Chat with Aron Ra

rationalist said:

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers

Click to expand...

As usual quote mining at its finest, as noted in Common Creationist Complaint: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? In addition after watching this presentation by Dr. Kirschner, there is no way he would support the idea of a designer.

Sorry Rationalist - I should have been clearer. When I said that evolution is astoundingly useful across all fields of Biology - I was talking about the real world, not about the delusional 'alternative fact' land you inhabit... Yahweh alone knows what the fuck goes on in there.

rationalist said:

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers

Click to expand...

So here's the rub "rationalist" - if Creationism is valid, why does it so frequently employ outright lying like the above? Why do people like you run around attempting to deceive others? If Creationism was a valid discipline, it would be so busy actually doing research, actually producing applications, and actually enlightening the world with its findings. Instead, what we see is people like you, who don't have a clue what they're talking about, with no background of expertise regurgitating lies from propaganda outlets.

Creationism is a literal joke. It's never produced a single useful, testable proposition because it's not scientific, it's not even a real research field - it's just fundamentalist Christianity repackaged for a modern, non-specialist, gullible audience.

Angelmou
2 hours ago
Angelmou "2. The cell has a complex information processing system ( through RNA polymerase, transcription factors, a spliceosome, a ribosome, chaperone enzymes, specialized transport proteins, and ATP"
Not all have ATP for example. You repeat this lie several times. ATP is a variation of the F0/1 inward with the helicases. The ancestral forms don't have them.
Reply: Structural Biochemistry/The Evolution of Membranes
F- and A/V- type ATPases are membrane-embedded proteins and were feasibly present in the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) due to their omnipresence in modern cellular life. 11
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Structural_Biochemistry/The_Evolution_of_Membranes

The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor
Cells conserve energy via chemiosmotic coupling14 with rotor–stator-type ATP synthases or via substrate-level phosphorylation (SLP)15. LUCA’s genes encompass components of two enzymes of energy metabolism: phosphotransacetylase (PTA) and an ATP synthase subunit 13

The irreducibly complex ATP Synthase nanomachine, amazing evidence of design
https://***************************...nthase-nanomachine-amazing-evidence-of-design

Angelmou "3. The cell contains a genetic code that is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization across plausible parameter space"
Actually this is false - a two side outreading process would be more effective.
Reply: The genetic code is one in a million
if we employ weightings to allow for biases in translation, then only 1 in every million random alternative codes generated is more efficient than the natural code. We thus conclude not only that the natural genetic code is extremely efficient at minimizing the effects of errors, but also that its structure reflects biases in these errors, as might be expected were the code the product of selection.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9732450

The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences
DNA sequences that code for proteins need to convey, in addition to the protein-coding information, several different signals at the same time. These “parallel codes” include binding sequences for regulatory and structural proteins, signals for splicing, and RNA secondary structure. Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other possible genetic codes. This property is related to the identity of the stop codons. We find that the ability to support parallel codes is strongly tied to another useful property of the genetic code—minimization of the effects of frame-shift translation errors. Whereas many of the known regulatory codes reside in nontranslated regions of the genome, the present findings suggest that protein-coding regions can readily carry abundant additional information.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1832087/?report=classic

"4. The cell stores complex, specified, coded information ( the software )"
Angelmou: It also inherites them with small variations to the offspring.
Reply: The argument of genetic information
1. In cells, information is encoded through the genetic code which is a set of rules, stored in DNA sequences of nucleotide triplets called codons. The information distributed along a strand of DNA is biologically relevant. In computerspeak, genetic data are semantic data. Consider the way in which the four bases A, G, C, and T are arranged in DNA. As explained, these sequences are like letters in an alphabet, and the letters may spell out, in code, the instructions for making proteins. A different sequence of letters would almost certainly be biologically useless. Only a very tiny fraction of all possible sequences spells out a biologically meaningful message. Codons are used to translate genetic information into amino acid polypeptide sequences, which make proteins ( the molecular machines, the working horses of the cell ).And so, the information which is sent through the system, as well as the communication channels that permit encoding, sending, and decoding, which in life is done by over 25 extremely complex molecular machine systems, which do as well error check and repair to maintain genetic stability, and minimizing replication, transcription and translation errors, and permit organisms to pass accurately genetic information to their offspring, and survive. This system had to be set-up prior life began because life depends on it.
2. A code is a system of rules where a symbol, letters, words, or even sounds, gestures, or images, are assigned to something else. Translating information through a key, code, or cipher, for example, can be done through the translation of the symbols of the alphabetic letters, to symbols of kanji, logographic characters used in Japan.
3. Intelligent design is the most case-adequate explanation for the origin of the sequence-specific digital information (the genetic text) necessary to produce a minimal proteome to kick-start life. The assembly information stored in genes, and the assignment of codons (triplet nucleotides) to amino acids must be pre-established by a mind. Assignment which means designating, ascribing, corresponding, or correlating meaning of characters through a code system, where symbols of one language are assigned to symbols of another language that mean the same, requires a common agreement of meaning in order to establish communication, trough encoding, sending, and decoding. Semantics, Syntax, and pragmatics are always set up by intelligence.The origin of such complex communication systems is best explained by an intelligent designer.

"5. The cell has a complex translation system through a universal cipher,"
Angelmou: Actually no, there are alternative ciphers realized in Archean.
Reply: And that falsifies common ancestry nicely.

The different genetic codes

https://******************************/t2277-the-different-genetic-codes

Dobzhansky believed that the common ancestry of all living things could be seen in the universality of the genetic code. This was the basis of his claim that “all organisms, no matter how diverse in other respects, conserve the basic features of the primordiallife.”9 But we now know that the genetic code is not universal. Thomas Fox reported in 1985 that “some ‘real’ exceptions have come to light” in bacteria and single-celled organisms, “and the notion of universality will have to be discarded.” 10 The number of exceptions has grown since then; a 1995 review noted that “a relatively high incidence of non-universal codes has been discovered … widely distributed in various groups of organisms.” 11 The non-universality of the genetic code suggests that living things may well have had multiple origins. – Jonathan Wells and Paul Nelson, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, November 1998 2

The discovery of thirtythree variant genetic codes indicates that the chemical properties of the relevant monomers allow more than a single set of codon–amino acid assignments. The conclusion is straightforward: the chemical properties of amino acids and nucleotides do not determine a single universal genetic code; since there is not just one code, “it” cannot be inevitable. The codon–amino acid relationships that define the code are established and mediated by the catalytic action of some twenty separate proteins, the so-called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (one for each tRNA anticodon and amino-acid pair). Each of these proteins recognizes a specific amino acid and the specific tRNA with its corresponding anticodon and helps attach the appropriate amino acid to that tRNA molecule. Thus, instead of the code reducing to a simple set of chemical affinities between a small number of monomers, biochemists have found a functionally interdependent system of highly specific biopolymers, including mRNA, twenty specific tRNAs, and twenty specific synthetase proteins, each of which is itself constructed via information encoded on the very DNA that it helps to decode. This is an integrated complex system. To claim that deterministic chemical affinities made the origin of this system inevitable lacks empirical foundation. Given a pool of the bases necessary to tRNA and mRNA, given all necessary sugars and phosphates and all twenty amino acids used in proteins, would the molecules comprising the current translation system, let alone any particular genetic code, have had to arise? Indeed, would even a single synthetase have had to arise from a pool of all the necessary amino acids? Again, clearly not.
Signature in the Cell, Steve Meyer, page 201

Angelmou: "which assigns 61 codons (4x4x4=64-3 stop and start=64) to 20 amino acids and permits the translation of the genetic code into functional proteins"
Actually 21, but 20 + 1 sentence mark in humans.
Reply: That does not diminish your problem:
The Genetic Code was most likely implemented by intelligence.
1. In communications and information processing, code is a system of rules to convert information—such as assigning the meaning of a letter, word, into another form, ( as another word, letter, etc. )
2. In translation, 64 genetic codons are assigned to 20 amino acids. It refers to the assignment of the codons to the amino acids, thus being the cornerstone template underling the translation process.
3. Assignment means designating, ascribing, corresponding, correlating.
4. The universal triple-nucleotide genetic code can be the result either of a) a random selection through evolution, or b) the result of intelligent implementation.
5. We know by experience, that performing value assignment and codification is always a process of intelligence with an intended result. Nonintelligence, aka matter, molecules, nucleotides, etc. have never demonstrated to be able to generate codes, and have neither intent nor distant goals with a foresight to produce specific outcomes.
6. Therefore, the genetic code is the result of an intelligent setup.

