Chat with Aron Ra

[Nesslig20]

Again, you are both asking the wrong person. I am simply pointing out that rationalist has pointed out groups of organisms.

I am not asking YOU. You are asking me to continue on pressing him on the challenge. And I am simply saying to you that the problem here is that he has not provided a sufficient answer to (the first part of) the challenge. And I am not pretending he hasn't, as I have explained why that is multiple times now. No point in repeating this over and over again.

 

[rationalist]

My challenge? What? LOL
Clear Paranoia pattern.
I asked again questions here you do not want to adress(!)
(This acting alone makes you not honest in any way.)
One question was: Since when are annelids not bilaterial/mirrorsymmetric lifeform subsets?
I quoted the bible in my last response here with the "bald locust kind" and the "grasshopper kind", where you - like any creationist in existence fails to adress why they are still locusts and insects in the REAL WORLD, anyway. ;-)
To be consistent: Kind creationists must claim the "locustness" or "insectness" are just deceptions...but since when were "make believers" like you ever consistent?!

Btw.: It seems my rubbing under your nose at youtube of the "spontaneous abortion" topic got deep under your skin, as well.
That was where you asked me to have an almost pregnant wife (I'm neither bisexual nor a lesbian) so I don't have a wife. LOL
-> This topic there was a topic for itself you also jumped away.
I asked you when pregnancy begins concrete/absolute - so at which point the sperm to eggcell fusion is done or the successful nesting of the fertilized eggcell is established - because the first 5 days spontaneous abortions are common by nesting problems for a possible pregnancy.

It got under your emotional skin - like the cow with actual created wings on its back by a possible "designer" to be way more of a design signal.
You basically never actually adressed even one of 20-30 questions I asked you.

Design is NOT for example whales with repurposed lungs from land to sea - instead of specifically created underwater breathing organs (as supposed design signal) you also ignored as another topic you also jumped away. ;-)

The last several topics we had over youtube - where you about 6-7 times wanted to jump away from different topics with the same debunked textwalls of your copy and paste poetry, you confuse as successful missionary work (it isn't) or scientific (it isn't).

Overflowing the introductions of 100-200+ scientific publications for mentioned problems you copy&paste, but skipping (fully on purpose) the solutions within the very same papers is also not working.
You also repeated your consciousness obscurantism in denial of narcotics, bat to the head etc.

As I mentioned before - you are a hopeless case of meaningless emotional imprintings to terms like "complexity" "Jesus" etc.
You need a re-conditioning of your emotions with therapy like a napoleon person in a psychiatry. LOL

Ma'am

as said before, the Cambrian is where you are in trouble with your phylogeny project, because of the abrupt appearance of many phyla.

A Bridge Too Far? In Search of Precambrian Sponges | Evolution News

The most celebrated Precambrian sponge may not be a sponge at all. Watch Darwinians try to coax it into spongehood.

evolutionnews.org

 

[We are Borg]

Ma'am

as said before, the Cambrian is where you are in trouble with your phylogeny project, because of the abrupt appearance of many phyla.

A Bridge Too Far? In Search of Precambrian Sponges | Evolution News

The most celebrated Precambrian sponge may not be a sponge at all. Watch Darwinians try to coax it into spongehood.

evolutionnews.org

Well the source you are revering to is from the Discovery Institute, so science is out of the door that's for sure. People that are better qualified should be able to say why its not true that article or where they have stuff all wrong or quote mined.

 

[AngelaMOU]

Soo...instead of answering numerous questions (ignoring them and driving off-topic makes rationalist not honest at all).
Like my question why the "locustness" the "insectness" and the "hexapodaness" in the supposed "bald locust kind" and the "grasshopper kind" remains in reality - or why annelids shall not be mirrorsymmetrical subclades.
(ALSO: Of the pre-cambrian ediacaran origin - not any weird cambrian strawman from the DI church cult/ Evangelical christian missionary Stewardship Foundation & Maclellan Foundation.)
Rationalist instead comes also up with CRuMs subclades - the Collodictyonidae / Dipheylleidae as they would all of a sudden not be eukaryota....for some reason?
The linked news article 2012 also acts like plants or fungi or animals + 2 others would be the only eukaryotes...while dozens clades are on-topic there alone as sisterclades and uncles etc.
Just more Kindergarten.

