Chat with Aron Ra

[AronRa]

I'm going to skip over most of the irrelevant red herrings, attempted insults and other off-topic nonsense. Otangelo keeps posting things I already read and understand, but that he doesn't understand, and he thinks I don't know already know about the things I would then have to explain to him. All in due time. I'm not going to be spammed all at once with every alleged "problem" he can find on his propaganda sources.

Aron Common descent is not a hypothesis. It is confirmed.
Reply: Well, then why do science papers disagree with you? Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things
The concept of a tree of life is prevalent in the evolutionary literature. It stems from attempting to obtain a grand unified natural system that reflects a recurrent process of species and lineage splittings for all forms of life. Traditionally, the discipline of systematics operates in a similar hierarchy of bifurcating (sometimes multifurcating) categories. The assumption of a universal tree of life hinges upon the process of evolution being tree-like throughout all forms of life and all of biological time. In prokaryotes, they do not. Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things, and we need to treat them as such, rather than extrapolating from macroscopic life to prokaryotes. In the following we will consider this circumstance from philosophical, scientific, and epistemological perspectives, surmising that phylogeny opted for a single model as a holdover from the Modern Synthesis of evolution.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2761302/

That is the same thing I already said, but of course you didn't understand it.

And i am wondering if you know something about the 9 points i mention demonstrating why common ancestry is bunk, that i don't know?
https://***************************...-descent-the-tree-of-life-a-failed-hypothesis

I'm not reading your blog or your mined quotations.

Aron: We have observed the change from unicellular to multicellular organisms in the lab,
Reply: Did cell-cell adhesion proteins, and signaling evolve in parallel ? If so, based on what evolutionary pressures ?

I don't know. But it doesn't matter either way.

Aron: Now in the 21st century, they added a couple more mechanisms, epigenetics and endosymbiosis, and it is now the "modern evolutionary synthesis".
Reply: Yes, of course, easy deal. What evolved first: The histone code, readers, erasers, or writers?

Does it matter? I mean, I'm sure I can find it. I've found other studies like that. But do I really need to waste my time answering your question when you'll only ignore the answer again?

Aron: In this case, you were once again expected to produce some truth to your position, which you simply refused to do.
Reply: That would actually have to be your job. Once you prove that natural mechanisms suffice to explain all phenomena in the natural world, you can categorically accuse creationists to be liars. Then we are on the same level as flat earthers. I have not yet seen that day come. And until then, you are doing what you accuse us of doing. Making unsupported claims.

It is NOT my job to disprove your unsupported assertions. It is your job to show that they are justified.

Aron: You citation agreed with this, listing one and only one scientific method, and then explained how that one method is applicable to both current or historical applications. But it's not a different "kind" of science.
Reply: Koonin disagrees with you. And so do i. They are different disciplines because they answer different questions. The origin of life is the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general. Indeed, the problem is so hard and the current state of the art seems so frustrating that some researchers prefer to dismiss the entire issue as being outside the scientific domain altogether, on the grounds that unique events are not conducive to scientific study.

Again, and both of our citations already said this, and contradicted your claim of two different kinds of science.

Aron: If we detected that an intelligent designer was involved, we would use science, not theology.
Reply: We use science to understand how the world works. That gives us hints and direction if intelligene was more likely involved or not to create it. The identity is a quest of philosophy and theology, since God is not demonstrating himself to us.

Theology is literally just man-made mythology. There is no practical question it can answer.

Aron:You didn't even properly define what a god is.
Reply: A personal agent, endowed with power, and intelligence, existing above the natural world, without a beginning, and without an end.

Your definition fails to account for most of the gods that have ever been worshiped. Try again.

Aron: It doesn't make any difference how the universe began or if it did.
Reply: If your aim is to defend naturalism as a consistent worldview, the origin of the universe, and why there is something rather than nothing, is a central issue.

My aim is not to defend naturalism. That wouldn't even make sense. Since you are unable to provide any reason to believe in the supernatural, then I have no reason to believe it. That's all. My aim was to try to explain evolution to a dishonest prejudiced and willfully ignorant troll who will not properly engage.

Aron: More quote-mining. It is deliberately dishonest and misleading, but as I said, it is ubiquitous among creationists.
Reply: Nice doge. Do you expect me to provide an answer that comes from experimental evidence that has grown out of my own crap in the backyards ?

I didn't dodge anything. Nor did you lob anything needing a dodge. But I do expect you to show actual factual science to back your assertions, yes, instead of the lies and bullshit you've been posting so far.

Aron: Now you know better. Evolution is a theory of biodiversity wherein one cannot grow out of one's ancestry.
Reply: Each branching point in the tree of life would therefore not be possible. You refute your own phylogeny claim, LOL.

Why doesn't it bother you that nothing you say makes any sense? You're saying that a brother and sister can't be different from each other unless they're completely different from their parents?

Aron: See? I told you didn't know what macroevoluiton is. So that you do know, do you understand and accept that these are the actual definitions of those terms?
Reply: Did you just ignore the follow up at the link, just to make a point and attempt to portray me as ignorant? yes, i agree with your decription. But you are not telling me anything new that i have to be educated with. I continue:

Thank you for admitting that so much of all that unnecessary spam you posted was irrelevant lies deliberately misrepresenting what evolution really is.

Aron: In addition to the documented development of new enzymes and chromosomes, novel synthesis abilities, denovo genes, and retroviral resistance, notable examples include the evolution of a new multicellular species arising from unicellular algae under direct observation in the lab.
Reply: Volvox is not helping you.

Unicellular and multicellular Organisms are best explained through design
https://***************************...r-organisms-are-best-explained-through-design

The situation in Pleodorina and Volvox is different. In these organisms, some of the cells of the colony (most in Volvox) are not able to live independently. If a nonreproductive cell is isolated from a Volvox colony, it will fail to reproduce itself by mitosis and eventually will die. What has happened? In some way, as yet unclear, Volvox has crossed the line separating simple colonial organisms from truly multicellular ones. Unlike Gonium, Volvox cannot be considered simply a colony of individual cells. It is a single organism whose cells have lost their ability to live independently. If a sufficient number of them become damaged, the entire sphere of cells will die.

Some human cells are not able to live independently either. You didn't understand this paper just like you haven't understood anything else so far.

I really didn't need to reply to anything in this whole post as none of was really relevant or substantive.

 

[AronRa]

Aron: Wait, you still think macroevolution requires a change in body plans? I thought we went over this, and you assured me that you never said anything so stupid.
Reply: I replied already: The crux and issue in question is not macroevolution in a general sense, but macroevolution/primary speciation.

Doesn't matter. Get your facts straight.

Proteins are structures of complex semantophoretic macromolecules that carry genetic information.

How Did Protein Synthesis Evolve?
The molecular processes underlying protein synthesis in present-day cells seem inextricably complex. Although we understand most of them, they do not make conceptual sense in the way that DNA transcription, DNA repair, and DNA replication do. It is especially difficult to imagine how protein synthesis evolved because it is now performed by a complex interlocking system of protein and RNA molecules; obviously the proteins could not have existed until an early version of the translation apparatus was already in place. As attractive as the RNA world idea is for envisioning early life, it does not explain how the modern-day system of protein synthesis arose.
Molecular biology of the cell, 6th ed. pg. 365

If you keep dodging this most crucial point, upon which your worldview either stands or falls, I will call you out, and call you a liar, as you call me ( unjustified)...

You never brought it up. I never dodged it. We haven't gotten there yet. I told you, we have to start with amino acids first.

Aron: Thanks to Urey-Miller and a number of other, similar experiments, we now know that water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen generate amino acids when heated and charged with electricity.
Reply: So let me be clear. Success would be, if an experiment would provide evidence how the 20 amino acids could have originated prebiotically on early earth. That has NOT been done.

That has been done, as I just showed you. Different experiments using different base chemicals each produced amino acids. That was the goal, to prove that could happen. They proved that could happen. Who knows how many more configurations could do the same thing? Admit what has been achieved instead of moving the goal posts to list whatever you can find that hasn't yet been done. We don't need to know everything at once. But if we're on the right track, then we will have some successes like this. Your position is to try and justify why you have absolutely no successes for your alternative, unless you want to count bitching about what science doesn't know yet.

In one of your videos, you even falsely claimed that the 20 amino acids used in life were produced in a follow-up Urey Miller experiment in 2008. The volcano in a bottle, I guess. They produced some DIFFERENT amino acids, but not all those used in life.

I correctly said that it was later discovered that the original study produced 22 amino acids, much more than previously thought. I made no false claim like you have.

Aron: Similarly, heating water to 70ºC in the presence of iron hydroxide (simulating geothermal vents in the anaerobic conditions of the prebiotic earth) also produced amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids in the lab.
https://www.wired.com/2008/10/forgotten-exper/
Reply: The hydrothermal-vent hypothesis , and why it fails
https://***************************...hesis-and-why-it-fails?highlight=hydrothermal

Dr. Stanley L. Miller, University of California San Diego 14
What about submarine vents as a source of prebiotic compounds?
I have a very simple response to that . Submarine vents don't make organic compounds, they decompose them. Indeed, these vents are one of the limiting factors on what organic compounds you are going to have in the primitive oceans. At the present time, the entire ocean goes through those vents in 10 million years. So all of the organic compounds get zapped every ten million years. That places a constraint on how much organic material you can get. Furthermore, it gives you a time scale for the origin of life. If all the polymers and other goodies that you make get destroyed, it means life has to start early and rapidly. If you look at the process in detail, it seems that long periods of time are detrimental, rather than helpful.

I remind you that Stanley Miller died in 2007, still thinking his volcano in a bottle experiment was a "dud". Now we know better. Here is a study from just last year that shows, just as I already said, that heating water to 70ºC in the presence of iron hydroxide (simulating geothermal vents in the anaerobic conditions of the prebiotic earth) also produced amino acids and alpha hydroxy acids in the lab.
https://authors.library.caltech.edu/93232/3/4828.full.pdf

.