1. The origin of the genetic cipher
1.Triplet codons must be assigned to amino acids to establish a genetic cipher. Nucleic-acid bases and amino acids don’t recognize each other directly but have to deal via chemical intermediaries ( tRNA's and Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase ), there is no obvious reason why particular triplets should go with particular amino acids.
2. Other translation assignments are conceivable, but whatever cipher is established, the right amino acids must be assigned to permit polypeptide chains, which fold to active functional proteins. Functional amino acid chains in sequence space are rare. There are two possibilities to explain the correct assignment of the codons to the right amino acids. Chance, and design. Natural selection is not an option, since DNA replication is not set up at the stage prior to a self-replicating cell, but this assignment had to be established before.
3. If it were a lucky accident that happened by chance, luck would have hit the jackpot through trial and error amongst 1.5 × 10^84 possible genetic code tables. That is the number of atoms in the whole universe. That puts any real possibility of a chance of providing the feat out of question. Its, using Borel's law, in the realm of impossibility. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that's universal. Put simply, the chemical lottery lacks the time necessary to find the universal genetic code.
4. We have not even considered that there are also over 500 possible amino acids, which would have to be sorted out, to get only 20, and select all L amino and R sugar bases......
5. We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information all the time.
6. Put it in other words: The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being created and written in English, and translated to Chinese, through the invention and application of an extremely sophisticated hardware system.
7. The genetic code and its translation system are best explained through the action of an intelligent designer.

rationalist said:

Angelmou "3. The cell contains a genetic code that is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization across plausible parameter space"
Actually this is false - a two side outreading process would be more effective.
Reply: The genetic code is one in a million
if we employ weightings to allow for biases in translation, then only 1 in every million random alternative codes generated is more efficient than the natural code. We thus conclude not only that the natural genetic code is extremely efficient at minimizing the effects of errors, but also that its structure reflects biases in these errors, as might be expected were the code the product of selection.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9732450

The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences
DNA sequences that code for proteins need to convey, in addition to the protein-coding information, several different signals at the same time. These “parallel codes” include binding sequences for regulatory and structural proteins, signals for splicing, and RNA secondary structure. Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other possible genetic codes. This property is related to the identity of the stop codons. We find that the ability to support parallel codes is strongly tied to another useful property of the genetic code—minimization of the effects of frame-shift translation errors. Whereas many of the known regulatory codes reside in nontranslated regions of the genome, the present findings suggest that protein-coding regions can readily carry abundant additional information.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1832087/?report=classic

"4. The cell stores complex, specified, coded information ( the software )"
Angelmou: It also inherites them with small variations to the offspring.
Reply: The argument of genetic information
1. In cells, information is encoded through the genetic code which is a set of rules, stored in DNA sequences of nucleotide triplets called codons. The information distributed along a strand of DNA is biologically relevant. In computerspeak, genetic data are semantic data. Consider the way in which the four bases A, G, C, and T are arranged in DNA. As explained, these sequences are like letters in an alphabet, and the letters may spell out, in code, the instructions for making proteins. A different sequence of letters would almost certainly be biologically useless. Only a very tiny fraction of all possible sequences spells out a biologically meaningful message. Codons are used to translate genetic information into amino acid polypeptide sequences, which make proteins ( the molecular machines, the working horses of the cell ).And so, the information which is sent through the system, as well as the communication channels that permit encoding, sending, and decoding, which in life is done by over 25 extremely complex molecular machine systems, which do as well error check and repair to maintain genetic stability, and minimizing replication, transcription and translation errors, and permit organisms to pass accurately genetic information to their offspring, and survive. This system had to be set-up prior life began because life depends on it.
2. A code is a system of rules where a symbol, letters, words, or even sounds, gestures, or images, are assigned to something else. Translating information through a key, code, or cipher, for example, can be done through the translation of the symbols of the alphabetic letters, to symbols of kanji, logographic characters used in Japan.
3. Intelligent design is the most case-adequate explanation for the origin of the sequence-specific digital information (the genetic text) necessary to produce a minimal proteome to kick-start life. The assembly information stored in genes, and the assignment of codons (triplet nucleotides) to amino acids must be pre-established by a mind. Assignment which means designating, ascribing, corresponding, or correlating meaning of characters through a code system, where symbols of one language are assigned to symbols of another language that mean the same, requires a common agreement of meaning in order to establish communication, trough encoding, sending, and decoding. Semantics, Syntax, and pragmatics are always set up by intelligence.The origin of such complex communication systems is best explained by an intelligent designer.

"5. The cell has a complex translation system through a universal cipher,"
Angelmou: Actually no, there are alternative ciphers realized in Archean.
Reply: And that falsifies common ancestry nicely.

The different genetic codes

https://******************************/t2277-the-different-genetic-codes

Dobzhansky believed that the common ancestry of all living things could be seen in the universality of the genetic code. This was the basis of his claim that “all organisms, no matter how diverse in other respects, conserve the basic features of the primordiallife.”9 But we now know that the genetic code is not universal. Thomas Fox reported in 1985 that “some ‘real’ exceptions have come to light” in bacteria and single-celled organisms, “and the notion of universality will have to be discarded.” 10 The number of exceptions has grown since then; a 1995 review noted that “a relatively high incidence of non-universal codes has been discovered … widely distributed in various groups of organisms.” 11 The non-universality of the genetic code suggests that living things may well have had multiple origins. – Jonathan Wells and Paul Nelson, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, November 1998 2

The discovery of thirtythree variant genetic codes indicates that the chemical properties of the relevant monomers allow more than a single set of codon–amino acid assignments. The conclusion is straightforward: the chemical properties of amino acids and nucleotides do not determine a single universal genetic code; since there is not just one code, “it” cannot be inevitable. The codon–amino acid relationships that define the code are established and mediated by the catalytic action of some twenty separate proteins, the so-called aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (one for each tRNA anticodon and amino-acid pair). Each of these proteins recognizes a specific amino acid and the specific tRNA with its corresponding anticodon and helps attach the appropriate amino acid to that tRNA molecule. Thus, instead of the code reducing to a simple set of chemical affinities between a small number of monomers, biochemists have found a functionally interdependent system of highly specific biopolymers, including mRNA, twenty specific tRNAs, and twenty specific synthetase proteins, each of which is itself constructed via information encoded on the very DNA that it helps to decode. This is an integrated complex system. To claim that deterministic chemical affinities made the origin of this system inevitable lacks empirical foundation. Given a pool of the bases necessary to tRNA and mRNA, given all necessary sugars and phosphates and all twenty amino acids used in proteins, would the molecules comprising the current translation system, let alone any particular genetic code, have had to arise? Indeed, would even a single synthetase have had to arise from a pool of all the necessary amino acids? Again, clearly not.
Signature in the Cell, Steve Meyer, page 201

Angelmou: "which assigns 61 codons (4x4x4=64-3 stop and start=64) to 20 amino acids and permits the translation of the genetic code into functional proteins"
Actually 21, but 20 + 1 sentence mark in humans.
Reply: That does not diminish your problem:
The Genetic Code was most likely implemented by intelligence.
1. In communications and information processing, code is a system of rules to convert information—such as assigning the meaning of a letter, word, into another form, ( as another word, letter, etc. )
2. In translation, 64 genetic codons are assigned to 20 amino acids. It refers to the assignment of the codons to the amino acids, thus being the cornerstone template underling the translation process.
3. Assignment means designating, ascribing, corresponding, correlating.
4. The universal triple-nucleotide genetic code can be the result either of a) a random selection through evolution, or b) the result of intelligent implementation.
5. We know by experience, that performing value assignment and codification is always a process of intelligence with an intended result. Nonintelligence, aka matter, molecules, nucleotides, etc. have never demonstrated to be able to generate codes, and have neither intent nor distant goals with a foresight to produce specific outcomes.
6. Therefore, the genetic code is the result of an intelligent setup.

