmond 2006). If, as in the Soai reaction, the relative dimer reactivities happen to give the edge to the homochiral species, amplification, and ultimately homochirality, is ensured even for nonselective dimer formation. Statistics (stochastic dimer formation) and one stroke of luck (lower activity of the heterochiral dimer) are sufficient prerequisites to account for the evolution of our homochiral world today.

PHYSICAL MODELS

Kinetics versus Thermodynamics

The Soai autocatalytic reaction is essentially irreversible under the conditions used; the reaction proceeds faster as more product (catalyst!) is formed, as long as it continues to receive the nutrients it requires. In the time scale of the laboratory, the system never approaches the equilibrium state that would allow the reverse reactions to participate and ultimately erode selectivity. Analogous “far-from-equilibrium” processes showing amplified enantioselectivity as described earlier for the Soai reaction have been observed in physical processes such as the crystallization of molecules that form chiral solids. In these cases, kinetics must win out over thermodynamics in order for homochirality to evolve. The interconnection between kinetics and thermodynamics is addressed further in our consideration of two additional models for homochirality invoking the physical phase behavior of chiral solids in equilibrium with their solution phase molecules. An intrinsic feature of both of these models is the dominant role of the equilibrium condition, in contrast to the “far from equilibrium” cases invoking either chemical reactions and crystallization processes discussed earlier. These phase behavior models are underpinned by the fundamental concepts of the Gibbs Phase Rule as articulated by ternary phase diagrams ofl+d+ solvent.

Phase Behavior of Chiral Solids

Before discussing these two models in detail, it is instructive to review the types of solution-solid behavior commonly found for enantiomeric molecules such as amino acids (Jacques et al. 1994). Chiral compounds crystallize most commonly in one of two forms: (a) as aracemic compound, in which crystals contain a 1:1 ratio ofd:lmolecules; or (b) as aconglomerate, in which each crystal is comprised of molecules of a single enantiomer, and the crystals themselves are mirror images (as were those Pasteur separated with his tweezers), and there is no direct molecular interaction betweendandlmolecules. These types of compounds are illustrated schematically inFigure4. The type of crystal a chiral molecule forms in the solid phase is a fundamental property of that molecule at a given temperature and pressure. Racemic compounds are more prevalent than conglomerates by ca. 10:1 on planet Earth, including all but two of the 19 proteinogenic amino acids that are chiral (the twentieth, glycine, is an achiral molecule).

Figure 4.

Two types of crystalline solids formed by chiral compounds. Rectangles represent solid phase enantiomeric molecules. (A) conglomerates form separate crystals of each enantiomer; (B) racemic compounds form mixed crystals in a 1:1 ratio of the two enantiomers....

Eutectic Composition

When unequal numbers of molecules that form either type of crystal solid are partially dissolved in water, the Gibbs phase rule teaches us that the solution composition at equilibrium is fixed at what is called the “eutectic composition.” One interesting contrasting feature of the two types of compounds is that for conglomerates, this solution contains equal numbers ofdandlmolecules, giving a eutectic eeeut= 0, whereas racemic compounds will show a nonzero eeeut. This is easily rationalized by considering the solubility characteristics of each type of compound.

Conglomerates

Because the separatedandlcrystals of a conglomerate are enantiomeric, they have identical properties, including solubility. A saturated solution ofdcrystals thus has the same solution concentration as does a saturated solution oflcrystals. If a mixture ofdandlcrystals is allowed to equilibrate together, each enantiomorphic solid shows its own (identical) solubility independently, and the solution phase at equilibrium will contain equal numbers of ofdandlmolecules, and twice as many in total as for either system separately (Meyerhoffer 1904) This remains true even if the system contains an unequal number ofdandlmolecules in total, as shown inFigure5A.

Figure 5.

Depiction of equilibrium between chiral crystalline solids and their aqueous solution phases for nonracemic mixtures of enantiomers. Rectangles represent solid phase enantiomeric molecules; colored letters represent solution phase molecules in equilibrium...

Racemic Compounds

The equilibrium phase behavior for a species forming a racemic compound is more complex. For the case of an unequal total number ofdandlmolecules, mixed 1:1d:lcrystals form preferentially, pairing up with all of the minor enantiomer in the solid phase, and any molecules of the excess enantiomer remaining in the solid phase form homochiral crystals, as shown inFigure5B. Thus at equilibrium this system will contain two separate solid phases, one enantiopure, and one racemic, along with the solution phase. Thed:lmixed solid contributes equal numbers ofdandlmolecules to the solution according to its characteristic solubility, and the enantiopure solid does the same with its one enantiomer, according to its solubility. The solution composition at equilibrium will depend on the relative solubilities of the pure and mixed crystals, with the result that the solution will show a eutectic ee value somewhere between 0 and 100% (Fig.5B). This value is a characteristic of the particular chiral compound and is not known a priori.

Enantiomer Partitioning

In both cases, asFigure5shows, conglomerates and racemic compounds present in a nonracemic composition in equilibrium with a solvent show a partitioning of enantiomers between the solution and solid phases that is dictated by the characteristics of the type of solid formed. Solution ee does not equal solid phase ee, and neither value will be the same as the overall ee. The models discussed later make use of this concept of phase partitioning in different ways to provide enantioenrichment in either the solid phase or the solution phase.Figure5suggests that solution phase enantioenrichment might be the goal when racemic compounds are considered, whereas a mechanism for solid phase enantioenrichment might make more sense for conglomerates. This is exactly what has been found, as the sections later describe.

