Perguntas ....

///// use bbcode, for message boards. 
Bold Text: Use ... to make the text bold.
Italic Text: Use ... to italicize the text.
Subscript Text: Use _... to create subscript text.
Superscript Text: Use ^... to create superscript text.
E = mc².
The quadratic formula is: [math]x = \frac{{-b \pm \sqrt{{b^2 - 4ac}}}}{{2a}}[/math]
This is H₂O.



use Unicode characters for subscripts, superscripts, and mathematical symbols. 



//// format the list in this format:

References

Levine, M., & Davidson, E.H. (2005). Gene regulatory networks for development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(14), 4936-4942. Link. (This paper discusses the complex regulatory networks governing gene expression during development.)
Tomancak, P., Berman, B.P., Beaton, A., Weiszmann, R., Kwan, E., Hartenstein, V., ... & Rubin, G.M. (2007). Global analysis of patterns of gene expression during Drosophila embryogenesis. Genome Biology, 8(7), R145. Link. (Using Drosophila as a model, this work delves into the intricacies of gene expression at different stages of embryonic development.)

Genetic Components Essential for Spatiotemporal Gene Regulation

Davidson, E.H. (2010). Emerging properties of animal gene regulatory networks. Nature, 468(7326), 911-920. Link. (This article offers insights into the properties and structure of gene regulatory networks in animals and their role in spatiotemporal gene expression.)
Spitz, F., & Furlong, E.E.M. (2012). Transcription factors: from enhancer binding to developmental control. Nature Reviews Genetics, 13(9), 613-626. Link. (This review focuses on the roles of transcription factors in binding enhancers to regulate spatiotemporal gene expression during development.)


This formatting uses bold text encased in and tags to denote main section headings. Following each bolded heading, there are three bibliographic entries listed:

1) An author name(s) listing
2) The title/publication details
3) A URL link enclosed in [url= and] and [/url] tags

After each bibliographic entry, there is a brief description of the work enclosed in parentheses and periods.

For example:

4. Philosophical reasons why the universe cannot be eternal
Author 1, A., & Author 2, B. (Year). Title of Publication. Publication Details.
http://link.to/publication. (Brief description of the work.)

Author 3, C., Author 4, D., Author 5, E., ..., & Author 10, J. (Year). Title of Publication. Publication Details.
http://link.to/publication. (Brief description of the work.)

This formatting provides a clear structure for organizing references and resources under major section headings, with URLs for easy access to the publications and concise descriptions summarizing the relevance or focus of each work.


This book is a free gift for you. I am the author: 
From Forensics to Faith: The Shroud of Turin's History and Authenticity Under Scrutiny

You can download the book from this link.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bHBtV4x0fBsrRHwZumIt0W_IdrlYNuLJ/view?usp=drive_link

alternative download link: https://ln5.sync.com/dl/420a28fc0/374ndrcx-rc5jawgj-vzvtps4n-8mksf7ru

You can share it in your country, on Whatsapp, with friends, your church, pastor, etc., but please not here on Facebook, since i also sell the book on Amazon.

Here is another link where you can download  Children Bibles, also free of charge. This link, you can share it anywhere.
https://mega.nz/folder/BmJi0bAC#HvX4oPLOsbXmVBg7Pp0LuA

Blessings.

/// format like this, in bbcode:

1. Gravitational Constant (G): Determines the strength of the gravitational force. Slight variations could prevent the formation of stars and galaxies or make them too unstable.
2. Cosmological Constant (ΛΛ): Affects the expansion rate of the universe. Too large, and the universe would expand too quickly for structures to form; too small, and the universe might collapse too soon.





//// pack the  information into a write-up for a book. don't make points, but write it in a fluent manner, good to read, easy to comprehend also for the laymen, do not shorten the text, keep it detailed and comprehensive. write from the perspective of a proponent of creationism, and intelligent design ( without saying it), just do it. avoid words like  tapestry, and do not use any words too repeatedly.  Do not write several sentences repeating how the evidence points to design. Just present the evidence, that favors a design perspective, not evolution. Group the text in the following fashion: When constructing your text, please organize it into distinct sections or paragraphs. never use evolution as a proposed mechanism explaining the phenomena. Mention evolution only in the context of disproving it. never claim that  life embarked on its journey from simplicity to complexity, but that it was created , each of its kind, by the guiding hand of a creator, or intelligent designer. Say it implicitly, and deny evolution.  pressupose that life in all its biodiversity was created in the six day creation week, as described in Genesis, and not slowly , over time. Write from that viewpoint ( without explicitly saying it) 

 After each major point or thematic section, insert a space by skipping a line. do it with a regularity of text blocks containing about 200 - 250 words. ////


/// tranlsate above, writing first the english sentence, then the same sentence, translated to urdo. then you write the next sentence in english, and then translate to urdu, and so forth. the whole text





ڈاؤن لوڈ کے لیے مفت: فرانزک سے لے کر ایمان تک: دی شراؤڈ آف ٹورن کی تاریخ اور صداقت کی جانچ پڑتال کے تحت
https://mega.nz/file/drhDjIDC#8MNTr2T1PDI7w0eRggGKIN7SQoiOFDr1jqp5IqSkSxE

Confirmando Yeshua
https://ln5.sync.com/dl/986326860/7ye64qu2-8aw5cncu-2wanqksw-t6yr8r59

Sudário de Turim, apresentação powerfpoint:
https://ln5.sync.com/dl/a436c7be0/cne3bdwn-dfupcbjv-fn2xnswj-kfa3ywee

Confirming Yeshua , Volume 1
https://ln5.sync.com/dl/b9b883f10/g6s86hfw-ztrzm76y-irtivten-iyqzms22

Confirming Yeshua, Volume 2
https://ln5.sync.com/dl/1effebfc0/2vqnauwr-kayjg59s-cg56mamr-djaeavij

Divine Verses
https://ln5.sync.com/dl/e77c9fa70/d7ajfeei-dgr3txpq-2rhg5s9g-rccj8xrk



1
00:00:00.500 --> 00:01:59.000

//// rewrite better, more detailed, extended, a scientifically and historically accurate description of the events, including medical, without directly referencing the original narrative. Do not shorten anything.




Synergy: The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.
Holism: The idea that systems (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic) and their properties should be viewed as wholes, not just as a collection of parts.
Emergent Properties: Properties which arise from the collaborative functioning of a system, but do not belong to any one part of that system.
Functional Integration: How different components of a system come together to produce a particular function or outcome.
Systemic Complexity: Complexity that arises from the interaction of components within a system.
Cohesion: The action or property of like molecules sticking together, being mutually attractive.
Symbiosis: Interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both.

//// Channel your inner snarky comedian and give me a cheeky science paper sprinkled with satire. I want to laugh and think at the same time. Focus on arguing for an intelligent design, and creationism,  but do it with a wink and a nod! Can you provide a detailed response, and a bit more lengthy one? write light-hearted, humorous, funny, critical, and enlightening, making a clear point, that refutes naturalistic beliefs, and points to a creator God, a powerful intelligent designer, arguing from an intelligent design/creationism proponent perspective.


 write a narrative, a story, full of slapsticks, which ends with a clear moral of the story, that shows how belief in God is rational, and there is no plausible alternative.


Historical Figure's Perspective: "ChatGPT, imagine if Mark Twain had written a science paper on intelligent design. Can you give me his take?"
Science Fiction/Fantasy: "ChatGPT, give me a science paper on intelligent design as if it's an excerpt from a sci-fi novel, complete with futuristic jargon and all."
Shakespearean Prose: "Write me a monologue on intelligent design as if Shakespeare himself pondered upon it."
Dramatic Reading: "Imagine you're narrating a documentary on intelligent design, with all the dramatic pauses, intonations, and suspenseful revelations."
Rap Battle: "ChatGPT, write a rap verse championing the ideas of intelligent design, and then another one defending naturalistic beliefs. Let them duke it out!"
Fairy Tale Spin: "Tell me a fairy tale where the main moral of the story is the concept of intelligent design."
Infomercial Style: "You're a TV salesman, and you're trying to sell the concept of intelligent design to your audience. Go!"
Dialogue between Unlikely Characters: "Imagine a conversation between Sherlock Holmes and Captain Jack Sparrow on the topic of intelligent design. Let's hear it!"
Rhyme or Poem: "Write a playful poem or limerick that captures the essence of intelligent design."
Tabloid News: "Give me a sensational tabloid headline and story as if intelligent design was the latest celebrity gossip."

Robin Williams: Fast-paced, manic energy with a blend of impressions.
George Carlin: Insightful, critical, and often revolving around social commentary.
Mitch Hedberg: One-liners and deadpan delivery.
Ellen DeGeneres: Friendly, observational humor with a relatable touch.
Richard Pryor: Narrative humor, often touching on personal experiences and racial issues.
Chris Rock: Bold, straightforward, and often touching on racial and societal topics.
John Mulaney: Clean, observational humor with a storytelling style.
Tina Fey: Witty, sarcastic, and often touching on feminism and social quirks.
Eddie Izzard: Intellectual, surreal, and often sprinkled with historical and linguistic jokes.
Ricky Gervais: Dark, controversial, and self-deprecating.






Functionally integrated
evidence for polyphyly, universal multiple ancestry
cognitive agent.
a goal directed process
powerful molecular control networks guaranteeing its functional coherence.
e invariance of the  cell's basic chemical scheme-these obviously can be  explained only by the extreme coherence of the teleonomic system
integrated complexity
hopeless situation
confirmatory evidence
tiny, intricately constructed molecular machines
life’s molecular workforce, proteomes
arranged in cooperative systems
The answer to all these questions is a resounding no.
autonomous cells.
torturing logic
first self-reproducing biological entity.
coalescing
grim
organized everything
how did the universe get here?
exquisite design details down to the atomic level.
Information only arises in an intellect, it is CARRIED on mediums such as DNA, book script, computer texts, but wipe that out and the only way to retrieve the information is through a mind, intellect - re-imposing the information into a carrier or medium.
ubiquitous discontinuities
pulses or infusions of new information from outside the system
artifact hypothesis
nonbiological source
complex specified patterns
infinitesimal
ATGC quartet
adios, evolution.
biologically disastrous
carefully crafted solutions
carefully planned inventions
chemical architecture
crucial reaction
could not come one after the other
could make it work
crucial selective criteria
crucial-for-life reason for this amazing chemical trick.
dauntingly improbable
engineering marvel
engineering cleverness
example of high technology
exquisite balance
exquisite interplay
exquisitely designed biomolecules
exquisitely engineered molecular arrangement
exquisite molecular machines
“Fantastic Four”
finely engineered
hallmark of foresight and sound engineering
How did this perfect, molecular wonder form without anything telling it to?
have to be in place at the same time
highly intricate network
incredible process
indication of the planning involved
If only one exists without the other, no cell at all
ingenious solutions
ingeniously crafted devices
It’s make or break
it’s far and away the best
large multimolecular machines
let’s reason through the claim
life’s long-term storehouse of genetic information
making, finding, and specifically selecting this particular and life-essential
many orders of magnitude
masterful information-storage molecule
miniaturized technology
molecular architecture
must also be incredible
purely blind chemical forces have accomplished this challenging
putting it mildly
ready to go in the very first organism
wonderful array
wonder of engineering finesse
wonderful chemical trick!
striking solutions
superb atmosphere
superb for the job they have
perfectly suited
perfect link to construct
set of problems that had to be solved and implemented virtually simultaneously,
this stability control for both DNA and RNA had to be anticipated ahead of time and the solution provided with just-in-time delivery
to drive home the point
very elegant and ingenious process
“were born” to make
which came first, the DNA or the correction machinery?
dictated
by a finely tuned intramolecular ballet. This synchronized ballet
unanimate
super-intelligent ultra-design.
ATGC quartet
adios, evolution.
biologically disastrous
carefully crafted solutions
carefully planned inventions
chemical architecture
crucial reaction
could not come one after the other
could make it work
crucial selective criteria
crucial-for-life reason for this amazing chemical trick.
dauntingly improbable
engineering marvel
engineering cleverness
example of high technology
exquisite balance
exquisite interplay
exquisitely designed biomolecules
exquisitely engineered molecular arrangement
exquisite molecular machines
“Fantastic Four”
finely engineered
hallmark of foresight and sound engineering
How did this perfect,  molecular wonder form without anything telling it to?
have to be in place at the same time
highly intricate network
incredible process
indication of the planning involved
If only one exists without the other, no cell at all
incredible bioengineering
ingenious solutions
ingeniously crafted devices
It’s make or break
it’s far and away the best
large multimolecular machines
let’s reason through the claim
life’s long-term storehouse of genetic information
making, finding, and specifically selecting this particular and life-essential
many orders of magnitude
mastery
masterful information-storage molecule
miniaturized technology
molecular architecture
must also be incredible
purely blind chemical forces have accomplished this challenging
putting it mildly
ready to go in the very first organism
wonderful array
wonder of engineering finesse
wonderful chemical trick!
striking solutions
superb atmosphere
superb for the job they have
perfectly suited
perfect link to construct
set of problems that had to be solved and implemented virtually simultaneously,
this stability control for both DNA and RNA had to be anticipated ahead of time and the solution provided with just-in-time delivery
to drive home the point
very elegant and ingenious process
“were born” to make
which came first, the DNA or the correction machinery?