 

[rationalist]

@Angelmou pretty long boring chemical processes and replicators not yet fully alive, but neither just molecules to interlock complexity was the third and correct answer and the actual research topic./// Yes, and you still fail to acknowledge what Steve Benner wrote, and that is not a just-so story, but what is ACTUALLY observed:

Steven A. Benner

Paradoxes in the origin of life - PubMed

Paradoxes in the origin of life

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Discussed here is an alternative approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that focuses on “paradoxes”, pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and observation, that (taken together) suggest that the “origins problem” cannot be solved.

The Asphalt Paradox
Systems, given energy and left to themselves, DEVOLVE to give uselessly complex mixtures, “asphalts”. the literature reports (to our knowledge) exactly ZERO CONFIRMED OBSERVATIONS where “replication involving replicable imperfections” (RIRI) evolution emerged spontaneously from a devolving chemical system. it is IMPOSSIBLE for any non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the “living”. Such statements of impossibility apply even to macromolecules not assumed to be necessary for RIRI evolution.

Decomposition of Monomers, Polymers and Molecular Systems: An Unresolved Problem 2017 Jan 17

The Role of Lipid Membranes in Life’s Origin

At some point in early evolution, life became cellular. Assuming that this step was required for the origin of life, there would necessarily be a pre-existing source of amphihilic compounds capable of assembling into membranous compartments. It is possible ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It is clear that non-activated nucleotide monomers can be linked into polymers under certain laboratory conditions designed to simulate hydrothermal fields. However, both monomers and polymers can undergo a variety of decomposition reactions that must be taken into account because biologically relevant molecules would undergo similar decomposition processes in the prebiotic environment.

See, when it fits, you stick to completely unsupported scenarios, which ARE NOT scientifically backed up or supported, and you endorse them based on BLIND FAITH, based on made-up hypotheses that have FAILED in over 70 years of scientific exploration. See, here is the thing, AngelaMOU: You claim you have no faith, and when I pointed it out to you on FB that you require a lot more faith to stick to materialism than I do in regards to theism, you blocked me. But that is PRECISELY what you are demonstrating right here. You fill the gaps of positive scientific results with materialism. That is a GAPS OF MATERIALISM argument, and you are guilty of it. Like it or not. Those are the facts.

Science disproves that the emergence of life from nonlife by unguided means is possible. 10^722000 is the number that you would do good to think about.

What evidence would disprove your phylogeny challenge?

 

[rationalist]

Soo...instead of answering numerous questions (ignoring them and driving off-topic makes rationalist not honest at all).

You decided unilaterally to respond only to what you like in regards to my replies. When I do the same, you call me dishonest.... oh the irony......

You can poke holes in the Bible as much as you want. Once one of your claims has been disproven, you go to the next, and so on.

 

[rationalist]

Rationalist instead comes also up with CRuMs subclades - the Collodictyonidae / Dipheylleidae as they would all of a sudden not be eukaryota....for some reason?

So the whack a mole has just started.

Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes do not share a common ancestor? Let's just ignore it.

Organisms that have unique roots in the tree of life? oh, it's a eukaryote after all.

So if someone would present you with the fourth domain of life, is that what would falsify your phylogeny challenge?

If so, science has not discovered that there is a fourth domain of life. Giant Mimiviruses is not a candidate. So what?

 

[AngelaMOU]

And as we see: Still no answers to the questions still breaking your ideological neck - like the "kind" examples or why mirrorsymmetrical animal subsets shall all of a sudden only look like them etc.
I mean you still jumpe from topic to topic in which you ignored observation after observation. Like narcotics or the bat to the head to have effect on consciousness.
Your recent article was:
1.) Abstract not available but Benner is not omniscient. If you think Benner is an unfallible entity and not a fallible human being - it is not my problem.
2.) Quote from the abstract: "There are at least three possible solutions." you overread fully on purpose like ALWAYS when you want to be dishonest about papers you skip the solutions (your evil minded actions) and their names.
3.)"the emergence of life from nonlife by unguided means is possible. 10^72200" Is again a calculation of Cells immediately from molecules as falling at random into place assembly and therefore off-topic. Like always.

