It does not state the organic molecule forming a homochiral solution without a catalyst
It's an autocatalytic process as Kenso Soai demonstrated...
You are wrong about what the article shows. It does not state the organic molecule forming a homochiral solution without a catalyst.
I didn't say it forms without a catalyst. I said "paper specifically shows how an organic system - without the need of an outside catalyst - can form a homochiral solution. It can happen without outside interference."
As Crofty pointed out above it's called an autocatalyst. Systems will always move to their lowest stable energy state. Thus one reaction can be a catalyst for another reaction.
All unguided attempts will always form a racemic mixture in the lab. That is a fact. It's science. It's chemistry.
Life didn't start in a lab or in a clean room did it? It started in the chemically messy outdoors. And just because you don't presently know how a homochiral system first formed in nature doesn't mean we just get to jump to the conclusion that it was an intelligently guided process.
We can't solve one mystery with another mystery. We can't explain one unknown by postulating the existence of another unknown.
Here we go again with the bucket chemistry comment lol xx
I really do understand your perspective but you fail to understand mine. The difference between an autocatalyst and a catalyst is that the catalyst is a chemical used to speed up or guide the reaction and does not get used up in the reaction and does not change it's molecular configuration. An auotocatalyst is a molecule that is part of the reaction and steers the reaction to produce the end products.
You say that because these are naturally occurring this is evidence of no guidance, because it happened spontaneously when amino acids evolved. This is a valid perspective. You have done the research and drawn this conclusion and you strive to think for yourself.
I have a different perspective, I read papers with diagrams of the chemical reactions that Soai did. It is very interesting and I am grateful that you and cantleave (Angus) informed me of these experiments. But what I see is intervention when looking at the diagrams. The autocatalysis that occurs is for samantics sake spontaneous, but this reinforces my theory that the reaction is guided. The following paper has the diagrams to show that the the reaction from raw material to product is guided in a particular direction.
Scheme 3 is simply a discovery of what occurs in nature without the intervention of a chiral substance, and then the further reaction of the autocatalysis.
This is evidence to me that in nature the chemical reaction is guided. But it's proof to you it happened without intervention. Just different perspectives.
You're using lots of words but put simply, I (and I think Cofty) understand your reasoning as 'That I'm not sure how that could have happened therefore God did it'.
And as I said earlier (and to wind some up by paraphrasing Dawkins) that just raises more questions and creates the ultimate regressive argument.
No matter which way you spin it you will not find evidence that god did it because first you have to find evidence that god exists.
You have your beliefs based on faith and that's absolutely fine, but don't mistake them for evidence.
35569659 On BBC is an article on rare minerals that has bearing on this "guided" (directly or not) argument;-- It mentioned that conditions have to be so"right'" for some of them, that only a thimble full exits on the whole globe. Why is it unthinkable, that for life too, a pre-set of similar instruction, or set of circumstances exists in the natural laws, that led to us being here, without any further direct action by a deist creator? If one of those half-thimble full had propagated, would it not be a rare anymore but have colonized the whole planet.?