1. The origin of the genetic cipher
1.Triplet codons must be assigned to amino acids to establish a genetic cipher. Nucleic-acid bases and amino acids don’t recognize each other directly but have to deal via chemical intermediaries ( tRNA's and Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase ), there is no obvious reason why particular triplets should go with particular amino acids.
2. Other translation assignments are conceivable, but whatever cipher is established, the right amino acids must be assigned to permit polypeptide chains, which fold to active functional proteins. Functional amino acid chains in sequence space are rare. There are two possibilities to explain the correct assignment of the codons to the right amino acids. Chance, and design. Natural selection is not an option, since DNA replication is not set up at the stage prior to a self-replicating cell, but this assignment had to be established before.
3. If it were a lucky accident that happened by chance, luck would have hit the jackpot through trial and error amongst 1.5 × 10^84 possible genetic code tables. That is the number of atoms in the whole universe. That puts any real possibility of a chance of providing the feat out of question. Its, using Borel's law, in the realm of impossibility. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that's universal. Put simply, the chemical lottery lacks the time necessary to find the universal genetic code.
4. We have not even considered that there are also over 500 possible amino acids, which would have to be sorted out, to get only 20, and select all L amino and R sugar bases......
5. We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information all the time.
6. Put it in other words: The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet) being created and written in English, and translated to Chinese, through the invention and application of an extremely sophisticated hardware system.
7. The genetic code and its translation system are best explained through the action of an intelligent designer.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what Angelmou is trying to say in the post above. Maybe that's because Otangelo seems to be blending his own comments in with that other person's, because Otangelo can't figure out how to quote people properly. It could even be that this person knows more about that topic than I do. I don't know if he or she is wrong or not. But it's still funny because Otangelo thinks that I am Angelmou, that Angelmou is my secret identity. Otangelo is so irrational that he simply jumps to unwarranted conclusions and then can never question or correct them. I have told him over and over again that I have no idea who Angelmou is, but it is not me. I asked Otangelo to give me a link to one of Angelmou's original posts, so that I could get a message to that person to find out who they really are. But of course Otangelo will not do that, insisting that I am that person and that I just won't admit it. It's rather like another recent thread in this forum where Wolfbitn accused all the rest of y'all of being my sock accounts, as if all of you are secretly me. Is there a name for this sort of delusion?

AronRa said:

It's rather like another recent thread in this forum where Wolfbitn accused all the rest of y'all of being my sock accounts, as if all of you are secretly me. Is there a name for this sort of delusion?

Click to expand...

Damn, he figured out we're all part of the super-secret AronRa account impersonation/sock puppet account society. Our masters, The Gnomes of Zurich will not be pleased.

Angelmou:"6. This constitutes a logical structure of information processing: DNA>>RNA>>>Protein,"
PLUS changing by the fragility of the system.
Reply: If error check and repair mechanisms, both, for DNA replication, and expression were not in place all along, life would never have started. This is smashing evidence of design.

DNA and RNA error checking and repair, amazing evidence of design
https://***************************...hecking-and-repair-amazing-evidence-of-design

Angelmou: "based on software and hardware. Both aspects must be explained."
Acidchemistry works that way.
Reply:The irreducible interdependence of information generation and transmission systems
1. Codified information transmission system depends on:
a) A language where a symbol, letters, words, waves or frequency variations, sounds, pulses, or a combination of those are assigned to something else. Assigning meaning of characters through a code system requires a common agreement of meaning. Statistics, Semantics, Synthax, and Pragmatics are used according to combinatorial, context-dependent, and content-coherent rules.
b) Information encoded through that code,
c) An information storage system,
d) An information transmission system, that is encoding, transmitting, and decoding.
e) Eventually translation ( the assignment of the meaning of one language to another )
f) Eventually conversion ( digital-analog conversion, modulators, amplifiers)
g) Eventually transduction converting the nonelectrical signals into electrical signals
2. In living cells, information is encoded through at least 30 genetic, and almost 30 epigenetic codes that form various sets of rules and languages. They are transmitted through a variety of means, that is the cell cilia as the center of communication, microRNA's influencing cell function, the nervous system, the system synaptic transmission, neuromuscular transmission, transmission b/w nerves & body cells, axons as wires, the transmission of electrical impulses by nerves between brain & receptor/target cells, vesicles, exosomes, platelets, hormones, biophotons, biomagnetism, cytokines and chemokines, elaborate communication channels related to the defense of microbe attacks, nuclei as modulators-amplifiers. These information transmission systems are essential for keeping all biological functions, that is organismal growth and development, metabolism, regulating nutrition demands, controlling reproduction, homeostasis, constructing biological architecture, complexity, form, controlling organismal adaptation, change, regeneration/repair, and promoting survival.
3. The origin of such complex communication systems is best explained by an intelligent designer. Since no humans were involved in creating these complex computing systems, a suprahuman super-intelligent agency must have been the creator of the communication systems used in life.

Angelmou: "7. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software, and vice versa."
No one said otherwise.
Reply: Good. In that case, you should become a defender of Intelligent Design.


Angelmou: "8. Systems of interconnected software and hardware are irreducibly complex."
They must base on former forms.
Reply: What does that even mean?

Angelmou: "9. A irreducible complex system can not arise in a stepwise, evolutionary manner. "
It can. Because the IC system like the cell system bases on fatbubble acid systems like Thymine DNA is a variations of U-DNA.
Reply: What are you even talking about?

Angelmou:"10. Only minds are capable to conceptualise"
Minds aka brain architectures are subsets of those systems - without the cells you would not have a mind, because your brain is made out of cells. Minds are not prior to themselves.
Reply: Argument from consciousness
1. Existing fundamentals—space, time, mass, charge can’t explain consciousness, which itself is something fundamental, and essentially different than physical things.
2. Consciousness englobes the mind, "qualia", intellectual activity, imagination, introspection, cognition, memories, awareness, experiencing, intentions, free volition, thought, free creation, invention, generation of information. It classifies, recognizes and judges behavior, good and evil. It is aware of beauty, and feels sensations and emotions. Those are all fundamental discrete indivisible non-quantifiable qualities of immaterial substance, a different identity from hard physical objects, matter and space. Perception, understanding, and evaluation of things adds a quality beyond and absent from natural physical matter and states, and can, therefore, not be reduced to known physical principles.
3. Hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves into abstract ideas. The mind cannot be an emergent property of the brain. To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with quantum physics, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties. The mind is to the brain what a pianist is to a piano. The former (the pianist) is not reducible to the latter (the piano).
4. Therefore, dualism is true, and since the universe had a beginning, the mind precedes and exists beyond the universe. That mind is God.

Aron, feel free to reply as if you were Angelmou... LOL

LOL My goodness. This behavior is beyond absurd.
Before I reply I must apologize for grammar or language problems. English is the fifth language I learned and I do not actively practice it in any daily talk.

Introduction:
My original post the user "Otangelo" never ACTUALLY adressed was beneath the recent Modern Day debate:

"Irreducible complexity is the observation where you can't take even 1 part out of a running system without breaking that CURRENT system's function. 1 good example is the gliding system of the Wallace flying frog. When you take out just 1 of the webs between the toes the frog would crash. This makes the system irreducible - to the fragility of taking just 1 part away the frog CRASH.
HOWEVER this irreducible complex gliding system, where you can't take 1 part out of it evolved from the swimming toes (as adaptation) by darwinian priciples. It got selected and interlocked the specific gliding complexity as recycling/repurposement from the former swimming & climbing "paw" purpose of the percursor forms.

Otangelo and Co want to ignore the very fragile complexity to be irreducible in such mentioned systems and they also want to ignore it to be evolved SIMULTANEOUSLY, simply because they conflate the term Irreducible Complexity with ="Creation is true by default" / "Evolutionary history is false".
So that the term "irreducible complexity" is just another word for "my religious belief shall be true" (By dogma).
ICs are a prediction by evolution published since the 1910s years... long before Behe, his mentor Dembski or Otangelo etc. were around.

Muller wrote: "... thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors ..." Muller 1918 pp. 463-464.
"V. The role of interlocking and diffusion of gene functions in hindering true reversal of evolution "... an embryological or physiological process or structure newly arisen by gene mutation, after becoming once established (with or without the aid of selection), later takes more and more part in the whole complex interplay of vital processes. For still further mutations that arise are now allowed to stay if only they work in harmony with all genes that are already present, and, of these further mutations, some will naturally depend, for their proper working, on the new process or structure under consideration. Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary." Muller 1939 pp. 271-272.
Where Otangelo also conflated H.J.Muller with K.R. Miller from the Kitzmiller v dover trial against the DI church guys financed by
Fieldstaed & Company / the evangelical christian missionary Stewardship Foundation & Maclellan Foundation etc.

To stay with the frog example: IDler would have an actual argument by showing a truly "unrepurposed" organ brought from outside - inside a critter or to be not a deformation of precursor forms - like for example a frog would have grown angelwings all of the sudden like in this image of a fantasy card game: https://uploads1.yugioh.com/card_images/2466/detail/435.jpg?1385098607
To fly for no other reason than to be an actually designed chimera with literally no form, shape or structure of the ancestors be able to be repurposed for the gliding functionality.

What Otangelo basically did was being an upgraded 2.0 Version of the old "PLEASE look at complexity and switch your brain off" people
with the common "evolution wants to say it felt from the sky by pure happenstances ex nihilo"-strawmanning.

Otangelo's "Look of all the cell organelle and protein complexity" is just a parrot version of the old 1.0 version like for example:

"Look at the Sheltand pony & how complicated it is! The head, the hooves, tail and legs and torso...and not to mention the inner organs like the liver, stomach, muscle tissues and bones... All this is impossible to just fall from the sky at pure happenstances! Just to assemble in my garden into a living breathing shetland pony to jump and (gish) gallop around! And you also can't take its head away! It would die!
Therefore the body parts must be glued together from separate pieces...all by a fiddle-fuddler...that is my (AND ONLY MY) God!"