PHASE BEHAVIOR I

“Eve Crystal” Model for Conglomerates

It has been known for more than one hundred years that certain achiral molecules such as NaClO3crystallize as chiral solids. Work from the late 19th century noted that these crystallizations often resulted in a formation of two separate chiral solid phases (Kipping and Pope 1898). Most often, equal amounts of left and right-handed crystals are formed, but under some conditions the system breaks symmetry during the crystallization. The most striking example of this phenomenon was reported nearly two decades ago by Kondepudi (Kondepudi et al. 1990) who showed that when the crystallization process was accompanied by rapid stirring, crystals of single chirality could be formed, randomly left-handed or right-handed in repeated experiments. This was rationalized by considering the dynamics of crystallization: formation of the first crystals (primary nucleation) from a homogeneous supersaturated solution is slower than the process of crystal growth by adding molecules to crystals already formed (secondary nucleation). Under rapid stirring, the first crystal formed, or “Eve” crystal, may be broken by shear into thousands of smaller crystals of the same chiral form. These “daughter” crystals then grow rapidly by drawing on solution molecules, and the solution rapidly becomes depleted. If this occurs more rapidly than formation of any new primary crystals, a single chiral solid state may result (McBride and Carter 1991) (Fig.6). This phenomenon bears resemblance to “far-from-equilibrium” autocatalytic reaction processes such as the Soai reaction discussed earlier in this article.

Figure 6.

Crystallization from supersaturated solution of achiral molecules that form mirror enantiomorphic solid crystals. (A) Without rapid stirring, equal quantities of left- and right-handed crystals are formed; (B) under rapid stirring conditions, all crystals...

PHASE BEHAVIOR II

Near Equilibrium Systems

Most recently, this NaClO3system that has fascinated scientists since van't Hoff's days was back in the news with a report byViedma (2005)of a remarkable experimental finding. Viedma's experiment is not strictly a crystallization; it starts at what would be the end of a typical crystallization performed without the rapid stirring and shear described earlier, so that the system is equilibrated with an equal number of right- and left-hand crystals of NaClO3in saturated aqueous solution, as inFigure6A. Under these conditions, no new crystals nucleate; the only processes occurring in the flask are the continual dissolution and reaccretion of NaClO3molecules to and from existing crystals, and these rates are balanced at equilibrium. No net change is expected, and that is exactly what has been found in such experiments for more than one hundred years. Viedma then added glass beads to the gently stirred vial, which enhanced the attrition of the crystals as they stirred. What he observed under these conditions is that the system evolved from equal quantities of left- and right-handed crystals to a single enantiomorphic solid. One chiral solid converted completely to the other over time, in a random fashion, sometimes to the left and sometimes to the right, with equal probability. The striking fact is that the system moved inexorably from an apparent equilibrium between two enantiomorphic solid states to a single chiral solid state, simply by virtue of the application of mechanical energy via the grinding of glass beads.

Viedma reasoned that the continual abrasion of the crystals by stirring with small glass beads enhanced both halves of the cycle of repetitive dissolution/crystallization that occurs at equilibrium. According to the Gibbs-Thomson rule, small crystals dissolve more readily than large crystals. Attrition by glass beads produces a greater number of smaller crystals, whose increased dissolution in turn causes a slight supersaturation of NaClO3in solution. Not sufficiently supersaturated to support primary nucleation, the system strives to redress the balance between solid and solution by increasing the rate of reaccretion of solution phase NaClO3onto existing crystals. A key point is that once a molecule of NaClO3dissolves from a crystal, it no longer possesses chirality and it retains no memory of the chiral form it previously showed as part of a crystal. Solution-phase NaClO3thus has no preference for re-accreting to a left- or right-handed crystal. What solution phase molecules do have, however, is a preference for adding to larger crystals over smaller ones, a phenomenon known as Ostwald ripening. If, by chance, the system contains a predominance of large crystals of one hand, solution phase NaClO3will preferentially add to these crystals, and the quantity of this enantiomorphic solid will increase relative to its mirror image form.

Chiral AMnesia

The mechanical energy imparted to the system by the enhanced attrition thus triggers an overall process that is cyclical: The action of the glass beads truncates the Ostwald ripening process, continually breaking up crystals as they attempt to grow in size. The growth of the crystals occurs in response to an increased concentration driving force created by slight supersaturation in solution, which in turn is the result of dissolution of small crystals created by the glass beads breaking up larger crystals. Evolution of solid phase homochirality in this case requires only an initial imbalance in the crystal size of left-versus right-hand crystals.

This proposed rationalization implies that the system never departs very far from equilibrium conditions and that system strives continually to restore the balance between the physical processes of dissolution and reaccretion. The key to the evolution of one chiral solid state is the ability of an achiral solution phase molecule to choose to add to either hand of its solid phase crystals. The solution phase serves as the conduit through which the molecules that form one hand of the crystal forget their solid-state chiral history and are free to choose a new solid-state chiral destiny, a process that has been given the name “chiral amnesia” (Blackmond 2007;Viedma 2007).

Extension to Chiral Molecules

These results led many to consider a possible extension of this process from the achiral NaClO3to intrinsically chiral molecules that form conglomerate solids, but this concept faces an important challenge. A chiral molecule in solution equilibrium with its two separate enantiomorphic solid phases would not have the ability to choose to add to either solid; ad-amino acid molecule may add only to ad-crystal, and anl-amino acid molecule to anl-crystal. Although this does not affect the Gibbs-Thomson and Ostwald ripening processes for dissolution and growth of crystals, conversion of crystals of one hand into the other would be frustrated without a process allowing the molecules to forget their chiral signature in solution. However, organic chemists engaged in asymmetric synthesis know well—and are often themselves frustrated by—solution reactions in which chiral molecules can be made to convert between their left and right forms, known as racemization. Long considered a bane in organic synthesis, solution-phase racemization provides the key to extending the Viedma model for homochirality to intrinsically chiral molecules, as shown schematically inFigure7. This was successfully shown recently for an amino acid derivative (Noorduin at al. 2008), for the proteinogenic amino acid aspartic acid (Viedma et al. 2008) (Scheme 2), and for a Mannich reaction product (Tsogoeva et al. 2009).