When you see a blueprint of a complex factory, and the factory made accordingly to the blueprint, but have no information about the origin of both, do you think and infer that rather both, the blueprint, and the factory, were invented, designed, and implemented by intelligence, or not? what makes more sense?

if you see a book, and in the book you see the picture of a blueprint specifying how to make a complex factory with 500 machines, and on the next pages, you see the factory built based on the precise specifications of that blueprint,  but the book gives no information whatsoever how, and when the project was made, nor how the factory came to be, do you know immediately that both, the blueprint, and the factory, were created by intelligent beings, or would you rather doubt that trial and errors of ink splashing on a paper made the blueprint by a lucky accident, and luck created an information transmission system and translation into another language, and for some unknown reasons, weather, wind, random forces were able to decode the blueprint and brought the 500 machines, and factory for specific purposes together ? 

Are blueprints always the result of intelligence? Yes or No? 
If chance can't create a blueprint to create a factory,  can it make a blueprint to make life?
If lucky accidents can't create instructions to create a machine, luck can't make a blueprint to create life. Is that not evidence of Gods existence? hah
If I say I have no money in my wallet after I checked, is that and information based on ignorance, or knowledge? 
If you dismiss the argument of specified complexity and irreducible complexity, do you dismiss it based on your understanding of them, or just because you do not want them to be true, because they would point to God? 

Do you WANT there to be no God, or would you be fine or happy if you would find sufficient reasons to infer his existence as best explanation? 
Are you HONEST about finding the best case-adequate explanation of our existence based on a solid epistemological method?
If Christ is the Lord, which I very much believe, then your belief or disbelief does not change that. Your position is only relevant in regards to yourself, and what will be your destiny. If he is God, and you do not believe, your sins will remain, and you will pay yourself for them. 
The way to find truth about origins is to find out, either if there is a God, an intelligent creator, or not. Either there is a God, or not. These are the two possible explanations, this is the framework to work with, and within these two options to find the best explanation. 
When weak atheists try to argue that they just do not believe in claims made by theists, until the burden of proof is met, they want to have an advantage right from the beginning. At this point, one side has to sweat to make a case, while the other side has an easy play to be the judge, without the burden of proof to provide evidence why the "no-God hypothesis" is valid.  
If non-design is highly improbable, then design is highly probable.  Thus, the evidence against non-design (against the production of a feature by undirected natural process) is evidence for design.  And vice versa. 
Why is the burden of proof not on both sides? The one claiming there is no evidence of Gods existence, as much as of the one that claims that there is no evidence that we can exist without God.
The method of detection is to observe if there are past signs of intelligent creation of the natural world.
We cannot start from the presupposition that nature is natural, aka not created - that what we want to find out.

If God would undeniably prove his existence to you, and you would have the choice of accepting and following him, would you accept it, or not?
If you say no, why do you ask that believers provide unmistaken evidence of his existence?
Could it be, that the arguments that have been provided, ARE sound, and God does indeed exist, and you are just self-delusional?
You are for twenty years arguing questioning, and denying that there is evidence of God. What good have you done based on your disbelief in God, and this whole venture, that believers have not done?

The constant affirmation that there is no evidence of Gods existence does not make the assertion truer. 
Do you think you are biased?
Do you want to find the truth? Is that your concern? Are you willing to permit the evidence to lead wherever it is?
Most atheists disbelieve in God, and just keep what they do not believe for themselves. Why make a fuzz about what you don't believe? Why not search for yourself for evidence?
Why a Radio program for this, with the apparent satisfaction when you can justify the unjustifiable?
Are you just looking actively to find reasons to disprove Gods existence, or have you ever tried to find reasons by yourself either a) to conclude God as the better explanation than naturalism, or b) ever tried to disprove naturalism?
Are you asking for evidence, because you do want to find evidence, or are you doing your best to deny at all costs whatever arguments theists come up with, no matter what?
If someone would provide undeniable evidence ( not proof )  that leads clearly to an intelligent designer as a better explanation than none, would you acknowledge it?





- Overall description
- function
- structure
- classes
- mechanism and reaction
- biosynthesis
- regulation
- repair
- origin and evolution

Is it ethical, when you interrupt a caller constantly and do not permit him to finish his point, and at the same time, speak for minutes, and if the caller interrupts you, you scream at him and tell him not to interrupt you?

BOUGHT, PURCHASED, RANSOMED & REDEEMED
For you were BOUGHT at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's.
1 Corinthians 6:20
Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He PURCHASED with His own blood.
Acts 20:28
"...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a RANSOM for many."
Matthew 20:28
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a RANSOM for all, to be testified in due time,
1 Timothy 2:5-6
knowing that you were not REDEEMED with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
1 Peter 1:18-19
These are all terms used to describe a financial transaction.
When you complete a transaction at the store the cashier gives you a piece of paper that describes the details of the price paid
It's called a 'receipt'.

speaks, writes, remarks, informs, comments, tells, reflects, notes, states, notices, mentions, perceives, remarks, talks about, discusses, explains, expresses, conveys, reports, describes, details, points out,

agua e energia não está instalada agora, até quando vai ser feito essa instalão

mostrar o objeto do contrato

protocolo coelba e embasa documento direito de eles acompanhar

fazer um termo  compromisso projeto servicos datas responsabilidades

http://www.noonsite.com/General/CruisersWebsites/portrait-of-a-cruiser-eric-leslie-bryce-and-trent-rigney

For wind vane we use Windpilot Pacific. Works beautifully and has a very small foot print on your transom. Would not do any ocean passage with autopilot only.
Victron solar panels with blue solar MPPT chargers including blue tooth monitoring via app in phone is what we use as well. Brilliant.
For wind generator D400 is the sh...
Beautiful boat by the way

Garmin Inreach Explorer+
https://www.amazon.com/Garmin-010-01735-10-Inreach-Explorer/dp/B01MY03CZP  $449.99

B&G Vulcan 9 multifunction display with a tritton wind instrument at the mast and a NEMA 2000 network starter kit.

Cruise RO Water & Power De-salineator $5250
http://www.cruiserowaterandpower.com/30_GPH_Water_Maker_2.html

or

KATADYN POWERSURVIVOR 80E/12 V
https://www.katadyn.com/us/us/151-8013441-katadyn-powersurvivor-80e-12-v

http://www.noonsite.com/General/CruisersWebsites/portrait-of-a-cruiser-phil-and-yvonne-chapman
I would prefer a 12 volt water maker and more solar panels rather than a diesel genset.

ECLECTIC ENERGY D400 WIND GENERATOR Our Price: $2,299.00
https://www.energyonthehook.com/Eclectic-Energy-D400-Wind-Generator-p/ecld400.htm

B&G 4G Broadband Radar For Zeus With 20M Cable $1,999.00
https://www.bandg.com/bg/type/radar/

Raymarine AIS700 transceiver  us$ 1000,00
http://www.raymarine.com/ais/ais700/

SailMail
Universal email for cruisers: all devices, all oceans.
https://sailmail.com/78/

nylon light air sails

Lofrans winch, remote controlled. Also from the wheel

Racor 2020SM 2020 2 Micron Diesel Fuel Filter QTY 12
https://www.amazon.com/Racor-2020SM-Micron-Diesel-Filter/dp/B002ISD95U

Iridium 9575 Extreme Satellite Phone $1,150.00
https://www.iridium.com/products/iridium-extreme/

Basic medical kit including broad spectrum antibiotics-take a class in how to use it.

YAMAHA EF2000ISV2 CAMO 2000 WATT INVERTER GENERATOR  
https://www.yamahagenerators.com/EF2000iSv2-CAMO-p/EF2000iSv2-CAMO.htm?gclid=Cj0KCQjwtOLVBRCZARIsADPLtJ0lYpw91lZDrs4EIObsK6BHhk9iYpzvAA34OiNVwQoll6Y9FNgldPYaAkzYEALw_wcB

or

https://www.homedepot.com/p/Honda-2-000-Watt-Super-Quiet-Gasoline-Powered-Portable-Inverter-Generator-with-Eco-Throttle-and-Oil-Alert-EU2000T1A1/206055241

B&G Vulcan 9 FS 9" Multifunction Display 1,399.00
https://www.amazon.com/Triton-Speed-Depth-Wind-000-13299-001/dp/B01M696Y7R

or:

B&G Triton Speed/Depth/Wind Package $1,399.00
https://www.starmarinedepot.com/b%26g-triton-speed%2Fdepth%2Fwind-package.html

Lowrance NMEA Network Starter Kit NOW: $70.00
https://www.chsmith.com.au/Products/Lowrance-NMEA-Network-Starter-Kit.html

10 Must Have Boat Gadgets for Sailing and Travel 2018
http://www.growingapair.co.uk/must-have-boat-gadgets/

Suggested Cruising Gear
https://www.westmarine.com/WestAdvisor/Suggested-Cruising-Gear

http://www.leesails.com/sailspecs.htm

Swellpro Splash 3 Drone $1,700
https://www.swellpro.com/waterproof-splash-drone-3-auto.html

Life Raft (Priority) Price Range: $3,000 to $7,000
Viking, Revere or Survivetec

Grab Bag (Priority)Price Range: $50 to $100
Suggested contents for the grab bag include: EPIRB, SOLAS flares, watermaker, fishing kit, waterproof handheld VHF radio, spare battery pack, medical kit, space blankets, signaling mirror, several flashlights.

406 MHz EPIRB (Priority) Price Range: $500 (PLB) to $1,300 (EPIRB with GPS)
An EPIRB (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon) is a small radio transmitter that is connected to a global satellite network and used worldwide to alert Search and Rescue agencies in a dire emergency, such as when your boat is sinking. A 406 MHz EPIRB is one of the most effective and important safety items that a cruiser can purchase. We recommend upgrading to a model that has a built-in GPS so that your position is instantaneously transmitted to rescue agencies. An option is to use a PLB, or Personal Locator Beacon, but you will sacrifice battery life (24 hours vs. 48 hours) and PLBs won’t float in an upright position. Keep it in the grab bag, unless you can afford the luxury of having a Category 2 in the life raft, and a Category 1 or 2 on the vessel.

Flares (Pyrotechnics) (Priority) Price Range: $60 Rocket Red Parachute Flares $60 Orange Smoke Flares $22 Red Hand Flares
Ocean-going boats need SOLAS grade signals. We recommend having parity between handheld red and rocket parachute flares, and six of each is a reasonable inventory. Add two orange smoke canisters for daytime signaling. Consider storing one orange smoke in the cockpit where it can be used as a COB (crew overboard) signal during the day. Useful life is a decade if kept relatively dry. Store in your Grab Bag.

