Chat with Aron Ra

I'll respond to the followup posts tomorrow.

It's sad that you can't focus. This was supposed to be a simple Q&A on the topic of evolution from common ancestry. But you can't talk about that. You're mostly trying to talk about abiogenesis instead, but you won't even focus on that. You're all over the place. Your 3rd and 4th posts show that you really don't know how to logic. If you were being honest, I would serious doubt your sanity.

It should be that you post only once in reply to my one post maybe every couple of days or so, and that you only address the points and queries raised in the post you're replying to. So I am whitting out everything else you're trying to spam us with. Your first and second posts today are completely irrelevant, not even part of that conversation. So there was nothing for me to reply to that was on-topic.

However, I do want to answer your list of 57 Nobel laureates who were Christian. Most of them lived before the Nobel prize was ever awarded, so they're Nobel laureates at all, and at least a couple from that list were definitely unbelievers. So your list is a lie, like all creationist arguments and evidence end up being. So in answer to that, here is a List of 137 nonreligious Nobel laureates who actually did win that prize and did or do not believe in God.

rationalist said:

Aron: If there was evidence that pointed to God, you would have shown it by now.
Reply: Evidence is what surrounds us. The question is: Is its origin better explained by natural unguided means, or by an intelligence.

Click to expand...

Evidence would be the body of facts indicating which is the right answer. The enormous body of evidence from all relevant fields shows that evolution definitely works, we know it works, and we can confirm and trace how it worked in the past, whereas your alternative is no more than fallacious reasoning in worship of a book of fairy tales.

rationalist said:

If you claim to have a case which tops intelligent design in explanatory power, provide it.

Click to expand...

I am and have been. The actual tried and tested documented facts I am sharing with you do in fact top your criminal conspiracy to teach religious propaganda illegally.

rationalist said:

Just saying there is no evidence for God is not enough. A good start would be if you can elucidate, how do you recognize intelligent action vs what non-intelligent unguided forces cannot do?

Click to expand...

I told you, an inefficient simplicity would be one hallmark of a designer, if you had first showed that it was possible and probable for your designer to exist and you have explained the mechanism by which it does things. Then, whatever model you have has to account for all the evidence that the current model does, and do it better. You haven't presented anything but falsehoods, frauds and fallacies yet, because that's all you have.

rationalist said:

Aron: while at the same time saying that it is absurd and somehow unfair for us to even ask for evidence.
Reply: Where did i EVER claim such thing?

Click to expand...

Earlier, you said that "applying methodological naturalism to historical sciences is arbitrary and unjustified". But it IS justified and it's not arbitrary. In fact, it keeps science from becoming arbitrary. Because there have to be facts to back the testimony. Evidence is commonly defined as "a fact that indicates". But the only "fact" you have is the claim itself, which is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. Fallacies are not evidence!

You also said that "The Scientific method nor any other will never be able to demonstrate God's existence or the claim that the material universe is all there is. Historical events cannot be repeated." But that's wrong too. If your Bible was correct, they'd be teaching flood geology in every accredited university and genomic heredity would trace everyone's lineage back to the middle east 6.000 years ago, or whenever you pretend your flood happened, and the same would be true for every animal species too. But we have exactly the opposite instead, with human migration always tracing back to Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago, and different lineages of modern mammals tracing as far back as the late Cretaceous.



Even Christian colleges like Wesleyan will not teach Youth Earth Creationism or flood geology, because their students have to find careers in the real world, mostly in the fossil fuel industry, and that means understanding REAL geology in deep time.

So take your own advice. Inquiry of origins should permit the evidence to lead wherever it is, and not exclude any possible explanation a priori. So I'm showing you the facts indicating that evolution is not only possible, but that it actually does explain the data better than your fantasy ever could, and that it is definitely the right explanation too.

You also said that "The fact that science papers do not point to God, does not mean that the evidence unraveled by science does not point to God. Likewise, it's not faith versus reason, it's about reasonable faith, versus unreasonable faith." No, it is faith vs reason. I have no faith, and can only show you reason, but you can only respond with faith because you have no reason. By reason, I mean a reason to believe you, and that means evidence. You ain't got it. I do. All you have are the logical fallacy of assumptions asserted as fact, what scientists refer to as lies.

rationalist said:

Aron: There is not one objectively verifiable fact that is either positively indicative or, or exclusively concordant with your god hypothesis.
Reply: There is not one objectively verifiable fact that is either positively indicative or, or exclusively concordant with your matter only hypothesis.

Click to expand...

There are all the facts that I showed you before, which you snipped and ignored because they are on-topic and prove my point. Here is that list again:

It is a fact that evolution happens, that biodiversity and complexity does increase, and that both occur naturally only by evolutionary means.

It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups.

It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance.

It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers exist to trace these lineages backward over many generations.

It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs the same way humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals.

It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development.

It is a fact that every species on earth has definite relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record.

It is a fact that the fossil record holds hundreds of transitional species even according to its strictest definition, and that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly observed.

Each of these are both positively indicative of evolution and each of them contradicts creationism.

Taking all of this into account, and remembering that we've been using evolutionary mechanisms through agricultural history as well livestock breeding, medicine, toxicology and now expanded applications in tracing genomic markers, it is fair and completely justified to say that evolution is a fact!

rationalist said:

Aron: You have unsupported and indefensible claims that many witnesses saw allegedly witnessed undead saints wandering the streets of Judea, but we don't have testimony from any of them, not even from the other gospels. Nor are there any historical events that can be verified.
Reply: The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection

Click to expand...

The Shroud of Turin was proven to be a hoax. Remember that I told you, creationism depends entirely on frauds, falsehoods and fallacies. Falsehoods and fallacies are you've presented so far. Now you've shown fraud too.

rationalist said:

Aron: Because, as I said, we know that Adam & Eve are just a fairy tale
Reply: Thats a lie. We cannot know this.

Click to expand...

We definitely DO know that! Most reasonable Christians will admit that the first few chapters of Genesis were allegorical, fables with a moral, in which "eating of the fruit of the tree of" either eternal life or of knowledge were only metaphors for choices made and courses taken. In this case, the moral is clear. Once you ascend with knowledge beyond that of other animals, you become like unto the gods and can never go home again. Before Genesis was written, that same story had already been told in the Greek myths of Pandora whose curiosity released evil into the world; and of Prometheus, who shared with man the "forbidden knowledge" of fire; for no other animal uses fire, and knowledge of fire made man like unto the gods. So Prometheus was crucified to atone for the sins of man.
In even older myths, Enki trespassed on the sacred garden of Inanna, then being tended by the Sumerian goddess, Ninhursag. He ate several of the fruits in the forbidden garden, which meant that they were all forbidden fruit. Ninhursag caught the young god, and cursed him, so that the immortal fell, with different wounds for each of the fruits he had eaten. Then she lamented her rage, forgave him, and bore seven daughters, to cure each of his seven wounds. One of them, Ninti was "the daughter of the rib" for she was meant to close the wound to his side. This story was written by the grandfathers of the Biblical authors.
Another similarly ancient, pre-biblical myth is the tale of Adappa, the man of the red earth. He was taken to meet the gods, but he was warned that they might try to poison him. They offered him the food of eternal life, but he had cautioned to refuse all gifts of food or drink, and this is supposed to be why humans are not immortal.
When Genesis was finally composed sometime after the Hebrew exodus out of Babylon, around 450 BCE, if I remember correctly, their Adam was already mortal. Because your fable says that he had a choice to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge or to eat of the fruit of the tree of eternal life. In the very last verse of Genesis 3, God has to get Adam out of the garden before he ate of the fruit of eternal life, because THEN he would live forever.
Now, a number of questions arise from this that I'm sure you've never thought about. One is, if God gave us a choice of two trees, if he wanted us to live forever, why did he give us that choice? Why would he punish us for knowing right from wrong, if we didn't know right from wrong when we disobeyed? Why did he put a cursed tree in the garden along with a talking snake to bait the trap? What if Adam never ate from either tree? What if he never at anything for the rest of his life and starved? If he hadn't eaten from the tree of eternal life, then he would not have lived forever. So you can't say that his sin brought death into the world. Death was already there. Your god made us animals, multicellular organisms with an internal digestive tract, which means we have to consume living cells in order to survive.
So we know these trees are metaphors, not something you could cut down and burn around the campfire. The whole story was definitely only a parable, and reasonable Christians know this.

Francis Collins, Director of our National Institutes of Health was previously Director of the Human Genome Project, and one of the world's foremost authorities on genetics. He is also an Evangelical Christian, but he is not a creationist. In his book, The Language of Science and Faith, Collins and his co-author announced that “unfortunately” the concepts of Adam and Eve as the literal first couple and the ancestors of all humans simply “do not fit the evidence.” He also launched the BioLogos Foundation to promote theistic evolution, especially among evangelicals. Dennis Venema, a senior fellow of BioLogos and a biologist at Trinity Western University, firmly states that there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it’s clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population—long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago.

All of these are facts in evidence that the first chapters of Genesis are fables, adopted and adapted mythology told with an intended moral, that it cannot be literal history. I have many more fact s like these to show as we continue.

rationalist said:

Aron: as are the Tower of Babel
Reply: TOWER OF BABEL STELE
https://******************************/t1974-is-the-bible-historically-accurate#5274
The ziggurat in Babylon was originally built around the time of Hammurabi 1792-1750 BC. The restoration and enlargement began under Nabopolassar, and was finished after 43 years of work under Nebuchadnezzar II, 604-562 BC.

Click to expand...

It's funny to me how you keep showing things I already know but that you don't understand. You don't even understand your own mythology. What was the reason that God "confounded" the people's language? Because God came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men built, and he said, "Behold, the people are one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." So God "went down" and "confounded" their language so that they could not work together to achieve anything as one. Just more evidence that your god is immoral.

