All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
Polemics

Does the Miller-Urey experiment explain how life originated on Earth?

Leave a comment

There are two problems related to the origin of the first living cell, on atheism:

  1. The problem of getting the building blocks needed to create life – i.e. the amino acids
  2. The problem of creating the functional sequences of amino acids and proteins that can support the minimal operations of a simple living cell

Normally, I concede the first problem and grant the atheist all the building blocks he needs. This is because step 2 is impossible. There is no way, on atheism, to form the sequences of amino acids that will fold up into proteins, and then to form the sequences of proteins that can be used to form everything else in the cell, including the DNA itself.

Today, let’s take a look at the problems with step 1.

Do the Miller-Urey experiments simulate the early Earth?
The Miller-Urey experiments

The problem of getting the building blocks of life

Now you may have heard that some scientists managed to spark some gasses to generate most of the 20 amino acids found in living systems. These experiments are called the “Miller-Urey” experiments.

The IDEA center has a nice summary of origin-of-life research that explains a few of the main problems with step 1.

Miler and Urey used the wrong gasses:

Miller’s experiment requires a reducing methane and ammonia atmosphere,11, 12 however geochemical evidence says the atmosphere was hydrogen, water, and carbon dioxide (non-reducing).15, 16 The only amino acid produced in a such an atmosphere is glycine (and only when the hydrogen content is unreasonably high), and could not form the necessary building blocks of life.11

Miller and Urey didn’t account for UV of molecular instability:

Not only would UV radiation destroy any molecules that were made, but their own short lifespans would also greatly limit their numbers. For example, at 100ºC (boiling point of water), the half lives of the nucleic acids Adenine and Guanine are 1 year, uracil is 12 years, and cytozine is 19 days20 (nucleic acids and other important proteins such as chlorophyll and hemoglobin have never been synthesized in origin-of-life type experiments19).

Miller and Urey didn’t account for molecular oxygen:

We all have know ozone in the upper atmosphere protects life from harmful UV radiation. However, ozone is composed of oxygen which is the very gas that Stanley Miller-type experiments avoided, for it prevents the synthesis of organic molecules like the ones obtained from the experiments! Pre-biotic synthesis is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. The chemistry does not work if there is oxygen because the atmosphere would be non-reducing, but if there is no UV-light-blocking oxygen (i.e. ozone – O3) in the atmosphere, the amino acids would be quickly destroyed by extremely high amounts of UV light (which would have been 100 times stronger than today on the early earth).20, 21, 22 This radiation could destroy methane within a few tens of years,23 and atmospheric ammonia within 30,000 years.15

And there were three other problems too:

At best the processes would likely create a dilute “thin soup,”24 destroyed by meteorite impacts every 10 million years.20, 25 This severely limits the time available to create pre-biotic chemicals and allow for the OOL.

Chemically speaking, life uses only “left-handed” (“L”) amino acids and “right-handed” (“R)” genetic molecules. This is called “chirality,” and any account of the origin of life must somehow explain the origin of chirality. Nearly all chemical reactions produce “racemic” mixtures–mixtures with products that are 50% L and 50% R.

Two more problems are not mentioned in the article. A non-peptide bond anywhere in the chain will ruin the chain. You need around 200 amino acids to make a protein. If any of the bonds is not a peptide bond, the chain will not work in a living system. Additionally, the article does not mention the need for the experimenter to intervene in order to prevent interfering cross-reactions that would prevent the amino acids from forming.

Now keep in mind that even if you get the building blocks, you are left with the sequencing problem. Like the letters of the words in this blog post, the building blocks of life also need to be put in a meaningful sequence in order to do work in a living system – but that’s another topic for another day.

News

Paternity fraud case shows how pro-marriage conservatives see men as expendable

2 Comments

When terrible things happen to men in this society, you often get comments from people saying “well, it’s his fault, he chose a bad woman”. And I agree that men often make poor choices because they focus on attraction instead of on character. But what if a man is an innocent bystander, and is falsely accused by a woman he doesn’t even know? Is it still his fault then?

Here is the news story from Fox 2 Detroit.

Excerpt:

A Metro Detroit man cleared his name after Friend of the Court sent him a letter saying he had a baby with a woman he never met.

“She don’t know me, how do you just put my name down? How do you just put anybody’s name down?” DeAngelo Smith said. “I don’t know her. Never seen her. Still to this day, haven’t talked to her, and it just proves the baby has no ties to my name.”

Late last year, DeAngelo received a letter from Friend of the Court in Berrien County saying that he was the father of a baby girl.

His wife was the first to see the accusation:

His wife first spotted the letter in the mail from Friend of the Court.

“Let’s just set the record, I trust my husband,” Tyahvia Smith said. “I know his character, man of integrity.”