"Once one of your claims has been disproven" You did not disproof a single one. All replies still stand and all the replies you did were without exception disproven off-topic distractions.
Like the 3 claims from before they are disproven and you did not reply to anything on-topic.
So it is like you never answered to anything on-topic. Where did you answer to my original statement on topic? nowhere. text walls are not adressing. ;-)
As I said you are a Napoleon patient. Paranoid (confusing people with others) and driven by emotional turmoil aka meaningless emotional imprintings to terms like "complexity" "Jesus" etc.

 

[AngelaMOU]

So the whack a mole has just started.

You mean your jumping away from the fact that they are specific eukaryote subclades alongside sistergroup adaptations you either hide, want to ignore or not being aware of? This is another distraction try from the mentioned challenge and still not a single answer to any of MY personal questions or any (on-topic) answers of questions of other users.

Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes do not share a common ancestor? Let's just ignore it.

Since when do they not share ancestry? This was your personal baseless claim. LOL Similar to your numerous other baseless claims like consciousness would be like "time" or "space" ...as thinking processes would not be time sequences from one thought to another thought.
The debate & further research about the asgardians and the relation to eukaryota (and possible ancestry) was opened but you jump around in current research as gap searcher to remain dishonest with the research activities themselves.
Current research does not allow to deny the activity of research or prior conclusions by dogma like you want it and pretend to have the answers already. You are still a fallible being and not omniscient like you pretend by your actions. ;-)

Organisms that have unique roots in the tree of life? oh, it's a eukaryote after all.

Evolutionary routes of eukaryota are not unique roots of cellular life in general. ;-)

So if someone would present you with the fourth domain of life, is that what would falsify your phylogeny challenge?

You fake you would get the topic and dance around. The topic is not about searching & denial the research actions and jump into currently discussed and researched gaps and topics - it is you having to adress why for example "bald locusts" are still locusts and still insects and not like the bible claims a "kind" as in "created kind" ;-)

If so, science has not discovered that there is a fourth domain of life. Giant Mimiviruses is not a candidate. So what?

This also got under your skin that I rubbed under your nose at youtube that viruses can contain more information complexity than most simplistic lifeforms.
The minimalistic cell (~580 KB) vs. Pandoravirus (1,9–2,5MB) information complexity incl. development of own genes. ;-)

 

[rationalist]

3.)"the emergence of life from nonlife by unguided means is possible. 10^72200" Is again a calculation of Cells immediately from molecules as falling at random into place assembly and therefore off-topic. Like always.

As you said that you would cherrypick to what to respond, so do i. Keep BELIEVING in your "almost life" fantasy... It just exists in your wishful imagination.


Chemistry and the Missing Era of Evolution: A. Graham Cairns-Smith
We can see that at the time of the common ancestor, this system must already have been fixed in its essentials, probably through a critical interdependence of subsystems. (Roughly speaking in a domain in which everything has come to depend on everything else nothing can be easily changed, and our central biochemistry is very much like that.
https://sci-hub.st/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18260066

chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity
https://sixdaysblog.com/2013/07/06/protocells-may-have-formed-in-a-salty-soup/

If we are to assume all life came from a single cell way in the past, then that cell, from it's very first moment had to have all the machinery capable of :

1. reproduction
2. the means of obtaining energy in whatever form that may have been
3. the means of converting that energy source to a useable form
4. the means of ridding itself of toxic waste
5. the means of protecting itself from environmental dangers ex, radiation, temperature fluctuations, acid/base conditions
6. means of cellular repair of all of these mechanisms
7. The means of intracellular communication between all its parts the prior knowledge that it would need all these components and the ability of ALL of these to function fully and simultaneously from day one because malfunctions of, or incomplete versions or not fully "evolved" parts would have lead to immediate or almost immediate death.