The flat fact that ponies are bred over generations from horses, while horses and donkeys and several zebra species (in general) came from even older Equine ancestry is ignored.
After pointing this out in details - the creationist jumps away from it and comes up again with just another random species to list a lot of current complicated traits.
"Look at the Wolf...the teeth, the heart of the wolf...the liver and the paws...blahblah"
and if you explain then wolves or foxes to be canine "variations" they just switch to another species
and another one
and another one etc.

ALSO: After just 1 day the creationist gets dementia "all of a sudden" and starts again with the horse as nothing happened.

Otangelo does this with proteins, cell organelles and cellular machinery...
where he points in long monologues the complexity out without actually adressing the repurposement towards newer or altered functionality...EVER
So does Otangelo start again with rhodopsin.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.1182 & https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3879442/ & https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73606-y

And if you point out the evolutionary pathway...he gets dementia a day later and starts...surprise surprise again with rhodopsin.


NOW to his OUT OF CONTEXT stuff:

I explained him that he wanted to switch to cell origin/abiogenesis topics, because he did not want to face that the whole human complexity is 1 adaptation from ape ancestral complexity (humans are still apes and remain in that clade anyway).
And a human cell is not ex nihilo "fallen from the sky"/ assembled from separate organelles and molecules taken out of a drawer.

The different TYPES of ATP was about the inward mutation of the F0/F1 & helicase function switches.
Aka:
etc.

Otangelo wrote:
"The cell contains a genetic code that is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization across plausible parameter space"

I mentioned that a two-way reading system instead of the weird leading and legging strand with DNA replication like with the Okazaki fragment etc. is not an optimum there, but unnecessesarily convoluted.

4 is not adressing the point that the system not to be perfect or mutations would not happen (at all).
He also skipped something there.
He referred formerly to the Minimal genome project in which Otangelo thought the reduction of a current complex cell to shrink it to basic functions without it being lethal is identical with LUCA.
The reduced form is not the precursor form.

This is like you reduce a bird to stay alive even without feathers and arms (putting the arm away) and then claim it is absolutely the theropod dino ancestor - not getting why this is not a reconstructed precursor.

5 Was he was claiming that there is only one way of translating a codon to a specific amino acid.
I just said: Nope, that is a lie.
NOW he ignored he was posting misinformation and acted as he knew all along.
And also acts like this somehow debunks common ancestry. LOL

His lottery nonsense is typical smoke and mirrors similar to the creationist calculations of odds of a complex protein falling "at random" from the sky - aka the strawman of Ex-nihilo happenstance of specific polypeptides instead of them being variations of former peptides etc.

6 Was again out of context, because we did not talk about CELLS there.
Thymine DNA/T-DNA in CELLS is not what was on topic in possible cell ancestry (before cells). Like U-DNA
Origin of DNA replication systems.

This is also again he wanting to push abiogenesis topics around.

Part 2
Only adressing 10
Context was:
Not wanting to understand that you can't have minds with higher intelligence prior to any cell clusters (brains).

I wrote:
"Minds aka brain architectures are subsets of those systems - without the cells you would not have a mind, because your brain is made out of cells. Minds are not prior to themselves."

Your claim:
"Reply: Argument from consciousness 1. Existing fundamentals—space, time, mass, charge can’t explain consciousness, which itself is something fundamental, and essentially different than physical things."

To have chains of thoughts is a time process. Without time you would not have thoughts flowing after another - that is why thinking is a process.
To form terms and sentences in your mind is a process.
You also need space to do so - you ain't flatter than the most thin piece of paper, neither and be capable of thinking in language/symbol processes.
LOL


"2. Consciousness englobes the mind, "qualia", intellectual activity, imagination, introspection, cognition, memories, awareness, experiencing, intentions, free volition, thought, free creation, invention, generation of information. "

This can also break - not only by severe brain injuries - but alzheimer, dementia and amnesia or other forms of mental health issues - especially at higher ages and by several drugs and narcotics.

To give you a proper understanding is that toddlers and newborn humans are not as intelligent as adult ones.
In fact the intelligence of young humans is depending on the piaget-stages of mind development and the development of self-awareness how human children learn a theory of mind to be able to recognize abstract agents / Opponents in front of them and give them names in mind HERE some human experiments to illustrate that:

AND here:
So can we explain so called "feral childs" - human children raised by wild animals like wolves:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child and the experiments Emperor Frederick II. etc. or of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_deprivation_experiments

That without socialization people raised there appear to have significant mental handicaps.
In the past humans which were born deaf-mute were seen as mentally handicapped as "deaf-dumb" were they called,
cause they appeared to lack basic human thinking skills and intelligence raised without proper learning of abstract symbolism here:

To learn to think in language.

Self-awareness is basically a feeling of time duration:

This can happen during awake phases or while sleeping like by lucid dreaming.
This is also trainable.
Like out of body experiences I - III are as well.
I had regularly out of body experiences by training 2 years ago. But I got lazy, because you need to work dream diary and such to train the neuronal network of your to wake up and to confuse your dreams with the external sensory input of eyes and ears and so on.

"It classifies, recognizes and judges behavior, good and evil."
Yeah your behavior is for example "evil-minded" and this fully on purpose out of denialism. ;-)

"It is aware of beauty, and feels sensations and emotions."
Which are imprintable to different things.
Like butterflies or spiders.
Some find butterflies beauty and hate spiders, others do vice versa or love both.
Your emotions are imprinted to shallow phrases and terms like "Jesus" or "complexity" - something that has no external meaning or value on their own.
Like it has no external meaning if you love the taste of duck if someone else hates this taste and prefers broccoli.

"Those are all fundamental discrete indivisible non-quantifiable qualities of immaterial substance,"
Contradictions in itself. Substances are not "immaterial". This is like claiming the edged circle.

" a different identity from hard physical objects, matter and space."
Nope, we can see eachothers "consciousness" as brain matter while active. It is only an unfamiliar look from the outside by false uprising and expectations.
Like being raised by halloween movies in awaiting to see a translucent ghost silhoutte but wearing a pyjama because nude ghosts would be too much for the audience - or some sort of energy ball and other strange imaginations.

What you however mean is to merge and or share the internal mental states you feel and think and your "I" with another "I".
Like the Hogan twins here:

Because the both brains of the twins are wired together.
They share mental states by a thalamus bridge.

" Hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves into abstract ideas. The mind cannot be an emergent property of the brain. "
Mind is not "emergent" it is another term for a whole set of brain activities incl. self awareness as just 1 example with the time duration feeling.


"To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb"
If we would talk about artificial brain to brain bridgesl ike in speculative hive minds - similar to the natural brain to brain and mind to mind share you could also not simplify electrons alone without the architecture.
This is not what the topic is about.

" is in contradiction with quantum physics, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable,"
Is not adressing the brain architecture.

" that is they have all exactly the same properties. The mind is to the brain what a pianist is to a piano. The former (the pianist) is not reducible to the latter (the piano)."
If this would be true the awareness would not go unconscious with different methods like... a bat to the head. ;-)

"4. Therefore, dualism is true,"
Because of lies and denial?

" and since the universe had a beginning, the mind precedes and exists beyond the universe."
You are mortal brain mass like me - you will not exist beyond your decaying body.

" That mind is God."
Meaningless pleading.

AngelaMOU said:

LOL My goodness. This behavior is beyond absurd.
Before I reply I must apologize for grammar or language problems. English is the fifth language I learned and I do not actively practice it in any daily talk.

Introduction:
My original post the user "Otangelo" never ACTUALLY adressed was beneath the recent Modern Day debate:

Click to expand...

Are you the actual person Otangelo kept accusing me of being? If so, that means he couldn't even spell your name right all this time? That explains why I couldn't find it when I tried to google you. :-D

AronRa said:

Are you the actual person Otangelo kept accusing me of being? If so, that means he couldn't even spell your name right all this time? That explains why I couldn't find it when I tried to google you. :-D

Click to expand...

Yes, again sorry for my bad english. I have no clue what Otangelo's business even is. He just linked me this forum and said we will "debate" here instead of the youtube comment section (while he still posted there, too). As I said...he did not really adress anything of my original post (IC systems to be predicted by evolution biology) or where I linked him some recent rhodopsin evolution publications 2x - he just copied and pasted preaching textwalls with long debunked arguments incl. the usual quotemining, strawmen, pleading and redefining terminology and so on and so on...
Maybe he confused me with you, because I linked recently your Systematic classification of Life series - but this was in a whole other context to some creationist not understanding what Sarcopterygii are. No clue...