Figure 7.

“Chiral amnesia” process for the evolution of solid-phase homochirality for chiral molecules that form conglomerate solids. In this example, an initial imbalance toward largerlcrystals helps to drive the dissolution/re-accretion process...

Scheme 2.

Transformation of aspartic acid crystals from one enantiomorphic solid to the other via solution phase racemization. Mechanical or thermal energy input drives the dissolution/re-accretion process.

The studies of aspartic acid revealed that the inexorable move to one homochiral solid could be accomplished in the absence of glass beads, simply by application of thermal energy rather than mechanical energy as the means to nudge the system away from equilibrium. The crystal ee profiles lose the exponential shape they show under the grinding conditions (Fig.8), suggesting that Ostwald ripening may allow more extensive crystal growth when the energy input is thermal rather than mechanical.

Figure 8.

Evolution of solid-phase homochirality for aspartic acid via solution phase racemization. Energy input from grinding the crystals in the presence of enhanced attrition because of glass beads leads to a sigmoidal profile (filled blue circles), whereas...

PHASE BEHAVIOR III

Thermodynamic Model for Enantioenrichment

The phase properties of chiral compounds discussed earlier have been understood for more than one hundred years. More recently, a model for the origin of biological homochirality based on solution phase enantioenrichment of amino acids that form racemic compounds has been developed based on these concepts. It may be recognized fromFigure5B that in a heterogeneous mixture that contains unequal numbers of enantiopure anddandlmolecules, the minor enantiomer is present in the solution phase only to the extent that it can dissolve from thed:lcrystal. The lower the solubility of thed:lcrystals, the more strongly “trapped” in the solid phase will be the minor enantiomer, and the higher the resulting solution phase partitioning of the major enantiomer, manifested as a high eeeut. Several of the proteinogenic amino acids form relatively insolubled:lcrystals and therefore show high eutectic ee values. For example, serine's eutectic occurs at >99% ee. This means that when a sample with nearly equal numbers ofdandlserine molecules is partially dissolved, a virtually enantiopure solution results. Table1provides eutectic values for a number of amino acids (Klussmann et al. 2006).

Table1.

Eutectic ee values for a number of proteinogenic amino acids, identified by their chemical structures and their three-letter names.

Enantioenrichment in solution is thus dictated by thermodynamics for chiral compounds that happen to form relatively insoluble racemic compounds. This concept was first recognized byMorowitz (1969)40 yr ago and was more recently elaborated by Blackmond's work probing eutectic composition for a variety of amino acids and other chiral compoundsKlussmann et al. 2006), and byBreslow (Breslow and Levine 2006)who recently also reported high eutectic ee values for several nucelosides of prebiotic importance (Breslow and Cheng 2009). A recent theoretical treatment based on a two-dimensional lattice model successfully predicts the ternary phase behavior of amino acids based on the interactions that stabilize the racemic crystal, providing molecular level insight into the observed enantiomer partitioning (Lombardo et al. 2009). These studies suggest a general and facile route to homochirality that may have prebiotic relevance. Cycles of rain and evaporation establishing solid phase-solution phase equilibrium in pools containing a small initial imbalance of amino acid enantiomers could result in a solution of enantioenriched molecules that might then serve as efficient asymmetric catalysts or as building blocks themselves for construction of the complex molecules required for recognition, replication and ultimately for the chemical basis of life.

Sublime Partitioning

The phase partitioning of enantiomers that forms the basis of this model for solution phase enantioenrichment might be expected to predict other phase behavior of enantiomers (Blackmond and Klussmann 2007a). Indeed, eutectic ee values correlate with fusion temperature for a number of amino acids. In addition, reports of enantioenrichment of amino acids via sublimation of enantioimpured/lmixtures are also well correlated with the eutectic ee values for amino acids: for example, the sublimate from serine is nearly enantiopure, whereas that from threonine, which forms a conglomerate, gives 0% ee (Perry et al. 2007). Sublimate ee values of 72%–89% were observed for leucine, in accordance with it measured eutectic value of 88% ee (Fletcher et al. 2007). Enantiomer partitioning via sublimation raises tantalizing speculation about amino acids in space and an extraterrestrial origin of enantioenrichment.

Crystal Engineering for Tuning Eutectics

[Oneeye]

Crystal Engineering for Tuning Eutectics

Because eutectic ee is a characteristic property of a compound, it would appear that enantioenrichment by this approach is limited to chiral compounds such as serine that happen to show high eutectic ee values. Thermodynamics suggests that other amino acids, such as valine with eeeut= 47%, may be stuck with the hand that Nature has dealt. However, further work revealed the exciting discovery of a route to solution phase enantioenrichment that may be achieved even for chiral compounds with low intrinsic eeeutvalues. Eutectic ee composition may be “tuned” in many cases by through incorporation of a variety of small, achiral molecules into the solid phase structure of amino acid crystals via hydrogen bonding (Klussmann et al. 2007). The existence of cocrystals known as solvates or polymorphs is well known, but effects on solubility and the accompanying implications for solution phase enantioenrichment were not recognized, until Blackmond and coworkers (Klussmann et al. 2007a) showed that enhanced eutectic ee values may be obtained in a number of such cases. If the incorporated molecule reduces the solubility of the racemic crystal relative to that of the enantiopure crystal, enhanced eutectic composition will result, as shown inFigure9. For example,d:lproline incorporates CHCl3into its structure with a concomitant rise in eeeutfrom 50% to >99% ee, andd:lvaline and phenylalanine each form crystals incorporating fumaric acid; eeeutrose from 47% and 88%, respectively, to >99% in both cases. The structure of thed:lcompound of proline with chloroform is shown inFigure10. Manipulation of the eutectic composition by additives may be thought of as an analogy to clathrate compounds, although here it is the amino acid enantiomers themselves that are trapped in the solvate-racemate structure, causing them to dissolve much less readily.