Following irreducible processes and parts are required to keep cells alive, and illustrate mount improbable to get life a first go:
Reproduction. Reproduction is essential for the survival of all living things.
Metabolism. Enzymatic activity allows a cell to respond to changing environmental demands and regulate its metabolic pathways, both of which are essential to cell survival.
Nutrition. This is closely related to metabolism. Seal up a living organism in a box for long enough and in due course it will cease to function and eventually die. Nutrients are essential for life.
Complexity. All known forms of life are amazingly complex. Even single-celled organisms such as bacteria are veritable beehives of activity involving millions of components.
Organization. Maybe it is not complexity per se that is significant, but organized complexity.
Growth and development. Individual organisms grow and ecosystems tend to spread (if conditions are right).
Information content. In recent years scientists have stressed the analogy between living organisms and computers. Crucially, the information needed to replicate an organism is passed on in the genes from parent to offspring.
Hardware/software entanglement. All life of the sort found on Earth stems from a deal struck between two very different classes of molecules: nucleic acids and proteins.
Permanence and change. A further paradox of life concerns the strange conjunction of permanence and change.
Sensitivity. All organisms respond to stimuli— though not always to the same stimuli in the same ways.
Regulation. All organisms have regulatory mechanisms that coordinate internal processes.

Paul Davies, The origin of life, page 52
Acknowledging the inter-dependability of the component molecules within a living organism immediately presents us with a stark philosophical puzzle. If everything needs everything else, how did the community of molecules ever arise in the first place? As most large molecules needed for life are produced only by living organisms and are not found outside the cell, how did they come to exist originally, without the help of a meddling scientist? Could we seriously expect a Miller – Urey type of soup to make them all at once, given the hit-and-miss nature of its chemistry?

You might get the impression from what I have written that not only is the origin of life virtually impossible, but that life itself is impossible. If fragile biomolecules are continually being attacked and disintegrated, surely our own bodies would rapidly degenerate into chemical mayhem spelling certain death? Fortunately for us, our cells contain sophisticated chemical repair and construction mechanisms, handy sources of chemical energy to drive processes uphill, and enzymes with special properties that can smoothly assemble complex molecules from fragments. Also, proteins fold into protective balls that prevent water from attacking their delicate chemical bonds. As fast as the second law tries to drag us downhill, this cooperating army of specialized molecules tugs the other way. So long as we remain open systems, exchanging energy and entropy with our environment, the degenerative consequences of the second law can be avoided. But the primordial soup lacked these convenient cohorts of cooperating chemicals. No molecular repair gangs stood ready to take on the second law. The soup had to win the battle alone, against odds that are not just heavy, but mind-numbingly huge.

 

[rationalist]

Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes do not share a common ancestor? Let's just ignore it.

Since when do they not share ancestry?

Since life started. I guess ??

I mean, how many times have i pointed this out to you ?

Common descent, the tree of life, a failed hypothesis

https://***************************...-descent-the-tree-of-life-a-failed-hypothesis

1. The DNA replication machinery is not homologous in the 3 domains of life. The bacterial core replisome enzymes do not share a common ancestor with the analogous components in eukaryotes and archaea.
2. Bacteria and Archaea differ strikingly in the chemistry of their membrane lipids. Cell membrane phospholipids are synthesized by different, unrelated enzymes in bacteria and archaea, and yield chemically distinct membranes.
3. Sequences of glycolytic enzymes differ between Archaea and Bacteria/Eukaryotes. There is no evidence of a common ancestor for any of the four glycolytic kinases or of the seven enzymes that bind nucleotides.
4. There are at least six distinct autotrophic carbon fixation pathways. If common ancestry were true, an ancestral Wood–Ljungdahl pathway should have become life's one and only principle for biomass production.
5. There is a sharp divide in the organizational complexity of the cell between eukaryotes, which have complex intracellular compartmentalization, and even the most sophisticated prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria), which do not.
6. A typical eukaryotic cell is about 1,000-fold bigger by volume than a typical bacterium or archaeon, and functions under different physical principles: free diffusion has little role in eukaryotic cells but is crucial in prokaryotes
7. Subsequent massive sequencing of numerous, complete microbial genomes have revealed novel evolutionary phenomena, the most fundamental of these being: pervasive horizontal gene transfer (HGT), in large part mediated by viruses and plasmids, that shapes the genomes of archaea and bacteria and call for a radical revision (if not abandonment) of the Tree of Life concept
8. RNA Polymerase differences: Prokaryotes only contain three different promoter elements: -10, -35 promoters, and upstream elements. Eukaryotes contain many different promoter elements
9. Ribosome and ribosome biogenesis differences: Although we could identify E. coli counterparts with comparable biochemical activity for 12 yeast ribosome biogenesis factors (RBFs), only 2 are known to participate in bacterial ribosome assembly. This indicates that the recruitment of individual proteins to this pathway has been largely independent in the bacterial and eukaryotic lineages. 22