Note that the need for pyrotechnics is reduced by the increased use of EPIRBs and other communication devices. SOLAS flares are powerful signals, and they must be used with caution.

Emergency Watermaker (Priority) Price Range: $250 - $1,000
While a 406 EPIRB will improve your chances of a quick rescue, we still recommend that you augment any life raft water with a Katadyn Survivor 06 watermaker.

Handheld VHF Radio (Priority) Price Range: $100 to $400
Handheld VHF radios are a good backup to the ship’s VHF radio, since they are independent of the ship’s antenna and DC system. We think that you should carry one in your Grab Bag equipped with a waterproof bag and alkaline batteries for life raft communications as well. Recommended models include the West Marine and Standard Horizon ranges of products. Some models float when dropped overboard, and several include an integral GPS receiver, with full Digital Selective Calling (DSC) safety features.

Radar Reflector (Priority) Price Range: $55 to $600
Radar reflectors vary widely in their performance. Best in our tests have been large (12" diameter) octahedral reflectors like the Davis Echomaster.
https://www.davisnet.com/product/echomaster-radar-reflector/

Portable Fire Extinguishers (Priority) Price Range: $25 to $500
Portable extinguishers should be mounted in every cabin to allow crew to escape from below and in a cockpit locker so fires can be fought from above.

Collision Mat (Priority) Price Range: $150
A collision mat is a temporary fabric patch that can be maneuvered over a hole in the hull. Much more effective than trying to stop water from the inside, where cabinetry and bulkheads can make access very difficult.
http://www.landfallnavigation.com/collisionmat.html

Lifesling (Priority) Price Range: $125 to $270

Throwable PFD (Priority) Price Range: $55 to $160 (Mustang Rescue Stick)

Masthead Tricolor Light, Sailboat Only (Priority) Price Range: $100 to $250

Battery Operated Portable Spotlight (Priority) Price Range: $25 to $150

Ship’s Medical Kit (Priority) Price Range: $100 to $700
West Marine Medical Kits are made by Adventure Medical Kits, a respected outdoor supplier, and they come with a great instructional manual called Marine Medicine, Vol. 2 We’d include common painkillers, bandages, sunscreen, tweezers, etc. This will keep your crew from rummaging around in your neatly organized Ship’s Medical Kit.

Inflatable Life Jackets (Priority) Price Range: $200-$300 Inflatable with harness
Inflatable offshore vests will provide the greatest performance in the water, and will be comfortable to wear. When integrated with harnesses, you have a single piece of gear that provides nearly all the safety gear you need on deck. Add equipment listed below under Personal Location Items.

Barometer (Priority) Price Range: $30 to $300
A mechanical or electronic barometer is still one of the best weather prediction devices. Modern desk models with solid-state sensors appear accurate, and store up to 24 hours of readings, with a resolution of 1mB. We’d recommend a backup device, whether mechanical or electronic.

Bosun's Chair (Priority)
Price Range: $150 to $200

Sooner or later, you'll have to go up the rig (or pay someone to do it for you). A big, comfortable chair with a deep cushion and large pockets with lanyards is a good idea. Best is Spinlock Deckware Mast Pro at $175. Climbing harnesses can also be used, and provide excellent security and mobility, but they lack sufficient padding to be comfortable for extended periods. Prices are reasonable ($40 to $80 or so), but you should have some training in their use before going aloft. In particular, they use a buckle design that must be closed correctly.

Batteries
LiFePO4 batteries
Chuck Lanter We're about to head out for a few months with our complete new charging system fully functional. (Knock on wood.) It's six Firefly carbon foam batteries, Balmar 60 series 150 amp alternators on each engine controlled through Balmar 614 regulators and Centerfielder, and Blue Seas ML-ACRs distributing the charge through the three banks. Last year we spent a month with the batteries and really liked them, but we were comparing them to ten year old 4D AGMs and the charging system wasn't optimized. My goal was to find a solution that wasn't as expensive as a Lithium solution, that's a little less bleeding edge with regard to design and control, was built with components that are well understood and commonly used, and would still give superior performance. Multiple excellent reviews for the Fireflys from respected industry reviewers lead me to this solution after more than a year of research. There will be a lot of tweaking in coming weeks, but hopefully in the end it the goal will be met.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvOwFBxmT44&t=869s

I'm excited for you and look forward to your feedback. As I mentioned above, myself and many others feel Firefly's are the best option below LifePO4. I've downloaded all the tests (including Nigel's)...datasheets and found a new acquaintance Jeff Cote, owner of Pacific Yacht System's who agree it IS the battery to go to (unless you have the money for LifePO4 of course). Cat, here is a good video Jeff put out about batteries this year

solar charger controller
Victron inverter chargers
Balmar regulator alternators

No battery should be installed in the engine room, whether lead acid or lithium or other due to the increased temperature in the engine room.
https://catamaranimpi.com/2018/03/23/1-year-on-lithium-iron-phosphate-batteries-on-impi-a-revolution-in-lifestyle/
http://cat-impi.blogspot.com.br/2017/12/battery-talk-over-beer.html
http://psyberspace.com.au/lithium.html
http://svreach.com/boat-blog/lifepo4-bank-installation.html
https://www.ev-power.eu/blog/Installation-diagrams/Using-the-LiFePO4-batteries-for-off-grid-solutions.html

http://www.go-aliant.com/lithium/index.php/en/
https://relionbattery.com/

LiFePO4 EV Power
375 Ah pack
400Ah pack
Cost for bank in 2016/17
$3,200 Weight 52kg
Cycles 2000
Battery Management System $484
GST $369
Transport $405
Total cost $4,458

Cost per cycle $2.23

Battery Management System (BMS)

AC charging system (220V) namely generator and shore power and a DC charging system (12V)

RAD power bikes:
https://www.radpowerbikes.com/products/radmini-electric-folding-fat-bike?variant=5032656896031

Efoy fuel cells
http://volt-at-sea.segelnblogs.de/2017/09/04/es-werde-strom/

https://hatchdorade.com/








you can join and introduce it to my Facebook group, and expose your needs, and prayer requests.

Hopeline.org :

https://www.facebook.com/groups/460666637413505/

This group has the goal to help Christians to meet evangelical ministers, missionaries, and Bible school students all around the world, in order to be able to help them with prayer, the ability to raise their financial support to help with their overall spiritual growth with Jesus Christ, etc.

Be blessed in Jesus name

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

Hi
i just started a Facebook group: YouTube sailing channels
https://www.facebook.com/groups/984932218324426/
It intends to give a space for everyone to discuss, chat and share information on your favoured sailing and liveaboard channels on YouTube, and general Liveaboard and sailing experience. Members that have a Sailing YouTube Channel, can introduce it, and post when they release a new video and share their experiences. Members can also post any topic which is sailing and liveaboard related.  Let's create an entertaining and information-rich community.

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

Do you know, that all you do, is victimizing yourself?

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

You are a liar, a scammer, and a thief. Shame on you. You want to victimize me. But God is using me to tell you: REPENT, before its too late.

How you can get Saved!
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2501-how-you-can-get-saved




Hello, nice to meet you. You can join and introduce yourself or your ministry at my Facebook group, and expose your needs, and prayer requests.

Hopeline.org :

https://www.facebook.com/groups/460666637413505/

This group has the goal to help Christians to meet evangelical ministers, missionaries, and Bible school students all around the world, in order to be able to help them with prayer, the ability to raise their financial support to help with their overall spiritual growth with Jesus Christ, etc.

Be blessed in Jesus name


Discussions of boaters are often about the difference either to live a " normal " life, with a job, family, home, dog and everything else or on a boat, closer to nature. Traveling, adventure, experiencing different cultures, people, tastes of food etc. - look from a deeper philosophical perspective: What difference does it make? The life experiences, the challenges, the joyful moments etc. They are different. Ok. But: So what? Many that dream to change lifestyle, think that by doing so, they will find something that they don't have. Something deeper inside them that is missing. What might be the meaning of life? I think it makes no difference, how, and where you live to answer such questions, deeper epistemological issues are not solved by changing lifestyle. They are solved by doing a theological, philosophical, and scientific  research, which englobes and includes questions our origins, and especially trying to find good answers, and arrive at sound conclusions in regards of the question of where we came from: - Either we are alone here without a superior being that made us, being the result of unguided, random natural lucky events that happened in the past, or we were ultimately caused into being by the will of a creative force or agency. If the first is the case, our life has ultimately no meaning and we can live however we want, and our inner existential emptiness has good reasons to be. But if God created us, he had a reason to do so. Then, it makes sense to ask, what was Gods goal to make us, and once this is answered, we might also adapt to meet that goal, and find meaning in our lives, and meeting the expectations of that said creator, and find inner peace. Once this is settled, its well worth to change life, like embarking in the sailing or other kind of alternative, adventurous life, if somebody can afford it - more adventure, the freedom, close to nature, and similar sort of things add certainly to life quality, and are valid to be pursued - once - set into the right context and expectations of what that kind of life-change can provide.  



A organização básica de células. (a) uma célula bacteriana. O exemplo aqui mostrado é típico de uma bactéria tal como a Escherichia coli,
que tem uma membrana exterior. (b) uma célula eucariótica. O exemplo mostrado aqui é uma célula animal típica.

A célula é a unidade básica na biologia. Cada organismo, quer consiste em células ou  ela é uma célula única. O avanço desde 1953 com a descoberta da estrutura da hélice dupla do DNA por Francis e Crick nos permitiu  compreender melhor como as células são construídas, a genética, e as funções que exercem para permitir a vida. Todas elas condividem o mesmo maquinário e sistema informativo para as funções mais básicas. A vida muda externamente, mas internamente fundamentalmente é similar em todos os organismos. Mediante o estudo e a compreensão das células, suas estruturas e funções  podemos apreciar a engenhosidade espetacular de como são feitas, e nos emocionar com este mundo fascinante. Particularmente importante é a natureza dinâmica da célula, que tem a capacidade de crescer, reproduzir, e tornar-se especializada e também a capacidade de responder a estímulos e se adaptar às mudanças no seu ambiente. A convergência da citologia ( estudo das células), genética e bioquímica fez da biologia celular moderna uma das mais emocionantes  disciplinas dinâmicas em toda a biologia. Não só isso. Este conhecimento nos permite levantar questões sobre as possibilidades e probabilidades da vida ser explicada melhor mediante meras reações químicas naturais aleatórias ou evolutivas, ou se um projeto é mais provável. Nós iremos tentar providenciar respostas também a estas questões. Se este texto ajuda você a apreciar as maravilhas e diversidade das funções celulares e o ajuda a experimentar a emoção de descoberta, e ajudar a certeza de que um criador extraordinariamente inteligente e poderoso existe, e foi o responsável para a criação do universo e da vida em especial, um dos nossos principais objetivos ao escrever este livro  terá sido cumprido.

Photosynthesis wrote:

"Odds? It's impossible to calculate the odds for abiogenesis Otangelo."

Agreed. We will never have a precise number. But a aproximation is enough. According to Koonin, at his paper "How Many Genes Can Make a Cell: The Minimal-Gene-Set Concept", he gives a figure of a minimal gene set of 250 genes. Another paper, Determination of the Core of a Minimal Bacterial Gene Set, estimates a minimal number of 206 genes. Isn't it remarkable how mainstream science admits irreducible complexity? You can't have a working cell with less than about 200 genes. Whatever cell you point out or imagine of having the minimal number of Genes, is IC.

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,"

Since evolution only begins with self replication, the mechanism to get life to have a first go had to be either luck, or specific constraints of chemical reactions obliguing them to become alive. Since the genetic code is free of constraints and can form any sequence, it wasn't physical/chemical necessity. The only possible alternative mechanism to ID was chance.