The only truth we could lend to this story is that when the Marduk ziggurat was first begun by Hammurabi (the true Moses) there were classes teaching children to read and write in cuneiform, a system of writing where the letters are literally set down in stone. But when the Mesopotamian empire collapsed, the schools closed, and soon no one could read or write anymore. That is the only sense in which this story could be even figuratively true. Then these Semitic people kept retelling the old stories around the fires for about a thousand years before those stories were written down again in a new language. Over that time, the stories evolved as little embellishments were included along with elements of mythos from neighboring religions. So finally we get Genesis only three or four centuries before the time of your Christ character. Then Ashurburnipal's library was discovered, with the original versions of some of these tales dating back thousands of years earlier than Genesis. Now we know the real story.

rationalist said:

Aron: and the global flood of Noah's ark.
Reply: Noah's Ark has been found with high probability on Mount Ararat

Click to expand...

No, it hasn't. Even AnswersInGenesis admits that was a hoax, along with everything else that fraud, Ron Wyatt pretended to discover.

"Popularized in the 1980s by Ron Wyatt and others, this “Ark-shaped” formation lies approximately 15 miles from the summit of Mount Ararat. Wyatt claimed to have found numerous artifacts in the vicinity to corroborate his claims. In the past few years, the Durupinar site has again risen to prominence after being promoted on several websites as the real Noah’s Ark.
Despite its “Ark-like” appearance and popularity, Christian geologists and archaeologists who would love to find the Ark and who have visited the location have soundly rejected the Durupinar site as nothing more than a geologic formation."

So it was just another fraud to add to your fallacies and falsehoods.

rationalist said:

Aron: We know that Jacob didn't really wrestle God, and that Jonah didn't really live three days inside a fish, and the sun was never stopped in the sky, and that Moses never parted the Red Sea. Egyptian folklore already included a tale about a Pharaoh folding a lake over like a black to retrieve things from the bottom. There is a growing consensus among historians that Moses was fictitious and an apparent compilation of at least four other characters.
Reply: Evidence of Exodus
https://******************************/t1718-evidence-of-exodus

the Biblical account of the Exodus contains many tiny details that place it within a distinct historical and chronological context. Those who ignore this evidence refuse to give the Biblical record a fair hearing.

For instance, in the events leading up to the Exodus, the book of Genesis records that Joseph’s brothers sold him for 20 shekels to slave traders who took him from Canaan to Egypt (Gn 37:28). Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen notes some of the flaws in the logic of those who reject the Biblical Exodus or assign it to unnamed writers many centuries later. He notes that the price of 20 shekels is the price of a slave in the Near East in about the 18th century BC...If all these figures were invented during the Exile (sixth century BC) or in the Persian period by some fiction writer, why isn’t the price for Joseph 90 to 100 shekels, the cost of a slave at the time when that story was supposedly written?...It’s more reasonable to assume that the Biblical data reflect reality in these cases (1995:52).

The date of the Exodus can be accurately calculated since the Bible mentions in 1 Kings 6:1 that the fourth year of Solomon’s reign was “the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt.” Surprisingly, there is scholarly agreement about the dates of Solomon’s reign, placing his fourth year in the 960s BC. Subtracting 480 years takes us back to a date for the Exodus in the 1440s BC.

Another Biblical reference used to date the Exodus is found in Judges, where Jephthah tells the Ammonites that Israel had been in the land for 300 years (Jgs 11:26). Again, there is acceptance among the experts that Jephthah’s victory over the Ammonites took place around 1100 BC. This would place the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan near 1400 BC, precisely 40 years after the Exodus. Thus both Biblical dates for the Exodus agree.

Click to expand...

Apologetics is the systematic making of excuses to rationalize or justify or otherwise dismiss any and all evidence against the a-priori assumptions of religious bias. So apologists will always say there is evidence they can never actually show, while everyone else, including actual archaeologists disagree with them.

AronRa said:

The Shroud of Turin was proven to be a hoax. Remember that I told you, creationism depends entirely on frauds, falsehoods and fallacies. Falsehoods and fallacies are you've presented so far. Now you've shown fraud too.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Rationalist actually put up the Shroud of Turin as evidence. /thread

AronRa said:

No, it hasn't. Even AnswersInGenesis admits that was a hoax, along with everything else that fraud, Ron Wyatt pretended to discover.

"Popularized in the 1980s by Ron Wyatt and others, this “Ark-shaped” formation lies approximately 15 miles from the summit of Mount Ararat. Wyatt claimed to have found numerous artifacts in the vicinity to corroborate his claims. In the past few years, the Durupinar site has again risen to prominence after being promoted on several websites as the real Noah’s Ark.
Despite its “Ark-like” appearance and popularity, Christian geologists and archaeologists who would love to find the Ark and who have visited the location have soundly rejected the Durupinar site as nothing more than a geologic formation."

Has the Ark Been Found?

The discovery of Noah’s Ark would be an unparalleled archaeological find. Throughout history, thousands of individuals have searched for the remains.

answersingenesis.org

So it was just another fraud to add to your fallacies and falsehoods.

Click to expand...

No wonder rationalist is a creationist. Just look at the "evidence" that rationalist will cling to. I have been asking for years when creationists will stop being so predictable, but I should also start asking when they will stop being so pathetic.

AronRa, rationalist is not worth your time.

rationalist said:

Aron: I didn't dodge your point. I twice explained why I am scientifically and philosophically justified in saying there is no god and why you are not justified for saying there is one.
Reply: Do you have knowledge of all reality, including what is beyond the physical universe ? If you have not, you do not have absolute knowledge, and NO justification to say in absolute terms that there is no God. Again: You commit the fallacy which you accuse Creationists of.

Click to expand...

Yours is the fallacy because you're the one pretending to know things you don't know. We don't need omniscience to be honest enough not to say that something is a fact when it is not a fact. That's called lying.

rationalist said:

Aron: Don't lie about me. You know as well as I do that you cannot produce scientific evidence in a discussion of science. Instead, you admitted (unwittingly) that your "evidence" was no more than the question-begging fallacy of circular reasoning routing back to the assumed conclusion, and that even that required a "leap of faith". You believe the claims in the Bible because the Bible says so, and you think the claim IS the evidence.

Reply: I can make a case for God ENTIRELY and ONLY using science and philosophy.

Click to expand...

Then why haven't you done that yet? What are you still waiting for? You listed scientists who were Christian back when everyone was Christian, but you didn't show any evidence to support that or any religion. I also listed scientists who were Christian in support of evolution. That doesn't support your position either. Show me something that does.

rationalist said:

Aron: evidence of my position must be in the form of absolute proof.
Reply: I said IF you make ABSOLUTE claims, you have the burden of proof to back up your absolute claims. Otherwise, what i demand, is that materialists make a case providing reasons why the "only matter" hypothesis makes more sense than theism. You have miserably failed to substantiate that proposition so far. As all atheists that i know.

Click to expand...

We both agree that there is a material universe. Now it is your job to show me that there is a magical/supernatural one too.

rationalist said:

Aron: If you were capable of actual discussion, I could show you everything you really need to see. Because we really do have almost all the evidence you said did not exist.
Reply: Do it for your audience. Not for me. Lets see what you got. As said: 10^722000 is your number. Don't dodge.... unless you want to be unmasked as biased which i guess you don't like, right? How did proteins form prebiotically? You have not answered that. Start explaining for what reasons molecules prebiotically selected 20 amino acids out of hundreds supposedly existing on early earth... i am waiting....

Click to expand...

Are you're citing the argument from improbability FALLACY instead of dealing with the actual evidence, which you keep trying to dodge and ignore?

rationalist said:

Aron: Now, here are a list of such facts in evidence for evolution:.......
Reply: Now, here are a list of such facts in evidence for creation..........

Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?
https://******************************/t2316-evolution-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from

The BIG (umbrella) contributor to explain organismal complexity and biodiversity which falsifies and replaces unguided evolutionary mechanisms is preprogrammed prescribed instructional complex information encoded through ( at least ) 31 variations of genetic codes, and 31 epigenetic codes. Complex communication networks use signaling that act on a structural level in an integrated interlocked fashion, which are pre-programmed do direct growth and development, respond to nutrition demands, environmental cues, control reproduction, homeostasis, metabolism, defense systems, and cell death.

1. Genetic and epigenetic information directs the making of complex multicellular organisms, biodiversity, form, and architecture
2. This information is preprogrammed and prescribed to get a purposeful outcome. Each protein, metabolic pathway, organelle or system, each biomechanical structure and motion works based on principles that provide a specific function.
3 Pre-programming and prescribing a specific outcome is always the result of intention with foresight, able to instantiate a distant specific goal.
4. Foresight comes always from an intelligent agent. Therefore, biodiversity is the result of intelligent design, rather than unguided evolution.

The following mechanisms are involved in organismal development and growth:

1. The Gene regulation network orchestrates gene expression
2. Various signaling pathways generate Cell types and patterns
3. At least 23 Epigenetic Codes are multidimensional and perform various tasks essential to cell structure and development
4. Cell-Cell communication in various forms, especially important for animal development
5. Chromatin dance in the nucleus through extensile motors affect transcription and gene regulation
6. Post-transcriptional modifications (PTMs) of histones affect gene transcription
7. The DNA methylation code is like a barcode or marker, the methyl group indicates, for instance, which genes in the DNA are to be turned on.
8. Homeobox and Hox gene expression is necessary for correct regional or local differentiation within a body plan
9. Noncoding DNA ( Junk DNA ) is transcribed into functional non-coding RNA molecules and switches protein-coding genes on or off.
10. Transposons and Retrotransposons regulate genes
11. Centrosomes play a central role in the development
12. The precise arrangement of Cytoskeletal arrays provides critical structural information.
13. Membrane targets provide crucial information—spatial coordinates—for embryological development.
14. Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields influence the form of a developing organism
15. The Sugar Code forms information-rich structures that influence the arrangement of different cell types during embryological development.
16. Egg-polarity genes encode macromolecules deposited in the egg to organize the axes
17. Hormones are special chemical messengers for development
18. Secreted morphogens growth factors direct cell fate decisions during embryonic development.
19. An adhesion code ensures robust pattern formation during tissue morphogenesis

Click to expand...

