+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 48
Latest: watcher
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16867
Total Topics: 271
Most Online Today: 1208
Most Online Ever: 1208
(March 28, 2024, 07:28:27 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1082
Total: 1082

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 19473 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #165 on: June 08, 2019, 03:56:13 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Except for the obligatory (always dictated by the atheists 'R' US scientific community) bow to Darwin's God rejecting theory, this is a great documentary. It details the extraordinary multi-sensory powers of 🦉 owls, providing proof that said powers are essential to their ability to survive and thrive in so many habitats on this planet.


Owls have differential ear placement on their skulls (one ear is higher than the other).
It is absolutely laughable to claim that they "evolved" this simply because, without it, combined with some other special abilities only owls have among birds of prey, they would NOT be able to pinpoint prey not visible beneath snow or foliage, something they MUST be able to consistently do in order to survive (owls hunt in conditions, mostly nocturnal, that other birds of prey cannot hunt in).

Owl eyes are huge in relation to their skull for a very specific reason (to capture more light in the first place). But that large eye size works together with another light capturing ability unique to owl eyes among birds of prey. That is, they have a lot more rods (needed for night vision) than cones (needed for daylight color vision), so they lose color vision, but have extremely powerful night vision.

There is much more to the OBVIOUSLY INTELLIGENT DESIGN of owl anatomy and physiology, from the larger wings for vertical takeoffs (for nest defence) and slow, almost hovering, flight for hunting, to sound absorbing wing and body (owl feathers are NOT wax covered - not waterproof like noisy duck wing feathers -, which is the reason owl wings are, with the aid of a couple of other specialized feather features, nearly soundless in flight - no other bird can fly as quietly) quiet design to sound capturing and concentrating facial feathers to 270 degree pivoting head (including special vertebra that prevent blood flow from being cut off during extreme head pivots). 

It is laughably illogical AND unscientific to claim that owls "evolved" this set of sensory tools, one by one, at random, while the "small eyed", "low rod count", "symmetrical ear placement", "waterproof winged" and so on owls all "died off" as the "survival of the fittest happy mutations" all came together in some owls by good Darwinian luck to produce modern day owls.

WHY? Because, as the scientific evidence presented in this video proves, these abilities work successfully ONLY if they work in concert. In order for all these sensory abilities to work IN CONCERT, they had to have been SPECIFICALLY designed to work as a team. The owl is a night hunter that uses ALL of its specialized sensory equipment to survive and thrive. Take away any one of these sensory tools and its survival is in jeopardy.

It is a sad commentary on the willful denial of too many modern day scientists of God's incredibly complex and beautiful intelligent design of everything that lives in our biosphere in general, and owls in particular, that they cling to Darwinian nonsense. 

Too many modern scientists just do not want to hear the truth that NATURE was created by God.   


To a an objective person, this video provides irrefutable proof that God created owls to do what owls can do now, from the start, period. 
Quote
As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear. -- Proverbs 25:12

OWLS - Owl Documentary (HD) Amazing Film, Owl Power
962,061 views


Clifford Garrard
Published on Mar 4, 2017

Category People & Blogs

Show Nature : Owl Power
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #166 on: June 10, 2019, 03:00:26 pm »

Here's more about the owl, a highly specialized night hunter, that evidences intelligent design. The shape of owl eyes is unique. As discussed above, owls can rotate their head 270 degrees. The owl eye anatomy and physiology is more evidence that the ability to rotate 270 degrees laterally and 90 degrees up and down could not have "evolved".

WHY? Because the owl head must rotate that much to work in concert with the owl eyes. They work ONLY as a unit. You see, the owl eyes are fixed in position. They cannot move.

They are also elongated to enhance night vision by concentrating the rods along the elongated tube design.

So, the head, the fixed eye position, the elongated eye shape that concentrates the rods for even more superior night vision than would be possible with the same rod count (if the eye was movable and rounded) that enables night vision AND the vertebra in the neck to avoid pinching off blood flow all work as a unit.

All the separate biological anatomical parts of this unit simply would not make sense in the absence of all the others. With eyes that are fixed in the head, the head HAD to be able to turn so many degrees. The vertebra HAD to be designed to allow normal blood flow during extreme head rotation or there would be no advantage to the fixed binocular eyes and 270 neck rotation.