Figure 9.

Manipulation of eutectic ee value by formation of a solvate that reduces the solubility of the racemic compound.

Figure 10.

Crystal structure ofldproline incorporating one molecule of chloroform. (A) five independent hydrogen bonds are shown; (B) long range structure with proline enantiomers in blue and magenta, chloroform in black (Klussmann et al. 2006).

The finding that the enantiomeric excess of an amino acid in solution may be significantly enhanced via solvate formation enables an approach to enantioenrichment for a wide range of chiral compounds. A particularly appealing feature of this model is that it is based on an equilibrium mechanism, in contrast to the far-from-equilibrium environment invoked in kinetically induced amplification via autocatalytic reactions discussed earlier. Prebiotic pools containing nearly racemic amino acids could exist over long periods of time awaiting an influx of appropriate hydrogen-bonding partner molecules to form solvates that help provide enantiopure amino acids in solutions where the chemical reactions leading to life might begin to occur (Klussmann and Blackmond 2007b).

CHALLENGES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Homochirality First?

Amino acids and sugar molecules are produced as single enantiomers in biological processes on earth today, and these molecules provide the building blocks for homochiral polymers such as peptide chains, RNA and DNA. However, it is far from certain that homochirality on the molecular level was required before nascent biopolymers began to play a role in the growing chemical complexity that led to life. This leaves open the possibility that the prebiotic molecular pool need not have been enantioenriched. It has been suggested that in competition for growth, heterochiral chains containing both enantiomers would readily give way to homochiral polymers (Wald 1957;Kuhn 1972,2007), and therefore selection of one hand of an amino acid over the other could have come with oligopeptides rather than at the molecular level (Zepk et al. 2002). However, such a scenario still needs to invoke a mechanism—either chance or deterministic—for symmetry breaking of the mirror image homochiral polymer chains that would evolve. A plausible proposal is that partial enantioenrichment could have taken place at the molecular level, but that prebiotic amino acids and sugars need not to have evolved completely to single chirality before the formation of the first biopolymer chains. The greater the pre-enrichment on the molecular level, the more efficient would be the construction of homochiral chains, but the burden of chiral selectivity might have been shared as complexity increased.

The Future for Autocatalysis

The experimental conditions of the Soai reaction preclude it from being of direct prebiotic importance, because it is unlikely that the dialkylzinc chemistry involved would thrive an aqueous, aerobic prebiotic environment. However, the reaction has been particularly instructive in helping understand how autocatalysis coupled with inhibition could lead to a homochiral state. A number of experimental aspects of the Soai autocatalytic reaction are still under study, and a number of other theoretical kinetic models have been proposed, but the Blackmond/Brown model remains the only proposal that provides an adequate rationalization of the experimental data for the Soai reaction (Blackmond 2004, 2006a). Most recently, reports by Tsogoeva (Mauksch et al. 2007) of a purely organic reaction showing similar properties of autocatalysis and amplification of ee (Scheme 3) have excited the community, because the chemistry involved is much closer to what could be prebiotically plausible. Further work to understand the mechanism of this reaction is currently underway in a number of laboratories.

Scheme 3.

Autocatalytic Mannich reaction reported by Tsogoeva.

Phase Behavior Models

Comparison of the chiral amnesia and crystal engineering phase behavior models for the origin of homochirality reveal that they are complementary in many ways: the former produces solid-phase homochirality whereas the latter provides enantioenrichment of the solution phase; the chiral amnesia model converts one enantiomer to the other, whereas the crystal engineering model simply partitions the existing molecules between phase. Chiral amnesia may be applied only to molecules that form conglomerates, which means that only about 10% of known chiral compounds are candidates for enantioenrichment by this model. On the other hand, about 85% of chiral compounds might be amenable to the selective partitioning provided by the crystal engineering model. Perhaps some combination of the two led to the initial enantioenrichment of biologically relevant molecules. Both models provide reasonable prebiotic scenarios, and further work to understand the mechanism of enantioenrichment in each case is underway.

Where Do We Go from Here?

The pathway to life may be seen as a saga of increasing chemical and physical complexity (see, for example,Hazen 2010). The modern field of “systems chemistry” (von Kiedrowski 2005) seeks to understand the chemical roots of biological organization by studying the emergence of system properties that may be different from those showed individually by the components in isolation. The implications of the single chirality of biological molecules may be viewed in this context of complexity. Whether or not we will ever know how this property developed in the living systems represented on Earth today, studies of how single chirality might have emerged will aid us in understanding the much larger question of how life might have, and might again, emerge as a complex system.

Footnotes

Editors: David Deamer and Jack W. Szostak

Additional Perspectives on The Origins of Life available at www.cshperspectives.org

[Oneeye]

A very dry read, definitely. Not that most people can even comprehend what is being talked about here. Most certainly not th5w OP. I personally wouldn't want to argue either way without having combed over it over a period of time to have an understanding of all the mechanisms mentioned. But I don't have that much free time, and in my field of science that I work in, it is unneccessary to learn about the theories of origin of life, just how it currently is.

[Trilecce]

its called desecularization.


its a combination of low atheist birthrates and the conversion of tens of millions of atheists around the world especially China ,Natural spiritual thirst in a consumerist dead society and the Triumph of Creation science and increasingely read Literature challenging Blind Faith in Neo-Darwinism and MacroEvolution.


www.conservapedia.com/Desecularization

First of all, Atheism is not a religion. It is a void of religion. And it was never meant for the masses anyway so...

[Pigling]

Screw Atheism, screw Christianity.

Paganism is way to go.

[KMack]

They are not.

Christianity is about 2% in China.

80% of Chinese are irreligious.(over a billion people)

These are real statistics.