How do you imagine any of these "facts" contradict evolution? And if any of them did, then where are the peer-reviewed scientific articles showing that? Why haven't those scientists been awarded the Nobel prize and the Templeton prize such an amazing breakthrough? Because I suspect that none of these facts offer any challenge to evolution at all, assuming they are all even facts.

rationalist said:

Aron: When I say that I can prove evolution, I am using proof in the sense that a lawyer would, that proof is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It doesn't have to go beyond UNreasonable doubt.
Reply: https://******************************/t2806-main-topics-about-evolution

What is fact in regards of evolution :
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from
a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly pre-programmed selection acting on random variations or mutations
5. Natural selection acting up to two random mutations as shown in malaria ( See Behe's Edge of evolution )

What is not fact:
6. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
7. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural
selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

Click to expand...

This is the only thing you've posted today that is on-topic. So let's look at this.
1. Incorrect. Evolution is not just "any" sequence of events in nature. As I have already explained, unless otherwise specified, evolution refers to biodiversity via population mechanics. Mutations are not automatically evolution. They don't become evolution until generations later, if they have spread through the local population.

2. Correct. Evolution can be identified by changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Evolution is the taxonomic phylogeny of particular groups of organisms descending from a common ancestor, but it is not "limited". That will be something you will have to explain and defend.

4. There is a growing list of known mechanisms responsible for the changes of descent with modification, but again, it is not "limited" or "pre-programmed" in the sense you seem to imply.

5. Natural selection acting up to two random mutations as shown in malaria, and in Kettlewell's peppered moths, and a few other experiments.

6. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

7. That natural selection is a "blind watchmaker" but still a deterministic process.

Do you accept my minor corrections to your list?

rationalist said:

Aron: You're also committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof when you say that atheists can't prove materialism, that the material world is all there is. You're forgetting that we're not saying that.
Reply: Atheists also have a burden of proof. All of us, in attempting to explain the world around us, move from a plethora of questions to a single responsibility:

There Are Only Two Kinds of Answers In the end, the answers to these questions can be divided into two simple categories: Answers from the perspective of philosophical naturalism (a view I held as an atheist), or answers that accept the existence of supernatural forces (a view I now hold as a theist). Atheists maintain that life’s most important questions can be answered from a purely naturalistic perspective (without the intervention of a supernatural, Divine Being). Theists argue that the evidence often leaves naturalism ‘wanting’ for answers while the intervention of an intelligent, transcendent Creator appears to be the best inference. In times like these, the theist finds it evidentially reasonable to infer a supernatural cause.

Click to expand...

Still, we're only talking about evolution from common ancestry. That would still be true and the Bible would still be false even if your god really existed.

rationalist said:

Aron: You have to SHOW that you're how and how we can know that.
Reply: If you cannot LOGICALLY exclude God as a possible explanation of origins, you cannot claim that the God hypothesis is impossible.

Click to expand...

You got that backwards, if YOU can't show that any such possibility exists, it would be a lie to say that it does.

rationalist said:

Aron: being as material energy is eternal
Reply: Wow. Reeeeeallly ?? Ever heard about the 2nd law of thermodynamics ? How do you go from a high entropy state to a low one?

Click to expand...

Have YOU ever heard of the FIRST Law of Thermodynamics?

rationalist said:

Aron: where did God come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God always existed, why not save a step, and conclude that the Universe always existed?
Reply: The universe had a beginning

Click to expand...

No, it didn't. At least not in the sense that matter or energy were ever created. I'll grant only that time may have had a beginning. But that again has nothing whatsoever to do with our topic of evolution from common ancestry.

rationalist said:

Scientists say things by means of employing scienctific methods. There are many difference branches of science. I believe that the scientific field of archaeology corroborates locations and artifacts.

Click to expand...

But not the events, because they never happened.

rationalist said:

Astronomists have determined that the universe had a beginning, which corroborates Genesis

Click to expand...

Cosmologists have confirmed no such thing. As I have already shown you, they're saying there didn't need to be any beginning. However, the only evidence anyone ever had for this "beginning" was the big bang some 14 billion years ago. Are you now saying you accept the big bang theory?

rationalist said:

1. Biologogy confirms that animals produce after their own kinds.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a "kind". But that is similar to the evolutionary law of monophyly.

rationalist said:

Anthropology confirms by way of genetics that there is one human race.

Click to expand...

Darwin confirmed that there was only one human race. That is supported by evolution.

rationalist said:

Geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours, which backs up the flood.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Geology confirms that there was never a global flood.



Likewise Meteorology disproves Noah's flood.


Paleontology disproves Noah's flood.


Dendrochronology disproves Noah's flood.


Zoology disproves Noah's flood.


Anthropology disproves Noah's flood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BitwnxiPH34

Archaeology disproves Noah's flood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24WbQkRx2_8

Even mythology disproves Noah's flood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrDTaHjg2IQ

AronRa said:

Nor could you verify anything prophetically; especially all your prophesies have failed.

rationalist said:

Fullfilled prophecies in the bible

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

AronRa said:

Revelation is not a way of knowing things. Case in point, Sir Isaac Newton (possibly the most brilliant man who ever lived) was, embarrassingly enough, a deeply religious Christian and a creationist even by the modern definition. Newton declared that he had been specially chosen by God to receive a personal revelation leading to a greater understanding of the scriptures than that of any other man. By your logic, that means that he actually knows what he says he knows, even though he can't demonstrate that knowledge in any way. You just have to take his word for it, same as you expect me to take yours. Do you agree with that? That Sir Isaac Newton must have understood the scriptures better than you or anyone else; not because he is the smartest man in all of history, but because of his claim to divine revelation?

rationalist said:

No. Check what i say, and prove me wrong. Whatever i say, i try to back it up.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You STILL have not answered the question! When we started this conversation, I insisted that you cannot repeatedly ignore direct points or queries. We don't care about any of your cut-and-pasted walls of text from your own blog. We're not even reading them. Stay on-topic and properly address every point and query put to you!

he_who_is_nobody said:

Are you kidding? Rationalist actually put up the Shroud of Turin as evidence. /thread




No wonder rationalist is a creationist. Just look at the "evidence" that rationalist will cling to. I have been asking for years when creationists will stop being so predictable, but I should also start asking when they will stop being so pathetic.

AronRa, rationalist is not worth your time.

Click to expand...

Don't call him a rationalist. Otangelo is anything but rational.

rationalist said:

Aron: Does it matter? I mean, I'm sure I can find it. I've found other studies like that. But do I really need to waste my time answering your question when you'll only ignore the answer again?
Reply: See, when it comes to the specifics, you immediately dodge, rather than giving an honest answer. I can answer my question for you. They had all to emerge together, erasers, readers, and writers, and the histone code. None of them have function by themselves. That observation ALONE kills your worldview. But you cannot admit it, because you are emotionally committed to believe what you want to be true. Your claim that you are not biased is not demonstrated with your attitude, and how you deal with the difficult questions.

Click to expand...

That is a common claim of the intelligent Design creationists, but such has repeatedly been shown not to be the case. Remember that every testable claim the ID crowd have ever made regarding irreducible complexity has been refuted. That doesn't mean we know everything yet, but what we do know has always only ever contradicted your repeated claim that everything had to have happened at once. Every time, scientists have shown that is not the case.

rationalist said:

Aron: It is NOT my job to disprove your unsupported assertions. It is your job to show that they are justified.
Reply: Yes, it is your job. If you want to have a case for materialism, it must rest on its own feet. The new atheists tactic is a lousy one. We have a case, and you dismiss it, but do not provide a better one.... thats lame and cheap.

Click to expand...

You're the one making the positive claim, and you're the one trying to dodge the burden of proof that you're making, to pretend as I have to disprove every hallucination of fever dream that you can make up. No. You show me there is a reason to believe you, and I will show reasons why you should believe me instead.

rationalist said:

Aron: You're saying that a brother and sister can't be different from each other unless they're completely different from their parents?
Reply: Thats not what i am saying. What i say, IMHO, is this:

Irreducible Complexity: The existence of irreducible interdependent structures in biology is an undeniable fact

Click to expand...

No, that is definitely not what you're saying. Remember, I said that according to the law of monophyly, one cannot grow out of one's ancestry. To which you replied that "Each branching point in the tree of life would therefore not be possible. You refute your own phylogeny claim, LOL." This already proved that you still don't have any idea what you're talking about, but it certainly isn't irreducible complexity. Unless you're still having that problem where you can't stay focused.

So let me give you an example of some of those "branching points" we're talking about.



Remember, you said that every single one of these branching points, all of them would be impossible if one cannot grow out of their ancestry. These are all canids, (dogs). They haven't turned into another "fundamentally different kind", yet they have clearly evolved. You said this is impossible. Why is that? Explain yourself. We both already know that it's not because of irreducible complexity.

rationalist said:

Aron: I really didn't need to reply to anything in this whole post as none of was really relevant or substantive.
Reply: So here you are again dodging and exposing your bias. i can go a bit in detail here, and unmask why your narrative is BUNK.

Click to expand...

OK, but don't cite yourself again, nor any other apologetics pseudoscience source either. Show me peer-reviewed studies refuting or debunking published studies on this topic.

Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (2019)

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (2014)

The Multiple Origins of Complex Multicellularity

rationalist said:

Aron: I told you, we have to start with amino acids first.

Otangelo: Yes, you have a LOT to explain in order to have a case. Starting by explaining how the 20 amino acids were selected prebiotically.

Click to expand...

What do you mean, selected?

rationalist said:

Aron: So let me be clear. Success would be, if an experiment would provide evidence how the 20 amino acids could have originated prebiotically on early earth.

Otangelo: That has NOT been done.

Aron: That has been done, as I just showed you.