If we put a minimal number of 250 different proteins for the most basic cell, then the chance to get this arrangement would be 10 to the 164th power. That equals to impossible by all means.

So you have two irreducible entities: The minimal requirement of genetic information, and a minimal set of proteins and molecules to get a minimal living cell.

The reason that it is impossible is that nobody knows the factors that have to be taken into account. All "odds" calculations that say it's "impossible" come from creationists holding to some weird assumption.

You forget Harold Urey, Richard Dawkins, Paul Davies, Koonin, Mondore, Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D, Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.,Michael Denton, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, Vaneechoutte and many others, which do not buy into that assertion.

"Nobody studying abiogenesis thinks that the first life form had modern proteins that arose by the random assemblage from a soup of amino-acids."

Uhm.... lol.

What about, you ask Larry to introduce you to basic molecular biology ?

http://news.illinois.edu/news/11/1005LUCA_ManfredoSeufferheld_JamesWhitfield_Caetano_Anolles.html
New evidence suggests that LUCA was a sophisticated organism after all, with a complex structure recognizable as a cell, researchers report. Their study appears in the journal Biology Direct. The study lends support to a hypothesis that LUCA may have been more complex even than the simplest organisms alive today, said James Whitfield, a professor of entomology at Illinois and a co-author on the study.

"That research hasn't solve the problem doesn't mean that anything has been "humiliated," it just means that the riddle is still to be solved."

Ah, sure. And when is design as possible cause permitted into the picture, and when given a serious consideration ? At the day of Saint Never ?!


" I'm leaving alone the fantasies that you believe for now, checking if you might try and understand."

Hohoho!! Sounds as if you are the all wise, almost all knowing, almost God-like Super genious which has figured out the truth, and is waiting for me, poor mortal with limited knowledge, to knee down and listen to your words , follow your lips, as if they express the ultimate wisdom and knowledge ???? Me dá licença !!!

Chris wrote:

You have no evidence IC systems cannot emerge naturally. In the 20+ years since Behe published his IC book, a glorified godofthegaps argument, never once has he conducted a single experiment to demonstrate IC systems cannot evolve. In fact, there is no evidence of this.

You seem to be not well informed :
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_7002560.html
We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.
(Kitzmiller Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108, Nov. 3, 2005, emphasis added)

"And you have never seen a supernatural being intelligently design anything."

We do not need direct observed empirical evidence to infer design. If investigators know that someone was deliberately killed, is their conclusion invalidated because they don't yet know exactly who did it and how?
When a detective arrives at the crime scence, and sees a bullet in the chest of the victim, and no arm nearby that could be a hint to suicide, the detective can with a degree of certainty conclude the victim was shot in the chest and killed. So its a murder crime scence. Same when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design.

"Not at all. As I have already pointed out to you in this thread, I am perfectly willing to consider supernatural explanations. Just provide some empirical evidence."

Haha. Do you have empirical evidence, that natural, aka non intelligent mechanisms can create life ?

"You have no evidence pointing to supernatural intelligent designers."

Check the topic at my library: 125 reasons to believe in God
Pick ANY of them, and privide a better, more compelling explanation based on naturalism, and you have a go. Just one.

1.
Bom dia. Agradeço a Marcos Eberlin, e pelo convite, é um prazer, e uma honra  poder estar aqui com todos voces e compartilhar um pouco sobre a fascinante maquinária da vida. Meu nome é Otangelo Grasso, sou suiço - italiano, mas moro em Aracaju.  

2.
O design inteligente trata em boa parte referente a questão de nossas origens. As respostas e a visão de mundo que adotamos como resultado a estas perguntas são absolutamente críticas para  o nosso pensamento, as decisões que tomamos,  comportamento e vida humana. É o fundamento da nossa existência, e do nosso destino.Sem uma compreensão correta de nossas origens, não há como entender a razão de nossa vida. Não há como entender a origem de nossa terra, nosso universo ou o significado final de coisa alguma. Por isto eventos como este TDI são tão importantes, e espero que possa ser  um marco de edificação para ajudar a fortalecer sua fé. Deus nos deu 2 revelações, para concluirmos sua existencia, e sua identidade. A primeira é a revelação natural, o mundo fisico, que exige uma explicação, e a segunda é a revelação direta e inspirada, as sagradas escrituras. Nosso mundo natural e suas origens são abordadas mediante a ciencia, e a filosofia. E o mundo sobrenatural mediante a Teologia. Ambos, se tratadas da forma correta, convergem para um designer inteligente. 

Como desenhista industrial,  minha atividade na suiça foi elaborar desenhos técnicos para maquinas que eram instaladas em de moinhos para transformar  trigo em farinha de trigo. 

Nestes projetos, precisava informar na planta  todas as medidas das partes individuais das peças das maquinas, materiais e forma, e colocar as instruções de montagem e depois da planta pronta, os documentos eram copiados, o original armazenado, e as cópias iam para a fábrica, e servir como base para os engenheiros mecânicos e trabalhadores  fabricarem  as peças, e monta-las, e assim construindo maquinas complexas. Depois de prontas, estas maquinas eram transportadas para o destino, e  instaladas. Tudo de acordo com as instruções fornecidas pelos projetistas. O moinho não precisava de apenas uma maquina, mas várias, e interligadas para produzir a farinha de trigo. 

A maquinária da vida usa os mesmos principios para construção que nós vamos dar uma olhada agora. 

Há mais de três séculos, o nascimento das ciências modernas foi marcado pela idéia de que a função do corpo é baseado em máquinas orgânicas cujo desempenho pode ser explicado por leis semelhantes às que operam em máquinas feitas pelo homem. No século 17, este conceito foi utilizado não só para explicar funções que, obviamente, refletiam os dispositivos mecânicos (como o movimento esquelético  ou a ação dos músculos). Mas também desde aquela época, o conceito de maquinas biologicas se adotava  para outras operações - digestão, sensação, produção de sangue . Para explicar essas operações mais delicadas, pensou-se que máquinas corporais envolvem pequenos componentes que poderiam escapar à detecção a olho nu. Esta visão derivou, em parte, da ciência clássica grega, que foi defendida por Demócrito de uma visão  que o Universo é composto de átomos. 

3.
Marcello Malpighi, um dos maiores cientistas do século XVII  foi um dos primeiros a atribuir a função do corpo a uma série organizada de minutas 'máquinas orgânicas' . Ele escreveu:

"A natureza, para realizar as maravilhosas operações em animais e plantas, tem tido prazer em construir seus corpos organizados com um número muito grande de máquinas, que são necessariamente constituídas por partes extremamente minúsculas tão formadas e situadas, que formam um órgão maravilhoso, cuja composição geralmente é invisível a olho nu, sem o auxílio do microscópio.

Um belo exemplo que illustra dispositivos mecânicos é um musculo no olho em particular. 

4. 
Observe o Músculo oblíquo superior e a Trochea neste exemplo no olho humano. O interessante é a rodinha. O músculo passa por esta pequena  roda. Isso muda a direção do oblíquo superior. O músculo dá uma volta em  um ângulo agudo. Claramente, a menos que todas as partes diferentes estejam presentes e funcionem corretamente, todo o sistema não funciona. Ninguém iria sugerir que um dispositivo artificial similar com uma função tão específica poderia ter se desenvolvida por uma série longa de mutações acidentais e seleção natural, não importa quanto tempo esperamos. No entanto, isso é o que os proponentes da evolução desejam que acreditemos. e não mencionei o sistema de controle incrivel que orquestra todos os doze músculos oculares, dos quais, se não estivessem todos presentes, seriam inúteis. 

5
A reação de inclinação ocular. 
Quando a cabeça está inclinada para um lado, ambos os olhos rolam na direção oposta para manter uma visão vertical . Esta resposta reflexa  ocorre de forma extremamente rápida , em cerca de 10 milissegundos após a estimulação  na orelha interna. A altura de cada olho é ajustada ao mesmo tempo. Ou seja: O músculo oblíquo superior atua em conjunto com o músculo oblíquo inferior para "manter nossa visão horizontalmente nivelada, independentemente da posição do olho na órbita". A seleção natural de Darwin * não pôde escolher ESTA CONFIGURAÇÃO  pois a rodinha não teria função sem o músculo, e viceversa. Qualquer estágio evolutivo que teria conduzido a esta configuração, antes de qualquer funcionalidade muscular através da fiação, teria tido que progredir por mutações puramente aleatórias, o que teria que modificar todos os tipos de tecido necessários para alcançar essa funcionalidade.

Agora vamos ao nível molecular. 

6
A questão da evolução do olho é emblemática. 
Darwin é freqüentemente citado como vendo o desenvolvimento do olho como uma dificuldade significativa para sua teoria da evolução por seleção natural. Ele escreve em As origens das espécies:

Suponhamos que o olho, com todas as suas invenções inimitáveis ... poderia ter sido formado por seleção natural, parece, eu confesso livremente, absurdo no mais alto grau possível. A razão diz-me que, se diversas gradações de um olho simples e imperfeito para um complexo e perfeito podem ser mostradas de existir ... e se tais variações deveriam ser úteis a qualquer animal ... então a dificuldade de acreditar que um olho complexo e perfeito pode ser formado por seleção natural, não deve ser considerado subversivo da teoria. Como um nervo vem a ser sensível à luz, dificilmente nos preocupa mais do que a própria vida se originou; mas ..... como alguns dos organismos mais baixos ..... são conhecidos por serem sensíveis à luz, não parece impossível que certos elementos ... sejam agregados e desenvolvidos em nervos dotados dessa sensibilidade especial.

Vamos frizar logo, como resposta a Darwin : O olho sozinho não tem função. Ele SEMPRE está conectado a outras partes - até mesmo o olho mais simples conhecido.  

7.
O olho humano, que função tem, se não houver o nervo ótico, que interliga o olho ao cortex cerebral, que consegue decifrar o sinal do olho e transformar em visão na mente ? O olho por si só não tem função nenhuma, e nem as partes individuais dentro do olho, como a lente, os fotoreceptores etc. 

8.
Em 1994, foi publicado um artigo  sobre a evolução dos olhos que se tornou referência. O autor  e começa com a mancha ocular, e, em uma linda linha de imagens, mostra como os olhos poderiam ter evoluído para os olhos complexos da câmera:

Na fase inicial (1), temos a estrutura é um remendo plano de células sensíveis à luz entre uma camada protetora transparente e uma camada de pigmento escuro. E , procede em uma linda sequencia de fases evolutivas.  

Na última frase do artigo,  o autor escreve: "O olho nunca foi uma ameaça real para a teoria da evolução de Darwin".

Agora vem a Pergunta: Por que o autor comecou sua narrativa com um "remendo plano de células sensíveis à luz"? em vez de uma explicação de como tal "remendo" poderia ter evoluído? e para o que serviria, a menos que exista uma função específica, como visão, detecção de luz / sombreamento, ritmo circadiano, etc., que sempre requer outras partes?

9.
Não há nada "simples" até mesmo na mancha ocular: A alga verde Chlamydomonas.  é  alga verde unicelular que nada com dois flagelos, e usa a fotossíntese para prover energia. Ela tem uma mancha ocular tipica.

10. 
A mancha dela tem 202 proteínas diferentes ; e uma estrutura elaborada e uma alta complexidade ultraestrutural. 

11.
A rhodopsina é a primeira proteina na  transdução de sinal no olho. Ela é o peça central na visão. Não há visão sem ela. A menos que a rodopsina se transforme em um sinal e o sinal seja transmitido por uma via de transdução de sinal para promover  o movimento flagelar do organismo, nem a rhodopsina nem as manchas oculares tem qualquer função. Um flagelo não pode girar a célula na direção certa, a menos que obtenha as instruções corretas do olho. 

12.
Estima-se, que em uma única célula destes organismos unicellulares existam  15 milhões de rhodopsinas,  Nos organismos unicelulares, como Chlamydomonas, os olhos distinguem a claridade da luz da sombra, e interligados com o flagelo, ou  se distanciam ou aproximam da luz solar, dependendo de suas necessidades. Este é um sistema interdependente, onde não há função a menos que esteja vinculado ao outro.