The number of Chinese professing Christianity, in particular — estimated at more than 70 million — is rising so dramatically that, by some projections, China will have the world's biggest Christian population by 2030.

The profusion of churches seems to have unnerved some Chinese authorities, who have undertaken a campaign to tear down hundreds of crosses, and in some instances entire churches, in Zhejiang, a coastal province where a prosperous Christian community and large numbers of churches have taken root.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chinas-booming-christian-population-is-rattling-the-communist-party-2015-9

[Sacrificed Ram]

How do Atheists explain :

1.Genetic entropy.This pretty much destroys Evolutionism and Old earth claims.species degenerate with each generation,if we were as old as atheists claim we would be extinct a long long long time ago.

2.How did Sex evolve?I didn't ask ''why''I asked How.How did two sexes simultenouesly evolve of a new species?how did they find each other?For evolution to be true, every animal had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going .this is pretty much common sence.

3.There has never been a documented case of a beneficial mutation,ALL mutations are harmfull,some are beneficial as a side effect of a greater harm.for example a Beetle that loses its wing due to heavy winds,but now its liable to being prey.

4.Fine tuning.why is the earth fine tuned for life?I didn't as why the universe isn't fine tuned for life because the Bible has a Geocentric theology.

5.How do evolutionist atheistcels explain Irreducible complexity and molecular machines?

6.I have never and will never meet a atheist that is scientifically literate.To Blindly accept Chemical Evolution when this is chemically impossible is absurd,and they're teaching this stuff to our kids.

for life to have evolved:

Homochirality has to be perfect.all sugars must be a certain handedness,and all amino acids a crtain handedness.however both the elements cause racemization and in experiments all sugars and smino acids are racemized.its literally chemically impossible to create Homochiral sugars or acids randomly.THIS IS KNOWN AS THE RACEMIZATION PROBLEM.

sugars and amino acids destroy each other upon contacting each other.both are neccassery for a cell to exist and function.How did the cell evolve its complex timing and release to avoid such destruction?a CELL CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT SUGARS AND AMINOACIDS,HOW DID A CELL FORM WITH NUNFUNCTIONAL GOO CREATED BY THE CONTACT OF THESE TWO COMPOUNDS .ANSWER THE QUESTION

How did aminoacids and proteins evolve in a oxygen environment?oxygen inhibits their creation and function.the failed Uri Miller experiments had to inhibit oxygen.

How did aminoacids and proteins evolve in a oxygenless environment?without Ozone you have destruction caused by UV.

What about the Polymerization problem?If we evolved in a soup or water,how would you stop the breakdown of peptide bonds known as HYDROLYSIS?

7.How do evolutionists posit the origin of the genome code?life is a code.its a abstract message.

8.the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur only in the presence of oxygen.adeninine is neccassery for even the simplest forms of life.


8.How do Evolutionists Explain the multiple finds of intact cells and DNA in Dinosaur bones?DNA denigrates in a couple of hundred years.over thousands of years,its completely gone.


9.why do 99% of earth/universe dating methods point to a Young earth less than a 100,000 years old?





10,why when you date the mutation rates of mitochondrial eve,it points to her exisiting 6000 years ago?

1.Who did say atheism shall explain something?

2.Atheism isn't explanation for nothing.

3.Atheism just mean one thing: You don't believe in god(s).

4.Nothing you said proves existence of a god, it is just contestation of sciential assertives.

5.The universe is creation of pink magic unicorn, if I don't know the answer it shall be blame of pink magic unicorn.

[monfret]

Facepalm .....you just posted a bunch of speculating drivel that doesn't answer my question.Sure,we don't know how early life could have been structured and if the components of modern life were neccassery back then,so what?without intelligent design at any point of transition we would need homochiral sugars and aminoacids aswell as timing systems to avoid mutual destruction upon contact.


you also didn't answer how life would evolve without oxygen creating ozone to protect us from UV,and how life would evolve with Oxygen,since oxidation inhibits the formation of organic compounds and their polymerization.

[monfret]

it seems you did nothing to truly answer my question about Irreducible complexity.pls educate yourself on what irreducible complexity is.the simplest example is dna.Dna cannot exist without dna.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmB4uLANCBo

other examples include the bacterial flaggelum and the system of mutually dependant structures in the waste disposal system.

[Sacrificed Ram]

Facepalm .....you just posted a bunch of speculating drivel that doesn't answer my question.Sure,we don't know how early life could have been structured and if the components of modern life were neccassery back then,so what?without intelligent design at any point of transition we would need homochiral sugars and aminoacids aswell as timing systems to avoid mutual destruction upon contact.

you also didn't answer how life would evolve without oxygen creating ozone to protect us from UV,and how life would evolve with Oxygen,since oxidation inhibits the formation of organic compounds and their polymerization.

Guy, I even have some possible answers for these questions, but I prefer do it in a thread about science.

What I need say for you is we can prove all current science is wrong, but it doesn't prove automatically the existence of a god/creator/desingner. It just proves we are a bunch of retardeds that didn't find the correct answers.

[Hexachordia]

Atheism is a religion which worships man itself(the atheists are humanoid animals), it has all the religious complications in spite of that atheists claim they worship no one.

[Sacrificed Ram]

Atheism is a religion which worships man itself(the atheists are humanoid animals), it has all the religious complications in spite of that atheists claim they worship no one.

Atheism is just a philosophical position of disbelief in a god(s), only it, doesn't imply nothing than this. As an asian from China you know that atheism is even compatible with religions like buddahism, confucionism, taoism, etc. You can be an atheist and have a religion, it is possible.

Atheists aren't obligated to have answers for none question.