A new view of the tree of life 11 April 2016
https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol201648
The tree of life as we know it has dramatically expanded due to new genomic sampling of previously enigmatic or unknown microbial lineages. This depiction of the tree captures the current genomic sampling of life, illustrating the progress that has been made in the last two decades following the first published genome. What emerges from analysis of this tree is the depth of evolutionary history that is contained within the Bacteria, in part due to the CPR, which appears to subdivide the domain. Most importantly, the analysis highlights the large fraction of diversity that is currently only accessible via cultivation-independent genome-resolved approaches.

Following points are a clear smackdown to the claim of Common descent and Darwin's tree of life

1. Genome sequencing of cells from the three domains of life, bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes, reveal that the DNA replication machinery, most of the core replisome enzymes and components are not homologous. Thus, the bacterial core replisome enzymes do not share a common ancestor with the analogous components in eukaryotes and archaea.

2. Bacteria and Archaea differ strikingly in the chemistry of their membrane lipids. Cell membrane phospholipids are synthesized by different, unrelated enzymes in bacteria and archaea, and yield chemically distinct membranes. Bacteria and archaea have membranes made of water-repellent fatty molecules. Bacterial membranes are made of fatty acids bound to the phosphate group while archaeal membranes are made of isoprenes bonded to phosphate in a different way. This leads to something of a paradox: Since a supposed last universal common ancestor, LUCA already had an impermeable membrane for exploiting proton gradients, why would its descendants have independently evolved two different kinds of impermeable membrane?

3. Sequences of glycolytic enzymes differ between Archaea and Bacteria/Eukaryotes. There is no evidence of a common ancestor for any of the four glycolytic kinases or of the seven enzymes that bind nucleotides.

4. There are at least six distinct autotrophic carbon fixation pathways. Since the claim is that this is how life began fixing carbon, and the first carbon fixation pathways were anaerobic, this represents a major puzzle for proponents of common ancestry, and its proponents are led to wonder why an ancestral Wood–Ljungdahl pathway has not become life's one and only principle for biomass production. What is even more puzzling, is the fact that searches of the genomes of acetogenins for enzymes clearly homologous to those of the methanogenic C1-branch came up empty-handed with one notable exception, i.e. the initial step of CO2 reduction which is, in both cases, catalyzed by a molybdo/tungstopterin enzyme from the complex iron-sulfur molybdoenzyme (CISM) superfamily. So, partially, carbon fixation pathways share partially the same enzymes. This points clearly to a common designer choosing different routes for the same reaction but using partially convergent design. Similarities between living organisms could be because they have been designed by the same intelligence, just as we can recognize a Norman Foster building by his characteristic style, or a painting by Van Gogh. We expect to see repeated motifs and re-used techniques in different works by the same artist/designer.

5. There is a sharp divide in the organizational complexity of the cell between eukaryotes, which have complex intracellular compartmentalization, and even the most sophisticated prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria), which do not. The compartmentalization of eukaryotic cells is supported by an elaborate endomembrane system and by the actin-tubulin-based cytoskeleton. There are no direct counterparts of these organelles in archaea or bacteria. The other hallmark of the eukaryotic cell is the presence of mitochondria, which have a central role in energy transformation and perform many additional roles in eukaryotic cells, such as in signaling and cell death.