13.
Detectar a luz é uma coisa, mas para se deslocar precisa de um sistema motor; que são os flagelos. Mas também é necessário uma conexão, um mecanismo pelo qual a detecção de luz pode ser traduzida em um movimento flagelar, geralmente um fluxo de íons de um tipo ou outro.

O seguinte são os componentes essenciais deste sistema visual:

1. Qualquer organismo fotossensível precisa de um fotorreceptor que detecte a luz.
2  Um ponto de pigmento reduz a iluminação de uma direção, permitindo assim que o organismo reconheçe a direção da luz, e se aproxime ou distancie da luz.
3  Um mecanismo para promover o movimento é essencial. requer um sistema motor; o flagelo
4- Mas também é necessário um mecanismo pelo qual a detecção de luz pode ser traduzida em um movimento flagelar, uma conexão entre a mancha ocular, e o flagelo, geralmente um fluxo de íons ou nível de cálcio. 

Este é um sistema interdependente composto por 4 componentes essenciais, se algum deles faltar, o organismo não pode reagir as variações de iluminação solar. A seleção natural não selecionaria nenhum passo evolutivo intermediário, já que o sistema, com qualquer um dos quatro elementos se faltassem, não conferiria nenhuma função e nenhuma vantagem de sobrevivência.

A coisa se torna mais interessante agora, se analisarmos os componentes individuais : 

13.
A opsina é uma Proteína transmembranar com 7 hélices alpha. O interessante é que não se conhece precursores com menos helices. Elas servem como fotoreceptores sensoriais em algas verdes unicelulares, permitindo a escolha da direção do flagelo, e assim, o movimento em resposta à luz. O que é extraordinário é que a rhodopsina consegue reconhecer apenas um único fóton, a entidade física mais pequena com propriedades quântica, Qualquer detector feito pelo homem precisaria ser resfriado e isolado do ruído para alcançar tal façanha. O olho pode potencialmente ser exposto a uma enorme variedade de intensidades de luz  variando de alguns fótons por segundo sob condições extremas de iluminação fraca para níveis de luz que podem ser mais de 10 bilhões de vezes maiores. Elas permitem que o cromóforo recebe um foton , e a estrutura muda de forma. E como um disjuntor que é ligado.. Mediante esta mudança conformacional, a sexta hélice da opsina faz um movimento, que aciona em seguida toda o transdução de sinal,  e o influxo de cálcio e outros processos celulares, e são o primeiro passo para a alga se orientar. A Rhodopsina consiste em dois componentes: A opsina,  e um cofator que é anexado a ela, chamado retinal. incorporado no meio dos sete domínios transmembranares. Esses domínios formam no meio da estrutura um bolso onde o retinal, que é um cromóforo fotoreativo. 

14.
O autor no artigo : Luz e evolução da visão confessa: Mesmo desde os procariotas, o complexo de sete setores de células transmembranares de moléculas de opsina parece prevalecer sem fotoreceptores mais simples existentes simultaneamente. O enigma original de Darwin sobre a evolução ocular parece agora  estar em um nível molecular.

A origem das células fotorre ceptoras é uma questão de especulação. A história vai mais ou menos assim. Houve uma familia ancestral de proteinas chamadas Receptores acoplados à proteína G que captavam sinais extracelulares e ativavam vias de transdução de sinal no interior da célula. Por uma razão desconhecida, por uma duplicação genética, ocorre que uma proteina dessa adquiriu um cromoforo chamado retinal. Sem que se sabe exatamente como. 












Aqui uma illustração tipica do conto de fadas de como o olho evoluiu. Em 1994, Nilsson e Pelger publicaram um artigo cientifico sobre a evolução do  olho.
Na imagem esquerda, se começa com um Ocelo, ou mancha ocular, que é o olho  mais primitivo. Um grande problema com esses passos morfológicos é que eles não levam em consideração que o nervo ótico , e o cerebro , formam um sistema interdependente, e se o olho e os sinais  mudam,  o cérebro também deve mudar da mesma maneira. Vamos supor que houve uma transição de uma mancha ocular que enxerga branco e preto, e ocorre uma transição para visão de cor, o cerebro tem que acompanhar esta mudança. 

Para ter um entendimento completo dos fatos, porém, tem que ir mais fundo. Não é o suficiente começar o relato de como a evolução mudou o olho passo a passo, com a mancha ocular, e começar a explicar a partir dai. A origem da mancha ocular também precisa ser elucidada. A explicação precisa começar desde o começo, desde de zero.











Se nós pudessemos inventar a mesma sofistifcação em métodos de fabricação, iriamos montar fábricas 100% autonomas, até mesmo a manutenção ficaria por conta delas próprias, e nós iriamos todos só passear na praia, só tomar sól, e usufruindo das nossas invenções. E de fato, a automação e computação estão evoluindo nesta direção. Carros que dirigem sem intervenção humana, robos automatizados em fábricas, robôs como domesticos de casa etc. Quem sabe, um dia até podemos chegar lá ,  e termos maquinas que nos substituem em quase tudo, sem termos só tempo para o lazer. 

Imagina que uma empresa iria anunciar a vaga para um emprego, sem dar maiores informações e explicações de que se trata.  Apenas que o candidato teria que ter muito talento, E o salário seria excepcional. 100 mil reais por mês. Então  Você , todo animado, iria visitar a empresa, e  seria atendido pelo departamento de recursos humanos, e o diretor  lhe informaria que as exigencias para obter o emprego seriam de ter uma educação acadêmica do mais alto nível, obtida nas melhores faculdades do mundo, doutorado e pós graduação em várias áreas,  para exercer as seguintes disciplinas e tarefas:  

3.
experiencia como comandante geral CEO
saber falar 12 idiomas fluentemente, e saber escrever no alphabeto romano, japones kanji, e hanzi Chinês, Koreano, e grego. 
ter doutorado em linguistica
especialista em computação, 
doutor em em física e quimica, 
engenheiro de eletronica,
engenheiro em robôtica e programação de software
engenheiro de embalagem 
engenheiro mecânico, de montagem e fabricação de maquinas complexas, e 
engenheiro em geração de energia, e
coordenador de trânsito,
coordenador de linhas de montagem 
engenheiro  de projeto e instalação de sistemas de  comunicação 
engenheiro de organização, armazenamento de materiais e produtos e estocagem, e
engenheiro em controle de qualidade, e
de reciclagem, e implantação de sistemas de eliminação de resíduos
engenheiro em sistemas de segurança
engenheiro para implantação de metodologias de Implosão de fábricas de forma controlada

depois de ler todas as exigencias, é evidente, que você iria ficar entristecido e desanimado, e dizer para si mesmo : o pessoal desta empresa tá doida. Não existe ninguem com conhecimento avançado em todas essas áreas. Mas para descargo de conciencia, você iria perguntar: Doutor, me diga, e qual seria a função na sua empresa, exigindo todas estas disciplinas e todo este conhecimento ? 

Ele iria reponder : 

Precisamos alguem para implantar uma fábrica com as seguintes caracteristicas  :  

4. 
- invenção e implantação de um software, mais versátil que qualquer programa já inventado, e mais robusto e livre de erros do que qualquer outro sistema de código entre 1 milhão de alternativas - usando um protocolo de comunicação que desperdiça muito menos espaço de qualquer um inventado anteriormente
- o hardware para instalar o software, aonde pode rodar   
- em seguida, usar esse software para programar as instruções complexas  para fabricação de uma fabrica  auto-replicadora. Calculamos que será necessário elaborar a quantidade de informação que cabe em cerca de 1500 livros, cada um com 300 páginas, 300.000,00 caracteres por livro, cada um contendo as instruções complexas precisas  para criar esta fábrica, e precisamos que voce invente o sistema de hard drive,  menor do que o já existente conhecido, e armazene  estas informações nele.
 - elabore sofisticadas maquinas e sistemas de produção e linhas de montagem  com alta robustez, flexibilidade e eficiência, capazes de executar pelo menos 1500 processos em paralelo. As matérias-primas terão que ser  transformadas em produtos finais em uma série de operações. O sistema deverá produzir somente em resposta à demanda real, não em antecipação à demanda prevista, como resultado da superprodução. 
- O sistema também terá que saber usar técnicas de gerenciamento de qualidade, e apto de prevenir  defeitos em vários estágios de seu processo, usando processos de inspeção e assim garantindo qualidade quase 100%, e diminuindo erros de fabricação de 10 bilhões para apenas 1 erro, eliminando todos os outros.  
- A aptidão de reciclagem de maquinas desgastadas. A capacidade de construir rapidamente uma nova linha de produção, assim que houver necessidade, de forma 100% automatizado. O sistema não pode esperar até que alguma máquina falhe, mas tem que ser apto a substitui-la  muito antes de ter uma chance de quebrar. E, em segundo lugar, recicla completamente a máquina que é retirada da produção. Os componentes deste processo de reciclagem também podem ser usados para criar diferentes máquinas de produção. Uma nova capacidade tem que  poder ser instalada rapidamente para atender a novas demandas , também de forma autonoma . Ao mesmo tempo, não poderá haver máquinas inativas ocupando espaço ou acumulando  blocos de construção importantes. A manutenção é um "efeito colateral" positivo do processo contínuo de renovação da máquina. 
- O sistema precisa ser simplificação  ao maximo. 
- terão que ser instalados vários compartimentos na fábrica, e um sistema complexo de comunicação que rege atividades  básicas e coordena varias ações ao mesmo tempo. Terão que ser instaladas  redes de sinalização complexas.  
-  elaboração e construção de paredes que fazem a separação do interior para fora da fábrica para proteção e com portões que permitem entrada e saída de carga, mecanismos de reconhecimento que permitem apenas a carga certa, e levá-lo aos locais específicos corretos e linhas de produção,  e transportadores de carga que possuem marcas que reconhecem onde descartar a carga onde é necessário, limpar o lixo e possuir lixeiras para produtos de reciclagem , departamentos de armazenamento, 
- Implantação de um sistema de produção de energia, e sistemas aptos a  deslocar a energia para onde é necessário, e, por último
- a fabrica tem que ser apta a se auto-replicar. 


depois disso, voçe iria embora entristecido, evidentemente sem a minima condição de implantar algo tão sofisticado sozinho.


4.
Agora imagina que uma pessoa sem instrução nenhuma, analfabeta, mal sabendo escrever o nome direito,  iria aparecer no escritório RH. Vamos chamar dele de Joãozinho. No momento que o empregado da empresa iria começar a exçplicar a tarefa, Joaozinho sem noção iria dizer : O chefão, o salário tá baum, e o que tem que fazer, depois a gente ajeita. De um jeito ou de outro, com um tempinho a mais ou a menos, vamo chega lá, não é mesmo ? e o que não sabemos, vamos aprendendo aos pouquinhos !! Vamos tentar um pouquinho aqui..... um pouquinho ali..... com  sorte, o  que funciona, a gente mantem. O que não funciona, vamos discartando.... agora - o salário é baum... me dá o emprego, por favor !! 


A verdade , que nem voce, nem muito menos o nosso João iria conseguir inventar e instalar esta fábrica. 


A descrição acima é de células biologicas, as fábricas mais avançadas e complexas conhecidas pelo homem. 

Muitos dizem que comparar células biologicas a fábricas é uma analogia. Mas na verdade, células são como uma cidade inteira com milhares de fábricas interligadas por rodovias e mecanismos de comunicação, cada fábrica processando e manufaturando peças especificas convergindo para um proposito único e universal : perpetuar a a vida e a sua espécie.


Você diria que é plausível que eventos aleatórios, não guiados e naturais tenham probabilidade estatística suficiente para criar e dar origem à mais sofisticada fábrica auto-replicante do universo?