What's more, the differential ear position, combined with the fixed position of the binocular eyes, though not discussed below, obviously aids the owl in postioning its body properly to strike at the prey as it swoops down after pinpointing the prey's location. You see, the strike of an owl has been measured at 12 times its body weight. It is essential for the owl to be in exactly the right position to avoid injuring itself when it strikes the prey and the ground. The video below shows some owls in action. Notice how the head and the talons are always in the same position relative to each other when the strike occurs.


Though not obvious to the casual observer, owls can only strike that hard in a narrowly defined body position in order to avoid injury to themselves. That is how they are able to kill their prey so quickly.   

To claim all this magnificent chorus of mutually reinforcing abilities "evolved" by chance, when they all had to be there at the same time to work properly, is pseudo-scientific Darwinian straw grasping baloney.

An owl friend of mine has a few words to say to the Darwinist true believers:

What’s Unique about an Owl’s Eyesight?

Owls can rotate their heads about 270 degrees in either direction, and up and down about 90 degrees, without moving their shoulders. This maneuverability is key to their ability to spot prey, especially when you consider that an owl doesn’t have eyeballs. Their eyes are shaped more like tubes, and are held rigidly in place by bones called sclerotic rings. Their eyes consist of densely packed retinal rods -- about a million rods per square millimeter -- which help them see in all kinds of light conditions.

The eyes have it:

Owls are farsighted, and they can’t focus on objects that are very close. Whisker-like bristles located near their beaks help them detect objects at close range.

Owls have binocular vision. Binocular vision is the ability to see an object with both eyes, at the same time. This visual acuity increases the owl’s depth perception.

Owls have three eyelids. The upper eyelid closes downward when the owl blinks, and the lower eyelid closes up when the owl sleeps. The third eyelid provides translucent protection, moving horizontally while still allowing the owl to see.

https://www.wisegeek.com/whats-unique-about-an-owls-eyesight.htm
« Last Edit: November 28, 2019, 01:52:31 pm by AGelbert »
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Stephen Meyer: The Return of the God Hypothesis
« Reply #167 on: August 22, 2019, 02:58:48 pm »
Stephen Meyer: The Return of the God Hypothesis
64,228 views


socratesinthecity
Published on Apr 16, 2019

Eric Metaxas interviews Stephen C. Meyer about the ultimate mystery of the universe as drawn from recent scientific discoveries in physics, cosmology, and biology.

The interview took place at the Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, sponsored by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, in January 2019.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
=

Signature in the Cell: Stephen Meyer 💫 Faces his 🙉 Critics, pt. 1: The Presentation
250,829 views


Stephen Meyer
Published on Feb 14, 2014

Stephen Meyer is the author of The New York Times best selling book Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013). For more information on the book and to order your copy visit http://www.darwinsdoubt.com

Category Science & Technology
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Stephen Meyer: God and the Origin 💫 of the Universe ✨

352,540 views • Mar 18, 2019



Discovery Science
44.4K subscribers

According to a nationwide survey, more than two-thirds of atheists and one-third of agnostics believe that “the findings of science make the existence of God less probable,” while nearly half of self-identified theists believe “the findings of science are neutral with regard to the existence of God.” But what if there is another option? What if the discoveries of science actually lend support to belief in God?

Taped at the 2019 Dallas Science and Faith Conference at Park Cities Baptist Church in Dallas sponsored by Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

Subscribe for more from Discovery Institute
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm3i...
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #170 on: March 28, 2020, 12:58:56 pm »
Click on image below for update:


Agelbert RANT: The slower pace of life due to COVID-19 required Social Isolation/Distancing will hopefully get people to think about what really matters, rather than what some Social Darwinist corporate CEO wants them to think that "matters".

Hat tip to Surly ✨ for pointing me to the following news stories.