In order to have the amino acids used in life, you have to select the right ones amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth.

To get functional ones, you need to sort them out between left-handed and right-handed ones ( the homochirality problem). Only left-handed amino acids are used in cells.

There is no selection process known besides the one used in cells by sophisticated enzymes, which produce only left-handed amino acids.

Life should be able to be based on either left or right-handed amino acids, but we know that it doesn't work if they're mixed. So, given the evolutionary laws of monophyly and biodiversity, whatever life started with, it has to stick with. I hardly see why you think this is a problem?

Amino acids used for life have amino groups and carboxyl groups. To form a chain, it is necessary to have the reaction of bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups so they combine with two others. If a unifunctional monomer (with only one functional group) reacts with the end of the chain, the chain can grow no further at this end. If only a small fraction of unifunctional molecules were present, long polymers could not form. But all ‘prebiotic simulation’ experiments produce at least three times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules.

The useful amino acids would have to be joined and brought together at the same assembly site in enough quantity.

There are four different ways to bond them together by the side chains. if bonded to the wrong side chain, no deal.

The formation of amide bonds without the assistance of enzymes poses a major challenge for theories of the origin of life.

Instructional/specified complex information is required to get the right amino acid sequence which is essential to get the functionality in a vast sequence space ( amongst trillions os possible sequences, rare are the ones that provide function )

Before amino acids would join into a sequence providing functional folding, it would disintegrate if hit by UV radiation.

But even IF that would not be the case, most proteins become only functional, if they are joined into holo-enzymes, where various amino acid chains come together like lock and key.

If that would occur, the tertiary or quaternary structure in most cases would bear no function without the insertion of a co-factor inside the pocket, like retinal in the opsin pocket, forming rhodopsin.

But even IF there would emerge a functional protein on the early earth, by itself, it would be like a piston outside the engine block of an automobile. Many proteins bear only function once they are integrated in an assembly line, producing sophisticated molecular products used in life.

But even IF we had an assembly line of enzymes producing a functional product, what good would there be for that product, if the cell would not know where that product is required in the Cell?

For example, chlorophyll requires the complex biosynthesis process of 17 enzymes, lined up in the right order, each producing the substrate used by the next enzyme. But chlorophyll has no function unless inserted in the light-harvesting antenna complex used in photosynthesis to capture light and funnel it to the reaction center.

But even if that complex, chlorophyll and the LHC would be fully set up, they have no function without all over 30 protein complexes forming photosynthesis, used to make hydrocarbons, essential for all advanced life forms.

Now, let's suppose all this would assemble by a freaky random accident on early earth, there would still be no mechanisms of transition from a prebiotic assembly, to Cell factory synthesis.

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

 

[AronRa]

Aron: Name a single natural law that was not devised by people. Who do you thing came up with Newton's laws of motion? Or Boyle's gas law? Lord Kelvin is credited with the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Reply: Yes, Laws are discovered and described. But before that happens, they had to be there....

In order for a thing to exist, it must have properties. Natural laws are when we figure out some of those properties and phrase them in a succinct sentence or a mathematic equation. They are not called laws because of any cosmic legislator.

Fine-tuning of the Laws of physics
Fine-tuning of the Big Bang
Fine-tuning of the cosmological constant
Fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe
Fine-tuning of the fundamental forces of the universe
Fine-tuning of the subatomic particles
Fine-tuning of the Milky Way Galaxy
Fine-tuning of the Solar System
Fine-tuning of the sun
Fine-tuning of the earth
Fine-tuning of the moon
Fine-tuning of the electromagnetic spectrum
Fine-tuning in biochemistry

What you're calling "fine-tuned for life" obviously isn't what you say it is nor why you say it is. Not that any of that has anything to do with evolution, which was the topic, if you could just focus.

Aron: I'm not a fan of the argument from improbability fallacy, nor of the fallacy that complexity should indicate a divine designer. No, an efficient simplicity would be the hallmark of intelligent design, not the unnecessarily excessive complexity we get with biochemistry. The only way that makes sense is if it is a haphazard pattern of emergence, which I know creationists never understand.
Reply: I could not CARE LESS if you are a fan of the argument or not. Actually, it is quite obvious why you are not a fan of it. That's because you are biased, and are unwilling to permit God to put the foot into your door. This is probably one of the greatest SMACKDOWN and KNOCK-OUT arguments against naturalism because we KNOW by experience that intelligence CAN make complex machines for specific purposes, while unguided random forces can't.
The lack of acknowledging this, puts you in the camp with Matt, and you both deserve the medal for ostrich behavior !!

Lying about me will not help you. I am not biased. I want to believe whatever is really true, even if it as horribly senseless as what you believe. So I am not biased in the least, like you certainly are. But unlike you, I don't want to be fooled into believing anything that is not evidently true. I will consider any possibility, as long as you can show that there is at least a possibility to consider. You just have to present a reason to believe it. And you either can't or won't. Which is it?

Occams Razor
https://******************************/t2409-occams-razor?highlight=occams
Well, echoing Einstein, the answer is very easy: nothing is really simple if it does not work. Occam’s Razor is certainly not intended to promote false – thus, simplistic — theories in the name of their supposed “simplicity.” We should prefer a working explanation to one that does not, without arguing about “simplicity”. Such claims are really pointless, more philosophy than science. The only important scientific point is: what gives us an empirically well-supported, “best explanation”?

Occam's razor removes unnecessary assumptions. But you're citing that to add them!

1. On the one side, we have the putative prebiotic soup with the random chaotic floating around of the basic building blocks of life, and on the other side, the first living self-replicating cell ( LUCA ), a supposed fully operational minimal self-replicating cell, using the highly specific and sophisticated molecular milieu with a large team of enzymes which catalyze the reactions to produce the four basic building blocks of life in a cooperative manner, and furthermore, able to maintain intracellular homeostasis, reproduce, obtaining energy and converting it into a usable form, getting rid of toxic waste, protecting itself from dangers of the environment, doing the cellular repair, and communicate.
2. The science paper: Structural analyses of a hypothetical minimal metabolism proposes a minimal number of 50 enzymatic steps catalyzed by the associated encoded proteins. They don't, however, include the steps to synthesize the 20 amino acids required in life. Including those, the minimal metabolome would consist of 221 enzymes & proteins. A large number of molecular machines, co-factors, scaffold proteins, and chaperones are not included, required to build this highly sophisticated chemical factory.
3. There simply no feasible viable prebiotic route to go from a random prebiotic soup to this minimal proteome to kick-start metabolism by unguided means. This is not a conclusion by ignorance & incredulity, but it is reasonable to be skeptic, that this irreducibly complex biological system, entire factory complexes composed of myriads of interconnected highly optimized production lines, full of computers and robots could emerge naturally defying known and reasonable principles of the limited range of random unguided events and physical necessity. Comparing the two competing hypotheses, chance vs intelligent design, the second is simply by far the more case-adequate & reasonable explanation.

Once again, I have already corrected you on this; we are not looking for an individual first cell to be the common ancestor of all life. A first species, perhaps. But even then, it is not an evolutionary lineage until we get to eukaryotes.

This was another post that was completely irrelevant waste of time. I shouldn't even have replied to it.

 

[AronRa]

My god, Otangelo really likes to spam by copy pasting practically everything from his blog, flooding the thread with dozens of different topics all at once in an incoherent Gish-Gallop (or in his case, I like to call it the Otangelo Tango).

Just to pick one random thing I noticed

This is from Eugene K. Balon, who has criticized "(Neo)Darwinism" in favor of other mechanisms such as "saltation". However, his work has received criticism from scientists and he apparently became really frustrated with that as this particular paper shows. It's essentially a shit post published in the pseudo-journal Rivista di Biologia wherein he proclaims that there is a conspiracy among academia that prevents his ideas to be realized as a paradigm shift.

Nevertheless, some forms of salutation evolution have been accepted, such as whole genome duplication, hybridization, symbiosis, homeotic mutations, heterochrony, etc. And examples of this include the number of vertebrae/segments in snakes/centipedes and the Mexican axolotl.

Also Balon himself did not deny evolution. He just thought that there were other mechanisms that were overlooked in favor of only the "Neo-Darwinian" ones. So even if Balon was right, this is in no way an attack on evolution as a whole.

His use of this quote only reveals a fundemental problem that Otangelo has. He can not to see the difference betwee the outdated "neodarwinism" and the modern evolutionary theory of today that has incorporated these other principles. It's like attacking modern physics by going all out on the out dated Newtonian mechanics. It only makes you look like an utter fool who didn't keep up with the science for the last few decades.

Lastly, while I was writting this comment, I got a notification of a response from Otangelo to my response to a comment where he also copy pasted a whole list of nonsense from his blog. One of which included this gem about Marco polo having described a T-Rex.

View attachment 109
View attachment 110

I don't want to go into the T-rex thing, I just want to point out that when you are mindlessly copy pasting stuff from your blog, apparently not being fully aware of all the things that you are putting up as response, it makes it clear that you are not trying to engage in an actual conversation. You are just someone who likes to spam shit.

Thanks for the confirmation. I note Otangelo has dodged nearly every question put to him. The one he answered, assuring me he understood and accepted what I was saying, he immediately contradicted with another cut-and-paste, proving that he is just as stupid and misinformed as I said he was.

 

[rationalist]

Aron, you can only keep your Zombie worldview alive, because you handwave and ignore the SMACKING evidence against it, and the OVERWHELMING evidence pointing to God. Then, you mix it with as usual personal attacks and ad-hom's. There might be plenty of people that buy your repetitive claims that " there is no evidence for God" when in reality all physical existence points to a designed set up. Repeating your unwarranted claims does not make them truer. Yes, if your claim is that the material world is all there is, and want to sell that narrative, you need more than screaming all the time: " There is no evidence for God". What you need, is to provide good reasons how the natural world can exist on its own, without a necessary creator. And it is not sufficient with bringing up evolution. You need an all-encompassing explanation addressing all relevant fields which require an explanation.