Otangelo: No, you didn't. Did tryptophan exist prebiotically ?

Click to expand...

Yes.

rationalist said:

If so, how did the transition from a prebiotic synthesis to a enzymatic/metabolic synthesis occur ?

Click to expand...

Take a biology class and ask your teacher how the body synthesizes chemicals that can also be produced abiotically. This is just like when the superstitious people in the 19th century insisted that life had to be animated by a “vital force” found only in living things. Friedrich Wöhler (1800–1882) synthesized urea artificially, without need of kidneys, thus demonstrating that organic chemistry is a biological process governed by the same laws as those that govern nonliving matter.

rationalist said:

Aron: Different experiments using different base chemicals each produced amino acids. That was the goal, to prove that could happen.

Otangelo: That is a far fetch from what is required.

Click to expand...

So let me get this straight, are you are determined to deny that water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen generate amino acids when heated and charged with electricity? And that the same thing happens when you change the mix to include Carbon-dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen-sulfide and sulfur-dioxide? And that heating water to 70ºC in the presence of iron hydroxide also produced amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids in the lab? Even though we have so many well established studies to prove all of this?

rationalist said:

Once you find answers to the question that i ask here, we talk:


Open questions in prebiotic chemistry to explain the origin of the four basic building blocks of life
https://******************************/t1279p75-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible#7759

I remind you, these are not simply open question, because they have not been investigated. Quite the contrary. They are open question despite the fact that over half a century science has tried, but only unraveled how big the problem actually is. It is a CONCEPTUAL problem. Molecules do not urge to themselves being sorted out into functional ones that life can use.

Click to expand...

I can definitely address that, but let's see if you can accept the facts I've already presented first.

rationalist said:

Aron: I remind you that Stanley Miller died in 2007, still thinking his volcano in a bottle experiment was a "dud". Now we know better. Here is a study from just last year that shows, just as I already said, that heating water to 70ºC in the presence of iron hydroxide (simulating geothermal vents in the anaerobic conditions of the prebiotic earth) also produced amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids in the lab.
Reply: Did they produce all used in life?

Click to expand...

Yes. Curiously, humans are only produce half of those, alanine, asparagine, aspartic acid, cysteine, glutamic acid, glutamine, glycine, proline, serine and tyrosine. There are a number of defects in our genome such that we have to supplement the rest in our diet. Not exactly consistent with creationism, is it?

rationalist said:

Did they figure out how early life sorted out those 20 used in life from those that are not used in life?

Click to expand...

That's another thing. There are hundreds of amino acids, many of which have been found even meteorites, so why does all life use the same twenty? That is another fact that is consistent with evolution from common ancestry. Although it may not have always been twenty. One study showed that primordial organisms could have used only 13, but only 9 are essential.

rationalist said:

Did they figure out how to solve the homochirality problem, and how to polymerize them ?

Click to expand...

Yes. Biochemists now know of a ribozyme that can use either left or right-handed RNA templates to exclusively synthesize right-handed versions, solving the problem of homochirality.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/chiral-key-found-to-origin-of-life-20141126/

rationalist said:

Aron:Life should be able to be based on either left or right-handed amino acids, but we know that it doesn't work if they're mixed. So, given the evolutionary laws of monophyly and biodiversity, whatever life started with, it has to stick with. I hardly see why you think this is a problem?
Reply: Your bias shines through. You argue this is not a huge problem ? This KILLS your worldview, and since you are unwilling to acknowledge this OBVIOUS fact, i have good reasons to call you out as dishonest which you really are.

Click to expand...

Unlike you, I am an honest man. I have never lied to you, but you have lied to me repeatedly. So you're a hypocrite, sir. Funny that you are definitely so deeply biased that you will not even concede any well-established fact demonstrated in peer-reviewed research, and you think you're justified in that, but you think that if I'm biased, (and I'm not) that would make me dishonest. Why doesn't your bias make you dishonest? Of course it does. You just want to pretend that everyone else is just as biased and dishonest as you are.

rationalist said:

Aron: You seem pretty desperate not to admit the simple truth that I already put to you. So let me ask that same question again, do you accept and admit that water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen generate amino acids when heated and charged with electricity? That the same thing happens when you change the mix to include Carbon-dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen-sulfide and sulfur-dioxide? And that heating water to 70ºC in the presence of iron hydroxide also produced amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids in the lab?
Reply: Your deflection tactics do not work with me, Aron. Thats why you are inexcusable.

Click to expand...

I asked you a yes or no question. This is your answer, and YOU accuse ME of deflection?!

rationalist said:

I remember you did wear a T-Shirt once: Unforgivable. Yes, if you are unwilling to acknowledge that amino acid synthesis is an unsolvable problem, any other evidence you will dismiss as well.

Click to expand...

Are you willing to acknowledge when that so-called "problem" has been solved?

rationalist said:

You and Matt Dillahunty go really together. You both are irrational and liars. You do NOT permit the evidence to lead wherever it is. Otherwis, RIGHT HERE, you would have given a stop, and said to yourself: Wait a minute. Nature cannot do this, unless a guiding hand was involved. Fortunately, i know you for many years already. And i am not writing this for you, but those that are following this topic. You Sir, need to repent and convert. God loves you. The one that you hate.

Click to expand...

See, you just lied about me again, repeatedly. You do not know me. You keep accusing me of being someone else, and of lying about not being whoever that is. I advocate against hate. I always said that no one cares what you hate, and you shouldn't either. It is only the things you love that will endear you in the memory of those who knew you. The only thing that I hate is injustice. That includes lies, and that necessarily includes the people misrepresenting your Bible as though it was "the word of God" when it obviously isn't.

An honorable man knows better than to accuse another of lying unless you can immediately show that what he said was wrong and that he knew it was wrong when he said it anyway. You can't even show that anything I said was wrong, because it isn't, but most of the shit you say is wrong, and you refuse correction.

rationalist said:

Aron: In order for a thing to exist, it must have properties. Natural laws are when we figure out some of those properties and phrase them in a succinct sentence or a mathematic equation. They are not called laws because of any cosmic legislator.
Reply: Wow. Really ? You must be kidding, right ?

Click to expand...

Nope. I am serious. Your god is an imaginary phantasm, and did not design or prescribe any of the properties of our existence.

rationalist said:

Aron: What you're calling "fine-tuned for life" obviously isn't what you say it is nor why you say it is. Not that any of that has anything to do with evolution, which was the topic, if you could just focus.
Reply: This is full denialism. Amazing up to what length you go to deny the obvious.

Click to expand...

You're trying to project your own faults onto others again. I snipped the rest of this post because you're just lying about me constantly. Fix your defective behavior because you have reached the limit of even my patience.

This is now becoming incredibly tedious and repetitive.

AronI don't misrepresent things like you do. Earlier in this thread, you said that "a code is a system of rules where a symbol, letters, words, etc. are assigned to something else", that "all codes require arbitrary values being assigned and determined by agency to represent something else, and that "To suggest that a physical process can create semiotic code is like suggesting that a rainbow can write poetry." In an earlier email to me, you said, "Codes require a code-maker. Codified information comes always from a mind." So you are the one misrepresenting this. DNA is not a code in the sense you're talking about.
Reply: Yes, and all of this does not indicate that i claimed that DNA is a code. Another lie.

Aron We know how it can happen now. It may have happened differently then, or the same way. Doesn't make any difference really. It's like when you wake up in jail and can't remember what day it is or anything about last night. You don't know how you got there, but there you are. Are you really going to pretend that God teleported you into that cell? Or do you already know that there is a vastly more reasonable explanation, even if you don't know what it is yet?
Reply: And you are telling me that you do not use the "materialism of the gap" canard ? This is a prime example. We don't know, but it must have been a natural selection. These are the moments where you are showing your true colors. Any reasonable person would say: Yes, there is no reason why molecules should group themselves into a highly functional selected group of molecules, which by accident also are the most
adequate amongst a million of other possibilities. Design seems the better explanation.

Why are 20 amino acids used to make proteins? Why not more or less ? And why especially the ones that are used amongst hundreds available?

https://***************************...that-are-used-amongst-hundreds-available#8289

Paper Reports that Amino Acids Used by Life Are Finely Tuned to Explore “Chemistry Space” 3
June 5, 2015
A recent paper in Nature‘s journal Scientific Reports, “Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids,” has found that the twenty amino acids used by life are finely tuned to explore “chemistry space” and allow for maximal chemical reactions. Considering that this is a technical paper, they give an uncommonly lucid and concise explanation of what they did:

Extraordinarily Adaptive Properties of the Genetically Encoded Amino Acids 4
24 March 2015
We drew 10^8 random sets of 20 amino acids from our library of 1913 structures and compared their coverage of three chemical properties: size, charge, and hydrophobicity, to the standard amino acid alphabet. We measured how often the random sets demonstrated better coverage of chemistry space in one or more, two or more, or all three properties. In doing so, we found that better sets were extremely rare. In fact, when examining all three properties simultaneously, we detected only six sets with better coverage out of the 10^8 possibilities tested.

Luskin of Evolutionnews continues: That’s quite striking: out of 100 million different sets of twenty amino acids that they measured, only six are better able to explore “chemistry space” than the twenty amino acids that life uses. That suggests that life’s set of amino acids is finely tuned to one part in 16 million.

Nature continues: This is consistent with the hypothesis that natural selection influenced the composition of the encoded amino acid alphabet, contributing one more clue to the much deeper and wider debate regarding the roles of chance versus predictability in the evolution of life.

[img(450px,430px)]
The number of random sets (out of 10^8, or 100,000,000) with better coverage than the encoded amino acids in one, two, or three properties.
Note that the circles are not drawn to scale; an appropriately scaled circle representing the number of random sets with better coverage in all three properties than the encoded set would only cover an area approximately 1/ 100th of that of the period at the end of this sentence.