🦕🦖 Charles Koch Network Pushed $1 Billion Cut to CDC, Now Attacks Shelter-in-Place Policies for Harming Business

Doctors And Nurses Say More People Are Dying Of COVID-19 In The US Than We Know

Trump Is Haggling Over Ventilator Prices While Coronavirus Patients Die

Trump's mismanagement helped fuel coronavirus crisis

The consequences of a flawed evolutionary paradigm are severly deleterious to rational  and logical thinking in modern society.

Capitalists fail to connect the negative consequences of predatory capitalist, rampant planetary exploition with the Darwinian concept of a mad scramble for resources by amino acids self assembling in a totally random manner resulting in the giant truck that is running us over now.

It's MIGHTY convenient for the conscience free psychos that fathered GAME THEORY (a twisted view of interrelationships between sentient beings justifying any and all heinous and barbaric behavior in the quest for who gets the most toys "caloric intake, etc") to have DARWIN around to make everything jes' natural behavior.

The evolutionary paradigm DID include cooperation as FAR more important than predation in the perpetuation of a species BUT the psychos quickly underplayed that so their planet trashing could have "scientific" backing.

Think about it:
Darwin--> Wall Street "scientific" fig leaf hijacking-->Freud-->Game Theory, a PARADIGM DESIGNED TO REPLACE the GOLDEN RULE as the most rational and species perpetuating behavior (the "fittest") is PRECISELY WHAT IS BEHIND the LACK OF GUILT by the 1% for TRASHING THE PLANET!


Altruism, cooperation, sustainability, holistic view of every process to see its value in the biosphere from the birth of new life to the decay of dead matter, NESESSARY for that future new life, is ABSENT from the modern paradigmatic view of SUCCESS. It's SUICIDAL and CRIMINALLY INSANE.

But they won't let it go because, because... THEY KNOW it will lead to GUILT, LIABILITY and an END to the con games denying reality. Love thy Neighbor as Thyself is not optional in the biosphere.

Survival of the "fittest", NO! Survival of the altruistic, YES!

The following is NOT what I was taught about Darwin's Theory in College Biology. But, it's nice that they are fighting Wall Street's CELEBRATION of GREED with some 🧐👨‍🔬🔬 HARD SCIENCE!       

« Last Edit: March 28, 2020, 02:45:45 pm by AGelbert »
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution


Evolution and the Experts Douglas Axe Dallas Science Faith Conference 2020
4,716 views•Apr 1, 2020


Discovery Science
55.8K subscribers

The controversy about Darwinian evolution is often framed as a matter of credentials. We must listen to the “experts”!  In a presentation at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith, molecular biologist Douglas Axe explains that “expertise does not necessarily drive you in the right direction.” Sometimes it does the exact opposite. How could that be? Watch now and find out. Evolution and the “Experts”: Douglas Axe at 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith

Watch all the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith videos here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
Find more related videos below.

Douglas Axe is the Maxwell Professor of Molecular Biology at Biola University, the founding Director of Biologic Institute, the founding Editor of BIO-Complexity, and the author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed. After completing his PhD at Caltech, he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge and the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre. His research, which examines the functional and structural constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems, has been featured in many scientific journals, including the Journal of Molecular Biology, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, BIO-Complexity, and Nature, and in such books as Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyer and Life’s Solution by Simon Conway Morris.

The annual Dallas Conference on Science & Faith explores exciting scientific discoveries about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the development of biological complexity, as well as critiquing the scientific and cultural impact of Darwinism. It also deals directly with the intersection of science and religion and the role that faith plays in scientific research and study.

Be sure to check out these related videos:

Douglas Axe: Why more scientists are going off-script from the Darwinian Story


James Tour:  The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained


The Open Mind | Douglas Axe, Ph.D.


============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit https://www.discovery.org/id/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/discoverycsc/

Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: https://www.youtube.com/user/Discover...
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: https://www.youtube.com/user/DrStephe...
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: https://www.youtube.com/user/cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallce: https://www.youtube.com/user/AlfredRW...
Category Science & Technology

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

👨‍🔬 James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained



Protein Synthesis Within Cells:
Chaperonin releasing SPECIFICALLY Folded Protein into the cytoplasm:
It is not known how this marvelous Chaperonin machine folds thousands of DIFFERENT proteins, all essential for life and some with the SAME amino acid sequences but different folding. This makes them different proteins in regard to function. These are ALL very specific and ALL produced in a "just in time" way that is also not understood as to chemical signals in the big picture of cell function inside the cytoplasm.