Ou seja, nossos oponentes usam dois pesos, e duas medidas. Os ateus preferem debater a evolução darwiniana, por que em qualquer lacuna, sempre podem inserir a evolução.  A questão de como células surgiram na terra primordial, é uma questão da abiogenese, distinta da teoria da evolução, por que evolução só começa uma vez que a célula pode autoreplicar. Então, uma vez que a evolução não é explicação, os únicos dois mecanismos que sobram, se Deus não foi, seriam processos quimicos por mera chance ou sorte, ou necessidade fisica. O que é necessidade fisica ?  Seria, se alguma restrição fisica obrigasse a um curso determinado em reações quimicas. O problema é que da mesma forma alguem pode pegar qualquer uma das 26 letras do alphabeto, e escrever um livro, sem restrições, assim também, a formação de sequencias com nucleotídeos no dna para gerar informação instrucional  é irrestrita. Isto quer dizer, que qualquer sequencia de nucleotideos para formar o codigo genetico é possível. Não há restrição física, portanto, uma vez que a atuação de uma mente escrevendo o código é exclusa, a única alternativa seria mera chance, ou seja, processos aleatórios, não guiados. 

 A maior fonte de energia da terra é o sol, que é o propulsor de toda vida na terra. Esta energia é transformada em energia que organismos biologicos avançados multicellulares transformam e usam para execução dos processos que permitem a se manterem vivos. Uma cadeia interdependente é necessária, aonde vários itens, ou partes nanomoleculares são indispensáveis, entre a energia solar que é transformada em energia quimica,  e ajustes finos entre o sol e a terra para que isto se torne possivel, e isto aponta como causa a um designer inteligente, um criador, que teve  que criar todos estes sistemas com o objetivo claro de tornar vida no planeta terra possível. 


















Mas também desde aquela época, o conceito de maquinas biologicas se adotava  para outras operações - digestão, sensação, fermentação e produção de sangue . Para explicar essas operações mais delicadas, pensou-se que máquinas corporais envolvem pequenos componentes que poderiam escapar à detecção a olho nu. Esta visão derivou, em parte, da ciência clássica grega, que foi defendida por Demócrito de uma visão  que o Universo é composto de átomos.  


Enzimas são grupos de substâncias orgânicas de natureza normalmente proteica ,  que têm funções catalisadoras, catalisando reações químicas que, sem a sua presença, dificilmente aconteceriam, resultando no aumento da velocidade da reação e possibilitando o metabolismo dos seres vivos.

Ficou cada vez mais claro que a função das enzimas depende não apenas da sua composição química elementar, mas também da configuração de seus componentes. Por exemplo, as interações efetivas entre enzimas, substratos e cofatores dependem da disposição espacial dos elementos interagentes. Esta visão levou ao interesse pela estrutura de moléculas complexas. Também foi evidente que a função das enzimas e outras moléculas biológicas poderia ser regulada através de mecanismos de controle específicos.

Com o advento da teoria de Darwin, a importancia das maquinas moleculares para explicar nossas origens ficou para trás. Mas com o avanço cientifico, cada vez mais estas maquinas vieram a tona, e um mundo que na época de Malpighi mal se imaginava. Isto teve também impacto em relação a como explicar nossas origens. 

Michael Behe lançou um livro, a caixa preta de Darwin, aonde revelou algumas dessas maquinas, e como elas poderiam ter surgidas mediante a evolução, é até hoje um mistério, apesar de inúmeras tentativas. Ele escreveu:

Para dizer que alguma função é entendida, todas as etapas relevantes do processo devem ser esclarecidas. As etapas relevantes nos processos biológicos ocorrem, em última análise, no nível molecular, de modo que uma explicação satisfatória de um fenômeno biológico, como visão ou digestão, ou imunidade, deve incluir uma explicação molecular. Já não é suficiente, agora que a caixa preta foi aberta, para uma "explicação evolutiva" desse poder para invocar apenas as estruturas anatômicas dos olhos inteiros, como fez Darwin no século 19 e à medida que os mais popularizadores da evolução continuam fazendo até hoje. Anatomia é, simplesmente, irrelevante. O mesmo é o registro fóssil. Não importa se o registro fóssil é consistente com a teoria evolutiva. O registro fóssil não tem nada para nos dizer, digamos, como a biossintese de clorofila se desenvolveu passo a passo. Tampouco os padrões de biogeografia são importantes, ou de genética populacional, ou as explicações que a teoria evolutiva deu para a abundância rudimentar de órgãos ou espécies.

A melhor explicação da origem das maquinas moleculares
Para poder identificar qual explicação é a mais adequada, precisamos entender que elas  encontram seus equivalentes nos artefatos feitos pelos homens, assim, para entender seu funcionamento, e como são constituidas, cientistas podem fazer uma montagem em reverso, ou seja, pegar a maquina pronta, e dismontar ela em suas subunidades individuais, para entender como são montadas, e forma e constituição das sub-unidades, ou peças individuais. 

Primeiro 
precisamos saber a função ou utilidade. 

Segundo
A constituição e organisação geral

Por exemplo: Segue o diagrama de uma turbina hidraulica á esquerda, feita pelo pelo homem, e na direita, ATP sintase, o nano motor equivalente que produz ATP, a energia para as células - um dos motores mais eficientes na terra. 



Neste diagrama podemos identificar todas as peças que constituem a turbina, as peças individuais  e seu arranjo. 

Ambas as máquinas são reversíveis com um menor reajuste. Na máquina molecular, a energia eletroquímica em um gradiente de prótons é normalmente usado para produzir movimento rotativo e ATP ( a molécula usada para fornecer energia ao corpo ), mas a máquina também pode trabalhar em reverso  para produzir um gradiente eletroquímico à custa do ATP . Na máquina feita pelo homem, a energia potencial hidráulica poderia ser convertida em trabalho mecânico que o homem poderia usar

Terceiro
A identificação e constituição das peças individuais que formam a maquina. O tamanho destas peças, a constituição dos materiais usados , sua forma, seu encaixe com outras partes da maquina, e sua função. Como os materiais para construção de tais peças foram importadas do exterior para o interior da célula, como foram transformados da forma  bruta para constituição que a célula pode usar para tal parte da proteina, molécula, enzima e tal. A origem de zero até conseguir a função básica, mais elementar da peça - sujeita a eventual futura evolução ou adaptação da peça.

Quarto
Entender os processos de como as peças individuais foram montadas para resultar em complexos de maquinas moleculares funcionais com funções objetivos e delineados. 

Quinto
Assim como em fábricas humanas, aonde robôs exercem a função em uma linha de montagem, de montar um carro, por exemplo,  fabricas célulares tem proteinas, que equivalem a robôs, que são usadas exclusivamente para montar outras proteinas / complexos de maquinas moleculares. E necessário  identifica-las.

Sexto: 
Como funciona  sua regulagem, e os mecanismos que permitem se adaptar aos ambientes naturais

O genoma precisa conter a informação para montagem de 

- todo o apparato, na sequencica certa das peças individuais, aonde e como precisam ser montadas
- a informação da constituição das peças individuais
- a informação das maquinas que montam as peças individuais
- a informação da regulagem da maquina
- a informação de se houve erro na montagem, e se houve, a desmontagem da peça e reciclagem ou descarte

Agora vem o grande problem para a teoria de Darwin : 

Um número minimo de maquinas moleculares havia que se formar ANTES que a vida pudesse ter inicio. Isto significa , que não havia evolução, pois a evolução apenas podia começar a existir a partir de replicação de DNA nas células. Então COMO explicar a origem deste grande número de peças iniciais indispensáveis, se não houve mecanismos evolutivos ? 

Eis o grande dilema dos proponentes de naturalismo : a única alternativa para evolução, neste estagio historico da terra, eram reações quimicas aleatorias não guiadas - que teriam que dar origem a fabrica mais complexa do universo, a célula biologica. 

Quando o interno de células biologicas começou a ser desvendado, o que se revelou diante dos pesquisadores, foi aquem do que  poderia se imaginar

Michael Denton  escreve em Evolução: A teoria em crise:
"Para compreender a realidade da vida tal como foi revelada pela biologia molecular, devemos ampliar uma célula em um milhão ou mais de vezes até ter vinte quilômetros de diâmetro e assemelhar-se a um dirigível gigante o bastante grande para cobrir uma grande cidade como Londres ou Nova York. O que veríamos seria um objeto de complexidade sem paralelo e design adaptativo. Na superfície da célula, veríamos milhões de aberturas, como os orifícios portuários de um vasto navio espacial, abrindo e fechando para permitir que um fluxo contínuo de materiais flua dentro e fora. Se fossemos entrar em uma dessas aberturas, nos encontraríamos em um mundo de tecnologia suprema e complexidade desconcertante. A complexidade do tipo de célula mais simples conhecida é tão grande que é impossível aceitar que tal objeto possa ter sido jogado junto de repente por algum tipo de evento assustador, imensamente improvável. Tal ocorrência seria indistinguível de um milagre. A célula é uma verdadeira fábrica micro-miniaturizada que contém milhares de peças requintadamente desenhadas de maquinaria molecular intrincada, composta por 100 mil milhões de átomos, muito mais complicada do que qualquer máquina construída pelo homem e absolutamente sem paralelo no mundo não-vivo.



O químico Wilhelm Huck, professor da Radboud University na Holanda diz:

Uma célula biologica funcional é mais do que a soma de suas partes. "Uma célula em funcionamento deve ser inteiramente correta ao mesmo tempo, em toda a sua complexidade.

Ou seja, existe uma numero minimo de peças necessárias, para tornar uma célula funcional. Isto confirma 100% o conceito de Behe da irredutibilidade da complexidade. Apenas dito em outras palavras.

E Lynn Margulis disse:
Ir de uma bactéria para as pessoas é menos de um passo do que passar de uma mistura de aminoácidos a uma bactéria. 

Isto contradiz o escape de alguns  que alegam que células biologicas poderiam ter iniciadas em uma forma mais bruta, ou primitiva.

Novas evidências sugerem que LUCA , o Último ancestral comum foi um organismo sofisticado, afinal, com uma estrutura complexa reconhecível como uma célula, relatou o pesquisador James Whitfield, professor de entomologia em Illinois e co-autor do estudo.. Seu estudo aparece na revista Biology Direct. O estudo presta apoio a uma hipótese de que LUCA pode ter sido mais complexa do que os organismos mais simples vivos hoje.

O grande problema do Darwinismo é justamente este. As células só tem função, uma vez que estiverem 100% completas, com todas as partes no lugar - mas não só isso. 



Observe como os darwinistas sempre evitam um relato completo sobre origens, mas preferem se focar apenas na evolução, que só começa com a replicação do DNA. A evolução apenas se refere a origem das especies, a biodiversidade. E como fica com a origem da vida, a origem dos elementos quimicos, a origem da terra, so sistema solar, da nossa galáxia, do universo, das leis da física ? tudo isso precisa de uma explicação. Ai se inventa a evolução cósmica, a evolução quimica, para chegar a evolução darwiniana. Mas se for analisar tudo no conjunto, não há exlicaçoes convincentes em base do naturalismo filosofico, no qual os ateus se apoiam. Votando a mancha ocular : 


A mancha ocular, na sua forma mais simples,  é apenas um fotoreceptor. 

Conexão com estruturas  motoras, para o movimento em resposta à luz

Em alguns organismos, todos os três destas funções são desempenhadas por uma única célula-a Euglena unicelular é um exemplo. Tem um ponto sensível à luz, grânulos de pigmento para sombreamento, e cílios motor. 



A digital camera (Fig 5A) captures an object and stores it as a digital file on a memory card so that we can view it on a computer or print it. The following steps are involved:

• Rays of light reflect from an object (a pencil) and enter the camera through the lens (1) which focuses it onto the camera chip (2).
  
  
  
• On the chip (2), light sensitive cells convert the light energy into an electrical signal.
  
  
  
• The electrical signal is sent along cable connections (3) to a processing unit.
  