While at this point, many atheists openly acknowledge the huge problems in regards of abiogenesis, you push the claims that " oh, we are getting there". No. Science does NOT. And this is why.

How does programming in biology point to God?

https://******************************/t3083-how-does-programming-in-biology-point-to-god

Maybe you are a layperson, and are curious to understand a bit better what the "Central Dogma of molecular biology" is - but have a difficult grasp to understand what it is all about. I like to use analogies from real life to make things more clear.

Let's suppose you invent a recipe to make a Gourmet Hamburger and write the recipe on a Word document, and save it on the hard disc of your computer. You have a Japanese friend and only communicate with him using the Google translation program. (He only speaks Japanese). Now he wants to try out your Gourmet Hamburger and asks you to send him the recipe a copy per email. So you write an email, annex the Word document, and send it to him. When he receives it, he will use Google Translate and get the recipe in Japanese, written in kanji, in logographic Japanese characters which he understands. With the information at hand, he can make the Gourmet Hamburger exactly as described in the recipe. In order for that communication to happen, you use at your end 26 letters from the alphabet, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, to write the receipt, and your friend has 2,136 kanji characters that permit him to understand the receipt in Japanese. Google Translate does the translation work.
Now he can make the Gourmet Hamburger at his end.

To perform the job it is rather effortless, when we have the ability to cook, invent a fine recipe, and have a basic grasp to use a computer. Now lets think a bit more about the complexity to have this job done. What has to be invented from scratch for your Japanese friend to be able to make the Gourmet Hamburger ?

1. A language (English) and an alphabet, using syntax, grammar, and semantics
2. A second language (Japanese), and Kanji
3. Computer with a hard disc.
4. The recipe to make Gourmet Hamburger and store the Word document with the recipe on the hard disc of the PC.
5. Another computer as backup system (otherwise the PC can break, and the information is lost)
6. An e-mail service and using it to create an e-mail, and annex a copy of the Word document with the recipe
7. Sending the Word document with the recipe to your friend
8. Inventing the Google Translate software program, and program it to translate from English to Japanese
9. Using the computer at the receivers end to get the email with the Word document
10. Using Google Translate to generate the translation
11. Taking the recipe in Japanese and make the Gourmet Hamburger

Now think about the complexity to have this job done. Inventing languages, algorithms, and programs, a recipe, store, send, translate and receive information, are all actions performed by intelligence. Nobody in its sane mind would ascribe all these things to the action of random chance, right? So any logical person would agree with me, that all these tasks are ALWAYS performed by intelligence, right? I mean, just think about how long humanity took to invent computers, the internet, Google Translate, and implement it....

Okay, now lets see how that works in the cell.
In the cell, it is essential to make proteins, which are molecular machines, veritable working horses. The recipe to make them (equivalent to the recipe of the Gourmet Hamburger) is written and stored in genes through DNA, which are extremely long chains of molecules that contain all the information necessary for the life functions of a cell. The individual molecules that make up DNA are called nucleotides. In order to get proteins, a similar process has to occur inside the cell, as with the recipe for your Japanese friend to be able to make the Gourmet Hamburger. While the recipe is written on a Word document saved on your computer, in the cell, the recipe (instructions or master plan) for the construction of proteins, is stored in the genome. It has to be sent to the Ribosome, the factory that makes proteins, which does the translation (remember your friend, using Google Translate at his end). While your Japanese friend, once he receives the message in Japanese, in Kanji, still has work to do, namely to follow the instructions to make the Gourmet Hamburger, the Ribosome does both jobs, translation of the information AND making proteins, the final product, all in one step. Smart, that!! The very translation also will produce the desired end product.

While you use the 26 letters of the alphabet to write your recipe, the Cell uses DNA, 4 nucleotide "letters". They are four different organic bases, which are adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T),
and while your Japanese friend uses kanji at his end, the cell uses the amino acid alphabet, consisting of 20 amino acids to get the message in translated form.

The way by which DNA stores the genetic information consists of triplet codons equivalent to words, consisting of a sequence of three DNA nucleotides. These triplets form "words". While you used words to write sentences to write the Gourmet Hamburger recipe, the cell uses codon "words" to write sentences which are called genes. With four possible nucleobase "letters", A,G,C,T, the triple-nucleotide "words" can give 4^3 = 64 different possible "words" (tri-nucleotide sequences). That's the entire genetic language, consisting in 64 words. In the standard genetic code, three of these 64 codons (UAA, UAG, and UGA) are stop codons. That is like punctuation marks in the alphabet. It instructs when a sentence ends.

There has to be a mechanism to extract the information in the genome, and send it to the ribosome, which is at another place in the cell, often free-floating in the cytoplasm. The message contained in the genome is transcribed by a very complex molecular machine, called RNA polymerase. (That's like making a copy of the recipe and annex it in the email) It makes a transcript, a copy of the message in the genome, and that transcript is sent to the Ribosome. (The email with the recipe arrives at your Japanese friend's end) That transcript is called messenger RNA or typically mRNA. Once the messenger RNA arrives at the Ribosome, translation can begin (the Ribosome does what Google Translate does)

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.) In translation, 64 genetic codons or "words" are assigned to 20 amino acids. (equivalent to the kanji characters) It refers to the assignment of the codons to the amino acids, thus being the cornerstone template underling the translation process. Assignment means designating, ascribing, corresponding, correlating.

The Ribosome does basically what Google Translate does. But while Google Translate just gives the recipe in another language, and your Japanese friend still has to make the Gourmet Hamburger, the Ribosome actually makes in one step the end product, which are proteins. That translation process is staggeringly complex.

Now lets list the components required that have to exist in order for the cell to be able to make proteins, starting from the recipe stored in the genome:

1. An alphabet, letters, (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T), and 64 codon "words", a language, syntax, grammar, and semantics
2. The second language (setting up the amino acid alphabet consisting of 20 amino acids)
3. The medium to store the message (DNA, polymer strands, genes, the genome)
4. The recipe (instructional complex prescribed information to make proteins) stored it in DNA.
5. The machinery to duplicate the information to have life going and multiplying (DNA replication, we know only of that mechanism generating heredity)
6. The machine to extract and transcribe the message (RNA polymerase)
7. The medium to send the message (transcribed messenger RNA)
8. The translation code/cipher (genetic code) from mRNA to amino acids
9. The machine/factory that performs the translation (the ribosome)
10. Programming of the machine to know both languages, to make the translation (making the adapter molecules, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetases which recognize which amino acid to charge and add to the nascent polypeptide chain)
11. Now the translation can be performed (which produces the proteins)

1. D
2. D → A & B & C
3. A & B & C → requires Intelligence
4. Therefore Intelligence

A: Information, Biosemiotics (instructional complex mRNA codon sequences transcribed from DNA)
B: Translation mechanism (adapter, key, or process of some kind to exist prior to translation = ribosome)
C: Genetic Code
D: Functional proteins

1. Life depends on proteins (molecular machines) (D). Their function depends on the correct arrangement of a specified complex sequence of amino acids.
2. That depends on the translation of genetic information (A) through the ribosome (B) and the genetic code (C), which assigns 61 codons and 3 stop codons to 20 amino acids
3. Instructional complex Information (Biosemiotics: Semantics, Syntax, and pragmatics (A)) is only generated by intelligent beings with foresight. Only intelligence with foresight can conceptualize and instantiate complex machines with specific purposes, like translation using adapter keys (ribosome, tRNA, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases (B)) All codes require arbitrary values being assigned and determined by agency to represent something else (genetic code (C)).
4. Therefore, Proteins being the product of semiotics/algorithmic information including translation through the genetic code, and the manufacturing system (information directing manufacturing) are most probably the product of a divine intelligent designer.

The problem of translation through the Ribosome is threefold:

1. The origin of Information stored in the genome.
1. Semiotic functional information is not a tangible entity, and as such, it is beyond the reach of, and cannot be created by any undirected physical process.
2. This is not an argument about probability. Conceptual semiotic information is simply beyond the sphere of influence of any undirected physical process. To suggest that a physical process can create semiotic code is like suggesting that a rainbow can write poetry... it is never going to happen! Physics and chemistry alone do not possess the tools to create a concept. The only cause capable of creating conceptual semiotic information is a conscious intelligent mind.
3. Since life depends on vast quantity of semiotic information, life is no accident, and provides powerful positive evidence that we have been designed. A scientist working at the cutting edge of our understanding of the programming information in biology, he described what he saw as an “alien technology written by an engineer a million times smarter than us”

2. The origin of the adapter, key, or process of some kind to exist prior to translation = ribosome
1. Ribosomes have the purpose to translate genetic information into proteins. According to Craig Venter, the ribosome is “an incredibly beautiful complex entity” which requires a minimum of 53 proteins. It is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist…the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected over its precious protein products… They are molecular factories with complex machine-like operations. They carefully sense, transfer, and process, continually exchange and integrate information during the various steps of translation, within itself at a molecular scale, and amazingly, even make decisions. They communicate in a coordinated manner, and information is integrated and processed to enable an optimized ribosome activity. Strikingly, many of the ribosome functional properties go far beyond the skills of a simple mechanical machine. They can halt the translation process on the fly, and coordinate extremely complex movements. The whole system incorporates 11 ingenious error check and repair mechanisms, to guarantee faithful and accurate translation, which is life-essential.
2. For the assembly of this protein making factory, consisting of multiple parts, the following is required: genetic information to produce the ribosome assembly proteins, chaperones, all ribosome subunits and assembly cofactors. a full set of tRNA's, a full set of aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, the signal recognition particle, elongation factors, mRNA, etc. The individual parts must be available, precisely fit together, and assembly must be coordinated. A ribosome cannot perform its function unless all subparts are fully set up and interlocked.
3. The making of a translation machine makes only sense if there is a source code, and information to be translated. Eugene Koonin: Breaking the evolution of the translation system into incremental steps, each associated with a biologically plausible selective advantage is extremely difficult even within a speculative scheme let alone experimentally. Speaking of ribosomes, they are so well-structured that when broken down into their component parts by chemical catalysts (into long molecular fragments and more than fifty different proteins) they reform into a functioning ribosome as soon as the divisive chemical forces have been removed, independent of any enzymes or assembly machinery – and carry on working. Design some machinery which behaves like this and I personally will build a temple to your name! Natural selection would not select for components of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system. The origin of the ribosome is better explained through a brilliant 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.