The screenshots above were taken from the following fascinating video:

« Last Edit: April 07, 2020, 09:13:11 pm by AGelbert »
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
👨‍⚕️ Michael Egnor ✨: The Evidence against Materialism
106,292 views•Jun 10, 2019


Discovery Science
56.3K subscribers

In this bonus interview footage from Science Uprising, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor discusses the evidence against materialism and explains how materialism undercuts rather than supports genuine science. Be sure to visit https://scienceuprising.com/ to find more videos and explore related articles and books.

Michael Egnor, MD (from Columbia University), neurosurgeon and professor of neurological surgery at Stony Brook University. Dr. Egnor is renowned for his work in pediatric neurosurgery. See https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2516312....


Check out these other videos:
No, You're Not a Robot Made Out of Meat





👨‍⚕️ Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor ✨: Why 🤖 Machines Will Never Think






Unbelievable Myths Neil deGrasse Tyson and Co. Love to Tell

============================

Science Uprising

Well-known scientists have been preaching a materialistic worldview rather than presenting the public with all the evidence. We are here to change that. The objective scientific evidence does not prove our universe is blind and purposeless.  It does not show we are simply meat machines. It does not prove that evolutionary mechanisms can completely account for the diversity of life on earth. This is what THEY want you to think. Think for yourself and make an informed decision.


  Are you ready? The uprising has begun.

Visit the Science Uprising website at https://scienceuprising.com/ to find more videos and explore related articles and books. You can also find out more information about the people interviewed in this episode.
Caption author (Spanish)
Argumentoteca
Category Science & Technology
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
1,260,291 views • Jul 22, 2019


HooverInstitution
266K subscribers
Recorded on June 6, 2019 in Italy.

To comment please go to
https://www.hoover.org/research/mathematical-challenges-darwins-theory-evolution-david-berlinski-stephen-meyer-and-david

Based on new evidence and knowledge that functioning proteins are extremely rare, should Darwin’s theory of evolution be dismissed, dissected, developed or replaced with a theory of intelligent design?

Has Darwinism really failed? Peter Robinson discusses it with David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer, who have raised doubts about Darwin’s theory in their two books and essay, respectively The Deniable Darwin, Darwin’s Doubt, and “Giving Up Darwin” (published in the Claremont Review of Books).

Robinson asks them to convince him that the term “species” has not been defined by the authors to Darwin’s disadvantage. Gelernter replies to this and explains, as he expressed in his essay, that he sees Darwin’s theory as beautiful (which made it difficult for him to give it up): “Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.” Gelernter notes that there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin successfully explained the small adjustments by which an organism adapts to local circumstances: changes to fur density or wing style or beak shape. Yet there are many reasons to doubt whether Darwin can answer the hard questions and explain the big picture—not the fine-tuning of existing species but the emergence of new ones. Meyer explains Darwinism as a comprehensive synthesis, which gained popularity for its appeal. Meyer also mentions that one cannot disregard that Darwin’s book was based on the facts present in the 19th century.

For further information:
https://www.hoover.org/publications/uncommon-knowledge

Interested in exclusive Uncommon Knowledge content? Check out Uncommon Knowledge on social media!

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UncKnowledge/
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/UncKnowledge/
Instagram: https://instagram.com/uncommon_knowle...
Category
News & Politicsttps://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE[/center]


He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
David Berlinski Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions
570,917 views•Sep 1, 2011


HooverInstitution
271K subscribers
Recorded on April 25, 2011,

To comment please go to
https://www.hoover.org/research/david-berlinski-atheism-and-its-scientific-pretensions

David Berlinski is the author of a number of books, including the recent volumes One, Two, Three:  Absolutely Elementary Mathematics and The Devil's Delusion:  Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.

Berlinski asserts that "a great many men and women have a dull, hurt, angry sense of being oppressed by the sciences. They are frustrated by endless scientific boasting.  They suspect that ... the scientific community holds them in contempt.  They are right to feel this way." With Darwin's theory of evolution as a point of departure, he takes scientists to task for their antireligious assumptions and explores the conflict between the scientific community and those with firmly held religious beliefs.

