On 16/06/2025 9:57 am, MarkE wrote:
On 15/06/2025 7:45 am, RonO wrote:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/06/jonathan-wells-cleared-the-ground-
for- intelligent-design/
<snip>
Denial seems to be all that the ID perps ever had, and the only thing
that creationists like Tour and MarkE can continue with,
<snip>
Hi Ron, speaking of denial, Tour and OoL, here's a real example of
denial, in this case denial of the OoL chirality problem: https://
www.youtube.com/shorts/ArnQyn5tdT4
"The origin of life, based on the homochirality of biomolecules, is a >persistent mystery."
— Devínsky, F. (2021). https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/13/12/2277
“Homochirality remains one of the central unsolved problems in
origin-of-life research.”
— Lahav, N. (1999). Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origin
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:06:28 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 16/06/2025 9:57 am, MarkE wrote:
On 15/06/2025 7:45 am, RonO wrote:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/06/jonathan-wells-cleared-the-ground-
for- intelligent-design/
<snip>
Denial seems to be all that the ID perps ever had, and the only thing >>> that creationists like Tour and MarkE can continue with,
<snip>
Hi Ron, speaking of denial, Tour and OoL, here's a real example of
denial, in this case denial of the OoL chirality problem: https://
www.youtube.com/shorts/ArnQyn5tdT4
"The origin of life, based on the homochirality of biomolecules, is a >persistent mystery."
— Devínsky, F. (2021). https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/13/12/2277
“Homochirality remains one of the central unsolved problems in >origin-of-life research.”
— Lahav, N. (1999). Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origin
Why don't you explain, in your own words, exactly how this
is a "problem", and not simply an unknown. You *can* do
that, right?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:21:50 +0000, RonO wrote:
On 6/17/2025 10:07 AM, LDagget wrote:Â snippage
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:23:28 +0000, RonO wrote:
What I have always gone by was that when D and L charged tRNAs were in
the mix, translation still proceeded, but more slowly and L amino acids
were still used in making the peptide. I did not recall any type of
controversy involved, but the paper that I linked to noted that it has
never been understood why the D amino acids were not incorporated.
As with so much biochemistry, it's complicated when you get into the
weeds. Then again, from some perspectives, it's rather simple.
The perspective I was weened on is one of kinetics. An aminoacyle
tRNA synthetase is an enzyme that, in our modern world, catalyzes
the joining of an L-amino acid of the right sort, to a tRNA of
the right sort. For example, Metionine aminoacyl tRNA synthetase
catalyzes the reaction
L-Methionine + tRNA^(Met)(CAU) ==> Met-tRNA^Met(CAU)
The ^ indicates the (Met) should be Met written as superscript.
(CAU) identifies the anticodon of the tRNA.
That's a reasonable description which is a good first order
understanding of what happens. Then the fun begins. There is a variant
of the amino acids Leucine and Isoleucine called norleucine. These are
all amino acids whose R group is C4H9
So for the generic amino acid H2 - N - CH(R) - COOH we roll through
different substitutions for R.
Leucine R group is -CH(CH3)-CH2-CH3. It branches early.
Isoleucine R group is -CH2-C(CH3)2. It branches late.
Norleucine R groupis -CH2-CH2-CH2-CH3Â Â It does not branch.
Note: Methionine has the R group CH2-CH2-S-CH3
It "looks" just like Norleucine if you swap out the last CH2 for an S.
And gosh darn, but Met tRNA synthetase also catalyzes the reaction
L-Norleucine + tRNA^(Met)(CAU) ==> Nle-tRNA^Met(CAU)
The damned thing apparently didn't read the textbook or attend
the lectures. Our understanding is that this happens because the
aminoacyl synthetase discriminates according to the shape of the
amino acid but methionine and norleucine have very similar shapes.
The biotech industry has witnessed significant levels of norleu
incorporation in place of met in fermentation products. It's one of
those things that repeats in cycles because a new generation comes
along who read the textbooks and attended the lectures but didn't listen
to old geezers who work for a living.
It's always happening at some level. A proper biochemist will think of
it this way.
The rate at which it happens will depend upon the concentration of L-Met
and L-Nle inside the cell synthesizing the protein. If the cells are
being
fed cheap Purina Cell Chow that has relatively high concentrations of
non
standard amino acids like Norleucine, it will happen more often. The
enzyme
Met aminoacyl transferase may even have a 5 or 10 fold preference for
Met over Nle, but as synthesis progresses, and the concentration of Met
in solution is reduced by incorporation into proteins, the ration of
Nle to Met in the cell will increase. Other metabolic pathways will be
at work to detect and synthesize more of amino acids whose
concentrations
dip, and some salvage pathways will consume other amino acids to make
more Methionine, including consuming Norleucine, but not
instantaneously.
Not to belabor it (too late, I know) but similar competition exists
with every amino acid tRNA aminoacyl tRNA transferase.
The textbook reaction will be 100 fold, or 1000 fold faster for the
"right" reaction for equal competing concentration. This will be true
for L vs D forms of the same amino acid, or 'similar' amino acids. The specifics of the relative preferences vary.
But here the punchline. It's always a competition. There are always side reactions. Enzymes don't read textbooks or attend lectures. They don't
know a CORRECT reaction from an INCORRECT reaction.
It's the same for DNA synthesis and so mutations happen.
If anyone read this far, you're entitled to tell me to shut up.
Apologies for being so pedantic.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:54:14 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[...]
I have been reading this thread with great interest and near zero
understanding. But I enjoy that it illustrates an understanding that I
was late to appreciate. That biology is *really* messy and the stories
we are usually told are greatly simplified and 'prettied up', leaving
out the true nature of what is actually happening.
Or maybe MarkE's designer is just a particularly messy one ;)
On 16/06/2025 9:57 am, MarkE wrote:
On 15/06/2025 7:45 am, RonO wrote:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/06/jonathan-wells-cleared-the-ground-
for- intelligent-design/
<snip>
Denial seems to be all that the ID perps ever had, and the only thing
that creationists like Tour and MarkE can continue with,
<snip>
Hi Ron, speaking of denial, Tour and OoL, here's a real example of
denial, in this case denial of the OoL chirality problem: https://
www.youtube.com/shorts/ArnQyn5tdT4
"The origin of life, based on the homochirality of biomolecules, is a >persistent mystery."
— Devínsky, F. (2021). https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/13/12/2277
“Homochirality remains one of the central unsolved problems in
origin-of-life research.”
— Lahav, N. (1999). Biogenesis: Theories of Life's Origin
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:14:08 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,655 |