3. The origin of the genetic code
1. A code is a system of rules where a symbol, letters, words, etc. are assigned to something else. Transmitting information, for example, can be done through the translation of the symbols of the alphabetic letters, to symbols of kanji, logographic characters used in Japan. In cells, the genetic code is the assignment ( a cipher) of 64 triplet codons to 20 amino acids.
2. Assigning 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. The assignment of triplet codons (triplet nucleotides) to amino acids must be pre-established by a mind.
3. Therefore, the origin of the genetic code is best explained by an intelligent designer.

 

[rationalist]

I will reply to your last two posts tomorrow.

 

[rationalist]

Lying about me will not help you. I am not biased. I want to believe whatever is really true, even if it as horribly senseless as what you believe. So I am not biased in the least, like you certainly are. But unlike you, I don't want to be fooled into believing anything that is not evidently true. I will consider any possibility, as long as you can show that there is at least a possibility to consider. You just have to present a reason to believe it. And you either can't or won't. Which is it? ///

Its time actually to address my point, rather than keep dodging it. How did proteins emerge prebiotically ??

The problem of the origin of the hardware and software in the cell is far greater than commonly appreciated

https://***************************...cell-is-far-greater-than-commonly-appreciated

- Getting the basic elements to make the building blocks of life
- RNA world
- RNA and DNA synthesis
- Polymerization through catalysts on clay
- The Eigen threshold
- The transition from the RNA world, to the DNA world
- Obtaining the genetic Code
- The genetic code is optimal amongst 1 million
- The second, overlapping code in DNA
- The amazing information storage capacity of DNA
- Getting the information in the genome
- Getting the gene expression machinery to make proteins
- Origin of the 37 gene codes: Did they evolve?

It is known, that explaining where the information stored in DNA comes from, in special to make the first organism, is a problem not explained by science, and unsolved. This has been traditionally, a major argument used by IDists to make their case for design. Not rarely, proponents of materialism resort to the so-called RNA world, but it is plagued with problems. The foremost are two: The hardware, and the software problem: How to get RNA and DNA on the Hadean Earth, and the second is how to get information to give life a first go. Prebiotic synthesis of RNA and DNA has never been solved. The hurdles are truly formidable. I have listed 37 different unsolved issues 1 Adherents of evolution usually start their narrative when life already started. While it is true, that mutations provoke change, it is by far not substantiated, that such changes, either single point mutations, or lateral gene transfer, or larger sections like exons, nor genetic shift or gene flow could bring forward the millions of different species on earth. But when we look to the root, the enormity of the problem faced by science to solve the riddle of how information-rich life started, becomes clear. No naturalistic explanations exist, despite decades of attempts to solve the riddle. The problem is formidable, and manyfold. First of all, there is no evidence that the atoms in the usable form required to make RNA and DNA were extant on the early earth. 19 Secondly, even IF we presuppose that this problem has a viable solution, catalysis on clay to form polymerization of RNA strands is just wishful thinking. 3 But even, let's suppose, that was the way it went, there is the next problem:

The primary incentive behind the theory of self-replicating systems that Manfred Eigen outlined was to develop a simple model explaining the origin of biological information and, hence, of life itself. Eigen’s theory revealed the existence of the fundamental limit on the fidelity of replication (the Eigen threshold): If the product of the error (mutation) rate and the information capacity (genome size) is below the Eigen threshold, there will be stable inheritance and hence evolution; however if it is above the threshold, the mutational meltdown and extinction become inevitable (Eigen, 1971). The Eigen threshold lies somewhere between 1 and 10 mutations per round of replication

The very origin of the first organisms presents at least an appearance of a paradox because a certain minimum level of complexity is required to make self-replication possible at all; high-fidelity replication requires additional functionalities that need even more information to be encoded. The crucial question is how the Darwin-Eigen cycle could have started—how was the minimum complexity that is required to achieve the minimally acceptable replication fidelity attained? In even the simplest modern systems, such as RNA viruses, replication is catalyzed by complex protein polymerases. The replicase itself is produced by translation of the respective mRNA(s), which is mediated by the immensely complex ribosomal apparatus. Hence, the dramatic paradox of the origin of life is that to attain the minimum complexity required for a biological system to start on the Darwin-Eigen spiral, a system of a far greater complexity appears to be required. How such a system could emerge is a puzzle that defeats conventional evolutionary thinking, all of which is about biological systems moving along the spiral; the solution is bound to be unusual. The origin of life—or, to be more precise, the origin of the first replicator systems and the origin of translation—remains a huge enigma, and progress in solving these problems has been very modest—in the case of translation, nearly negligible.4

Now let us suppose that this problem would be overcome by RNA catalysis. The next huge step would be to go from short polypeptide RNA to long, stable DNA chains. The transition from RNA to DNA is the next overwhelmingly huge problem. Highly complex nanomachines are required to synthesize DNA from RNA: At least hypercomplex enzymes like RNR proteins are required 6 Of course, to make those, DNA is required, which turns the riddle a catch22 problem:


What came first, DNA or the machines that make DNA?

Now let's suppose, that problem would have been solved, and we have the raw materials, RNA, and DNA, and some working prebiotic polymerization mechanism. Lets even suppose that RNA on clay would work.
The next problem would be to form the genetic code, of 64 codons, and the assignment of the meaning of each codon to one of the 20 amino acids used to make proteins. 8 That is the genetic cipher, or the translation code. Assigning the meaning of one symbol to something else is ALWAYS based on mind. 7 There is NO viable alternative explanation. One science paper has called the origin of the genetic code the universal enigma 10 On top of that, the genetic code is near-optimal amongst 1 million alternative codes, which are less robust. How to explain that feat? 9 Furthermore, an “overlapping language” has been found in the genetic code. How to explain THAT marvel of ingeniosity? Now, let's suppose we had RNA, DNA, polymerization, and the genetic code. We can equate it to an information storing hard disk but of far higher sophistication than anything devised by man. 12 Even Richard Dawkins had to admit in

The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116–117....
there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.

Now, let's suppose, we have a fully operational raw material, and the genetic language upon which to store genetic information. Only now, we can ask: Where did the information come from to make the first living organism? Various attempts have been made to lower the minimal information content to produce a fully working operational cell. Often, Mycoplasma is mentioned as a reference to the threshold of the living from the non-living. Mycoplasma genitalium is held as the smallest possible living self-replicating cell. It is, however, a pathogen, an endosymbiont that only lives and survives within the body or cells of another organism ( humans ). As such, it IMPORTS many nutrients from the host organism. The host provides most of the nutrients such bacteria require, hence the bacteria do not need the genes for producing such compounds themselves. As such, it does not require the same complexity of biosynthesis pathways to manufacturing all nutrients as a free-living bacterium.

Better candidates are the simplest free-living bacteria such as Pelagibacter ubique. 13 It is known to be one of the smallest and simplest, self-replicating, and free-living cells. It has complete biosynthetic pathways for all 20 amino acids. These organisms get by with about 1,300 genes and 1,308,759 base pairs and code for 1,354 proteins. 14 They survive without any dependence on other life forms. Incidentally, these are also the most “successful” organisms on Earth. They make up about 25% of all microbial cells. If a chain could link up, what is the probability that the code letters might by chance be in some order which would be a usable gene, usable somewhere—anywhere—in some potentially living thing? If we take a model size of 1,200,000 base pairs, the chance to get the sequence randomly would be 4^1,200,000 or 10^722,000. This probability is hard to imagine but an illustration may help.

Imagine covering the whole of the USA with small coins, edge to edge. Now imagine piling other coins on each of these millions of coins. Now imagine continuing to pile coins on each coin until reaching the moon about 400,000 km away! If you were told that within this vast mountain of coins there was one coin different to all the others. The statistical chance of finding that one coin is about 1 in 10^55.

Now, after several chemical evolutionary miraculous events, we have eventually a functional genome, with complex instructional codified information stored to make a hypothetical minimal self-replicating cell. But we have not yet dealt with the origin of the transcription and translation machinery, necessary to express the genetic information, to make proteins. Where did that machinery come from? Of course, genetic information is required to specify the amino acid chains that make these machines. The problem is nothing short of monumental. The macro-molecular machinery belongs to the most complex known. To make proteins, and direct and insert them to the right place where they are needed, at least 25 unimaginably complex biosyntheses and production-line like manufacturing steps are required. Each step requires extremely complex molecular machines composed of numerous subunits and co-factors, which require the very own processing procedure described below, which makes its origin an irreducible catch22 problem 16

To exemplify this, lets take the Ribosome 17
The origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest problem in the study of the origin of life, and one of the hardest in all evolutionary biology.
The design of the translation system in even the simplest modern cells ( such as Carsonella, Mycoplasma,) is extremely complex. At the heart of the system is the ribosome, a large complex of at least three RNA molecules and 60–80 proteins arranged in precise spatial architecture and interacting with other components of the translation system in the most finely choreographed fashion. These other essential components include the complete set of tRNAs for the 20 amino acids (~40 tRNA species considering the presence of isoacceptor tRNAs in all species), the set of 18–20 cognate aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases, and a complement of at least 7–8 translation factors.. Together with the universal conservation of ~30 RNA species [three rRNAs, the signal recognition particle (SRP) RNA, and tRNAs of at least 18 specificities] 5

To end the story: Science has catalogized, so far, besides the standard genetic code, other 37 different codes, specially employed in mitochondria. Invertebrates use a different mitochondrial genetic code than in vertebrates, and both of those codes are different from the “universal” genetic code. That means that the eukaryotic cells that eventually evolved into invertebrates must have formed when a cell that used the “universal” code engulfed a cell that used a different code. Of course, that raises the question, if originally, two different codes emerged. However, the eukaryotic cells that eventually evolved into vertebrates must have formed when a cell that used the “universal” code engulfed a cell that used yet another different code. As a result, invertebrates must have evolved from one line of eukaryotic cells, while vertebrates must have evolved from a completely separate line of eukaryotic cells. But this isn’t possible, since evolution depends on vertebrates evolving from invertebrates.