Well, or maybe there was neither evolution, nor natural selection, and if chance is not a good explanatory candidate, we might consider another option, commonly ignored by secular science: Selection by an intelligent agency with foresight and higher intelligence.


Aron: If you were one of Darwin's neighbors when he was alive, you might whine that there are no transitional species, and that no one had ever shown how offspring inherit units of information from their parents, and you might crow that both of those are evidence for you magic imaginary friend. But since then we've found numerous transitional species, including two that Darwin specifically predicted, and now we know how genes and mutations work.
Reply: Fossils - Evidence AGAINST evolution
https://******************************/t1701-fossils-evidence-against-evolution

Schwartz, Jeffrey H. [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, USA], "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p.3.
"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."


Show me the transitional forms of oxygenic photosynthesis..... or of the tully monster..... or of the trilobite eye..... or of the 70 phyla of the Cambrian....


Aron: you think that whatever science can't explain counts as evidence for your god. That's not logical, but then neither are you. So you have to push back even further to whatever you think we don't yet know, just to deny what we do know, to pretend that we don't really know anything, even though we really do, and you don't.
Reply: Syllogistic - Arguments of Gods existence based on positive evidence
https://***************************...-of-gods-existence-based-on-positive-evidence

Intelligent design theory is like a sword with two edges

Intelligent design wins using eliminative induction based on the fact that its competitors are false. Materialism explains basically nothing consistently in regards to origins but is based on unwarranted consensus and scientific materialism, a philosophical framework, that should never have been applied to historical sciences. Evidence should be permitted to lead wherever it is. Also, eventually, to an intelligent agency as the best explanation of origins.

And intelligent design wins based on abductive reasoning, using inference to the best explanation, relying on positive evidence, on the fact that basically all-natural phenomena demonstrate the imprints and signature of intelligent input and setup. We see an unfolding plan, a universe governed by laws, that follows mathematical principles, finely adjusted on all levels, from the Big Bang, to the earth, to permit life, which is governed by instructional complex information stored in genes and epigenetically, encoding, transmitting and decoding information, used to build, control and maintain molecular machines ( proteins ) that are build based on integrated functional complex parts ( primary to quaternary polypeptide strands and active centers ), which are literally nanorobots with internal communication systems, fully automated manufacturing production lines, transport carriers, turbines, transistors, computers, and factory parks, employed to give rise to a wide range, millions of species, of unimaginably complex multicellular organisms.

Chance to find a message written on a cloud in the sky: "Jesus loves you" randomly, is as DNA creating its own software, and upon it, writing a complex algorithm to make a protein by accident.



Aron: We can map geologic horizons to determine what strata we're working in. Where we were the most, there was an igneous deposit that had been radiometrically dated, (Uranium-lead, if I remember correctly) and another similar feature stratigraphically below where we were. So we knew that the fossils in this particular spot were from 262 to 263 million years old, the late Permian period.
Reply: Invite me the next time, and i will be more than happy to join and expose my views. Modern scientific dating is about as reasonable, reliable, and right as MSNBC commentators! Radiometric dating is always dependent on uniformitarian geologic interpretations–always. The age of the various strata, determined many years ago, are always used to “help” date a fossil. They use circular reasoning when they use rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks!

https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

AronRa said:

Don't call him a rationalist. Otangelo is anything but rational.

Click to expand...

I call people by their chosen handle on this forum. As someone that regularly gets upset when people call you by the wrong name, you should understand this.

rationalist said:

Aron: The enormous body of evidence from all relevant fields shows that evolution definitely works, we know it works, and we can confirm and trace how it worked in the past, whereas your alternative is no more than fallacious reasoning in worship of a book of fairy tales.
Reply: Ok. Which of the following mechanisms are NOT involved in organismal development and growth ?

1. The Gene regulation network orchestrates gene expression
2. Various signaling pathways generate Cell types and patterns
3. At least 23 Epigenetic Codes are multidimensional and perform various tasks essential to cell structure and development
4. Cell-Cell communication in various forms, especially important for animal development
5. Chromatin dance in the nucleus through extensile motors affect transcription and gene regulation
6. Post-transcriptional modifications (PTMs) of histones affect gene transcription
7. The DNA methylation code is like a barcode or marker, the methyl group indicates, for instance, which genes in the DNA are to be turned on.
8. Homeobox and Hox gene expression is necessary for correct regional or local differentiation within a body plan
9. Noncoding DNA ( Junk DNA ) is transcribed into functional non-coding RNA molecules and switches protein-coding genes on or off.
10. Transposons and Retrotransposons regulate genes
11. Centrosomes play a central role in the development
12. The precise arrangement of Cytoskeletal arrays provides critical structural information.
13. Membrane targets provide crucial information—spatial coordinates—for embryological development.
14. Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields influence the form of a developing organism
15. The Sugar Code forms information-rich structures that influence the arrangement of different cell types during embryological development.
16. Egg-polarity genes encode macromolecules deposited in the egg to organize the axes
17. Hormones are special chemical messengers for development
18. Secreted morphogens growth factors direct cell fate decisions during embryonic development.
19. An adhesion code ensures robust pattern formation during tissue morphogenesis

Click to expand...

What the fuck did this have to do with the preceding statement? Or with evolution from common ancestry? Which is the topic you invited me to talk about, but which you consistently avoid.

You said there were mechanisms at work at the Macroevolutionary level that were not working on the micro level. I asked you to explain what they are, but you ignored my question. I gave you a genetic chart showing the phylogeny of modern canids, and I asked you to explain whatever problem you had with that chart. It was immediately relevant to the topic of our conversation. In fact that is the point we really should have started from, but you ignored that question too. You failed to produce any evidence either for your alternative reality or against the established science of common descent. In fact, you avoided the topic altogether. I told you twice that your argument requires that you answer the Phylogeny Challenge, which you really should. But you ignored that too. At one point, you said that you accept the correct definition of macroevolution, but then immediately contradicted yourself by lying about it again.

I keep trying to get you focused on the topic. I have tried to engage you with simple yes or no questions, which you do not answer. Instead you cut-and-paste irrelevant nonsense from your own blog, vast walls of tedious text at don't connect to the point or question posed to you, and that only show that you do not and WILL not comprehend what I am asking or explaining. I'm trying to show you what I actually know, so that you'll know it too. But you can only answer with what you want to believe, and you can't show any reason why I should believe it too. Because you don't understand anything about science and you sure don't know how to logic. All you do is recite false allegations and hateful generalizations, clinging desperately to your bigoted misunderstanding, which you are unable to question or correct.

I don't think you're stupid, but I don't think you're sane either, and I know you're not being honest. For example, there is no such thing as "materialism of the gaps". That was a stupid thing for you to say! Likewise, DNA is not a code that must be pre-programmed by an intelligent agent, like you keep insisting it is. Whenever I correct you on that or any of your many other errors, you falsely accuse me of lying. Then you cite known hoaxes as evidence, and you make blanket mistaken judgements based on your prejudice against rational unbelievers.

I had to ask you over and over again whether you would accept the established facts of protein synthesis, and you still have not given a clear answer, because you will not admit reality. Just to clarify, when scientists demonstrate how amino acids can be produced in nature, they are creating the conditions in which the chemistry works on its own, but where we can also observe it with magnification. I showed you a peer-reviewed study explaining this, but you dismissed repeatable, experimental science as "poppycock" without any possible justification, simply because of your own unshakable bias. You are not a rationalist, because you cannot be reasoned with.

Thus we cannot proceed to the next level. I told you already that if you repeatedly ignore direct questions, as you consistently have done and keep doing, then I have no reason to continue, especially not when you reject confirmed realities in peer reviewed documentation.

Again, I am not interested in spending the rest of my life breaking down the entirety of Otangelo's tirade of copy pasted responses. It's not worth my time really, I will again just point out a few things that caught my eye.

rationalist said:

Aron: human migration always tracing back to Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago
Reply: Human origins: Created, or evolved?
https://***************************...is-account-of-literal-6-days-just-a-myth#8168

THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY IS IN OUR GENOME. WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT mtDNA OF HUMANS FITS THE 6000-YEAR TIMESCALE, EXPLAINS THE THREE HAPLOGROUPS, AND THE RELATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRE AND POST FLOOD HUMANITY. One Eve in the beginning, population shrinks to 8 people (Noah, Noahs wife, 3 sons, 3 wives of Noahs sons). 3 boys get MTDNA from mom and then it ends. Genesis 9 says from these 3 the entire world was repopulated. We get our MTDNA from their 3 wives. Population would then grow and shrink to 8 at the time of the flood and then grow again momentarily ending with the splitting of people groups at the Tower of Babel.

Click to expand...

First: The mtDNA haplogroup tree, which I have talked about before on this forum.

Quick background. mtDNA is DNA inside the mitochondria, which is only inherited from the mother. Because of this, we can use this mtDNA to track human history back via the female line (mother to mother to mother, etc) by comparing the single nucleotide polymorphisms (or SNPs) between different individuals that define their "haplotype". From this, we can reconstruct a phylogenetic relationship where at each node a haplogroup is defined by SNPs that are held in common by the daughters of that node.


[simplified visual explanation of haplogroups)

Now, the claim that Otangelo is making originated from Nathaniel Jeanson's book "Replacing Darwin" or one of his "articles" on answers in genesis. The claim being that the phylogenetic tree constructed from mtDNA haplogroups shows that everyone is descendant from three nodes, L M and N, representing the wives of Noah's sons (the green arrows in the figure shared by Otangelo).

Now, there are several problems with this, but the 3 main problem here are:

1: This is an unrooted tree. An unrooted tree shows that certain nodes have an ancestor/descended relationship of some kind, but you can't tell the direction of ancestry, i.e. you cannot say based on an unrooted three which node(s) is/are the ancestors of everyone else. You have to first determine the ROOT of the tree. This is where Jeanson goes wrong, he just says that the three nodes are the ancestors of every lineage, but he doesn't determine that the root is actually there. He just asserts it is there.

