Cofty’s Challenge.
First of all I would like to make very clear. Cofty’s challenge doesn’t answer K99 questions about the specifics of my research and how it supports the existence of a deity. From the thread that we have both linked earlier today.
I just have formal Applied Chemistry qualifications, cantleave can confirm this as he has the same or better qualifications. I haven’t done any specific research with regards to supporting the existence of a deity. I feel any google research I do would be bias and I would not find it credible.
My OP is simply my opinions based on my knowledge, which may be less extensive than cantleave’s knowledge and he has the opposing opinions with similar chemistry background.
Even though Soai solved the puzzle of homochirality this http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar5003208 is not related to this ……….
The fourth form — the DL mixture, is not a single molecule, but a mixture of equal amounts of D and L isomers. It does not rotate polarized light (like the meso form) because the rotation of light by the D and L forms is equal in amount but opposite in direction. It is possible to separate the DL mixture into the two isomers, each of which does rotate light. In the 1840s, Louis Pasteur determined that each of the two isomers of tartaric acid rotated light in opposite directions, and the meso form was inactive in this respect. He also separated by hand, crystals of the racemic mixture to show that it was made of equal amounts of the D and L forms, making it different than the meso form of tartaric acid.
Cut and pasted from here http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ar5003208
This is what I said in my word salad a few days ago when I discussed refractive index and racemic mixtures I think my word salad, a few pages ago says the same as this. The word meso has the exact same definition and the word racemic, which I just found out today. But they are different. A racemic mixture means the d-enantiomer and the l-enantiomer are not chemically bonded, and a meso compound means that the enantiomers have positively and negatively charged ions and this means the enantiomers are chemically bonded. I learnt this today. It was fun. Another difference is that a meso compound apparently cannot be separated and a racemic mixture can. Because Luis Pasteur said that the meso compound is not optically active. But it’s very likely that a chemist has found a way to do it today. People are on forums discussing it. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.chem/C_vvHxrufhQ
Cofty if you understand your link I am confused why you don’t understand my cut and paste, my word salad, and why my conclusion or opinion has nothing to do with solving the puzzle of homochirality.
But you gave me a challenge to put it in simple terms so I will.
Skip to simplification if you wish
I am going to explain it in terms of a coin toss and probabilities. Cofty, I know you think it’s NOTHING like a coin toss. I saw your caps lock comment before you deleted it, using caps lock doesn’t substantiate your point. Explain succinctly why a coin toss explanation is wrong. If you prefer to use caps lock to explain it feel free to do so, but caps lock has no bearing on any information I read.
I am going to assign…………….
l-enantiomer = heads
d-enantiomer = tails
Alanine = 2p
Glucose = 5p
Methanol = 10p
Tartaric acid = 20p
The size of the coins has no bearing on scale in relation to the size of the molecule. I just assigned the coins randomly. You could invert the assignment too if you like.
Toss a 2p 100 times autocatalysis always occurs you get 99 heads
Toss a 5p 100 times autocatalysis always occurs you get 99 tails (never heads)
Toss a 10p 100 times autocatalysis never occurs you get 48 heads 52 tails or 52 heads 48 tails (slight imbalance)
Toss a 20p 100 times autocatalysis never occurs you get 52 heads 48 tails or 48 heads 52 tails (slight imbalance)
The probability of these results without guidance is lower than the probability of these results with guidance. Each different coin or chemical will always yield the same results.
The website I found my word salad on is just a company that sells tartaric acid. It’s not an organic chemistry book. So if you dispute it’s credibility that’s fine. I won’t argue with that. But I know it’s right because I learnt my word salad from an organic chemistry book that I can’t reference because I gave it away. But I might buy a new one, because it’s useful.
K99 this in no way is evidence that supports the existence of a deity. I don’t claim to have this evidence.
Angus I agree that this is evidence of guidance by the laws of physics and chemistry perhaps the creators name is Laws of Physics and Chemistry. Does that mean I am a deist or pantheist, or believe in Spinoza’s God? I actually think I believe in Sam’s God, a definition of my very own that no one else has.
Yes I agree also that life is what chemistry does. If there was no chemistry there would be no life. But that’s abiogenesis. A different thread.