AronRa said:

Is there a name for this sort of delusion?

Click to expand...

Yeah, flagrant and manifest dickheadery. I don't think he really believes this Angela person is really you, any more than that Wolfbitn guy really believed that all the other posters (my self included) were you. It's just typical fuckery intended to serve as a distraction to divert attention away from the five billion other issues with what they're posting.

Also, @AngelaMOU - Welcome to the league!

AngelaMOU said:

Yes, again sorry for my bad english. I have no clue what Otangelo's business even is. He just linked me this forum and said we will "debate" here instead of the youtube comment section (while he still posted there, too). As I said...he did not really adress anything of my original post (IC systems to be predicted by evolution biology) or where I linked him some recent rhodopsin evolution publications 2x - he just copied and pasted preaching textwalls with long debunked arguments incl. the usual quotemining, strawmen, pleading and redefining terminology and so on and so on...
Maybe he confused me with you, because I linked recently your Systematic classification of Life series - but this was in a whole other context to some creationist not understanding what Sarcopterygii are. No clue...

Click to expand...

LOL...

I didn't know that you can be funny sometimes, AngelMOU... LOL.

Anyway: My invite to have a debate on MDD still stands.... but you'll do good not to interrupt too much, and calling me a liar is taboo. AngelMOU....



Syllogisms about irreducible complexity

https://***************************...uctures-in-biology-is-an-undeniable-fact#8349

1. In biology, there are many complex elementary components necessary to build large integrated macromolecular systems like multi-protein complexes (RNA polymerase), 3D printers (the ribosome), organelles (mitochondria) etc., where their making requires complex multistep enzyme-catalyzed biosynthesis pathways. These elementary components are only useful in the completion of that much larger system. Not rarely, these biosynthetic pathways produce intermediate products, that left without further processing, are either a) nonfunctional, or b) harmful and kill the cell (for example, Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS), in the biosynthesis pathway of Chlorophyll b.
2. A minimal amount of prescribed, pre-programmed, instructional complex information stored in genes is required to instruct the making of a) functional elementary components and b) the assembly instructions to integrate them into complex macromolecular systems. Natural selection would not fix an allele variant that would instruct the making of an intermediate, nonfunctional, or harmful elementary component, and play no role in guiding its evolution. Foreknowledge is required to get a complex biological system through implementing a biosemiotic information system (which is irreducibly complex), directing the making of functional elementary components, and assembly into the entire complex integrated system.
3. Therefore, the origin of biological systems based on biosemiotic instructions are best explained by a brilliant, super-powerful mind with foresight and intent, and not undirected evolutionary pressures.

"I didn't know that you can be funny sometimes, AngelMOU... LOL."
Did I just went so deep under your skin by reminding you about your own mortality? This is something we both have in common. Including being fallible human beings. ;-)

I do not see any actual reply of what I said.

BUT bovines are great animals. They are my 8th favorite animals. My brother rescued once a calf from being slaugthered and it is still healthy at a nearby animal sanctuary. Not to mention I'm vegetarian (Not vegan, because I'm too lazy for that). ;-)

The Flying Cow chimera with the attached wings would be a GREAT example of a Design signal...
not all the protein repurposement you try to sell as them.

One of your last replies at the youtube channel was even the usual (also falsely imprinted sermons) of
"timeless and spaceless, personal God"

to appear as some sort of compliment you see in the trance-introducing slogans by stage preachers numerous times.
This is a sort of hypnotization.
As the term "timeless" would be something good to say - when it just implies a person does not even have time to think a thought after another, let alone to perform any creation processes.
Timeless just means NEVER.
Spaceless just means not even filling the space of a thin piece of paper, because spaceless means NOWHERE .
A proper translation there is just:
A person God was nowhere and never = atheism.
Not any theist compliment.

The actual problem is you have way too many positive feelings CONDITIONED towards images & terms like God or Complexity to such a degree it caged your very identity and your "I" making your answers like bot replies.
Is there even a person "Otangelo" behind your sermons? Do you have a favorite color? A favority music instrument?
Maybe some re-conditioning therapy would be a favor?

Exactly like a psychiatry patient to be so consumed by a positive role-image of Napoleon, that he became convinced it is the best thing in all of existence to be Napoleon.
And no sound argument (like showing Napoleons grave or that Napoleon was a war criminal) can talk out of him to be Napoleon.
As it is for him the INFALLIBLE and maximal positive self-image he encountered in his lifetime.
So he must be Napoleon and not an individual anymore.
He has no own taste for fashion, but thinks he must love the clothing like the military uniform of Napoleon.
So in the case of associating himself he sees himself also as infallible especially with topics around this delusion.

You act that way with associating as:
Believer X, theist, ID advocate, creationist etc.
As we can see in your acting and walls of monologues... (self hypnotizing talk).

"calling me a liar is taboo."
Well...you were corrected before, but you started over with the same as nothing happened. You quoted out-of-context and you overread and did not reply to answers on-topic but tried to butcher answers into fragments to fitt somehow into a pre-built Q&A.
You also conflated natural selection (selection force) and mutations (arrival force) in some of your replies - DESPITE of knowing better (at least I think you mentally do understand both): Because you used them correctly in other and former replies.

There is a very simple test...thou:
Are you able to admit you are (like myself) a fallible human person AND that your POSITIVE FEELINGS associated with some particular terms like for example Complexity or God or Jesus or any other such terms could be... MEANINGLESS?
YES or No?
I predict you will ignore the questions or won't just answer them with Y or N.

"Anyway: My invite to have a debate on MDD still stands.... but you'll do good not to interrupt too much, and calling me a liar is taboo. AngelMOU...."
Beside that my English is WAY too worse (by far) for any long vocal talk -

Like someone does not engange in a conversation about French war strategies with a Napoleon deluded patient - (because he will just interpret the engaging in his delusion ITSELF to feel happy and righteous and just in the own caged role label) -
I will just stay to some comments and adress your gish gallop and quote mining here and there.
Especially when they are jumping the cow.

Your recent out of nowhere non-sequitor:
"are best explained by a brilliant, super-powerful mind"
Minds are active brain architectures and do not have superpowers.
We are not in Marvel or DC.
Magic isn't real, Otangelo.

Cheers.

rationalist said:

LOL...

I didn't know that you can be funny sometimes, AngelMOU... LOL.

Anyway: My invite to have a debate on MDD still stands.... but you'll do good not to interrupt too much, and calling me a liar is taboo. AngelMOU....

View attachment 155

Click to expand...

Turns out it's Angela MOU, not Angel MOU. Learn to read more carefully, Otangelo.

AronRa said:

Turns out it's Angela MOU, not Angel MOU. Learn to read more carefully, Otangelo.

Click to expand...

Well...to his defense my usernames are also angelmou & angl.mou at different social media platforms (also to hold it somewhat genderneutral).
Does not make any of his quotemine&text wall snippets any better ...or adressing any of my questions, my recent posts here or any of my original posts within context.
I do not take any of his behavior personally.
I also do not think the person "rationalist" (or whatever username Otangelo is using here or there) is going to convince anyone about...well...anything.
It is echochamber talk...and he will at max. earn applause by similar minded members of his community/cult at best.
---

Anyways... because I have now the great opportunity to talk with you:
Is the phylogeny explorer project doing fine?

AngelaMOU said:

Is the phylogeny explorer project doing fine?

Click to expand...

Yes, its going but where always looking for people to help.

AronRa said:

Turns out it's Angela MOU, not Angel MOU. Learn to read more carefully, Otangelo.

Click to expand...

OH !! So you are actually a LADY ??!!!!!

Can I guess ?? Is that you?

AngelaMOU:
"Irreducible complexity is the observation where you can't take even 1 part out of a running system without breaking that CURRENT system's function. 1 good example is the gliding system of the Wallace flying frog. When you take out just 1 of the webs between the toes the frog would crash. This makes the system irreducible - to the fragility of taking just 1 part away the frog CRASH.
HOWEVER this irreducible complex gliding system, where you can't take 1 part out of it evolved from the swimming toes (as adaptation) by darwinian priciples. It got selected and interlocked the specific gliding complexity as recycling/repurposement from the former swimming & climbing "paw" purpose of the percursor forms.
Reply: Just removing one would certainly not make him crash. And thats reall1y not an example frequently given by ID theorists.

AngelaMOU: Otangelo and Co want to ignore the very fragile complexity to be irreducible in such mentioned systems and they also want to ignore it to be evolved SIMULTANEOUSLY, simply because they conflate the term Irreducible Complexity with ="Creation is true by default" / "Evolutionary history is false".
Reply: The making of Chlorophyll, and what it tells us about intelligent design

https://***************************...and-what-it-tells-us-about-intelligent-design

Chlorophyll biosynthesis is a complex pathway with 17 highly specific steps, of which eight last steps are used by specific enzymes uniquely in this pathway.
The pathway must go all the way through, otherwise, chlorophyll is not synthesized.
Therefore, the Chlorophyll biosynthesis pathway is irreducibly complex.