2. The second problem is that, it doesn't matter where you actually put the root on the tree, the tree shows that Jeanson is wrong about his claim about the three nodes that he points at as being "the three wives" are contemporary. His argument relies on the assumption that these nodes are contemporaneous, so they must be cousins of each other, not being an ancestor of another. But this is exactly what happens if you root the tree, and again, it doesn't matter where you put it. No matter what, you will either end up with one of the "wives" being the ancestor of the one or both of the other two, or you have one wive being the grandmother, and one the mother, and last one being the daughter. A very awkward family to say the least.

3. The easiest way to determine the root is by the "mid-point". The unrooted three does show the "distances" in terms of genetic difference between the nodes, so by making the reasonable assumption that all lineages experienced roughly the same number of genetic changes since they diverged from the common ancestor, we can place the root at the point where each descendant lineage is rouglhy the same distance away from the common ancestor.


If you do that with the mtDNA haplogroup tree, you get the following. (see B)

Not only is one (haplogroup L) of the so-called "three wives" the ancestor of the other two "wives" M and N (red arrows), note that these three nodes aren't even the ancestor of every lineage (those on the left). So these three nodes don't even represent the ancestors of everyone alive as well. And there are several published papers on this that shows a similar story. What is more, the L M and N nodes represent haplogroups that are distributed largely on different continents: L is more common in Africa while M and N are common in non-african continents. Since L is the ancestor of M and N, this supports the out of Africa scenario.

Jeanson still insists that the actual root lies closes to the "three nodes" denoted by these arrows. The problem here is that you no longer have the mid-point as the root. This makes some lineages extremely long compared to the others, in particularly the L haplogroups of Africa. This is why Jeanson has to assert that African people experienced MORE mutations, claiming that they have a higher mutation reproductive rate. He has no evidence to support this, it is just his way to try to squeeze the data as much as he can into his conclusion. It is nothing but ad hoc excuses.

Lastly, about the claim that this fits into a 6000 time scale, Jeanson uses this tree to calculate when the last common ancestor lived by using a mutation rate that is far too high. He messes this calculation up by measuring the mutation rates by comparing mothers to daughters, instead of using grandmothers, mothers and daughters. The problem here is that he includes somatic mutations in the mtDNA to calculate the mutation rate per generation, since only the mutations in the germline are inherited, so for that you need to compare the mtDNA from at least 3 generations to see how many mutations were actually inherited via the germline.

If you want to see more on this, read up on Ration alMind's review of Jeanson's book or watch Dan's (Creation Myths) video review on youtube.

Nesslig20 said:

I am not interested in spending the rest of my life breaking down the entirety of Otangelo's tirade of copy pasted responses.

Click to expand...

Seems reasonable

Aron: What the fuck did this have to do with the preceding statement? Or with evolution from common ancestry?
Reply: Everything. The fact that you even ask, makes me wonder....

In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton’s theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.

For a complete understanding of biological processes that define the intricate development of body architecture with striking precision, the orchestration of organismal development, cell and tissue shape, organization, and body form, it is necessary to understand as many integrative elements of biological systems as possible. Complex pattern formation involves numerous highly intricate biomolecular mechanisms that lead to the superb formation of tissue structures. That includes providing information that gives mechanical cues directing intra and extracellular shape changes and movements on the level of individual cells, but also tissue substratum as a whole. Answering the questions about how cells, tissues, and organisms masterfully develop and form, precedes the question IF evolutionary claims are compelling answers, explaining IF the evolutionary changes permit a purely blind primary macroevolutionary transition zone, morphogenesis of an entire organism moving and morph from one species to another on a first-degree speciation level, where novel features arise, like wings, eyes, ears, legs, arms, and so forth. The fact and truth are, that science is still far and away from having a complete answer to that question. But what we do know, permits to make informed conclusions.

Biodiversity and complex organismal architecture is explained by trillions of bits. Incredible amounts of data far beyond our imagination. Instructions, complex codified specifications, INFORMATION. Algorithms masterfully encoded in various genetic and sophisticated epigenetic languages and communication channels and networks. Neurotransmitters, through nanotubes between cells, communication through vesicles and amazingly, even light photons. Genes, but as well and especially various striking epigenetic signaling and bioelectric codes through various signaling networks provide cues to molecules and macromolecule complexes, and ingenious scaffold networks interpret and react in a variety of ways upon decoding and data processing of those instructions. Since signaling pathways work in an extraordinarily precise, in a synergetic integrated manner with the transcriptional regulatory network and complex short and long-range cross-talk between cells, these crucial instructions, crucial for advanced life forms, could not be the result of a random gradual increase of information. These superb information networks only operate and work in an integrated fashion, and had to be "born", and fully set up right from the beginning. Conveying codes, a system of rules to convert information, such as letters and words, into another form, and translation ciphers of one language to another are always sourced back to intelligent set-up. What we see in biochemistry is incredibly complex instructional codified information being stored through the genetic code ( codons) in a masterful information-storage molecule (DNA), encoded ( DNA polymerase), sent (mRNA), and decoded ( Ribosome), as well as epigenetic codes and languages, and several signaling pathways. The morphogenesis of organismal structure and shape is classified into two groups: The various instructional codes and languages using molecules that provide complex instructional cues of action based on information through signaling and secondly by force-generating molecules that are precisely directed through those signals, which are responsible for fantastic cell morphogenesis. Blueprints, instructional information, and master plans, which permit the striking autonomous self-organization and control of complex machines ( molecular machines) and exquisite factory parks ( cells) upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made both for purposeful, specific goals. That brings us unambiguously to intelligent design. To the origin by an intelligent designer.

Aron: You said there were mechanisms at work at the Macroevolutionary level that were not working at the micro level. I asked you to explain what they are, but you ignored my question.
Reply: It seems as if you are kidding, but we know you are not. The ignorance of your question cannot be overstated, and exposed once again how much you wish God not to enter the picture. But he does, and powerfully so, and the evidence is undeniable. Whatever I claim, is not a presupposition, but the inference and result of years of scientific investigation. Each of the mechanisms listed contribute to organismal form and architecture.

1. The Gene regulation network orchestrates gene expression

EVOLUTIONARY BIOSCIENCE AS REGULATORY SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135751/

2. Various signalling pathways generate Cell types and patterns

- Hedgehog (Hh)
Erica Yao, Pao Tien Chuang, Hedgehog signalling: From basic research to clinical applications
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929664615000340

- Wingless related (Wnt)
Katrin E. Wiese, Roel Nusse, Renée van Amerongen, Wnt signalling: conquering complexity
http://dev.biologists.org/content/145/12/dev165902

- Transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β)
D A Clark, R Coker Transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9611771

- Receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK)
Receptor Tyrosine Kinase (RTK) Signaling Transduction
https://www.sinobiological.com/receptor-tyrosine-kinase-rtk-signaling-transduction.html

- Notch
Emma R. Andersson, Rickard Sandberg, Urban Lendahl Notch signalling: simplicity in design, versatility in function
http://dev.biologists.org/content/138/17/3593

- Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer
David W. Dodington Harsh R. Desai Minna Woo JAK/STAT – Emerging Players in Metabolism
https://www.cell.com/trends/endocrinology-metabolism/pdf/S1043-2760(17)30150-9.pdf

- Activators of transcription (STAT) protein kinases
Robert A Ortmann,1 Tammy Cheng,1 Roberta Visconti,1 David M Frucht ,1 and John J O'Shea1 Janus kinases and signal transducers and activators of transcription: their roles in cytokine signaling, development and immunoregulation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129988/

- Nuclear hormone pathways
Maria Sirakov, Amina Boussouar, Elsa Kress, Carla Frau, Imtiaz Nisar Lone, Julien Nadjar, Dimitar Angelov, Michelina Plateroti The thyroid hormone nuclear receptor TRα1 controls the Notch signaling pathway and cell fate in murine intestine
http://dev.biologists.org/content/142/16/2764

- Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMP)
Richard N Wang 1, Jordan Green 1, Zhongliang Wang Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP) signaling in development and human diseases
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25401122

- Epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/epidermal-growth-factor-receptor

- Fibroblast growth factors (FGF)
Nobuyuki Itoh, David M. Ornitz Fibroblast growth factors: from molecular evolution to roles in development, metabolism and disease
https://academic.oup.com/jb/article/149/2/121/837258

- DNA methylation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23877618

- Histone modification and incorporation of histone variants
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270654681_Histone_Variants_and_Epigenetics

- Chromatin remodelling in Eukaryotic Cells
https://www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/Chromatin-Remodeling-Mechanisms-and-Importance.aspx

- Non-coding RNA-mediated epigenetic regulation

3. Epigenetic Codes perform various tasks essential to cell structure and development

1. The Over 30 different genetic Codes
2. The Adhesion code
3. The Apoptosis Code
4. The Bioelectric code
5. The Biophoton code
6. The Calcium Code
7. The Coactivator/corepressor/epigenetic code
8. The DNA methylation Code
9. The Domain substrate specificity code of Nonribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPS)
10. The error correcting code
11. The Genomic regulatory Code
12. The Glycomic Code
13. The Histone Code
14. The HOX Code
15. The Metabolic Code
16. The Myelin Code
17. The Neuronal spike-rate Code
18. The Non-ribosomal code
19. The Nucleosome Code
20. The Phosphorylation code
21. The Post-translational modification code for transcription factors
22. The RNA code
23. The Splicing Codes
24. The Signal Transduction Codes
25. The Signal Integration Codes
26. The Sugar Code
27. The Synaptic Adhesive Code
28. The Transcription factor code
29. The Transcriptional cis-regulatory code
30. The Tubulin Code
31. The Ubiquitin Code

4. Cell-Cell communication in various forms, especially important for animal development
Genes involved in Cell-Cell communication and transcriptional control are especially important for animal development
Molecular Biology of the Cell, 5th Ed, 2008: page 1308