For further information:
https://www.hoover.org/publications/uncommon-knowledge

Interested in exclusive Uncommon Knowledge content? Check out Uncommon Knowledge on social media!

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UncKnowledge/
Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/UncKnowledge/
Instagram: https://instagram.com/uncommon_knowle...
Category News & Politics


He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Virology Lectures 2020 #4: Structure of Viruses
50,910 views•Feb 4, 2020



👨‍🔬 Vincent Racaniello
50K subscribers

Virus particles are constructed in three ways: with helical, icosahedral, or complex symmetry. We discuss the principles of helical and icosahedral symmetry and how larger and larger viruses are assembled. Some particles are wrapped with a lipid envelope, derived from the host cell, which is embedded with viral glycoproteins.

Category Science & Technology


Agelbert COMMENT: There is a logical paradox involved in Vincent Racaniello's view that viruses, which are obligate parasites, as correctly defined by Vincent Racaniello, are "more ancient in the evolutionary ladder" than ribosome containing living cells. According to Modern Evolutionary Theory, which I am sure Vincent Racaniello does not question, prokaryotes were the only form of life on Earth for millions of years until more complicated eukaryotic cells came into being through the process of evolution.

Considering the prevailing view in the scientific community of the Darwinian evolutionary sequence stated above, viruses initially were parasitical exclusively of bacteria (i.e. prokaryotes). Vincent Racaniello's belief that viruses, always obligate parasites, "PRECEDED" bacteria, which have the complex machinery that the obligate parasite must access to reproduce, is a logical fallacy. It is putting the virus parasite "cart" before the bacterial host "horse". 

The more likely evolutionary scenario, one that most, if not all, virologists have unfortunately rejected, is that viruses devolved from prokaryotes that were subjected to several essentially simultaneous mutations that were both faulty and advantageous.

👉 The faulty mutation produced the obligate parasite, lacking the ribosome and other cell machinery that is sine qua non for perpetuation of the species through replication.

👉 The evolutionary advantage of the bacterial mutation to a virus (which had to have happened simultaneously with the loss of cell machinery for replication, or else there would be no viruses today), was an amazing toolbox of specific proteins beneficially mutated  to facilitate attacking and hijacking a bacterium in order to reproduce. There is no other logical way to view this. Any other way to view this is unscientific straw grasping.

Viruses are an example of Devolution, not Evolution. No OBLIGATE parasite, be it a virus or any example of the highly complex species of parasites from the subphylum Chelicerata, has ever existed PRIOR to the existence of the host that said parasite requires, do not pass go, do not avoid extinction, for the survival of that species. There is no random "evolutionary pressure" that can be pseudo-scientifically speculated about, even with lots of hand waving and charts, that would constitute "evidence" of the PRIOR existence of a parasite to some, not yet evolved, life form said parasite exists to target. No host, no host parasite that lives from targeting the host, PERIOD.

Furthermore, Vincent Racaniello's claim that viroids, that have a limited ability to self assemble, are the RNA spark that got the (added to his speculation that all those transposones in our genome are "evolutionary evidence" that we were "something else" before) evolution of life ball (i.e capsid ;D) rolling is more unscientific straw grasping.

WHY? While it is true that the T1 icosahedral capsid could certainly have come about randomly from this self assembling property of protein fragments, that does not even remotely begin to scientifically explain, steps by thousands of SIMULTANEOUSLY REQUIRED random steps (SEE: Factorial math mind boggling numbers), the amazingly specific viral machinery existing for the purpose of protecting some RNA (be it +RNA or whatever) inside that capsid and, within a limited amount of time from the moment the virus was formed and ejected into the intercellular environment, seeking to gain entry into a specifically targeted host through a specifically targeted receptor site, at which point even more specifc, finely tuned tools to hijack the host machinery are used for replication.

The point is that a capsid made of self assembling proteins is not the relevant evolutionary issue. The relevant evolutionary issue is that a virus, being an obligate parasite, that lacks even one of the tools I just listed above (in an overly simplistic fashion), goes extinct, period.