They contacted his employer:

While waiting for the child’s mother to take the baby for a DNA test, DeAngelo said the school where he teaches received an inquiry for possible garnishment in case the child was his.

“It made it something that is not being alleged, but now it’s something that’s being taken into action and no paternity has been established,” he said.

Finally, the woman had the DNA test done, and DeAngelo has since gotten a letter confirming he was not the father.

Legislation introduced by Republican Jim Runestad to prevent this from happening has been tied up for eight years… in a Republican-led legislature:

“It’s very unfortunate, but paternity fraud is not a unique, unusual situation in Michigan,” Sen. Jim Runestad (R-White Lake) said.

Runestad said he has been pushing for new legislation on the matter for the past eight years. Currently, there is no penalty for lying and a DNA test is not required before a person is contacted about the paternity of the child.

The fact that there are no consequences for doing this means that women are going to keep doing it again and again.

Does masculinity mean that a man should give a woman whatever she wants?

I sent this story to a conservative pro-marriage friend, and she said “So what? How many times does something like this happen?” Her only concern was that this story made women look bad. She had previously told me that “masculinity is when a man uses his strength to protect and provide for women”. So, then it is just “masculine” for this innocent man to pay for a child who isn’t his own. Why would he object to paying? Does he not like children?

Most people today like the changes that feminism has made for women. They like public schools run by women that discriminate against boys. They like women taking out huge student loans for useless non-STEM degrees, then demanding bailouts from taxpayers. They like women taking part in hook-up culture. They like women using no-commitment bad boys for validation. They like no-fault divorce laws. They like false accusations during divorce trials. They like biased domestic violence laws. They like paternity fraud. They like massive welfare spending designed to reward women who make reckless decisions. And they like feminist judges stripping fathers of parental rights for refusing to agree with the transing of their kids.

Men are expendable when it comes to creating greater happiness for women. So what’s wrong with sending a man a bill for a woman who needs some money for a child that isn’t his? It’s horrible to tell a woman that she can’t do what she feels like doing. It’s horrible to tell a woman that she has to pay the costs of her own actions. Just make a man pay for it. Men are big and strong, they can handle it. And besides, women never tell lies. We have to believe all women. We have to force men to make women happy. That’s “masculinity”.

Society pressures men to get married

This “believe all women” attitude that is shared by many Christians and conservatives becomes a problem for men when men are pressured to get married. This society makes marriage a risky enterprise for men. And men have to understand that this pressure to get married is often coming from people who see men as expendable in the cause of increasing women’s happiness. The person telling you to get married is often the same person who thinks that a DNA test shouldn’t be performed in a paternity case.

Men have to understand that the command to “get married” is coming from pro-marriage activists who think that men exist solely to make women happy. Who cares about the risks and costs of marriage for men? Who cares about men’s needs and desires? Who cares what reasons a man has for marrying? Who cares about a man’s standards for his wife? Who cares about a man’s plan for his marriage? He should just be pressured to get married. Just like the falsely accused paternity fraud victim should have to pay.

It’s not the purpose of men’s lives to get married and have kids

Always remember that according to the Bible, serving God is more honorable than getting married and having children. (Read 1 Cor 7:8-9 and 2 Tim 2:4) Many social conservatives try to guilt men into getting married and having children by denying the risks and costs of marriage for men. They think that Christianity’s main purpose is to force men to make women happy, regardless of what women offer to men in exchange. That’s the actual view of several of my social conservative Christian friends.

Men are designed to serve God first and foremost. And it’s much easier to serve God if you are not encumbered by alimony, child support, false accusations, denial of due process, paternity fraud, feminist judges, etc. Only women who honor that obligation, and want to help a man to meet that obligation, should be taken seriously for marriage and child-rearing.

News

Does the “legacy of slavery” explain black women’s 72% out-of-wedlock birth rate?

Leave a comment
James White asks: does the Bible apply to black women?
James White asks: does the Bible apply to black women?

I don’t like Calvinist theologian James White very much, but at least he’s willing to defend the moral teachings of the Bible against the woke identity politics that is taking over Christian churches. A few months ago he tweeted something very controversial (see above), and got into a lot of hot water with fake Christians. In this post, I’ll explain why he is right.

So, as you can see above, James is concerned that black women are having so many abortions, and he thinks that the solution to this is to encourage black women to take the Bible’s advice on sexual morality. Shocking, I know.

If you read the replies to his tweet on Twitter, you’ll see millions and millions of comments calling him a racist, and telling him that slavery is to blame for EVERYTHING that black women do wrong. Basically, the James haters say that black women can do anything they want, and should never be told that it’s wrong according to the Bible, because their bad choices are all the fault of slavery. So the Bible doesn’t even apply to them, or something.