6. A typical eukaryotic cell is about 1,000-fold bigger by volume than a typical bacterium or archaeon, and functions under different physical principles: free diffusion has little role in eukaryotic cells but is crucial in prokaryotes

7. Subsequent massive sequencing of numerous, complete microbial genomes have revealed novel evolutionary phenomena, the most fundamental of these being: pervasive horizontal gene transfer (HGT), in large part mediated by viruses and plasmids, that shapes the genomes of archaea and bacteria and call for a radical revision (if not abandonment) of the Tree of Life concept 22

8. RNA Polymerase differences: Prokaryotes only contain three different promoter elements: -10, -35 promoters, and upstream elements. Eukaryotes contain many different promoter elements: TATA box, initiator elements, downstream core promoter element, CAAT box, and the GC box to name a few. Eukaryotes have three types of RNA polymerases, I, II, and III, and prokaryotes only have one type. Eukaryotes form and initiation complex with the various transcription factors that dissociate after initiation is completed. There is no such structure seen in prokaryotes. Another main difference between the two is that transcription and translation occurs simultaneously in prokaryotes and in eukaryotes the RNA is first transcribed in the nucleus and then translated in the cytoplasm. RNAs from eukaryotes undergo post-transcriptional modifications including: capping, polyadenylation, and splicing. These events do not occur in prokaryotes. mRNAs in prokaryotes tend to contain many different genes on a single mRNA meaning they are polycystronic. Eukaryotes contain mRNAs that are monocystronic. Termination in prokaryotes is done by either rho-dependent or rho-independent mechanisms. In eukaryotes transcription is terminated by two elements: a poly(A) signal and a downstream terminator sequence. 21

9. Ribosome and ribosome biogenesis differences: Although we could identify E. coli counterparts with comparable biochemical activity for 12 yeast ribosome biogenesis factors (RBFs), only 2 are known to participate in bacterial ribosome assembly. This indicates that the recruitment of individual proteins to this pathway has been largely independent in the bacterial and eukaryotic lineages. 22


https://***************************...-descent-the-tree-of-life-a-failed-hypothesis

 

[*SD*]

This thread is just fucking ridiculous at this point, as I and others have been pointing out for several pages now - if it doesn't turn into something substantive I see no other reason why it should be allowed to continue, I won't let this turn into another 30 pager going round and round in circles, page after page of the same diatribe.

 

[*SD*]

Actually, considering the thread title is "Chat with AronRa" - and he has made quite clear he is no longer interested in engaging with you, I'm petitioning for this thread being locked., It would be misleading to new readers if we allow it to continue. If Aron changes his mind, we can unlock it. Otherwise @rationalist you can start a new thread to engage with @Nesslig20 or @AngelaMOU or both at your discretion.

 

[AngelaMOU]

Actually, considering the thread title is "Chat with AronRa" - and he has made quite clear he is no longer interested in engaging with you, I'm petitioning for this thread being locked., It would be misleading to new readers if we allow it to continue. If Aron changes his mind, we can unlock it. Otherwise @rationalist you can start a new thread to engage with @Nesslig20 or @AngelaMOU or both at your discretion.

As we can all see - there is not any "chat" with anyone from "rationalist's" side - or he would give actual on-topic answers not copy and pasting more off-topic textwalls, where he hides the solutions in the publications he overflew for suitable slogans
He also confuses people with eachother (paranoia).
Like I said: He scans 100+ publications for the problems in the introductions and then doesn't bother to copy results or presented solutions by name.
Like in the membrane copy and paste publication, where the solutions are not interesting for him.
He thinks this Textwall and hiding play would count as answers...somehow.
So I'm not really interested in more gish gallop, denialism, non sequitors and more and more off topic stuff.
I mean my very first post (on youtube) was about an example of a prediction of an IC system by evolution with Muller quote from 1918...he confused with Miller much later and since that he jumped around like a madman from consciousness strawman to ATP strawmen to annelid strawman and what else. It is just a gigantic distraction game.

 

[We are Borg]

It is just a gigantic distraction game.

Agree (@*SD* is right people will be inclined to see Aron talking) this thread is going to be locked @AronRa has Admin powers if he wants to talk to @rationalist he can just type and post, when i see that Aron wants to talk to @rationalist i will reopen. @rationalist and @AngelaMOU you can open a new thread to discuss to one and other and others can join if they want.