NOTE: I recognize that 👨‍🔬 Vincent Racaniello 👍 is, without a doubt, an expert in viruses, and explains their structure and function elegantly, clearly and beautifully. If he stayed away from the logically flawed speculation about the "evolutionary importance of viruses", he would be better off.

Finally, there is the issue of proper protein folding, an indispensable part of successful protein synthesis. Every one of the those self assembling T units Vincent Racaniello beautifully described, that make up the non-covalent icosahedral structure that forms a virus capsid, MUST be folded a very specific way. Even with exactly the same proportion of atoms from different elements, bonded in exactly the same way in these capsid assembly molecules, they will not function properly if they are not folded properly.

Viruses do not have Ribosomes and Chaperonins. They never did have Ribosomes and Chaperonins.

What that means to people who don't see a problem with the claim that the "self assembly" ability of capsid proteins in viruses is "proof" that viruses "started the evolution of life" is that without Ribosomes, which are key to the complex process of synthesizing proteins to be later folded by Chaperonins (Chaperonins are any of a family of large chaperone proteins that function chiefly to assist in the folding of newly synthesized proteins), NONE of those viral capsid forming T units will be folded properly.

That's right, they DO NOT "self fold" properly. That's right. They self assemble to form a capsid ONLY when their T units are PREVIOUSLY folded properly. That's right. Randomly, the exact same capsid protein molecules will have thousands, if not millions, of possible three dimensional arrangements, of which ONLY ONE ARRANGEMENT, specific to each and every member of any given family of T units, WILL WORK. Even the tiniest 60 facet capsid requires that all of its T units be folded in exactly the same way in order to self assemble.

Viruses are an example of Devolution, not Evolution.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Unscientific Ivory Tower Arrogance
« Reply #178 on: May 07, 2020, 02:14:54 pm »

Study 4+ years for a degree.
Study 4+ more for a PhD or MD.
Join a lab and start working.
Spend years studying the problem.
Form hypothesis and gather evidence.
Test hypothesis and form conclusions.
Report findings and have it peer reviewed.
Publish the findings and have it reported in the press.

Guy on YouTube: "Bullshit."

I don't know what that was all about, and I don't know who the guy on YouTube was or what, specifically, he criticized. However, I see nothing humerous about the appeal to authority fallacious debating technique displayed above. It is a rather obvious attempt to classify anyone criticizing a scientist as someone who does not understand any science and operates on whim and ignorance. IOW, the above is a thoroughly UNSCIENTIFIC cheap shot that has a germ of truth in it, only if you apply it to propagandist emotional button pushers for profit (e.g. Alex Jones). To apply it accross the board to everyone out there is an example of ivory tower arrogance in the extreme, as well as being factually incorrect, it being that when one of their own steps outside the NOMENKLATURA required "peer reviewed" Dogma, they get locked out of the club. Nobel Prize Winner Biochemist Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction to identify virus presence) technique, was ostracized for calling bullshit on some unscientific assumptions labelled as HIV "science". He was NOT allowed to publish papers afterwards, even though he was MORE QUALIFIED to write and publish scientific study papers than the peer reviewers locking him out. That is NOT an "isolated example". 

Calling bullshit on bad science is, according to the above cheap shot, unscientific and worthy of disdain IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC NOMENKLATURA. Of course, who are we underedumacated lower life forms with zero peer reviewer credibility to question such loyal servants, the evolutionary apex of Homo sapiens, the pinnacle evolution, populating those hallowed halls of high wisdom and Darwinian certainty? After all, from Darwin until now, it is quite clear how highly evolved the scientists, that have brought about all that wonderful technology that killed more people in a century than any century in human history and trashed enough of the planet to trigger the Sixth Mass Extinction, are. 