5. Chromatin dance in the nucleus through extensile motors affect transcription and gene regulation
Transcription and gene regulation Genome topology has emerged as a key player in all genome functions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5837811/

6. Post-transcriptional modifications (PTMs) of histones affect gene transcription
Post-translational modifications (PTMs) of histones provide a fine-tuned mechanism for regulating chromatin structure and dynamics.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4099259/

7. The DNA methylation code is like a barcode or marker, the methyl group indicates, for instance, which genes in the DNA are to be turned on.
DNA methylation has several uses in the vertebrate cell. A very important role is to work in conjunction with other gene expression control mechanisms to establish a particularly efficient form of gene repression.
Molecular Biology of the Cell, 5th Ed, 2008: Cell, page 467

8. Homeobox and Hox genes determine the shape of the body
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24996862.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

9. Noncoding DNA ( Junk DNA ) is transcribed into functional non-coding RNA molecules and switches protein-coding genes on or off.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4394429/

10. Transposons and Retrotransposons regulate genes
http://dev.biologists.org/content/143/22/4101

11. Centrosomes play a central role in development
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2734160/

12. The precise arrangement of Cytoskeletal arrays provides critical structural information.
The three major cytoskeletal filaments are responsible for different aspects of the cell’s spatial organization and mechanical properties.
Molecular Biology of the Cell By Bruce Alberts 6th. ed. page 889

13. Membrane targets provide crucial information—spatial coordinates—for embryological development.
Preexisting membrane targets, already positioned on the inside surface of the egg cell, determine where these molecules will attach and how they will function. These membrane targets provide crucial information—spatial coordinates—for embryological development.

14. Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields influence the form of a developing organism
https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/10243383/20151217_CO_Vanegas.pdf

15. The Sugar Code forms information-rich structures which influence the arrangement of different cell types during embryological development.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15174156

16. Egg-polarity genes encode macromolecules deposited in the egg to organize the axes
http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/alternative-rna-splicing-in-evolution

17. Hormones are special chemical messengers for development
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Human_Physiology/The_endocrine_system

Reply : I gave you a genetic chart showing the phylogeny of modern canids, and I asked you to explain whatever problem you had with that chart.
Reply: I have no problem with secondary speciation. We know it happens. It explains why there were just a limited number of species on the ark, and then they specified and diversified. Thats why we have many more species on earth today. It fits perfectly our creation model.

In order for a new limb to evolve, let's say arms, not only would have there to be new information of where to locate the new limb in the body to be functional, ( hox genes ) and develop in the right sequence and order but also, at the same time, each of the seven mentioned items below would have to develop together :

1. Muscular system - essential for the movement of the body, maintains posture and circulates blood throughout the body.
2. Skeletal system - is the internal framework of the body.
3. Nervous system - is the part that coordinates its actions by transmitting signals to and from different parts of its body.
4. Endocrine System- hormones are signaling molecules that target distant organs to regulate physiology and behavior.
5. Circulatory system - is an organ system that permits blood to circulate and transport nutrients (such as amino acids and electrolytes), oxygen, carbon dioxide, hormones, and blood cells to and from the cells in the body.
6. Integumentary system - comprises the skin and its appendages acting to protect the body from various kinds of damage, such as loss of water or damages from outside
7. Lymphatic System It is part of the vascular system and an important part of the immune system, comprising a large network of lymphatic vessels that carry a clear fluid called lymph directionally towards the heart.

The human body is a system performing its basic functions including a set of seven well-matched interdependent systems, besides requiring five major components, 1) communication; (2) waste disposal; (3) nutrition;
(4) repair; and (5) reproduction. mutually interacting, where each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.

Aron: You failed to produce any evidence either for your alternative reality
Reply: Your wilful ignorance shines through again. Thats why you are inexcusable in God's eyes. You ignore the OVERWHELMING evidence that points to God for reasons that only you know.
As said, every time you repeat your unjustified and dishonest mantra, i will reply with this:

125 reasons to believe in God

https://******************************/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god

The obviousness of Creation is hidden from those who reject God. There is no evidence that we can exist without a creator.
Since there is being, being has always been. Beginning requires a beginner. Contingent beings depend on a necessary cause. Creation requires a creator. Design requires a designer.Laws require a lawmaker. Mathematics requires a mathematician. Fine-tuning requires a fine-tuner, Codes require a coder. Information requires an Informer. Translation requires a translator. Life has only been observed to come from life. Logic comes from logic, Consciousness comes from consciousness, Factories require a factory-maker, Objective moral values come from a moral giver. The "God of the gaps" argument is invalid. And so, that there is no evidence for God(s).

Scientists, most of them not believing in God, had to acknowledge and admit the overwhelming evidence pointing to the overwhelming appearance of design in the natural world:
https://******************************/t1276p25-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god#8282

Aron: or against the established science of common descent.
Reply: Established by whom? When? How? Because in my book, this is neither established, nor proven, but rather a falsified claim for the reasons already exposed.

DNA Replication Across Taxa , page 193: 2016
Genome sequencing of cells from the three domains of life, bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes, reveal that most of the core replisome components evolved twice, independently. Thus, the bacterial core replisome enzymes do not share a common ancestor with the analogous components in eukaryotes and archaea, while the archaea and eukaryotic core replisome machinery share a common ancestor

Koonin, the logic of chance, page 331:

The reconstructed gene repertoire of LUCA also has gaping holes. The two most shocking ones are

(i) the absence of the key components of the DNA replication machinery, namely the polymerases that are responsible for the initiation (primases) and elongation of DNA replication and for gap-filling after primer removal, and the principal DNA helicases (Leipe, et al., 1999), and
(ii) the absence of most enzymes of lipid biosynthesis. These essential proteins fail to make it into the reconstructed gene repertoire of LUCA because the respective processes in bacteria, on one hand, and archaea, on the other hand, are catalyzed by different, unrelated enzymes and, in the case of membrane phospholipids, yield chemically distinct membranes.

bacteria and archaea have membranes made of water-repellent fatty molecules. Simple fatty molecules tend to flip around, making the membrane leaky, so both bacteria and archaea tacked on a water-loving phosphate group to stabilise the molecules and make their membranes impermeable. They took very different routes, though. Bacterial membranes are made of fatty acids bound to the phosphate group while archaeal membranes are made of isoprenes bonded to phosphate in a different way. This suggests that their membranes evolved independently. This leads to something of a paradox: if LUCA already had an impermeable membrane for exploiting proton gradients, why would its descendants have independently evolved two different kinds of impermeable membrane? 17

Aron: In fact, you avoided the topic altogether.
Reply: Not true. I responded to it, as i am doing again, right now. The fact that you are not acknowledging it, is your fault. Not mine.

Aron: I told you twice that your argument requires that you answer the Phylogeny Challenge, which you really should.
Reply: We can do that. You failed miserably as Angelmou, when you claimed that an intermediate archea was found, being the bridge from prokaryotes to eukaryotes. When i showed you a paper from 2017, where the claim made in 2015 was refuted. In fact, the endosymbiotic theory is also bunk for several reasons already exposed here. Just to remind you,

Did eukaryotes evolve from prokaryotic cells?
https://******************************/t1568-did-eukaryotes-evolve-from-prokaryotic-cells

1. There are no true intermediates in the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition. More than 20 different versions of endosymbiotic theory have been presented in the literature to explain the origin of eukaryotes and their mitochondria. The origin of eukaryotes is certainly one of early evolution's most important topics. “Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another... Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.” The organizational complexity of the eukaryotes is so much greater than that of the prokaryotes that it is difficult to visualize how a eukaryote could have arisen from any known prokaryote (Hickman et al., 1997, p. 39). In eukaryotes the mitochondria produce most of the cell’s ATP (anaerobic glycolysis also produces some) and in plants the chloroplasts can also service this function. The mitochondria produce ATP in their internal membrane system called the cristae. Since bacteria lack mitochondria, as well as an internal membrane system, they must produce ATP in their cell membrane which they do by two basic steps. The bacterial cell membrane contains a unique structure designed to produce ATP and no comparable structure has been found in any eukaryotic cell (Jensen, Wright, and Robinson, 1997).

2. We do not know of any prokaryote able to engulf another cell. Only eukaryotes can do it.

3. The Darwinian Basis of the Prokaryote-to-Eukaryote Transition Collapses
https://******************************/t1568-did-eukaryotes-evolve-from-prokaryotic-cells#3782
Mitochondria has a different genetic code, and there is no viable route for the evolution of the genetic code. Mitochondria use a slight variation on the conventional genetic code (for example, the codon UGA is a stop codon in the conventional code, but encodes for Tryptophan in mitochondria). This implicates that the genes of the ingested prokaryotes would need to have been recoded on their way to the nucleus. The situation becomes even worse when one considers that, in eukaryotic cells, a mitochondrial protein is coded with an extra length of polypeptide which acts as a "tag" to ensure that the relevant protein is recognised as being mitochondrial and dispatched accordingly. The significant number of specific co-ordinated modifications which would be required to facilitate such a transition, therefore, arguably make it exhibitive of irreducible complexity.

The different genetic codes
https://******************************/t2277-the-different-genetic-codeses
The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), currently acknowledges nineteen different coding languages for DNA. And i list 31 different ones.
If the mitochondria in invertebrates use a different genetic code from the mitochondria in vertebrates, and both of those codes are different from the “universal” genetic code, what does that tell us? It means that the eukaryotic cells that eventually evolved into invertebrates must have formed when a cell that used the “universal” code engulfed a cell that used a different code. However, the eukaryotic cells that eventually evolved into vertebrates must have formed when a cell that used the “universal” code engulfed a cell that used yet another different code. As a result, invertebrates must have evolved from one line of eukaryotic cells, while vertebrates must have evolved from a completely separate line of eukaryotic cells. But this isn’t possible, since evolution depends on vertebrates evolving from invertebrates. Now, of course, this serious problem can be solved by assuming that while invertebrates evolved into vertebrates, their mitochondria also evolved to use a different genetic code. However, I am not really sure how that would be possible. After all, the invertebrates spent millions of years evolving, and through all those years, their mitochondrial DNA was set up based on one code. How could the code change without destroying the function of the mitochondria? At minimum, this adds another task to the long, long list of unfinished tasks necessary to explain how evolution could possibly work. Along with explaining how nuclear DNA can evolve to produce the new structures needed to change invertebrates into vertebrates, proponents of evolution must also explain how, at the same time, mitochondria can evolve to use a different genetic code!