[TEUTORIGOS]

"When I was in college, I had a friend with entrepreneurial habits who had the idea of making a little extra money at the beginning of the school year by selling T-shirts to first-year students. At that time you could buy a large lot of T-shirts from the screen-printing shop for about four dollars each, while the going rate on campus was ten bucks. It was the early 1990s, and it was fashionable to go to parties wearing a hat modeled after the one worn by the Cat in the Hat.* So my friend got together eight hundred dollars and printed up two hundred shirts with a picture of the Cat in the Hat drinking a mug of beer. These shirts sold fast.
My friend was entrepreneurial, but not that entrepreneurial. In fact, he was kind of lazy. And once he’d sold eighty shirts, making back his initial investment, he started to lose his desire to hang out on the quad all day making sales. So the box of shirts went under his bed. A week later, laundry day came around. My friend, as I mentioned, was lazy. He really didn’t feel like washing his clothes. And then he remembered that he had a box of clean, brand-new beer-swigging-Cat-in-the-Hat T-shirts under his bed. So that solved the problem of laundry day. As it turned out, it also solved the problem of the day after laundry day.
And so on. So here was the irony. Everyone around thought my friend was the dirtiest man in school, because he wore the same T-shirt every single day. But in fact, he was the cleanest man in school, dressed every day in a new-from-the-store, never-worn shirt!
The lesson about inference: you have to be careful about the universe of theories you consider. Just as there may be more than one solution to a quadratic equation, there may be multiple theories that give rise to the same observation, and if we don’t consider them all, our inferences may lead us badly astray.

This brings us back to the Creator of the Universe.
The most famous argument in favor of a God-made world is the so-called argument by design, which, in its simplest form, simply says, holy cow, just look around you—everything is so complex and amazing, and you think it just glommed together that way by dumb luck and physical law?
Or, phrased more formally, by the liberal theologian William Paley, in his 1802 book Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature:

"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there: I might possibly answer that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever; nor would it perhaps be very easy to shew the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given,—that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there.... The inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer: who comprehended its construction, and designed its use."

If this is true of a watch, how much more so of a sparrow, or a human eye, or a human brain?
Paley’s book was a tremendous success, going through fifteen editions in fifteen years. Darwin read it closely in college, later saying, “I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s Natural Theology: I could almost formerly have said it by heart.” And updated forms of Paley’s argument form the backbone of the modern intelligent design movement.

It is, of course, a classic reductio ad unlikely: If there’s no God, it would be unlikely for things as complex as human beings to have developed;
Humans have developed; Therefore, it’s unlikely there’s no God. This is much like the argument that the Bible coders used; if God didn’t write the Torah, it’s unlikely that the text on the scroll would so faithfully record the birthdays of the rebbes! You may be sick of hearing me say it by now, but reductio ad unlikely doesn’t always work. If we really mean to compute in numerical terms how confident we should be that God created the universe, we’d better draw another Bayes box.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/naudiz/god_zpsrqyfylyl.png


At this point we can examine the evidence, which is that we exist. So the truth lies somewhere in the bottom row. And in the bottom row, you can plainly see that there is a lot more probability—a trillion times more!—in the GOD box than in the NO GOD box. This, in essence, is Paley’s case, the “argument by design,” as a modern Bayesian type would express it. There are many solid objections to the argument by design, and there are also two billion billion fighty books on the topic of “you should totally be a cool atheist like me” where you can read those arguments, so let me stick here to the one that’s closest to the math at hand: the “cleanest man in school” objection. You probably know what Sherlock Holmes had to say about inference, the most famous thing he ever said that wasn’t “Elementary!”: “It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
Doesn’t that sound cool, reasonable, indisputable? But it doesn’t tell the whole story. What Sherlock Holmes should have said was:
“It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, unless the truth is a hypothesis it didn’t occur to you to consider.” Less pithy, more correct. The people who inferred that my friend was the dirtiest man in school were considering only two hypotheses:
CLEAN: my friend was rotating through his shirts, washing them, then starting the rotation over, like a normal person
DIRTY: my friend was a filthy savage who wore dirty clothes.

You may start with some prior; based on my memory of college, assigning a probability of 10% to DIRTY is about right. But it doesn’t really matter what your prior is: CLEAN is ruled out by the observation that my friend wears the same shirt every day. “When you have excluded the impossible...” But hold up, Holmes—the true explanation, LAZY ENTREPRENEUR, was a hypothesis not on the list. The argument by design suffers from much the same problem. If the only two hypotheses you admit are NO GOD and GOD, the rich structure of the living world might well be taken as evidence in favor of the latter against the former.

But there are other possibilities. What about GODS, where the world was put together in a hurry by a squabbling committee? Many distinguished civilizations have believed as much. And you can’t deny that there are aspects of the natural world—I’m thinking pandas here—that seem more likely to have resulted from grudging bureaucratic compromise than from the mind of an all-knowing deity with total creative control. If we start by assigning the same prior probability to GOD and GODS—and why not, if we’re going with the principle of indifference?—then Bayesian inference should lead us to believe in GODS much more than GOD.*

Why stop there? There’s no end to the making of origin stories. Another theory with some adherents is SIMS, where we’re not actually people at all, but simulations running on an ultracomputer built by other people.* That sounds bizarre, but plenty of people take the idea seriously (most famously, the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom), and on Bayesian grounds, it’s hard to see why you shouldn’t. People like to build simulations of real-world events; surely, if the human race doesn’t extinguish itself, our power to simulate will only increase, and it doesn’t seem crazy to imagine that those simulations might one day include conscious entities that believed themselves to be people. If SIMS is true, and the universe is a simulation constructed by people in a realer world, then it’s pretty likely there’d be people in the universe, because people are people’s favorite things to simulate! I’d call it a near certainty (for the sake of the example, let’s say an absolute certainty) that a simulated world created by technologically advanced humans would have (simulated) humans in it. If we assign each of the four hypotheses we’ve met so far a prior probability of 1/4, the box looks something like this:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/naudiz/god2_zpsrpxnz0wv.png?t=1507399542