« Last Edit: May 07, 2020, 05:12:29 pm by AGelbert »
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36274
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Virologists Doth Protest Too Much
« Reply #179 on: May 07, 2020, 02:24:01 pm »
TWiEVO 55: Coronavirus evolution from soup to nuts
2,257 views•May 6, 2020


Vincent Racaniello
51.1K subscribers

👨‍🔬 Nels and 👨‍🔬 Vincent continue their discussion of SARS-CoV-2 evolution, with a report that the coronavirus proofreading enzyme stimulates RNA recombination, and debunking the conclusion that a change in the 🔬 viral spike glycoprotein is associated with increased human to human transmission.
Category Science & Technology

Agelbert COMMENT: It is interesting that the S protein that codes for the spike protein (change in one amino acid) that enables the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus to dock with and block the ACE2 receptor on human cells is produced near the 3' end. This would make sense if that mutation came about accidently on purpose in a virology lab somewhere. Redesigning a virus in a lab is easier near the 3 prime end of the RNA genome strand. Think about that. Considering all the tinkering with viruses in labs constantly going on here and there, why isn't the possibility that this mutation was a lab tinkering mistake, NOT a random point mutation, taken seriously by virologists in such a big hurry to claim it was a completely random example of viral mutation?  Vincent himself makes it crystal clear that this particular coronavirus has an EXTREMELY LOW mutation rate. Think about that.

It is the virologists in labs that, to use the phrase favored by Nels, are TURNING UP THE VIRAL MUTATION VOLUME FROM TEN TO ELEVEN. That is NOT "natural selection", Vincent. That is NOT "random evolution" in any way, shape or form. There is a LOT OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for THAT, even though Vincent rushes to claim there is "no scientific evidence" for that, pointing to  coronavirus viral genome studies as "scientific proof" that "it's all natural, not from some lab". Nels and Vincent are ones that descend into the "it's the religion of lack of science" tropes that are operating on faith, not science.

Agelbert COMMENT: Viral mutation is always confused by virologists as an example of evolution. It is not. It is an example of ADAPTATION. Adaptation does not produce a new species. Therefore, no evolution is going on.  Viral diversity is the result of adaptation, NOT "evolution". For over 30 years I have observed the word "adaptation" scrubbed from the scientific literature and replaced, erroneously, with the word "evolution". Viral mutations ARE NOT an example of natural selection, unless they result in the selecting out of existence of a dysfunctional virus. Natural selection is exclusively a subtractive process. Entropy is the constant, unavoidable rule in this universe, not the Darwinian happy talk about increased complexity though "beneficial" mutations brought about by natural selection. Viruses adapt, but they do not evolve. No Virus ever becomes a prokaryote through adaptive mutations. Anyone claiming otherwise is pushing empty, unscientific speculation. Viruses do not "evolve", they DEVOLVE, period.

Agelbert COMMENT: Vincent, the rather intractable problem that you do not wish to address is the issue of probabilty and statistics based on irrefutable factorial math in a random universe. You cannot get around that factorial math with your theory of how random protein synthesis produced, not simply the rather complex amino acids (all left handed, by the way, which adds a gigantic amount of time needed for the random production of 21 of them, all coming into existence at the same time, and all persisting abundantly and in sufficiently stable forms, rain or shine, millenia after millenia, until the first virus is formed as a functioning unit), but the three dimensional folding that defines their function, from primary all the way to quaternary folding. You've had lots of fun denaturing proteins in those virology labs, but how effective have you been at building one from scratch (i.e. elements)?   

You don't say a thing about the incredibly complex protein folding specificity in the first 9 lectures of virology, even though it's obvious from your excellent three dimensional presentations of viral proteins (and phospholipids and sugars and so on) that improper folding can interfere with function to the point of dysfunction. Yes, I know they bend and twist to hairpin this and invade that. They are enzymes. Enzymes do that to enable biochemical reactions without themselves being changed. I get that. I know you do, of course, but that isn't the point.

The point is that there is nothing wishy washy about how all this happens, especially when the overlall function of a virus is viewed as a unit. For the evolution of loose proteins, sugars and phospholipids to become a virus, you can't just have future capsid proteins floating around capturing a stray amino acid here and there, randomly becoming a viroid (you need a LOT of identical amino acid sequence viroids to evolve into existence within a very brief amount of hours or the factorial math kicks in again because there weren't enough fragments or some of the fragments degraded and no capsid could self assemble - I.e. back to evolutionary square one),  and then randomly "deciding" (as you correctly say, "WHY does not apply to evolution") that bouncing against a rock or a bunch of photons is a great way to replicate.