  
  

Our visual system (Fig. 5B) uses analogous structures and processes to generate an image impression:

• The lens (1) focuses light onto the retina (2).
  
  
  
• Photoreceptor cells in the retina (2) convert the light energy into nerve impulses.
  
  
  
• The nerve impulses are sent through the optic nerve (3) towards the brain (black arrow). Neurones send information via electrical impulses known as action potentials (see more details here)
  
  

 

A narrativa evolucionista conta que os primeiros organismos dos quais temos evidência, foram cianobacterias, que supostamente surgiram em torno de 3,4 bilhões de anos atras. O interessante nestas bactérias é que elas tem uma maquinária, que é ultracomplexa. A capacidade que se destaca e a fotossintese. A fotossíntese oxigenada consiste na transformação de energia solar em energia quimica, que os organismos usam para as atividades do organismo. 

A fotossintese  exemplifica de forma nitida por que os acontecimentos nas células se assomelham com os procedimentos de maquinas criadas por nós, humanos. O design inteligente se baseia em dois pilares de evidencias, que apontam para a necessidade de uma agencia inteligente: O fato que sistemas biologicos não podem surgir mediante a evolução. O unico mecanismo causal que explica a origem da vida, e da biodiversidade, é ação direta divina mediante inteligencia, vontade e poder. Os dois pilares principais do argumento do DI são a complexidade irredutível, e informação complexa, instrucional ou specificada dentro das células para organizar procedimentos moleculares, a a construção de proteinas, as maquinas celulares.

 A o processo da fotossíntese é interdependente, no sentido que depende de várias partes ou maquinas bioquimicas, que são interconectadas de forma que se uma dessas maquinas não estiver no meio do processo exercendo sua função, todo o processo para de funcionar, pois falta um substrato intermediario.  Na evolução, cada passo evolutivo precisa conferir ou produzir um traço que é vantajoso para a sobrevivencia de um organismo. E aquele conto que de um passinho a um passinho, chega lá. Um passo vantajoso após o outro. Este é o lema.









Mas voltando a fotossintese :  Nós temos um sistema criado pelo homem, que  encontra perfeita parallela com o funcionamento da  fotossintese. Para entender como fotossintese funciona, podemos dar uma olhada primeiro em um sistema fotovoltaico. Placas solares, e sistemas fotovoltaicos,  transformam energia solar, em energia que pode ser armazenada em baterias, e usada para todo tipo de serviço. Para illustrar do que estou falando, vamos ver um sistema fotovoltaico.

1. Painéis solares – Fazem o papel de coração, “bombeando” a energia para o sistema.
2. Controladores de carga – Funcionam como válvulas para o sistema. Servem para evitar sobrecargas ou descargas exageradas na bateria, aumentando sua vida útil e desempenho.
3. Inversores – Cérebro do sistema, são responsáveis por transformar os 12 V de corrente contínua (CC) das baterias em 110 ou 220 V de corrente alternada (AC), ou outra tensão desejada.
4. Baterias – Trabalham como pulmões. Armazenam a energia elétrica para que o sistema possa ser utilizado quando não há sol.



Fica evidente, que nenhum engenheiro iria inventar our projetar paineis solares por si so. Ele teve que vislumbrar o objetivo final, e a fim de alcança-lo, ele projetou, e colocou no papel a descrição detalhada de cada uma das quatro partes necessárias, e como produzi-las, para chegar ao objetivo. Se uma destas quatro partes faltar, o objectivo não é alcançado, e energia em forma utilizavel não é produzida. Mas não é só isso. Ninguem de sã mente também iria projetar qualquer uma das partes individuais, que por si só não teriam função. Assim, cada uma das partes descritas acima 1. não tem função por si só, 2. Não tem função, se apenas uma das partes no sistema faltar, e 3. Só tem função, se todas as partes estão no devido lugar, e 4. Se estiverem interligadas corretamente, e ajustadas, para cada uma exercer sua devida função. No caso do sistema fotovoltaico, a descrição é que é interdependente. Se fosse um relógio, aonde uma roda é engrenada em outra, então seria um sistema irredutivelmente complexo , pois  a Definição aprimorada de William Dembski diz: -

"Um sistema que executa uma determinada função básica é irredutivelmente complexo se inclui um conjunto de peças bem-combinadas, que interagem mutuamente, peças não-arbitrariamente  individualizadas de modo que cada peça no conjunto é indispensável para a manutenção básica do sistema, e por conseguinte a função original. O conjunto destas partes indispensáveis é conhecido como o núcleo irredutível do sistema ". ( No Free Lunch, página 285, 2001)

bem combinadas quer dizer que as peças se encaixam uma na outra.

A fotossintese trabalha da mesma forma, ou seja, energia solar é captada, e transformada em energia quimica mediante várias peças indispensáveis, e um processo que requer que todas as peças necessárias estejam no lugar certo, e interconectadas da forma correta.




Clorofila. 
As moléculas de clorofila consistem em uma cabeça de porfirina e uma cauda de hidrocarbonetos que ancora a molécula de pigmento em regiões hidrofóbicas de proteínas embutidas nas membranas de tilacoide. 


 A diferença entre o sistema criado pelo homem, e a fotossíntese é, que o sistema biologico é inimaginávelmente mais complexo, e bem elaborado, usando até tecnologia de mecânica quantica para obter reações em picosegundos, inimaginavelmente  rápidas.

As bactérias fotossintéticas e células eucariotas em plantas coletam energia solar para a fotossíntese em estruturas chamadas complexos de antenas de colheita de luz. Podemos equiparar estes complexos a usinas de captação de energia solar, aonde um grande número de placas solares trabalham em conjunto para captar energia solar:






e o equivalente em sistemas biologicos:



Um complexo de colheita de luz  é um complexo de proteínas de subunidades que é parte de uma super-complexo maior, do fotossistema , no centro, a unidade funcional da fotossíntese.

Ele é usado por plantas e bactérias fotossintéticas para coletar mais da luz recebida do que seria capturado pelo centro de reação fotossintético sozinho. Complexos de colheita de luz são encontrados em uma grande variedade entre as diferentes espécies fotossintéticas. Os complexos consistem de proteínas e pigmentos fotossintéticos e centro de reação fotossintético para cercar, direcionar, e conduzir  a energia captada e energizada,  a partir de fótons absorvidos pelo pigmento, em direção ao centro da reação utilizando Förster transferência de energia de ressonância.


A energia de excitação migra do complexo de antena para o centro de reação. Uma trajetória potencial é mostrada acima.

Clorofila é o composto organico mais abundante, e mais importante no planeta. Sem ele, vida avançada na terra não seria possível.

Quando a clorofila absorve energia da luz solar, um elétron na molécula de clorofila é excitado de um estado de energia mais baixo para um maior.


Princípio da fluorescência. 
Representação esquemática do fenômeno de fluorescência no modelo Bohr clássico. A absorção de um quantum leve (azul) faz com que um elétron se mova para uma órbita de energia mais alta. Depois de residir neste "estado excitado" por um tempo específico, a vida útil da fluorescência, o elétron cai de volta à sua órbita original e o fluorochrome dissipa o excesso de energia ao emitir um fóton (verde).

A clorofila a é o principal pigmento verde do mundo das plantas, é certamente o mais difundido e conspícuo de produtos naturais orgânicos



 



Uma das objeções muito comuns ao exposto acima é que talvez um estagio intermediário poderia servir para outra finalidade, ou que até as peças individuais poderiam previamente ter sido utilizadas em outro sistema com outras finalidades, e depois co-optadas para a função descrita.





 
A clorofila a é encontrada em todos os organismos que tem o mecanismo de fotossintese oxygenica, e tão importante, que Blankenship, um dos cientistas mais experientes em fotossintese escreveu em um dos artigos cientificos dele : Que um único tipo de molécula tornou-se tão dominante na fotossíntese oxigenada é surpreendente, considerando a enorme variação no mundo vivo, e muito tempo que a fotossíntese existe. Tentando responder a esta pergunta é importante para as tentativas de procura por vida e fotossíntese em planetas distantes.

O nosso sistema solar é relativamente estável.
Grande parte do universo está longe de ser estável. Supernovas (estrelas que morrem), nebulosas, buracos negros, colisões violentas e outros fenômenos fazem do o universo um lugar excitante, para dizer o mínimo. O sistema solar tem que oferecer condições quase perfeitas para a terra ter alguma chance de qualquer natureza de possibilitar vida. Cada planeta do nosso sistema tem uma órbita circular quase perfeita ao redor do sol. Tal órbita é crítica! Isto significa que a distância entre cada planeta é constante, e interação é mantida a um mínimo. A interação seria particularmente problemática se qualquer um dos planetas interiores fosse disturbar os campos gravitacionais dos gigantes gasosos. Tal encontro poderia rasgar a Terra de sua órbita e enviá-la arremessada em direção ao sol ou põe-na no espaço profundo. Esta estabilidade do sistema solar é um dos problemas mais antigos da física teórica, que remonta a Isaac Newton.

O nosso Sol é o correto para permitir vida na terra
- do tamanho e a massa correta  - ele não poderia ser nem maior, nem menor
- O Sol emite a quantidade certa de energia solar - nós vamos ver isto em mais detalhes mais adiante
- A Reação de fusão solar é finamente sintonizada  
- Estabilidade pouco comum - a saída de luz do Sol varia em apenas 0,1% ao longo de um ciclo de manchas solares (aproximadamente 11 anos)


Sem aminoácidos de glicina em uma terra prébiótica, não haveria um dos ingredientes básicos para construir pirimidinas, não haveria DNA - e não existiria vida na terra.  






De fato, este mundo é ademais fascinante, pois demonstra a excepcional inteligencia de um designer inteligente, e o que ele investiu para implantar os sistemas moleculares. Coisa, que nos deixa maravilhados e boquiabertos. Vamos descobrir os mecanismos  fascinantes e extraordinários que foram descobertos nas últimas decadas mediante intenso estudo cientifico no campo da bioquimica, e biologia, e também como nosso sistema solar e a luz são  finamente ajustados para permitir vida na terra.  Para que vida avançada na terra se tornasse possível, uma cadeia de circumstancias sortudas foram necessárias.

Muitos de você já estão familiarizados com o fato de que o universo, as quatro forças fundamentais, as galáxias, o systema solar, e a terra, estão finamente ajustado para permitir vida na terra. Se apenas uma das mais de 100 ajustes finos necessários não estiver com os parâmetros corretos, não haveria vida. Mas isto pode ser estendido também para sistemas biologicos. Vou dar alguns poucos exemplos : 

 Tanto as nucleobases, Pyrimidines e Purinas tiveram que começar a ser produzidas antes que a vida começou, por que elas formam o RNA e DNA - as moléculas que armazenam a informação genética. Isso também significa que todas as enzimas usadas no caminho para fazer as bases tiveram que estar presentes antes do suposto último ancestral  universal comum (isso é de qualquer maneira  um conto de fadas, mas para o argumento, não importa). Para pirimidinas, seis passos de sínteses enzimáticas são necessárias para fabricação, e para a biossíntese de purinas, onze.

A parte interessante é que qualquer uma de todas essas enzimas são incrivelmente complexas. David Goodsell escreve: Aspartato carbamoyltransferase é  tão complexa quanto qualquer automóvel refinado no nosso mundo familiar.

Leve apenas um momento para refletir sobre a imensidade desta enzima. Todo o complexo é composto por mais de 40.000 átomos, cada um dos quais desempenha um papel vital. O punhado de átomos que realmente executam a reação química são os "players" centrais. Mas eles não são os únicos átomos importantes dentro da enzima - cada átomo desempenha um papel essencial de apoio. Os átomos que alinham as superfícies entre as subunidades são escolhidos para se complementar exatamente, para orquestrar os movimentos regulatórios em mudança. Os átomos que cobrem a superfície são cuidadosamente escolhidos para interagir otimamente com a água, garantindo que a enzima não forme um agregado pastoso, mas continua sendo uma fábrica individual e flutuante. E os milhares de átomos interiores são escolhidos para se encaixar como um quebra-cabeça, interligando-se em uma estrutura robusta. Aspartato carbamoiltransferase é  tão complexa como qualquer automóvel refinado em nosso mundo familiar. E, assim como os fabricantes investem uma grande quantidade de pesquisa e tempo no design de um automóvel, enzimas como aspartato de carbamoiltransferase são finamente ajustadas para exercer sua tarefa.