What good would there be, if the pathway would go only up to the 15th step? none
What good would there be, if the pathway would go all the way through the 17th step? Chlorophyll would be produced, BUT:
What good for survival would there be for chlorophyll on its own, if not fully embedded in the photosynthesis process? none.
What good would there be for photosynthesis without chlorophyll in place, capturing light, and transmitting it to the photosystem? none, since capturing
light is essential for the whole process.

Question: ‘Why would evolution produce a series of enzymes that only generate useless intermediates until all of the enzymes needed for the end product have evolved?’

(1) glutamyl-tRNA synthetase;
(2) glutamyl-tRNA reductase;
(3) glutamate 1-semialdehyde aminotransferase;
(4) porphobilinogen synthase;
(5) hydroxymethylbilane synthase;
(6) uroporphyrinogen III synthase;
(7) uroporphyrinogen III decarboxylase;
(8 ) coproporphyrinogen III oxidative decarboxylase;
(9) protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase;
(10) protoporphyrin IX Mg-chelatase;
(11) S-adenosyl-L-methionine:Mg-protoporphyrin IX methyltransferase;
(12)–(14) Mg-protoporphyrin IX monomethyl ester oxidative cyclase;
(15) divinyl (proto)chlorophyllide 4-vinyl reductase;
(16) light-dependent NADPHrotochlorophyllide oxidoreductase or light-independent protochlorophyllide
reductase;
(17) chlorophyll synthase.

The assembly of chlorophyll takes seventeen enzymes.
Natural selection could not operate to favor a system with anything less than all seventeen being present and functioning. What evolutionary process could possibly produce complex sophisticated enzymes that generate nothing useful until the whole process is complete? Some proponents of evolution argue that the assumed primeval organic soup had many of the simpler chemicals and that only as they were used up did it become necessary to generate the earlier enzymes in the pathway. InThe Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, the authors set forth the good basic chemistry that demonstrates that there could never have been an organic soup, and present some of the evidence out there in the world indicating that there never was. Denton and Overman also cite a number of experts who suggest that there is no evidence for such a primitive soup but rather considerable evidence against it.

Chlorophyll itself, and many of the intermediates along its pathway of synthesis can form triplet states, which would destroy surrounding lipids by a free radical cascade apart from the context of the enzymes that manufacture them and the apoproteins into which they are inserted at the conclusion of their synthesis. According to Asada ‘triplet excited pigments are physiologically equivalent to the active oxygens’, and according to Sandmann and Scheer, chlorophyll triplets ‘are already highly toxic by themselves … .’The entire process of chlorophyll synthesis from δ-aminolevulinic acid to protoporphyrin IX is apparently tightly coupled to avoid leakage of intermediates. Almost all of the enzymes of chlorophyll biosynthesis are involved in handling phototoxic material. For many of these enzymes, if they are not there when their substrate is manufactured, the cell will be destroyed by their substrate on the loose in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apel has cited four of the enzymes of chlorophyll biosynthesis for which this has been proven to be the case. This is a significant problem for evolutionists, who need time for these enzymes to evolve successively. Each time a new enzyme evolved it would have produced a new phototoxin until the next enzyme evolved.

Triplet state chlorophyll, generated in the reaction centres when singlet (excited state) chlorophyll cannot get rid of its energy quickly enough, as may be the case when excess photon energy is coming in, lasts long enough to generate very damaging singlet oxygen (1O2), which attacks lipids, proteins, chlorophyll and DNA.Evolutionists maintain that ground-state oxygen (3O2, a triplet state biradical) was not around when photosynthesis evolved. There is, however, considerable evidence that there has never been a time in Earth’s history when there was not significant free oxygen in the atmosphere (see Dimroth and Kimberley, Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen, Overman and Pannenberg,34 Denton). The evolutionists’ own analyses suggest that the last common ancestor for the bacteria and archaea already had sophisticated enzyme systems for using O2 and for disarming its reactive by-products. Since these organisms had already evolved by 3.5 Ga, on the evolutionists’ timescale,37 this also suggests something rather ominous for the absence of oxygen theory.

In the system that presently exists, a sophisticated complex of enzymes and pigments quenches the excess energy and scavenges the dangerous oxygen species generated by excess light. CuZn superoxide dismutase (in most higher plants) converts superoxide (O2-), the primary product of photoreduction of dioxygen in PSI, to H2O2 in the highest-known diffusion-controlled rate among enzymatic reactions. It appears that about one molecule of superoxide dismutase attaches to the surface of the membrane in the vicinity of the PSI complex, along with ascorbate peroxidase (APX). Ascorbate reduces the H2O2 generated, in a reaction catalyzed by APX. The product of this reaction, the monodehydroascorbate radical, is reduced again to ascorbate by photoreduced ferredoxin (Fd) in PSI.The enzymes and other reducing species of this system could not evolve gradually and then microcompartmentalize over time because nothing works unless everything is in place. This means that the first appearance of oxygen would have been lethal to the cell, whether the source of oxygen was biological or non-biological. Enzymes such as superoxide dismutase would not have been able to evolve at all. APX, for example, has only about 31–33% homology with cytochrome c peroxidase, from which it is thought to have evolved.Cells without these enzymes exposed to ground-state oxygen would simply have been destroyed before hundreds of base pair changes generated the enzymes from something else.

Natural selection is not evolution’s friend. In answer to the question, ‘Why would evolution produce a series of enzymes that only generate useless intermediates until all of the enzymes needed for the end product have evolved?’

The question, ‘Why and how would evolution go about trying to produce a protein for binding pigment molecules before pigment molecules existed?’ is another major challenge for proponents of evolution.

If chlorophyll evolved before the antenna proteins that bind it, it would in all likelihood destroy the cell, so the proteins had to evolve first. But natural selection could not favor a ‘newly evolved’ protein which could bind chlorophyll and other pigment molecules before those crucial pigments had themselves come into existence! Each binding site must be engineered to bind chlorophyll an or chlorophyll b only or carotene only. The carotene molecules must be present in just the right places for quenching triplet states in the chlorophylls. Even if the pigment molecules were already around, producing just the right protein would be an extremely difficult task. It would not only have to bind pigment molecules only, but it would need to bind just the right pigments in just the right places in just the right orientation so that energy could be transferred perfectly between them, with a little lower energy at each step. Anything else would do nothing or would transfer energy at random, and the complex would accomplish nothing at best and burn up the cell at worst.

And there is another problem for evolution. The insertion of the pigment molecules changes the conformation of the apoprotein from about 20% to about 60% α-helical content. So evolution would have to produce a protein with a wrong shape that would assume just the right shape by the insertion of pigment molecules in just the right positions and orientations when those pigment molecules had not yet evolved.

The energy transfer timeframe between pigment molecules in the antenna complex is between 10-15 and 10-9seconds. The system that God engineered captures 95–99% of the photon energy for photochemistry, even though there are four other ways the energy can be lost during the slightly less than a billionth of a second the system has for capturing it. Humans certainly cannot begin to design systems with such efficiency, but the evolutionists are determined that chance, what Cairns-Smith calls ‘old fumble fingers’, can.

Our understanding of the assembly of apoproteins with their pigments is very poor, but we do know that the chloroplast encoded chlorophyll a binding proteins of PSI and PSII core complexes are inserted cotranslationally into the thylakoid. Protein intermediates of the D1 protein have been observed due to ribosome pausing. It may be that this ribosome pausing permits cotranslational binding of chlorophyll a to the protein. This kind of controlled insertion, with synthesis of otherwise phototoxic material, is precisely what we would expect from intelligent planning and forethought, but how might ‘old fumble fingers’ hit on such a scheme?

Chlorophyll biosynthesis is a complex pathway with 17 highly specific steps, of which eight last steps are used by specific enzymes uniquely in this pathway.