Now, of course, this serious problem can be solved by assuming that while invertebrates evolved into vertebrates, their mitochondria also evolved to use a different genetic code. But how that would be possible? After all, the invertebrates spent supposedly millions of years evolving, and through all those years, their mitochondrial DNA was set up based on one code. How could the code change without destroying the function of the mitochondria? At a minimum, this adds another task to the long, long list of unfinished tasks necessary to explain how evolution could possibly work. Along with explaining how nuclear DNA can evolve to produce the new structures needed to change invertebrates into vertebrates, proponents of evolution must also explain how, at the same time, mitochondria can evolve to use a different genetic code!

There would be much more to say, as to ask: Where did the gene regulatory network, that orchestrates gene expression come from, and how is that regulated, and how are proteins directed to their end destination. But i leave that to another article. So, the end question: How is all this better explained? By chance, or intelligent design? I go with the latter.


1. https://******************************/t1279p75-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible#7759
2. https://***************************...d-building-blocks-for-the-origin-of-life#7789
3. https://******************************/t2865-rna-dna-it-s-prebiotic-synthesis-impossible#7307
4. https://***************************...replication-and-translation-and-the-rna-world
5. https://***************************...cation-and-translation-and-the-rna-world#4442
6. https://***************************...basic-building-blocks-of-life-impossible#7650
7. https://***************************...universal-assignment-of-codons-to-amino-acids
8. https://***************************...tion-of-the-genetic-code-the-universal-enigma
9. https://***************************...l-information-within-protein-coding-sequences
10. https://***************************...rmountable-problem-for-non-intelligent-origin
11. https://******************************/t2185-the-second-code-of-dna
12. https://******************************/t2052-the-amazing-dna-information-storage-capacity
13. https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Pelagibacter_ubique#:~:text=Description and significance,of all microbial plankton cells.
14. https://www.uniprot.org/proteomes/UP000002528
15. https://***************************...g-through-unguided-natural-random-events#7792
16. https://***************************...educible-structures-required-to-make-proteins
17. https://******************************/t1661-translation-through-ribosomes-amazing-nano-machines
18. http://blog.drwile.com/?p=14280
19. https://***************************...d-building-blocks-for-the-origin-of-life#7789

 

[AronRa]

Aron, you can only keep your Zombie worldview alive, because you handwave and ignore the SMACKING evidence against it, and the OVERWHELMING evidence pointing to God.

You mean the complete lack of any evidence that a god is even possible?

While at this point, many atheists openly acknowledge the huge problems in regards of abiogenesis, you push the claims that " oh, we are getting there". No. Science does NOT. And this is why.

How does programming in biology point to God?

https://******************************/t3083-how-does-programming-in-biology-point-to-god

Maybe you are a layperson, and are curious to understand a bit better what the "Central Dogma of molecular biology" is - but have a difficult grasp to understand what it is all about. I like to use analogies from real life to make things more clear.

Let's suppose you invent a recipe to make a Gourmet Hamburger and write the recipe on a Word document, and save it on the hard disc of your computer. You have a Japanese friend and only communicate with him using the Google translation program. (He only speaks Japanese). Now he wants to try out your Gourmet Hamburger and asks you to send him the recipe a copy per email. So you write an email, annex the Word document, and send it to him. When he receives it, he will use Google Translate and get the recipe in Japanese, written in kanji, in logographic Japanese characters which he understands. With the information at hand, he can make the Gourmet Hamburger exactly as described in the recipe. In order for that communication to happen, you use at your end 26 letters from the alphabet, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, to write the receipt, and your friend has 2,136 kanji characters that permit him to understand the receipt in Japanese. Google Translate does the translation work.
Now he can make the Gourmet Hamburger at his end.

To perform the job it is rather effortless, when we have the ability to cook, invent a fine recipe, and have a basic grasp to use a computer. Now lets think a bit more about the complexity to have this job done. What has to be invented from scratch for your Japanese friend to be able to make the Gourmet Hamburger ?

1. A language (English) and an alphabet, using syntax, grammar, and semantics
2. A second language (Japanese), and Kanji
3. Computer with a hard disc.
4. The recipe to make Gourmet Hamburger and store the Word document with the recipe on the hard disc of the PC.
5. Another computer as backup system (otherwise the PC can break, and the information is lost)
6. An e-mail service and using it to create an e-mail, and annex a copy of the Word document with the recipe
7. Sending the Word document with the recipe to your friend
8. Inventing the Google Translate software program, and program it to translate from English to Japanese
9. Using the computer at the receivers end to get the email with the Word document
10. Using Google Translate to generate the translation
11. Taking the recipe in Japanese and make the Gourmet Hamburger

Now think about the complexity to have this job done. Inventing languages, algorithms, and programs, a recipe, store, send, translate and receive information, are all actions performed by intelligence. Nobody in its sane mind would ascribe all these things to the action of random chance, right? So any logical person would agree with me, that all these tasks are ALWAYS performed by intelligence, right? I mean, just think about how long humanity took to invent computers, the internet, Google Translate, and implement it....

Okay, now lets see how that works in the cell.
In the cell, it is essential to make proteins, which are molecular machines, veritable working horses. The recipe to make them (equivalent to the recipe of the Gourmet Hamburger) is written and stored in genes through DNA, which are extremely long chains of molecules that contain all the information necessary for the life functions of a cell. The individual molecules that make up DNA are called nucleotides. In order to get proteins, a similar process has to occur inside the cell, as with the recipe for your Japanese friend to be able to make the Gourmet Hamburger. While the recipe is written on a Word document saved on your computer, in the cell, the recipe (instructions or master plan) for the construction of proteins, is stored in the genome. It has to be sent to the Ribosome, the factory that makes proteins, which does the translation (remember your friend, using Google Translate at his end). While your Japanese friend, once he receives the message in Japanese, in Kanji, still has work to do, namely to follow the instructions to make the Gourmet Hamburger, the Ribosome does both jobs, translation of the information AND making proteins, the final product, all in one step. Smart, that!! The very translation also will produce the desired end product.

While you use the 26 letters of the alphabet to write your recipe, the Cell uses DNA, 4 nucleotide "letters". They are four different organic bases, which are adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T),
and while your Japanese friend uses kanji at his end, the cell uses the amino acid alphabet, consisting of 20 amino acids to get the message in translated form.

The way by which DNA stores the genetic information consists of triplet codons equivalent to words, consisting of a sequence of three DNA nucleotides. These triplets form "words". While you used words to write sentences to write the Gourmet Hamburger recipe, the cell uses codon "words" to write sentences which are called genes. With four possible nucleobase "letters", A,G,C,T, the triple-nucleotide "words" can give 4^3 = 64 different possible "words" (tri-nucleotide sequences). That's the entire genetic language, consisting in 64 words. In the standard genetic code, three of these 64 codons (UAA, UAG, and UGA) are stop codons. That is like punctuation marks in the alphabet. It instructs when a sentence ends.

There has to be a mechanism to extract the information in the genome, and send it to the ribosome, which is at another place in the cell, often free-floating in the cytoplasm. The message contained in the genome is transcribed by a very complex molecular machine, called RNA polymerase. (That's like making a copy of the recipe and annex it in the email) It makes a transcript, a copy of the message in the genome, and that transcript is sent to the Ribosome. (The email with the recipe arrives at your Japanese friend's end) That transcript is called messenger RNA or typically mRNA. Once the messenger RNA arrives at the Ribosome, translation can begin (the Ribosome does what Google Translate does)

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.) In translation, 64 genetic codons or "words" are assigned to 20 amino acids. (equivalent to the kanji characters) It refers to the assignment of the codons to the amino acids, thus being the cornerstone template underling the translation process. Assignment means designating, ascribing, corresponding, correlating.

The Ribosome does basically what Google Translate does. But while Google Translate just gives the recipe in another language, and your Japanese friend still has to make the Gourmet Hamburger, the Ribosome actually makes in one step the end product, which are proteins. That translation process is staggeringly complex.

Now lets list the components required that have to exist in order for the cell to be able to make proteins, starting from the recipe stored in the genome:

1. An alphabet, letters, (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T), and 64 codon "words", a language, syntax, grammar, and semantics
2. The second language (setting up the amino acid alphabet consisting of 20 amino acids)
3. The medium to store the message (DNA, polymer strands, genes, the genome)
4. The recipe (instructional complex prescribed information to make proteins) stored it in DNA.
5. The machinery to duplicate the information to have life going and multiplying (DNA replication, we know only of that mechanism generating heredity)
6. The machine to extract and transcribe the message (RNA polymerase)
7. The medium to send the message (transcribed messenger RNA)
8. The translation code/cipher (genetic code) from mRNA to amino acids
9. The machine/factory that performs the translation (the ribosome)
10. Programming of the machine to know both languages, to make the translation (making the adapter molecules, tRNA, and aminoacyl tRNA synthetases which recognize which amino acid to charge and add to the nascent polypeptide chain)
11. Now the translation can be performed (which produces the proteins)

1. D
2. D → A & B & C
3. A & B & C → requires Intelligence
4. Therefore Intelligence

A: Information, Biosemiotics (instructional complex mRNA codon sequences transcribed from DNA)
B: Translation mechanism (adapter, key, or process of some kind to exist prior to translation = ribosome)
C: Genetic Code
D: Functional proteins

1. Life depends on proteins (molecular machines) (D). Their function depends on the correct arrangement of a specified complex sequence of amino acids.
2. That depends on the translation of genetic information (A) through the ribosome (B) and the genetic code (C), which assigns 61 codons and 3 stop codons to 20 amino acids
3. Instructional complex Information (Biosemiotics: Semantics, Syntax, and pragmatics (A)) is only generated by intelligent beings with foresight. Only intelligence with foresight can conceptualize and instantiate complex machines with specific purposes, like translation using adapter keys (ribosome, tRNA, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases (B)) All codes require arbitrary values being assigned and determined by agency to represent something else (genetic code (C)).
4. Therefore, Proteins being the product of semiotics/algorithmic information including translation through the genetic code, and the manufacturing system (information directing manufacturing) are most probably the product of a divine intelligent designer.