4. Membranes of dauther cells are only inherited by membranes of mother cells through fission.

Intracellular Compartments and Protein Sorting
https://******************************/t3048-intracellular-compartments-and-protein-sorting
Unlike a bacterium, which generally consists of a single intracellular compartment surrounded by a plasma membrane, a eukaryotic cell is elaborately subdivided into functionally distinct, membrane-enclosed compartments. Each compartment, or organelle, contains its own characteristic set of enzymes and other specialized molecules, and complex distribution systems transport-specific products from one compartment to another. To understand the eukaryotic cell, it is essential to know how the cell creates and maintains these compartments, what occurs in each of them, and how molecules move between them. Proteins confer upon each compartment its characteristic structural and functional properties. They catalyze the reactions that occur there and selectively transport small molecules into and out of the compartment. For membrane-enclosed organelles in the cytoplasm, proteins also serve as organelle-specific surface markers that direct new deliveries of proteins and lipids to the appropriate organelle. An animal cell contains about 10 billion (10^10) protein molecules of perhaps 10,000 kinds, and the synthesis of almost all of them begins in the cytosol, the space of the cytoplasm outside the membrane-enclosed organelles. Each newly synthesized protein is then delivered specifically to the organelle that requires it. . By tracing the protein traffic from one compartment to another, one can begin to make sense of the otherwise bewildering maze of intracellular membranes

5. Mitochondrial membrane biogenesis: phospholipids and proteins go hand in hand 1
https://***************************...-origins-through-natural-mechanisms-or-design
Mitochondrial membrane biogenesis requires the import and synthesis of proteins as well as phospholipids.The biochemical approach of Kutik et al. (2008) uncovered an unexpected role of the mitochondrial translocator assembly and maintenance protein, Tam41, in the biosynthesis of cardiolipin (CL), the signature phospholipid of mitochondria. The genetic analyses of Osman et al. (2009) led to the discovery of a new class of mitochondrial proteins that coordinately regulate CL and phosphatidylethanolamine, another key mitochondrial phospholipid. These elegant studies highlight overlapping functions and interdependent roles of mitochondrial phospholipid biosynthesis and protein import and assembly

6. The mitochondrial inner membrane has a unique composition of proteins and phospholipids, whose interdependence is crucial for mitochondrial function.

7. Most Organelles Cannot Be Constructed De Novo: They Require Information in the Organelle Itself
https://***************************...y-require-information-in-the-organelle-itself
8. The Interdependency of Lipid Membranes and Membrane Proteins
https://***************************...ency-of-lipid-membranes-and-membrane-proteins
A cell cannot produce the cell membrane de novo from scratch. It inherits it. Daughter cell membranes come only from mother cell membranes.

9. On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story
https://******************************/t1303-challenges-to-endosymbiotic-theory

Human mitochondrial DNA has just 16 569 base pairs, coding for only 37 genes, which are all essential for mitochondrial function, but far too little for a cell to survive. Thirteen of these genes produce proteins essential for ATP synthesis by oxidative phosphorylation, the other 25 coding for tRNA and rRNA, necessary for mitochondrial protein synthesis. Mitochondrial ribosomes are like bacterial ribosomes. None are involved in Ca2+ signaling. Yet, E. coli has some 300 essential genes which cannot be knocked-out without killing the cell, yet there are some 1500 proteins found inside a mitochondrion, several of which are involved in transporting Ca2+ in and out or responding to a rise in intra-mitochondrial free Ca2+. Mitochondrial divide, make proteins, make ATP, and carry out several other biochemical pathways, such as fatty acid oxidation. So if mitochondria originated from an endosymbiont such as Rickettsia there are three problems:
1. How did the endocytosed bacterium survive and multiply if its internal environment was oxidizing? The cytosol of all cells is reducing, preventing the formation of S–S bonds and damaging oxidative reactions involving reactive oxygen species. But, remember the first eukaryotes formed before there was significant oxygen in the atmosphere. So oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria must have evolved after photosynthesis, some 2000 million years ago.
2. Since cells need at least 1200 proteins to survive, replicate, and synthesize their own building blocks, what happened to the proteins essential for nucleotide and nucleic acid, and protein synthesis, and the reactions necessary for ATP synthesis, e.g. glycolysis?
3. How did the 1500 or so mitochondrial proteins in the main genome become targeted to the mitochondria, if they were lost by the initial endosymbiont?

10. Origin of eukaryotes
https://******************************/t3046-the-major-hypothesized-transitions-in-evolution

Eukaryotic cells function on different physical principles compared to prokaryotic cells, which is directly due to their (comparatively) enormous size. The diversity of the outcomes of phylogenetic analysis, with the origin of eukaryotes scattered around the archaeal diversity, has led to considerable frustration and suggested that a ‘phylogenomic impasse’ has been reached, owing to the inadequacy of the available phylogenetic methods for disambiguating deep relationships

- Actins
- Centrioles
- Cell walls in plant cells
- Centrosome
- Cytoskeleton
- Cyanelles
- Chloroplasts
- DNA replication ( different than in prokaryotes)
- Directing new deliveries of proteins and lipids to the appropriate organelle
- Endosomes
- Eukaryotic flagellum
- Ejectosomes
- Haptonema.
- Histones
- Introns and exons
- Lysosome
- Meiosis
- Mitosis
- Mitochondrion
- Motor proteins ( dynein, kinesin etc.)
- Nucleus
- Nucleolus
- Nucleosomes
- Pseudopods
- Plastids
- Ribosome ( different than in prokaryotes )
- Spliceosome
- Complex distribution systems transport-specific products from one compartment to another.
- Obligate sexuality
- Over 30 different genetic codes
- Organelles ( Rough and smooth endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, nucleus, mitochondrion, endosomes, lysosome, and peroxisome )
- Sexual recombination
- Tubulin cytoskeletons,
- The nuclear pores,
- The proteasome
- Ubiquitin signalling systems
- Undulipodia
- Vacuoles
- Vesicle

In plant cells:
- Tonoplast
- Plasmodesmata

Division of labor between nuclear, cytoplasm organelles (flagellates, other protozoa (eukaryotes)).


A current hy pothesis of genealogical relationships among eukary otic organisms, based on molecular sequence comparisons of ten genes. Note the dotted line that connects diplomonads (which include Giardia lamblia) and parabasalids to the remainder of tree. This indicates the uncertainty surrounding the nature and composition of early branches on the tree.

Aron: Because you don't understand anything about science and you sure don't know how to logic. I don't think you're stupid, but I don't think you're sane either, and I know you're not being honest.
Reply: Because of comments like this, you are not elevating yourself into a serious interlocutor about scientific issues. Namecalling is the lowest form of discoure, the last refuge of those who cannot disprove an opposing point of view. The Internet is dominated by the crude, the uninformed, the immature, the smug, the untalented, the repetitious, the pathetic, the hostile, the deluded, the self-righteous, and the shrill. Usually, the tool of the loser of a debate will resort to insulting, [Arostotle] Basic rule of thumb: When someone with opposite views starts calling you names, it means he has nothing left to debate against your argument. It also means: The proponent of intelligent design / creationism just won the debate. Namecalling serves no useful purpose and is, therefore, illogical My advice: Do not make any explicit adhom, calling me names, like a troll, stupid, idiot, religious nutter etc. , or accusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. - Do also not try to attack my education, ( asking to go back to school, taking a science class etc. ) or ask for my credentials. It adds nothing to your case, nor does it make naturalism become more compelling.

Aron:All you do is recite false allegations and hateful generalizations
Reply: So when i go into details, you complain that my posts are long and tedious. But at the same time, you accuse me of hateful generalizations. If we want to elucidate that mechanisms are in play to explain organismal complexity, there is no way around of going into the nitty gritty of molecular biology. It might be tedious, but thats what it is. Did you not claim that you wish to unravel the truth ? Now that i present it, you complain again. Amazing!!

Aron: clinging desperately to your bigoted misunderstanding, which you are unable to question or correct.
Reply: What misunderstanding are you talking about?

Aron: there is no such thing as "materialism of the gaps".
Reply: Not only have you provided a CLASSIC during this debate, but if that serves you as comfort, it is a very common modo operandi. As shown here by Paulogia in my interaction with him:


Aron: That was a stupid thing for you to say!
Reply: Stupid is when we are thrown in almost EVERY debate with this stupid canard.
God of the gaps and incredulity, a justified refutation of ID arguments?
https://***************************...edulitya-justified-refutation-of-id-arguments

So in answer to my last post, you cut-and-pasted a five THOUSAND word response, which (like all your other cut-and-pasted responses) STILL failed to properly address any point or query put to you. You said you COULD answer the Phylogeny Challenge, but you skipped your opportunity to actually do it. The Canid phylogeny was also the first step of the Phylogeny Challenge. Therein you unwittingly admitted that you accept macroevolution. But that does us no good. Because, when asked to show evolutionary mechanisms working only at the macroevolutionary level and not also at the micro level, you pasted an 870-word wall of text that not only did not answer that question but instead revealed that you still don't understand what macroevolution even is.

Nor have you yet conceded the fact of protein synthesis established by what you call "observational science". Instead you dismissed it as "falsified" without any citation or justification. You're still calling me Angelmou. I have never been whoever that is! The only time I have ever seen that word was in correspondence with you and your stupid, unsupported and indefensible allegations about me having a secret identity that I never had. You cannot reason, Sir. All you can or will do is waste as much of our time as possible spreading false claims and invalid insults.