Given that we actually do exist, so that the truth is in the bottom row, almost all the probability is sitting in SIMS. Yes, the existence of human life is evidence for the existence of God; but it’s much better evidence that our world was programmed by people much smarter than us. Advocates of “scientific creationism” hold that we should argue in the classroom for the existence of a world-designer, not because the Bible says so—that would be unconstitutionally naughty!—but on coolly reasonable grounds, founded on the astonishing unlikelihood of the existence of humanity under the NO GOD hypothesis. But if we took this approach seriously, we would tell our tenth graders something like this: “Some have argued that it’s highly unlikely for something as complex as the Earth’s biosphere to have arisen purely by natural selection without any intervention from outside. By far the most likely such explanation is that we are actually not physical beings at all, but residents of a computer simulation being carried out by humans with unthinkably advanced technology, to what purpose we can’t exactly know. It’s also possible that we were created by a community of gods, something like those worshiped by the ancient Greeks. There are even some people who believe that one single God created the universe, but that hypothesis should be considered less strongly supported than the alternatives.” Think the school board would go for this? I had better hasten to point out that I don’t actually think this constitutes a good argument that we’re all sims, any more than I think Paley’s argument is a good one for the existence of the deity. Rather, I take the queasy feeling these arguments generate as an indication that we’ve reached the limits of quantitative reasoning. It’s customary to express our uncertainty about something as a number. Sometimes it even makes sense to do so. When the meteorologist on the nightly news says, “There’s a 20% chance of rain tomorrow,” what he means is that, among some large population of past days with conditions similar to those currently obtaining, 20% of them were followed by rainy days. But what can we mean when we say, “There’s a 20% chance that God created the universe?” It can’t be that one in five universes was made by God and the rest popped up on their own. The truth is, I’ve never seen a method I find satisfying for assigning numbers to our uncertainty about ultimate questions of this kind. As much as I love numbers, I think people ought to stick to “I don’t believe in God,” or “I do believe in God,” or just “I’m not sure.” And as much as I love Bayesian inference, I think people are probably best off arriving at their faith, or discarding it, in a non-quantitative way. On this matter, math is silent. If you don’t buy it from me, take it from Blaise Pascal, the seventeenth-century mathematician and philosopher who wrote in his Pensées, “‘God is, or He is not.’ But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here.” This is not quite all Pascal had to say on the subject. We return to his thoughts in the next chapter. But first, the lottery.

...."

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Fi8hXVptL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Be-Wrong-Mathematical/dp/0143127535/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1507484813&sr=8-1&keywords=how+not+to+be+wrong

[Sacrificed Ram]

CTRL+C, CTRL+V! See! I proved the existence of pink magic unicorn!

http://cdn.toy-tma.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/My-Little-Pony-Friendship-Is-Magic-Season-2-Episode-7-May-the-Best-Pet-Win-.jpg

[monfret]

another simple question that debunks evolution,is the fact that more and more chemicals are needed for more and more complex organisms.how and where did these chemicals come from?how can you go from a simple cell to a human with thousands of complex chemicals?where did these chemicals come from?where were they synthesized?who keeps synthesizing and adding new chemicals?from what material are they sourced?This is common sence wich disproves evolution.

[Oneeye]

Facepalm .....you just posted a bunch of speculating drivel that doesn't answer my question.Sure,we don't know how early life could have been structured and if the components of modern life were neccassery back then,so what?without intelligent design at any point of transition we would need homochiral sugars and aminoacids aswell as timing systems to avoid mutual destruction upon contact.


you also didn't answer how life would evolve without oxygen creating ozone to protect us from UV,and how life would evolve with Oxygen,since oxidation inhibits the formation of organic compounds and their polymerization.



An article on NCBI is drivel? Or is my brief explanation of the value of sexual reproduction as combative to genetic entropy? You're a fraud. You have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.


I answered many questions, i stopped caring enough to give answers halfway through because 1. You were needlessly resorting to insults before anyone had a chamce to respond 2. You clearly were trying to summarize something you've read but actually have very little understanding of.


You claim because we don't know intimately about events billions of years ago that it REQUIRES intelligent design? That is intellectually dishonest. How about we just throw our hands up and say God did it and quit studying natural solutions? That sound like a good idea to you?


The studies shown resulting in an imbalance of anantiomers dominating a pool of them can explain why L Amino Acids and D Sugars were selected. In such a environment, not all molecules are going to contact each other and have a reaction. That is absurd.


Perhaps you are referring only to the environment of a single cell organism. Of which, you can't prove that it is impossible for the primative life forms to have not been able to form on more rudimentary "timing systems". Btw.. are you capable of explaining those systems? I doubt it. I doubt you even have any previous knowledge on active and passive transport of the cell.



You want a lecture on the formation of the atmosphere and how well UV light penetrates the ocean? No. That's idiotic that you want people to debunk such bs.


Are you suggesting that oxidation would have prevented chemical evolution? Haha

[Sacrificed Ram]

another simple question that debunks evolution,is the fact that more and more chemicals are needed for more and more complex organisms.how and where did these chemicals come from?how can you go from a simple cell to a human with thousands of complex chemicals?where did these chemicals come from?where were they synthesized?who keeps synthesizing and adding new chemicals?from what material are they sourced?This is common sence wich disproves evolution.

You aren't disproving evolution, you are questioning the biogenesis. Evolution ≠ Biogenesis.

You are just using CTRL+C, CTRL+V, you are just repeating an assayed discuss, you are not thinking about the meaning of you are saying.

A creator can just started the process and after left free development for evolution. Evolution isn't even incompatible with a creator, it is just incompatible with biblical genesis.