Even if we find in the sequence space the right steps to make the enzymes required to permit the synthesis of the products of these intermediate steps, so what ? the intermediate products would have no function, and no survival advantage of the organism would be provided. Natural selection could not operate to favor a system with anything less than all seventeen enzymes being present, functioning and processing all intermediate products to get the final product. What evolutionary process could possibly produce complex sophisticated enzymes that generate nothing useful until the whole process is complete? And even if everything were in place correctly, and chlorophyll were synthesized correctly, so what ? Unless chlorophyll AND all other proteins and protein complexes were fully in place, fully evolved and functional, correctly interlocked and working in an interdependent manner, photosynthesis would not happen. But even if photosynthesis would happen, so what? Why would the organism choose such an extremely complex mechanism, if it was surviving just fine previously? Furthermore, you do not just need the right enzymes. For the assembly of a biological system of multiple parts, following steps must be explained: the origin of the genome information to produce all subunits and assembly cofactors. Parts availability, synchronization, manufacturing and assembly coordination through genetic information, and interface compatibility. The individual parts must precisely fit together. All these steps are better explained through a super intelligent and powerful designer, rather than mindless natural processes by chance, or/and evolution since we observe all the time minds capabilities producing machines and factories, producing machines and end products.

everything *has* to be in place at once or else an organism has no survival advantage. The thing is, there’s no driver for any of the pieces to evolve individually because single parts confer no advantage in and of themselves. The necessity for the parts of the system to be in place all at once is simply evidence of creation. Photosynthesis missing one piece (like chlorophylls) is like a car missing just one piece of the drive train (such as a differential); it’s not that it doesn’t function as well – it doesn’t function at all!

So that the term "irreducible complexity" is just another word for "my religious belief shall be true" (By dogma).
ICs are a prediction by evolution published since the 1910s years... long before Behe, his mentor Dembski or Otangelo etc. were around.

Muller wrote: "... thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors ..." Muller 1918 pp. 463-464.
"V. The role of interlocking and diffusion of gene functions in hindering true reversal of evolution "... an embryological or physiological process or structure newly arisen by gene mutation, after becoming once established (with or without the aid of selection), later takes more and more part in the whole complex interplay of vital processes. For still further mutations that arise are now allowed to stay if only they work in harmony with all genes that are already present, and, of these further mutations, some will naturally depend, for their proper working, on the new process or structure under consideration. Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary." Muller 1939 pp. 271-272.
Where Otangelo also conflated H.J.Muller with K.R. Miller from the Kitzmiller v dover trial against the DI church guys financed by
Fieldstaed & Company / the evangelical christian missionary Stewardship Foundation & Maclellan Foundation etc.


AngelaMOU: "Look at the Sheltand pony & how complicated it is! The head, the hooves, tail and legs and torso...and not to mention the inner organs like the liver, stomach, muscle tissues and bones... All this is impossible to just fall from the sky at pure happenstances! Just to assemble in my garden into a living breathing shetland pony to jump and (gish) gallop around! And you also can't take its head away! It would die!
Therefore the body parts must be glued together from separate pieces...all by a fiddle-fuddler...that is my (AND ONLY MY) God!"
Reply: How organisms becase as complex as we know they did, is actually far from answered yet by science, despite the 150 year old claim that " evolution did it".
But the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that unguided evolutionary pressures have that creative powers.

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

How do biological multicellular complexity and a spatially organized body plan emerge?

https://***************************...ty-and-a-spatially-organized-body-plan-emerge

1. Biological sciences have come to discover in the last decades that major morphological innovation, development and body form are based on at least 16 different, but integrative mechanisms, the interplay of genes with the gene regulatory network, Trans and Retrotransposons, so-called Junk DNA, gene splicing and recombination, and at least two dozen epigenetic informational code systems, some, like the glycan ( sugar) code, far more complex than the genetic code, on the membrane - exterior side of cells, Post-transcriptional modifications (PTMs) of histones, hormones, Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields that are not specified by nuclear DNA, Membrane targets and patterns, Cytoskeletal arrays, Centrosomes, and inheritance by cell memory which is not defined through DNA sequences alone.

2. These varied mechanisms orchestrate gene expression, generate Cell types and patterns, perform various tasks essential to cell structure and development, are responsible for important tasks of organismal development, affect gene transcription, switch protein-coding genes on or off, determine the shape of the body, regulate genes, provide critical structural information and spatial coordinates for embryological development, influence the form of a developing organism and the arrangement of different cell types during embryological development, organize the axes, and act as chemical messengers for development

3. Neo-Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis have proposed traditionally a gene-centric view, a scientific metabiological proposal going back to Darwin's " On the origin of species ", where first natural selection was proposed as the mechanism of biodiversity, and later, gene variation defining how bodies are built and organized. Not even recently proposed alternatives, like the third way, neutral theory, inclusive fitness theory, Saltationism, Saltatory ontogeny, mutationism, Genetic drift, or combined theories, do full justice by taking into account all organizational physiological hierarchy and complexity which empirical science has come to discover.

4. Only a holistic view, namely structuralism and systems biology, take into account all influences that form cell form and size, body development and growth, providing adequate descriptions of the scientific evidence.

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 Preprogramming 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.

They are apt to communicate, crosstalk, signal, regulate, govern, control, recruit, interpret, recognize, orchestrate, elaborate strategies, guide and so forth. All codes, blueprints, and languages are inventions by intelligence. Therefore, the genetic and epigenetic codes and signaling networks and the instructions to build cells and complex biological organisms were most likely created by an intelligent agency.

AngelaMOU: The flat fact that ponies are bred over generations from horses, while horses and donkeys and several zebra species (in general) came from even older Equine ancestry is ignored.
Reply: Who denies micro-evolution and human domestication of wild animals like wolves becoming dogs etc?

AngelaMOU: Otangelo does this with proteins, cell organelles and cellular machinery...
where he points in long monologues the complexity out without actually adressing the repurposement towards newer or altered functionality...EVER
Reply: From where did these enzymes be repurposed?

(10) protoporphyrin IX Mg-chelatase;
(11) S-adenosyl-L-methionine:Mg-protoporphyrin IX methyltransferase;
(12)–(14) Mg-protoporphyrin IX monomethyl ester oxidative cyclase;
(15) divinyl (proto)chlorophyllide 4-vinyl reductase;
(16) light-dependent NADPHrotochlorophyllide oxidoreductase or light-independent protochlorophyllide
reductase;
(17) chlorophyll synthase.

AngelaMOU: So does Otangelo start again with rhodopsin.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.1182 & https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3879442/ & https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73606-y
And if you point out the evolutionary pathway...he gets dementia a day later and starts...surprise surprise again with rhodopsin.
Reply: Evolution of Rhodopsins
Opsins are a group of proteins that underlie the molecular basis of various light sensing systems including phototaxis, circadian (daily) rhythms, eye sight, and a type of photosynthesis. Opsins are retinal proteins because they bind to a light-activated, non-protein chromophore called retinal. All opsin proteins are embedded in cell membranes, crossing the membrane seven times. 6

Functional residues, such as those within the catalytic sites of enzymes, are highly constrained and thus well conserved across organisms because mutations within these sites are normally deleterious. 3

That raises the question how these G Proteins emerged in the first place since they are highly specific and prone to mutations.

An often cited source of evolutionary novelty is the recruiting and co-option of extant building blocks, and incorporate them into new systems, by natural selection of new functions. Rhodopsin would have to undergo evolution by recruiting All-trans-retinal chromophores, which it would have to find ready fully formed and functional, and finely tuned and right-sized to fit the binding pocket, a molecule obtained by a complex multistep biosynthesis pathway starting with carotenoid chromophores from fruits, flowers, trees or vegetables. 4 It would require elaborated import mechanisms and the information how to insert it in the binding pocket, and attached at the right place, and the insertion of a protonated retinal Schiff base ( The term Schiff base is normally applied to these compounds when they are being used as ligands )

The crystal structure of rhodopsin reveals that the chromophore-binding pocket is well defined, suggesting that the binding pocket has high specificity for the Schiff base and the b ionone ring. 14

The binding of the chromophore to the opsin is essential to trigger the conformational change and must be precise and functional from the beginning. Following is required :

1. a Schiff base linkage
2. a Lys296 residue where chromophore retinal covalently binds
3. the side chain of the residue
4. an essential amino acid residue called "counter ion". The counterion, a negatively charged amino acid residue that stabilizes a positive charge on the retinylidene chromophore, is essential for rhodopsin to receive visible light. 17
5. There is a pivotal role of the covalent bond between the retinal chromophore and the lysine residue at position 296 in the activation pathway of rhodopsin

Unless all of these specific points were not just right from the beginning, rhodopsin would not be functional. Each of these processes demands already coordinated and finetuned interplay and precise orchestration between opsin and retinal.

Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105

Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if subsystems or parts are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.


The question is: How did opsins and their configuration of seven precisely folded alpha helix transmembranes emerge?

Rao et. al. have proposed that "...the packing of seven helices together may represent a uniquely stable arrangement that has been achieved through a process of convergent evolution." 10

Here we go. We " have proposed ".... convergent evolution. But but.... where is the evidence ??