What I am taking way too long to say is that the occurrence of those events needed to form a unit called a virus are statistically impossible in one single generation in your RNA world full of viroid fragments (never mind how all those left handed amino acids got there to put them together). There is no "random step by step" argument here that works. You are a scientist. Don't tell me that in the pre-life world, temperature, pressure, pH and so on where "friendly" to the laboratory level stability required to randomly build the first virus. That world was extremely environmentally violent  Ask any geologist if you think that primordial soup was chemically stable in any way, shape or form. It was not. That said,  the pre-life planet earth environment is not the main issue here. The main issue here is protein synthesis.

You defend your evolution of viruses hypothesis pointing to the self assembling structural proteins from the icosahedral virus capsid. As I mentioned in a previous post, and you are well aware of, viral capsid proteins, even in a T1 arrangement, are specifically folded a primary, secondary, tertiary and, depending on the virus, quaternary way. You don't talk about how incredibly complex the process of folding those proteins is. Your RNA world hypothesis does not explain that in any way. Some cell machinery has to do that folding.

At present, none of that folding happens randomly. Yet, you assume that the first virus ball capsid that sparked life on earth came into existence randomly. And that's just the capsid, the simplest part of a virus! I find it breathtaking that you, an eminent scientist, can believe, through Darwinian faith, that we have enough time in a 14 billion year universe to go from your rather conveniently complex "RNA  world" to the prokaryotes, never mind those pesky, and extremely complex, eukaryotes that somehow came later on. Spare me the billions of years argument. Factorial math makes a joke out of it, even for the T1 icosahedral capsid, never mind the RNA strand code for replication inside it.

I know, you think I'm some kind of pathetic fundy that "doesn't undertand science". Listen Prof, back in 1986 when I was majoring in biology late in life, I told my Profs that the assumption that we have "junk" DNA was baloney. They were not impresed. Well, though I have no credentials, it turns out that a made a good guess, eh? Yeah, I know, it doesn't count because it was not science based (I didn't prove it with a study). To me, it was simply logical that the part of the cell where the business of jealously guarded reproduction with all sorts of policing going on to keep the species from deviating from the template is place is no place for "junk". My theory, then which was another good guess, is tht "junk" DNA had genes in it that could be activated by environmental pressures. But, enough of that.

As to who actually did create all this life, including the obligate parasites called viruses, that is an issue for faith, not scientific inquiry. Although I do believe God exists and created the three dimensional unverse, this is not about God; this is about your refusal to do the factorial math which is sine qua non for your viral proteins to evolve to do what they specifically do.

If you want to be an atheist, go for it, but don't pretend randomly formed proteins became a virus until you can prove that in a lab by throwing all the elements required for said proteins, lipids and sugars together and coming up with FIRST, simple proteins, lipids and sugars, and THEN folding the proteins correctly all the way to their quaternary structure, and FINALLY getting them to self assemble and function as a unit in a virus.

Yes, capsids "self assemble" AFTER some ribosome and a chaperonin built them and folded them. There is, as you know, NOTHING random about how ribosomes or chaperonins function.

You have not convinced me that viruses, never mind the viroids in your "RNA world" hypothesis, existed before prokaryotes. However, I enjoy your lectures and plan to wath them all. You are an excellent teacher. I have several videos of yours to watch, since I'm only at number 10, but I'm an old man with lots of time. 😊

If you have the time please watch this video from an expert in protein synthesis.

👨‍🔬 James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained



« Last Edit: May 07, 2020, 03:38:11 pm by AGelbert »
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

 

+-Recent Topics

Future Earth by AGelbert
March 30, 2022, 12:39:42 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
March 29, 2022, 08:20:56 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
March 28, 2022, 01:12:42 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
March 27, 2022, 02:27:28 pm

Heat Pumps by AGelbert
March 26, 2022, 03:54:43 pm

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 02:04:23 pm

The Koch Brothers Exposed! by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 01:26:11 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 12:46:08 pm

Books and Audio Books that may interest you 🧐 by AGelbert
March 24, 2022, 04:28:56 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
March 23, 2022, 12:14:36 pm