Here is an example from a radical feminist progressive named Karen Swallow Prior:

Karen Swallow Prior says that black people have no moral agency
Karen Swallow Prior says that unlike whites, blacks have no moral agency

According to the fake Christians, it’s not that black women make poor choices with sex, it’s that the ghosts of white slavers who raped their great-great-great grandmothers reach through time with magic and force them to have sex with hunky bad boys who won’t commit to them before sex. It’s not rap music calling black women hoes! It’s the ghosts of slavery past. And even if this ghost theory isn’t true, we shouldn’t tell black women not to sin, because… it would hurt their feelings. After all, the Bible isn’t a book that’s designed to set boundaries to prevent self-destructive behaviors. It encourages us to listen to our hearts, be reckless, and sin as much as we can.

So when did black community problems with sex and abortion start? Did it start with slavery times? Actually, blacks were doing GREAT at marriage and sexual matters just 50 years ago.

This reply to James White explained:

Blacks married at rates comparable to whites before welfare
Blacks married at rates comparable to whites before welfare

That’s true. Black children weren’t fatherless, so they weren’t having early sex outside of marriage, and so they weren’t getting abortions.

As the header graphic shows, black women were just as likely to be married as white women in the 1960s,  FAR AFTER the days of slavery.

The reason that the graph is going upward is because daughters raised in fatherless homes tend to engage in sexual activity at younger ages, because they are seeking approval from a man which their (single) mother cannot give them. It’s a tragic downwards spiral, and it affects all races. The only way to stop it is to tell women to choose marriage-minded men (not hot bad boys) and marry before having sex, like the Bible says. But woke fake Christians think the Bible is too mean, and better to allow sin by saying that sin is inevitable because slavery ghosts or something.

What’s neat is that black men who take Christianity seriously are totally on board with the facts:

Black man here. Can confirm that the Bible applies to black women.
Black man here. Can confirm that the Bible applies to black women.

On this blog, I don’t talk about my ethnicity myself, for confidentiality reasons, but I have said that my skin is darker than Barack Obama. I’m not white or Asian. And the reason that I don’t fall into this trap of causing babies to be born out of wedlock is because I think that when the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is a sin, that this is true. I don’t make excuses or shift blame. It’s incumbent on me to obey, since I claim to be a follower of Jesus.I’m not interested in identity politics. I’m not interested in racial divisions. I’m not interested in blame-shifting. The rules are the rules. And my following of the rules caused me to not cause abortions, according to Christian specifications. Period.

When it comes to sex outside of marriage, the answer of every Bible believing Christian is simple: I’m against it. That is the correct answer, and anything more or less than this answer is demonic. If you are a Christian, sex outside of marriage is always morally wrong. And if you try to justify it, or blame someone else, in order to excuse it, then you’re not a Christian at all. If you try to make excuses for why someone did it, you’re not a Christian. Whether you have had it and been forgiven, or never had it, the answer is always the same: it’s morally wrong. Don’t do it. Never do it.

What I am seeing from people who are critical of James White’s tweet is that they are basically trying to attack those who make moral judgments based on what the Bible says. They want to make room for sinners to sin. The root of abortion sin is sexual sin. Real  Christians discourage sexual sin, and therefore protect unborn children. Fake Christians want to be liked by appearing compassionate, so they make excuses for sexual sin. If you take the Bible seriously on morality, you won’t be liked. Those who try to excuse sin do so because their need to be liked is more important than their need to promote what the Bible teaches.

Some fake Christians will say “oh, but I do think the Bible is right about sex and marriage, but we have to care about slavery reparations and global warming and refugees and illegal immigrants and transgender rights, too”. Baloney. An authentic Christian is concerned about the things that the Bible teaches are “major” things. Drunkenness is a major thing. Sexual immorality is a major thing. Divorce is a major thing. Homosexuality is a major thing. If you meet a Christian who treats those issues as minor issues, and instead majors in what the secular left tells them are major issues, then you’re talking to a fake Christian.

Christianity isn’t a brain-dead faith. You get your priorities from the Bible, and you argue those priorities using facts. The facts about marriage rates are clear and they show that the problems in the black community aren’t caused by slavery. They’re caused by single mother welfare programs. Those welfare programs taught women of all races that they didn’t have to listen to their fathers when choosing men. Those welfare programs taught women that feelings were a better guide in relationships than the Bible. Those welfare programs taught women that their eyes were a better judge of character than performance of traditional marriage roles. Those welfare programs taught women that recreational sex was a way to get a man to commit and stop being a bad boy. We need to go back to the root cause of the problem. The root cause of the problem was making excuses for disobedience to the Bible, and transferring money from married homes to out-of-control women. Of all races.