In the paper: The Origins of Novel Protein Interactions during Animal Opsin Evolution, the authors make the remarkable admittance:

Genetic changes are known to modify phenotype during evolution by altering the interactions between a protein and its ecological or biochemical environment, by modulating existing protein-protein interaction. However, the specific genetic changes that give rise to the evolutionary origins of novel protein-protein interactions HAVE RARELY BEEN DOCUMENTED IN DETAIL.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0001054

Origin of correct protein folding, a major problem in evolutionary biology

The precision upon which opsins must fold into their seven transmembrane configuration is staggering:

Biophysicists at JILA have measured protein folding in more detail than ever before, revealing behavior that is surprisingly more complex than previously known. . . .2 the JILA team identified 14 intermediate states—seven times as many as previously observed—in just one part of bacteriorhodopsin, a protein in microbes that converts light to chemical energy and is widely studied in research. “The increased complexity was stunning,” said project leader Tom Perkins, a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) “Better instruments revealed all sorts of hidden dynamics that were obscured over the last 17 years when using conventional technology.” “If you miss most of the intermediate states, then you don’t really understand the system,” he said. Knowledge of protein folding is important because proteins must assume the correct 3-D structure to function properly. Misfolding may inactivate a protein or make it toxic. Several neurodegenerative and other diseases are attributed to incorrect folding of certain proteins.
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2017/03/jila-team-discovers-many-new-twists-protein-folding


AngelaMOU: I explained him that he wanted to switch to cell origin/abiogenesis topics, because he did not want to face that the whole human complexity is 1 adaptation from ape ancestral complexity (humans are still apes and remain in that clade anyway).
And a human cell is not ex nihilo "fallen from the sky"/ assembled from separate organelles and molecules taken out of a drawer.
Reply: Chimps, our brothers ?

https://******************************/t2272-chimps-our-brothers

AngelaMOU: The different TYPES of ATP was about the inward mutation of the F0/F1 & helicase function switches.
Aka:

https://www.life.illinois.edu/crofts/bioph354/Evol_F1.html

https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1016/0014-5793%2890%2980014-A

www.sciencedirect.com
The evolution of A-, F-, and V-type ATP synthases and ATPases: reversals in function and changes in the H+/ATP coupling ratio
Members of the FoF1, AoA1 and VoV1 family of ATP synthases and ATPases have undergone at least two reversals in primary function. The first was from a…
www.sciencedirect.com www.sciencedirect.com
etc.
Reply: The irreducibly complex ATP Synthase nanomachine, amazing evidence of design
https://***************************...nthase-nanomachine-amazing-evidence-of-design

The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor
Cells conserve energy via chemiosmotic coupling14 with rotor–stator-type ATP synthases or via substrate-level phosphorylation (SLP)15. LUCA’s genes encompass components of two enzymes of energy metabolism: phosphotransacetylase (PTA) and an ATP synthase subunit 13

Since evolution by natural selection requires reproduction, and since reproduction requires life, which requires ATPase, the enzyme is, therefore, a prerequisite for evolution. But with evolution out of order until ATPase ‘appears’, evolution is not even in the running as a model to explain the origin of the molecular motor.

At least five of the below-mentioned parts are ESSENTIAL and IRREDUCIBLE. Take away one, and ATP synthase ceases to function. Neither could any of the sub-parts simply be co-opted from anywhere else. That would be the same as to say, in order to make a motor function, and a cylinder is missing, go search and find any cylinder nearby, co-opt it, and solved is the problem. The thing is that cylinders come in all size, specification, materials etc. And there is no goal-oriented search of parts that fit through evolution Evolution has no foresight. Furthermore, there must be the information on how and when and where to mount the parts, at the exact place, in the right sequence. That's a far fetch for a mindless tinkerer to be able to achieve.

1.The nucleotide binding stator subunits (“cylinders”) : The electrostatic interaction of these rotor and stator charges is essential for torque generation
2.The central stalk (“crankshaft”) : The torsional elasticity of the central stalk and the bending and stretching elasticity of the peripheral stalk create an elastic coupling between Fo and F1. It is essential.
3, The A/V rotor subunit (“adapter”) ; It is not used in all ATP synthase motors, and can, therefore, be reduced.
4. The Rotor ring (“turbine”) ; A ring of 8–15 identical c-subunits is essential for ion-translocation by the rotary electromotor of the ubiquitous FOF1-
ATPase.
5. The Jon channel-forming subunit ; Subunit a harbours the ion channel that provides access to the binding site on the c11 ring in the middle of the membrane from the periplasmic surface. The channel is essential for the operation of the enzyme because mutants in which the channel is blocked are completely inactive in both the ATP synthesis and/or coupled ATP hydrolysis mode
6. The peripheral stalk (“pushrod”) ; The peripheral stalk of F-ATPases is an essential component of these enzymes. It extends from the membrane distal point of the F1 catalytic domain along the surface of the F1 domain with subunit a in the membrane domain.
7 - 11 do not exist in all atp synthase motors, and can, therefore, be reduced.

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27776/
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3846802/
4. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043045
5. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1432-1033.2002.03264.x/pdf
6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16697972

AngelaMOU: Otangelo wrote:
"The cell contains a genetic code that is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization across plausible parameter space"

I mentioned that a two-way reading system instead of the weird leading and legging strand with DNA replication like with the Okazaki fragment etc. is not an optimum there, but unnecessesarily convoluted.
Reply: What has DNA replication to do with the optimality of the genetic code?

DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology that defies naturalistic explanations
https://******************************/t1849-dna-replication-of-prokaryotes

The Argument of the Original Replicator
In prokaryotic cells, DNA replication involves more than thirty specialized proteins to perform tasks necessary for building and accurately copying the genetic molecule.
Each of these proteins is essential and required for the proper replicating process. Not a single one of these proteins can be missing, otherwise, the whole process breaks down, and is unable to perform its task correctly. DNA repair mechanisms must also be in place, fully functional, and working properly, otherwise, the mutation rate will be too high, and the cell dies. 18
The individual parts and proteins require by themselves complex assembly proteins to be built.
The individual parts, assembly proteins, and proteins individually would have no function on their own. They have only function interconnected in the working whole.
The individual parts must be readily available on the construction site of the RNA replication complex, being correctly interlocked, interlinked, and have the right interface compatibility to be able to interact correctly together. All this requires information and meta-information ( information that directs the expression of the genomic information for construction of the individual proteins, and correct timing of expression, and as well the information of the correct assembly sequence. )
Evolution is not a capable driving force to make the DNA replicating complex, because evolution depends on cell replication through the very own mechanism we try to explain. It takes proteins to make DNA replication happen. But it takes the DNA replication process to make proteins. That’s a catch 22 situation.
DNA replication requires coded, complex, specified information and meta-information, and the DNA replication process is irreducibly complex.
Therefore, DNA replication is best explained through design.

Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries
The transition from the RNA to the DNA world was a major event in the history of life. The invention of DNA required the appearance of enzymatic activities for both synthesis of DNA precursors, retro-transcription of RNA templates and replication of single and double-stranded DNA molecules. Several of these enzymatic activities have been invented independently more than once, indicating that the transition from RNA to DNA genomes was more complex than previously thought. The distribution of the different protein families corresponding to these activities in the three domains of life (Archaea, Eukarya, and Bacteria) is puzzling. In many cases, Archaea and Eukarya contain the same version of these proteins, whereas Bacteria contain another version. However, in other cases, such as thymidylate synthases or type II DNA topoisomerases, the phylogenetic distributions of these proteins do not follow this simple pattern. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain these observations, including independent invention of DNA and DNA replication proteins, ancient gene transfer and gene loss, and/or nonorthologous replacement.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/...BZEmSZhbB04SCYaY7cYsTOibuCSfH9aYC3NGohfWSEHCE

AngelaMOU: 4 is not adressing the point that the system not to be perfect or mutations would not happen (at all).
He also skipped something there.
He referred formerly to the Minimal genome project in which Otangelo thought the reduction of a current complex cell to shrink it to basic functions without it being lethal is identical with LUCA.
The reduced form is not the precursor form.

This is like you reduce a bird to stay alive even without feathers and arms (putting the arm away) and then claim it is absolutely the theropod dino ancestor - not getting why this is not a reconstructed precursor.
Reply: Did the information or the DNA come first? Did the nucleotides or the DNA or the RNA or the AMINO ACIDS or the PROTEIN come first? The architecture of the cell, including the cell wall, nucleus, sub-cellular compartments and a myriad of molecular machines, did not originate from DNA, but was created separately and alongside DNA. Neither can exist without the other. Thus, a large, yet immeasurable, part of biological information resides in living organisms outside DNA.
What came first, the molecular machine called ATP synthase or the protein and RNA manufacturing machines that rely on ATP to produce the ATP synthase machine?
It takes DNA to make proteins. But it takes proteins to make DNA. What came first ?
It takes ATP energy to make enzymes. But it takes enzymes to make ATP. What came first ?