The problem of translation through the Ribosome is threefold:

1. The origin of Information stored in the genome.
1. Semiotic functional information is not a tangible entity, and as such, it is beyond the reach of, and cannot be created by any undirected physical process.
2. This is not an argument about probability. Conceptual semiotic information is simply beyond the sphere of influence of any undirected physical process. To suggest that a physical process can create semiotic code is like suggesting that a rainbow can write poetry... it is never going to happen! Physics and chemistry alone do not possess the tools to create a concept. The only cause capable of creating conceptual semiotic information is a conscious intelligent mind.
3. Since life depends on vast quantity of semiotic information, life is no accident, and provides powerful positive evidence that we have been designed. A scientist working at the cutting edge of our understanding of the programming information in biology, he described what he saw as an “alien technology written by an engineer a million times smarter than us”

2. The origin of the adapter, key, or process of some kind to exist prior to translation = ribosome
1. Ribosomes have the purpose to translate genetic information into proteins. According to Craig Venter, the ribosome is “an incredibly beautiful complex entity” which requires a minimum of 53 proteins. It is nothing if not an editorial perfectionist…the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected over its precious protein products… They are molecular factories with complex machine-like operations. They carefully sense, transfer, and process, continually exchange and integrate information during the various steps of translation, within itself at a molecular scale, and amazingly, even make decisions. They communicate in a coordinated manner, and information is integrated and processed to enable an optimized ribosome activity. Strikingly, many of the ribosome functional properties go far beyond the skills of a simple mechanical machine. They can halt the translation process on the fly, and coordinate extremely complex movements. The whole system incorporates 11 ingenious error check and repair mechanisms, to guarantee faithful and accurate translation, which is life-essential.
2. For the assembly of this protein making factory, consisting of multiple parts, the following is required: genetic information to produce the ribosome assembly proteins, chaperones, all ribosome subunits and assembly cofactors. a full set of tRNA's, a full set of aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, the signal recognition particle, elongation factors, mRNA, etc. The individual parts must be available, precisely fit together, and assembly must be coordinated. A ribosome cannot perform its function unless all subparts are fully set up and interlocked.
3. The making of a translation machine makes only sense if there is a source code, and information to be translated. Eugene Koonin: Breaking the evolution of the translation system into incremental steps, each associated with a biologically plausible selective advantage is extremely difficult even within a speculative scheme let alone experimentally. Speaking of ribosomes, they are so well-structured that when broken down into their component parts by chemical catalysts (into long molecular fragments and more than fifty different proteins) they reform into a functioning ribosome as soon as the divisive chemical forces have been removed, independent of any enzymes or assembly machinery – and carry on working. Design some machinery which behaves like this and I personally will build a temple to your name! Natural selection would not select for components of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system. The origin of the ribosome is better explained through a brilliant 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.

3. The origin of the genetic code
1. A code is a system of rules where a symbol, letters, words, etc. are assigned to something else. Transmitting information, for example, can be done through the translation of the symbols of the alphabetic letters, to symbols of kanji, logographic characters used in Japan. In cells, the genetic code is the assignment ( a cipher) of 64 triplet codons to 20 amino acids.
2. Assigning 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. The assignment of triplet codons (triplet nucleotides) to amino acids must be pre-established by a mind.
3. Therefore, the origin of the genetic code is best explained by an intelligent designer.

Once again, as many others have already pointed out. DNA is not a code in the sense you're talking about. Meanings are not assigned for example. You haven't shown that your intelligent designer is even possible, much less probable. Even if your god had done it, you haven't shown how that happened, nor could you. But saying that a goddidit is not an explanation of anything, and it is unnecessary since we already have natural explanations that actually work and are backed by actual empirical evidence that we don't have believe in by faith.

 

[AronRa]

Its time actually to address my point, rather than keep dodging it. How did proteins emerge prebiotically ??

There was another study showed that synthetic molecules fold up into abiotic proteins". So life is not necessarily the only source of proteins.

Synthetic molecules fold up into abiotic proteins

Compound that self-assembles into giant folded ring could help scientists design bespoke abiotic proteins

www.chemistryworld.com

The synthesis of proteinous amino acids and amino acid polymers called “proteinoids” from inorganic molecules and thermal energy, and created the world‘s first potential protocell out of proteinoids and water.

Sidney Fox and his Research for the Origins of Life | SciHi Blog

scihi.org

But you don't care about what science has discovered. You're only interested in listing what you think science hasn't explained yet, and you deny that science has explained what it did. Because your belief system is a god of the gaps, which is another fallacy. Someone who knows you already warned me that "He will straight up ignore most of the regular evidence given for common descent, instead focusing on obscure biochemical processes and cellular differences at the very base of the tree of life. He will then use our lack of knowledge of this to say "see they don't have a common ancestor and thus we should just throw out the entire concept of common descent altogether for full blown YEC fundamentalism." And that is exactly what you've done.

You have avoided the topic of evolution and common descent, the very thing you said you wanted to talk about, and have instead shown your disrespect not just lying about me and to me with all manner of false accusations, fallacies and walls of text that you don't understand, and that even often argue against you. So from here on, I am keep you focused on the actual topic, since you can't do that yourself. I will help you.

 

[rationalist]

You mean the complete lack of any evidence that a god is even possible?


Once again, as many others have already pointed out. DNA is not a code in the sense you're talking about.

Wow. Are you really going down that road and MISREPRESENTING what I say? Where did I claim that DNA is a Code? You need really to be a bit more accurate. Had you actually paid attention at my debate two days ago, there i precisely correct that canard. Why do you not actually taking the time and read my responses?

Of course, DNA is not a Code. DNA is a semantophoretic molecule that stores genetic information through the genetic code.

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.

 

[rationalist]

The synthesis of proteinous amino acids and amino acid polymers called “proteinoids” from inorganic molecules and thermal energy, and created the world‘s first potential protocell out of proteinoids and water.

Answer a simple question: In order to have the amino acids used in life, you have to select the right ones amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth.

How did that happen on prebiotic earth ?

 

[rationalist]

You mean the complete lack of any evidence that a god is even possible?

Why not?

 

[We are Borg]

Why not?

Because you can not test the super natural. That is why.

 

[rationalist]

Because you can not test the super natural. That is why.

That does not make its existence logically impossible. Gravity is inferred by observing an apple falling to the floor, so the existence of a non-physical non-created creator is inferred by observing the existence of a finite, finely tuned universe, that operates based on physical laws, the existence of life, biodiversity, consciousness, and objective moral values.

 

[AronRa]

Once again, as many others have already pointed out. DNA is not a code in the sense you're talking about.

Wow. Are you really going down that road and MISREPRESENTING what I say? Where did I claim that DNA is a Code? You need really to be a bit more accurate. Had you actually paid attention at my debate two days ago, there i precisely correct that canard. Why do you not actually taking the time and read my responses?
Of course, DNA is not a Code. DNA is a semantophoretic molecule that stores genetic information through the genetic code.

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

Answer a simple question: In order to have the amino acids used in life, you have to select the right ones amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth.

How did that happen on prebiotic earth ?

We know how it can happen now. It may have happened differently then, or the same way. Doesn't make any difference really. It's like when you wake up in jail and can't remember what day it is or anything about last night. You don't know how you got there, but there you are. Are you really going to pretend that God teleported you into that cell? Or do you already know that there is a vastly more reasonable explanation, even if you don't know what it is yet?

If you were one of Darwin's neighbors when he was alive, you might whine that there are no transitional species, and that no one had ever shown how offspring inherit units of information from their parents, and you might crow that both of those are evidence for you magic imaginary friend. But since then we've found numerous transitional species, including two that Darwin specifically predicted, and now we know how genes and mutations work. So what we didn't know then isn't evidence for your god anymore, and it obviously wasn't evidence for your god then either. Yet you think that whatever science can't explain counts as evidence for your god. That's not logical, but then neither are you. So you have to push back even further to whatever you think we don't yet know, just to deny what we do know, to pretend that we don't really know anything, even though we really do, and you don't.

It would have been fun to have you along on that paleontological expedition to South Africa; ten days camping in the desert with no internet connection, surrounded by highly trained international experts in their specialty. Everyone but me was Professor Blankety Blank PhD. It was all I could do to keep a conversation going and on topic without looking stupid. So you would have been a huge source of amusement!

We can map geologic horizons to determine what strata we're working in. Where we were the most, there was an igneous deposit that had been radiometrically dated, (Uranium-lead, if I remember correctly) and another similar feature stratigraphically below where we were. So we knew that the fossils in this particular spot were from 262 to 263 million years old, the late Permian period.



Knowing that means that we already knew we would not find any mammals or birds. There were no dinosaurs yet. The biggest animals then were anapsids {primitive reptiles), temnospondyls, (alligator-like salamanders) and therapsids; transitional species, closer to mammals than reptiles, but not quite there yet. All of these animals were mostly extinct by the Mesozoic era before the dinosaurs appeared.



I personally found an ancient river bend that hadn't been a river for many millions of years. We could tell by the way the fossils were broken up and deposited in a curved "bone yard". Unfortunately the way they were now exposed to the surface meant that they weren't well preserved. I found vertebrae and ribs that were not like those of modern mammals nor of reptiles but were consistent with Permian therapsids. We guessed that it was probably a titanosuchid, possibly jonkeria, based on the enormous size of the spinal vertebrae.