[monfret]

An article on NCBI is drivel? Or is my brief explanation of the value of sexual reproduction as combative to genetic entropy? You're a fraud. You have no idea what you're talking about whatsoever.


I answered many questions, i stopped caring enough to give answers halfway through because 1. You were needlessly resorting to insults before anyone had a chamce to respond 2. You clearly were trying to summarize something you've read but actually have very little understanding of.


You claim because we don't know intimately about events billions of years ago that it REQUIRES intelligent design? That is intellectually dishonest. How about we just throw our hands up and say God did it and quit studying natural solutions? That sound like a good idea to you?


The studies shown resulting in an imbalance of anantiomers dominating a pool of them can explain why L Amino Acids and D Sugars were selected. In such a environment, not all molecules are going to contact each other and have a reaction. That is absurd.


Perhaps you are referring only to the environment of a single cell organism. Of which, you can't prove that it is impossible for the primative life forms to have not been able to form on more rudimentary "timing systems". Btw.. are you capable of explaining those systems? I doubt it. I doubt you even have any previous knowledge on active and passive transport of the cell.



You want a lecture on the formation of the atmosphere and how well UV light penetrates the ocean? No. That's idiotic that you want people to debunk such bs.


Are you suggesting that oxidation would have prevented chemical evolution? Haha

say life started in the 'ocean'do explain how you would inhibit hydrolysis.and anyone can write a study,it seems like imaginative drivel to me.it doesn't give any alternatives of how a homochiral chain can occur without some intelligent design.

[Sacrificed Ram]

say life started in the 'ocean'do explain how you would inhibit hydrolysis.and anyone can write a study,it seems like imaginative drivel to me.it doesn't give any alternatives of how a homochiral chain can occur without some intelligent design.

There are bacteria living in sulfurous liquids and oxidating iron to obtain energy, without need of sugar. Anything is possible.

And about chirality, we need now if in the enviroment where life emerged, existed an unbalance about of molecules disposable. Was found meteorites with predominance of L molecules and there are bacteria that use R molecules.

[Hexachordia]

Atheism is just a philosophical position of disbelief in a god(s), only it, doesn't imply nothing than this. As an asian from China you know that atheism is even compatible with religions like buddahism, confucionism, taoism, etc. You can be an atheist and have a religion, it is possible.

Atheists aren't obligated to have answers for none question.

Atheism prepares people for religious corruption, so that people do not know what they serve. Atheism is a religion by its functions. There are many fake buddhists which commit all earthly crimes under the monks robe. Therefore, I offered a term to justify harmless atheism as ethical atheism, which is a form of professionalism that may reinterprete morals and religious doctines into scientific protocols. But there exist many hypocrites who advocate atheism as a religion.

[crazyladybutterfly]

Worldwide Atheism's Numbers declined by 50% since the 60s.

lol no WAY

[monfret]

lol no WAY

Atheism is in decline worldwide, with the number of atheists falling from 4.5% of the world’s population in 1970 to 2.0% in 2010 and projected to drop to 1.8% by 2020.[1] See: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

[monfret]

There are bacteria living in sulfurous liquids and oxidating iron to obtain energy, without need of sugar. Anything is possible.

And about chirality, we need now if in the enviroment where life emerged, existed an unbalance about of molecules disposable. Was found meteorites with predominance of L molecules and there are bacteria that use R molecules.
https://creation.com/did-lifes-building-blocks-come-from-outer-space
https://creation.com/sugars-from-space-do-they-prove-evolution

[crazyladybutterfly]

honestly im quite surprised .
well as long as these people dont convert to islam im happy lol
religion actually makes life easier and i say this as an atheist who suffers from depression

[Sacrificed Ram]

https://creation.com/did-lifes-building-blocks-come-from-outer-space
https://creation.com/sugars-from-space-do-they-prove-evolution

https://hammeringshield.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/the-oxygen-holocaust/

[Fractal]

bullshit. Irreligiousity is growing in the developed areas of the USA such as New York, Chicago - as well as parts of California.

It's only the redneck states of the USA (southern states like Texas), the rural countryside, or areas packed with Blacks and Mexicans that are highly Christian.

[Sacrificed Ram]

Interesting, atheism is decreasing in the world while famine is growing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/world/africa/why-20-million-people-are-on-brink-of-famine-in-a-world-of-plenty.html

[monfret]

Interesting, atheism is decreasing in the world while famine is growing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/world/africa/why-20-million-people-are-on-brink-of-famine-in-a-world-of-plenty.html

the biggest famines on earth happened in atheist china and holdomer.famine has to do with the richer countries buying all the food from a country and natural reasons,has nothing to do with a people´s intelligence.

[monfret]

bullshit. Irreligiousity is growing in the developed areas of the USA such as New York, Chicago - as well as parts of California.

It's only the redneck states of the USA (southern states like Texas), the rural countryside, or areas packed with Blacks and Mexicans that are highly Christian.

basically proving atheism is a result of decadence.FYI,nothing wrong with rednecks,blacks and mexicans,they´re people too you smug urbanite.

[Sacrificed Ram]

the biggest famines on earth happened in atheist china and holdomer.famine has to do with the richer countries buying all the food from a country and natural reasons,has nothing to do with a people´s intelligence.

As you said, christianism in China is growing, famine in China is growing, none relation?

[StonyArabia]

Atheism does not make sense, because it's clearly there is higher super-power aka God.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Atheism does not make sense, because it's clearly there is higher super-power aka God.

Simpleton.

[Defiance]

https://thehornnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CS-Lewis.jpg

[Bornoz]

1- Atheism isn't a religion
2- Believing that Atheism is dying is even more absurd than believing to God.

[Teutone]

https://thehornnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CS-Lewis.jpg

Amen, wonderful qoute!

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

Communist regimes manipulates statistics a lot, countries like China and Vietnam claim to be largely atheist, but the people there keep their old beliefs.