I also found a therapsid skull cap. Sadly, I could not find enough of it to include teeth. I knew it was a therapsid because of the third eye in the top of the skull, and other features that distinguish these from reptiles. But you usually have to have teeth to identify it or declare a new species.



Importantly, we could also tell where the sea shore was then. Because we had fossils consistent with a desert environment up to a certain boundary, where the guys marked the appearance of marine fossils instead, ammonites, trilobites, that sort of thing, along with very different sedimentation. This expedition stayed clear of that old sea shore, because we were specifically hoping for therapsids.



Most of what we know about Permian megafauna comes from the Karoo, though there is another significant exposure of late Permian rock in Scotland and also in Russia. Texas has Permian exposure too, but sadly it is early Permian and almost entirely marine, because Texas was mostly under water then. That's why our highest mountain is a fossil coral reef that, even in the most pristine conditions and calm waters took several thousand years at a minimum to grow that high.



We spent two days trying to excavate a pareiasaur. Imagine a reptilian buffalo. It was interesting for me just to hear about the evolution of pareiasaurs, how many varieties there were and how they differed over time, starting from one common form and branching into a few others that didn't appear until later, right at the end of the Permian.



Like I said, it would have been fun to have you along on that just to see how useless you'd be; unable to explain anything we're looking at with our own eyes, making up bullshit excuses about a flood that everyone knows for absolutely certain definitely did not happen, and just proving yourself wrong with your own hand on a daily basis.

 

[We are Borg]

That does not make its existence logically impossible. Gravity is inferred by observing an apple falling to the floor, so the existence of a non-physical non-created creator is inferred by observing the existence of a finite, finely tuned universe, that operates based on physical laws, the existence of life, biodiversity, consciousness, and objective moral values.

Gravity is something we can observe, apple falling to the ground is one, planet orbits, the sun and so on. While we can’t see gravity we can predict it and use it in math. God we can’t see we do not even have math or evidence that it exist. Literally the only thing you have we don’t know so God did it. The Big Bang created the universe and we humans made the laws what we observed, the universe does not care if it’s a law or not it just is.

 

[rationalist]

Aron, you keep claiming like a mantra that there is no evidence of God.

125 reasons to believe in God

https://******************************/t1276p25-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god#8282

Adam Frank, professor of physics and astronomy, author of: Cosmology and Culture at the Twilight of the Big Bang
Fine-tuning sticks in the craw of most physicists, and rightfully so. It’s that old Copernican principle again. What set the laws and the initial conditions for the universe to be “just so,” just so we could be here? It smells too much like intelligent design. The whole point of science has been to find natural, rational reasons for why the world looks like it does. “Because a miracle happened,” just doesn’t cut it.

Paul Davies British astrophysicist
“Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".

Paul Davies
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”

Had the ratio of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces differed by about 1 part in 10^40 (1 in ten thousand billion billion billion billion) then stars such as the Sun, which are capable of supporting life, could not exist. As Davies points out ‘the impression of design is overwhelming’.

F. Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981
"The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems... cannot in our view be generated by what are often called 'natural' processes... There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible... The correct position we think is... an intelligence, which designed the biochemicals and gave rise to the origin of carbonaceous life... This is tantamount to arguing that carbonaceous life was invented by noncarbonaceous intelligence."

Eugene V. Koonin, The Logic of Chance: " The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, page 351:
For all the effort, we do not currently have coherent and plausible models for the path from simple organic molecules to the first life forms. Most damningly, the powerful mechanisms of biological evolution were not available for all the stages preceding the emergence of replicator systems. Given all these major difficulties, it appears prudent to seriously consider radical alternatives for the origin of life. "

Graham Cairns-Smith, Genetic takeover, page 66:
Now you may say that there are alternative ways of building up nucleotides, and perhaps there was some geochemical way on the early Earth. But what we know of the experimental difficulties in nucleotide synthesis speaks strongly against any such supposition. However it is to be put together, a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis.

A.Einstein: The World As I See It", Ideas and Opinions (1954) trans Sonja Bargmann
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a Spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a Spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way, the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”

A.Einstein: Letters to Solovine p 131.
.. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowedge expands."

Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time
"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

"The overwhelming impression is one of order. The more we discover about the universe, the more we find that it is governed by rational laws." "You still have the question: why does the universe bother to exist? If you like, you can define God to be the answer to that question."

Robert Jastrow God and the Astronomers
"Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements and the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."

Arno Penzias Cosmos, Bios, Theos p83
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

Freeman Dyson Scientific American, 224, 1971, p 50.
"As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked togehter to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense have known we were coming."

Richard Dawkins: The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.
Computers run on software programs that are always made by software engineers. Every experience we have about information - whether it's a computer code, hieroglyphic inscription, a book or a cave painting - is the produce of intelligence. It logically follows that the same must be the case with the biosemitoc algorithmic instructional information stored in biological cells.

George Ellis (British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

John O'Keefe (NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”

George Greenstein (astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”

Tony Rothman (physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”

Ed Harrison (cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”

Edward Milne (British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”

Barry Parker (cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer)
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.”

Einstein quotes: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Einstein.html
Fred Hoyle quotes: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Hoyle.html#c1
Hawking quotes: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/hawking.html#c1
Robert Jastrow: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Jastrow.html#c1
Aron Penzias: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/penzias.html#c1
Freeman Dyson: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/dyson.html#c1

 

[rationalist]

QUOTES OF NOBEL LAUREATES & SCIENTISTS ABOUT GOD AND EVOLUTION

https://******************************/t1456-dissidents-of-darwinism#6827

Nobel prize winners, dissidents of evolution


Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Is “80 Percent” Confident in Intelligent Design
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/06/b...s-80-percent-confident-in-intelligent-design/

Seven Nobel Laureates In Science Who Either Supported Intelligent Design Or Attacked Darwinian Evolution
https://uncommondescent.com/intelli...igent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/

Charles Townes, RIP: Nobel Laureate Who Endorsed Intelligent Design in Cosmology
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/charles_townes_/

50 NOBEL LAUREATES AND OTHER GREAT SCIENTISTS WHO BELIEVE IN GOD
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/e39414_5de0a1dbf30c2f203b135b2b619f17b1.pdf

 

[rationalist]

Aron: If there was evidence that pointed to God, you would have shown it by now.
Reply: Evidence is what surrounds us. The question is: Is its origin better explained by natural unguided means, or by an intelligence. If you claim to have a case which tops intelligent design in explanatory power, provide it.
Just saying there is no evidence for God is not enough. A good start would be if you can elucidate, how do you recognize intelligent action vs what non-intelligent unguided forces cannot do?

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

Aron: Yours is NOT a reasonable position. It is blind faith because there is no evidence.
Reply: You repeat it like a mantra that there is no evidence. Every time that you repeat that canard, i will reply with this:


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

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

Aron: You have unsupported and indefensible claims that many witnesses saw allegedly witnessed undead saints wandering the streets of Judea, but we don't have testimony from any of them, not even from the other gospels. Nor are there any historical events that can be verified.
Reply: The shroud of Turin EXTRAORDINARY evidence of Christ's resurrection
https://******************************/t1688-shroud-of-turin

One common claim of atheists is that 'there is NO evidence of the historical Jesus'' Because ALL the Bible and ancient writings of Jesus could be written by anyone and were written by so many people, years after the events, which could easily be made up.

The Gospels of Matthew,[27:59–60] Mark,[15:46] and Luke[23:53] state that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of Jesus in a piece of linen cloth and placed it in a new tomb. The Gospel of John[19:38–40] refers to strips of linen used by Joseph of Arimathea and states that Apostle Peter found multiple pieces of burial cloth after the tomb was found open, strips of linen cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head.[20:6–7]

The shroud provides to the lost world the forensic facts and evidence of the horror of Jesus going to the cross. The Shroud bears the ultimate triumph of the Resurrection of Jesus (Yeshua) meaning Salvation. All this is recorded supernaturally on The Shroud of Turin, which proves the Holy Bible to be forensically accurate and perfectly reliable in every possible way.


Aron: Because, as I said, we know that Adam & Eve are just a fairy tale
Reply: Thats a lie. We cannot know this.
New Generation Time Data Both Suggest striking evidence of a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model
https://***************************...dence-of-a-unified-young-earth-creation-model

Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.
Analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of humans generated 3 patterns of genetic trees that can represent the wives of Shem, Ham and Japheth, the story of Genesis and the offspring of human beings from these three mothers.
Other studies of Nature and Science showed that the human species has undergone an explosion of variation of the human genome due to genetic entropy (deleterious mutations) between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago.
https://www.icr.org/article/new-dna-study-confirms-noah

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

Aron: and the global flood of Noah's ark.
Reply: Noah's Ark has been found with high probability on Mount Ararat
https://***************************...n-found-with-high-probability-on-mount-ararat

First American Visit to the Mount Ararat Discovery


Second Deck Noah's Ark


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

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

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

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

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

Aron: So you can't verify the Bible archaeologically,
Reply: Is the Bible Historically Accurate?
https://******************************/t1974-is-the-bible-historically-accurate

53 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...uH_7exbCLOr4xskCi1uICNHkzoCV5YFkDtmfCtaQuBZbs

There are 3 essential tests that researchers use to ascertain historical reliability. The Bible stands up strongly to these tests, if not more strongly than any other historical document recorded:

Internal Test: Examining linguistic, cultural, and literary context can clear away apparent contradictions in the Bible. For example, some claim that the genealogies of Christ are contradictory. Not so: Matthew lists Joseph’s family line, and Luke lists Mary’s.

External Test: Nelson Glueck, a Jewish archaeologist says, “… it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail statements in the Bible.”

Bibliographic Test: Bibliographic Test: The document must contain eyewitness accounts, there must be a short amount of time between copy and original, and several copies must be made. Pass. Even many non-Christian historians who were not sympathetic to Christianity such as Flavius Josephus, Thallus and Phlegon lend support to Biblical facts.

Aron: nor scientifically since everything the Bible says about science is laughably wrong.
Reply: Scientists say things by means of employing scienctific methods. There are many difference branches of science. I believe that the scientific field of archaeology corroborates locations and artifacts. Astronomists have determined that the universe had a beginning, which corroborates Genesis 1. Biologogy confirms that animals produce after their own kinds. Anthropology confirms by way of genetics that there is one human race. Geology confirms that many rock layers were deposited catastrophically, burying fossils within only minutes or hours, which backs up the flood.

All of these are fields of science that confirm the Genesis account. Though the Bible isn't a scientific textbook, it claims to be 100% true and accurate in its account. there is context and culture, so one must employ proper hermeneutics to understand the writers intentions and audience, but the Genesis narrative is written as a historical account and should be read as such, imo. One key point it communicates is that the universe is not a completely closed system, as God is able to supernaturally intervene to prolong days, create sudden natural disasters, manipulate forces, etc. I don't believe a person can approach the Bible from a naturalistic worldview assuming that God doesn't exist or that he only employs natural methods in creation, or that a prime mover wasn't necessary to set all things in motion. If what you mean by believe in science is the lack of belief in the supernatural, I don't think it's possible to make Genisis conform or make any sense.

Aron: Nor could you verify anything prophetically; especially all your prophesies have failed.
Reply: Fullfilled prophecies in the bible
https://******************************/t2435-fullfilled-prophecies-in-the-bible

God of the exact: Daniel’s Seventy Week Prophecy​

A remarkable prophecy pinpoints the time of the Messiah:
Daniel 9:25-26: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: . . . And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.”

The starting point of this prophecy is the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. The only decree that fits is in Nehemiah 2:1, where King Artaxerxes Longimanus grants the request of Nehemiah to have the city rebuilt. The time period is given in verse 1: “In the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king.”

According to Smith and Eastman,[1] the Hebrew tradition says that if the day of the month is not specifically given, then it means the first day of that month or, in this case, the first day of Nisan. This date of the decree of Artaxerxes corresponds to March 14, 445 B.C. The date indicated for the decree to rebuild Jerusalem above has been verified by astronomical calculations at the British Royal Observatory.[2]
Many ancient calendar years were 360 days in length,[3] including the biblical calendar years. According to Anderson,[4] the length of the biblical prophetic year was also 360 days, from the internal evidence of the Bible itself. Therefore, for the prophetic calendar Jews used 360-day years. So how long would sixty-nine weeks of years be? It would be 69 x 7 years x 360 days = 483 years, or 173,880 days. This is the duration of the prophecy, the time between prediction and fulfillment.

The endpoint is the coming of the “Messiah the Prince.” The Hebrew word for “prince” is nagid, which actually means “king.” Now in the Gospels, on many occasions, people tried to take Jesus and make Him king by force. He did not allow that to happen until on a particular day, during His triumphal entry into Jerusalem ( now called Palm Sunday), four days before His crucifixion.

Can scriptural clues help us determine this date? In the Gospel of Luke, Luke informs us of the start of John the Baptist’s ministry: “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. . .the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness” (Luke 3:1, 2). In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, John the Baptist began his ministry. According to Anderson,[5] Tiberius Caesar began to reign in August of 14 A.D. So the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar would have been 28 A.D. (the year Tiberius’s fifteenth year began, his first year beginning August of 14 A.D.), with Jesus beginning His ministry in the fall of that year. Most scholars agree there were four Passovers and three and a half years in Jesus’ ministry and that He was crucified on the last of those four Passovers. This would correspond to the year 32 A.D., on the fourteenth of Nisan. This was equivalent to April 10, 32 A.D., and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem would therefore be dated April 6, 32 A.D. (the tenth of Nisan).[6]

So how does the data compare? We determined above that the beginning date for the prophecy was March 14, 445 B.C., that the length of time was 173,880 days and that the endpoint of the prophecy was April 6, 32 A.D. So how many days are actually between March 14, 445 B.C., and April 6, 32 A.D.?

From March 14, 445 B.C., to March 14, 32 A.D., is 476 years (remember: there is no year 0). That is 476 years x 365 days/year = 173,740 days. Leap year days need to be added, and they don’t occur in century years unless divisible by 400, so we must add 3 fewer leap year days in four centuries, which equals 116 total additional days. From March 14 to April 6 is an additional 24 days. So the total days = 173,740 + 116 + 24 = 173,880 days!! The exact number of days!! Coincidence?! Or an amazing demonstration that God is able to see the beginning from the end and that the inspirer of this prophecy indeed can see outside the time domain? Surely this has to be one of the most remarkable prophecies of the Bible.

[1] Smith and Eastman, Search for Messiah, 1996, 105-106.
[2] Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince, 1957, 124
[3] One example would be ancient Babylon.
[4] Anderson, The Coming Prince, 67-75. Anderson refers to many places in the Bible, especially the books of Daniel and Revelation, in demonstrating this.
[5] Ibid., 96.
[6]Ibid., 106-118, 127-128

Aron: Revelation is not a way of knowing things. Case in point, Sir Isaac Newton (possibly the most brilliant man who ever lived) was, embarrassingly enough, a deeply religious Christian and a creationist even by the modern definition. Newton declared that he had been specially chosen by God to receive a personal revelation leading to a greater understanding of the scriptures than that of any other man. By your logic, that means that he actually knows what he says he knows, even though he can't demonstrate that knowledge in any way. You just have to take his word for it, same as you expect me to take yours. Do you agree with that? That Sir Isaac Newton must have understood the scriptures better than you or anyone else; not because he is the smartest man in all of history, but because of his claim to divine revelation?
Reply: No. Check what i say, and prove me wrong. Whatever i say, i try to back it up.

 

[rationalist]

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

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

Reply: I can make a case for God ENTIRELY and ONLY using science and philosophy. It even points to the Biblical God.
Who do you think coined the term scientist ? It was William Whewell, an Anglican priest and theologian, who also came up with the words physicist, cathode, anode, and many other commonly used scientific terms. Essentially, the very language used by scientists today was invented by a believer.

When Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species in 1859—the work that first proposed the theory of evolution—he was definitely a believer in God. It’s true that as he grew older, he began to doubt the existence of a personal Creator who cared about his creatures, but Darwin always struggled with his lack of faith. He was at times a Christian and at times an agnostic. But he never thought that his scientific theory was incompatible with the idea of God. Rather, he thought that while God did not have a direct hand in creating the different species of the world, he did indeed create the natural laws that governed the cosmos—including the laws of evolutionary development.

And what of the science of genetics—the means through which evolution supposedly takes place? According to proponents of evolutionary theory, it is only through genetic mutation and the process of natural selection that life on this planet is able to undergo gradual development. Who, then, was the father of this field of study? The answer is Gregor Mendel—an Augustinian friar and abbot of a Catholic monastery! This monk, botanist, and professor of philosophy was the man whose famous experiments on peas led to the formulation of the rules of heredity and to the proposal of the existence of invisible “genes”—which provide a basis for the science of modern genetics.

Well, then what about the big bang theory—the leading explanation of how our universe began? In fact, the man who proposed both the theory of the expansion of the universe as
well as the big bang theory of the origin of the universe—effectively changing the whole course of modern cosmology—was Father Georges Lemaître, a Belgian astronomer and Roman Catholic priest! A priest came up with the big bang theory! This cleric, who taught physics at the Catholic University of Leuven, delivered a famous lecture on his theories in 1933 that was attended by Albert Einstein in California. When Einstein heard Father Lemaître delineate his theory, he said: “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened. Now how could this be?

How could the father of genetics be a monk and the father of the big bang theory be a priest? Didn’t these men know what all modern atheists seem to take for granted—that the very theories they espoused contradict the idea of God and nullify the possibility of his existence? Didn’t they know that their belief in God was therefore absurd? Were they really that blind?
Or is there, perhaps, another explanation? Could it be that these great men of science were not blind at all, but rather that modern atheists fail to understand the most simple principle of rational thought— namely, that explaining the scientific process of how the universe came to be does not in any way explain why it came to be. It does not explain the fundamental mystery of existence itself. This mystery can never be explained by science.

None of these giants in the field of science was an atheist. All believed in a Supreme Being who created and designed the universe

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following mechanisms are involved in organismal development and growth:

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

How does biological multicellular complexity and a spatially organized body plan emerge?
https://***************************...ty-and-a-spatially-organized-body-plan-emerge

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

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

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

What are the REAL mechanisms of biodiversity, replacing macroevolution?


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

Why Darwins theory of evolution does not explain biodiversity
https://***************************...ry-of-evolution-does-not-explain-biodiversity

The tree of life, common descent, common ancestry, a failed hypothesis
https://***************************...n-descent-common-ancestry-a-failed-hypothesis

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

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

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

Aron: I know Krauss, and no he doesn't.
Reply: I know that he doesnt, but in that particular conversation with Dawkins he went that far. That deserved that parody. Also claiming that virtual particles can create the universe is silly to the extreme. His entire claims are silly .

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

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

https://******************************/t1297-beginning-the-universe-had-a-beginning

According to Hawking, Einstein, Rees, Vilenkin, Penzius, Jastrow, Krauss and 100’s of other physicists, finite nature (time/space/matter) had a beginning.

Who or what created God?

40:12 - Who created God?

Common atheist fallacies: exposed !!


1. If nothing ever existed, then there would still be nothing.
2. Since we exist, something has always existed.
3. Since the universe had a beginning, it was caused into existence by something else.
4. That cause must be either personal or non-personal.
5. A non-personal cause would be of physical substance, and so subject to change and time. That cause would also need to have a beginning, and be caused by something else, leading to infinite regress which is impossible.
6. The best explanation as cause of the universe is a personal creator, independent, immaterial existing in an eternal timeless dimension, triggering the Big bang and creating the universe

Aron: The Second Law points to: (1) a beginning Not necessarily for multiple reasons.
Reply: Nice dodge. Again. And you say you are not biased ? LOL