Ao lado desta enzima, todos as outros, quase 20, tiveram que ser produzidas de forma prebiótica, e então interligadas como em uma linha de montagem da fábrica, para fazer nucleobases de DNA !!

Não houve evolução. Nenhuma seleção natural. Sem mutações - nah nah Darwin não irá fornecer as muletas para explicar a façanha de como surgiram. 

A única alternativa a estes processos bioquímicos seria que os blocos de construção básicos estavam prontamente disponíveis em uma terra prebiótica. Glicina, por exemplo, é um substrato indispensável para a síntese de nucleotídeos de pirimidina e, portanto, células de DNA. Requer pelo menos 5 etapas de biossintese e as respectivas enzimas para ser sintetizada. Em uma terra prebiótica, a única alternativa seria que a glicina provinha de cometas.

Cometas contém glicina, parte chave da receita para a vida  ( Comet contains glycine, key part of recipe for life )
27 de maio de 2016
Um importante aminoácido chamado glicina foi detectado em um cometa pela primeira vez, apoiando a teoria de que esses corpos cósmicos entregaram os ingredientes para a vida na Terra, disseram pesquisadores na sexta-feira. Além do aminoácido glicina simples, o instrumento também encontrou fósforo. Os dois são componentes-chave do DNA e das membranas celulares. "Demonstrar que os cometas são reservatórios de material primitivo no Sistema Solar, e vasos que poderiam ter transportado esses ingredientes vitais para a Terra, é um dos principais objetivos da missão Rosetta, e estamos satisfeitos com esse resultado".

Panspermia, não é uma explicação viável para a origem da vida
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1362-panspermia#1926

A química acontece, e moléculas interessantes se formam no espaço; E daí? Não vai ajudar os crentes na origem naturalista da vida. Então, eles encontraram glicina, o aminoácido mais simples e único não-quiral. Os biólogos disseram aos astrônomos que buscam os blocos de construção da vida no espaço, porque eles estavam tendo dificuldade em produzi-los na Terra. Eles precisariam de megatons de aminoácidos e bases de ácido nucleico para chover na Terra para qualquer esperança de obter concentrações bem-sucedidas, mas a carga preciosa seria sujeita a rápida degradação por água, oxigênio, luz UV e reações cruzadas nocivas. Mesmo assim, eles seriam misturas de formas esquerda e direita, sem desejo nem poder para se organizar para tornar-se  cientistas que pudessem inventar ciências estranhas como essa.
.
Seguindo as questões não resolvidas da biossíntese de nucleotídeos
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2028-biosynthesis-of-the-dna-double-helix-evidence-of-design#3426

Glicina
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1740-origin-of- thecancanical-twenty-amino-acids-required-for-life#5731

A ligação do cromóforo a opsina é essencial para desencadear a mudança conformacional.

Isso significa que tinha que haver um ajuste fino e vários fatores instalados de forma correto, a dizer :

1. uma ligação de base chamada Schiffbase
2. Um residuo de amino acido chamado Lys296 onde o cromóforo retinal se liga de forma covalente
3. a cadeia lateral do residuo para ligar a base
4. um resíduo de aminoácido essencial chamado "contra íon". O contra-ião, um resíduo de aminoácido carregado negativamente que estabiliza uma carga positiva no cromóforo de retinilideno, é essencial para que a rodopsina receba luz visível.
5. Existe um papel fundamental da ligação covalente entre o cromóforo retinal e o resíduo de lisina na posição 296 na via de ativação da rodopsina

Resíduos importantes para estabilizar a estrutura terciária
Uma ponte dissulfureto (S-S),
um sitio  de glicosilação amino-terminal (N)
ativação / desativação de fotopigmentos (por exemplo, sítios de fosforilação de terminal carboxilo (C)
Ancoragem de membrana (por exemplo, locais de palmitoylation)

Na sétima alfa helice tem que ter  uma lisina. Se a isomerização não ocorreria, nenhuma mudança conformacional, não teria transdução de sinal e visão não apareceria na Terra em organismos biológicos







Os compostos ou moléculas orgânicas são, na sua generalidade, as substâncias químicas que contêm na sua estrutura Carbono

https://creation.com/vision-control

1. https://droso4schools.wordpress.com/l5-vision/


3. 
Observe o Músculo oblíquo superior e a Trochea neste exemplo no olho humano. O interessante é a rodinha. O músculo passa por esta pequena  roda. Isso muda a direção do oblíquo superior. O músculo dá uma volta em  um ângulo agudo. Claramente, a menos que todas as partes diferentes estejam presentes, o sistema não funciona corretamente. Ninguém iria sugerir que um dispositivo  com uma função tão específica poderia ter se desenvolvida por uma série longa de mutações acidentais e seleção natural, não importa quanto tempo esperamos. No entanto, isso é o que os proponentes da evolução desejam que acreditemos. e não mencionei o sistema de controle incrivel que orquestra todos os doze músculos oculares, dos quais, se não estivessem todos presentes, qualquer um deles, individualmente, seria inútel.  

4
A reação de inclinação ocular. 
Quando a cabeça está inclinada para um lado, ambos os olhos rolam na direção oposta para manter uma visão vertical . Esta resposta reflexa  ocorre de forma extremamente rápida , em cerca de 10 milissegundos após a estimulação  na orelha interna. A altura de cada olho é ajustada ao mesmo tempo. Ou seja: O músculo oblíquo superior atua em conjunto com o músculo oblíquo inferior para "manter nossa visão horizontalmente nivelada, independentemente da posição do olho na órbita". A seleção natural de Darwin * não pôde escolher ESTA CONFIGURAÇÃO  pois a rodinha não teria função sem o músculo, e viceversa. Qualquer estágio evolutivo que teria conduzido a esta configuração, antes de qualquer funcionalidade muscular através da fiação, teria tido que progredir por mutações puramente aleatórias, o que teria que modificar todos os tipos de tecido necessários para alcançar essa funcionalidade.

Agora vamos ao nível molecular.

1.
Bom dia. Meu nome é Otangelo Grasso, sou suiço - italiano, e moro em Aracaju, casado com uma Sergipana, e tenho uma filha de 4 anos. Agradeço aos organizadores, pelo evento, e pelo convite. 

E um prazer, e uma honra  poder estar aqui com  vocês. 

Eu vou falar  sobre a fascinante maquinaria da vida,  em particular sobre uma extraordinária  alga unicelular chamada Chlamydomonas.  

Primeiro vamos dar uma olhada de perto no sistema de visão dessa alga que é o estigma, ou  mancha ocular, e vou demonstrar porque a única explicação racional para a sua origem é o design inteligente, e  o mecanismo evolutivo não é uma explicação viável. 

2.
Na segunda parte , iremos dar uma olhada nas fantásticas rodovias intracelulares destas algas, nas quais proteínas de motores  se locomovem como nós, com duas pernas e braços,  levando sua carga ao destino correto, e assim constroem os órgãos internos, como olhos, flagelos e outras partes. 

No final, irei deixar os links para minha livraria virtual, e livros para quem quiser estudar e conhecer mais sobre o design inteligente.

3.
Há 300 anos atrás, quando começaram a nascer as ciências modernas, se acreditava que os corpos biológicos eram constituídos por maquinas não visíveis sem o microscópio, funcionando semelhante a maquinas feitas pelo homem. 
Esta visão derivou, em parte, dos gregos antigos, que acreditavam que o Universo era composto de minusculas partes como átomos. 

Marcello Malpighi, um dos maiores cientistas há 300 anos atrás, escreveu:
"A natureza, para realizar as maravilhosas operações em animais e plantas, tem usado um número muito grande de máquinas, que são feitas por partes extremamente minúsculas, que formam um órgão maravilhoso, cuja composição geralmente é invisível a olho nu, sem o auxílio do microscópio.

4.
Uma questão emblemática é a questão da visão, e como o olho poderia ter evoluído por seleção natural. 
Darwin é freqüentemente citado como vendo a evolução do olho como uma dificuldade significativa para sua teoria. Mas depois ele dá uma suposta solução.

Ele escreve: 
A razão diz-me que se se puder mostrar que existem numerosas gradações a partir de um olho perfeito e complexo e um muito imperfeito e simples, sendo cada grau útil ao seu possuidor; se além disso o olho variar muito ligeiramente e as variações forem herdadas, o que seguramente acontece; e se qualquer variação ou modificação no órgão for alguma vez útil a um animal sob condições de vida variáveis, então a dificuldade de acreditar que um olho perfeito e complexo se podia formar por meio de selecção natural, embora insuperável pela nossa imaginação, não deve ser considerado subversivo a teoria. 

O problema é que o olho sozinho  não tem função. Ele é  SEMPRE conectado a outras partes - até mesmo o olho mais simples conhecido. Ou seja, há sempre uma INTERDEPENDENCIA ENTRE varias partes, portanto, se quiser explicar a evolução do olho, tem que explicar a evolução simultânea do sistema e de todas as partes envolvidas.  O olho humano não tem função, se não estiver interligado com o cortex cerebral mediante o nervo ótico.  
Se quiser explicar a origem deste sistema mediante mecanismos evolutivos, tem que explicar a transformação  sincronizada entre as partes. 

5.
Em 1994,  Nilssen publicou um artigo cientifico que se tornou referencia para explicar a evolução do olho. O artigo começa com uma mancha ocular plana,  e depois de uma sequencia de fases evolutivas, no final tem um olho complexo de câmera.  

Na última sentença do artigo,  o autor escreve: "O olho nunca foi uma ameaça real para a teoria  de Darwin". 

6. O problema é que manchas oculares são também extremamente complexas, e o autor não começou sua narrativa, explicando como a mancha ocular poderia ter evoluida. O mesmo problema que mencionei acima referente ao olho humano, se aplica também a mancha da alga. A mancha ocular só teria função se estiver acionando um sinal para o flagelo da alga, em que direção nadar. Ou seja, o sistema como um todo tem que ser explicado. 

Algas são a base da cadeia alimentar em nosso planeta, e assim,  os organismos mais importantes, ecologicamente falando. 
Alem de que são responsáveis por 80% do oxigênio no ar que respiramos.  

7.
Manchas oculares são feitas de proteínas, que são os motores nas células,  e estão presentes em todas as células, e tem muitas funções nos organismos. 

8. 
Em 2006, um estudo cientifico detectou em torno de 200 proteínas diferentes no estigma, a mancha ocular em organismos unicelulares. Em 2015, estudos mais avançados e detalhados detectaram mais de 740 proteínas diferentes. Somente da proteína mais importante para visão, a Rodopsina, uma única  mancha ocular contém 15 milhões de unidades de rodopsinas, que são substituídas e renovadas por novas constantemente. A mancha ocular tem uma estrutura elaborada de alta complexidade.

9.
Todo olho, todo sistema de visão, da mancha ocular , até o olho humano, tem rodopsinas, uma proteína que consiste em dois componentes.  Uma é a opsina que é uma Proteína transmembranar com 7 hélices , isto quer dizer que ela passa de um lado da membrana da célula até a outra,  e a segunda é retinal, um cromóforo ligado á sétima hélice da opsina, que juntas formam as chamadas rodopsinas. As duas trabalham em conjunto. A luz bate em retinal, que muda de forma física, e aciona a opsina, que aciona uma cascata de eventos subsequentes que no final emitem um sinal que a célula processa de varias maneiras. Elas se encontram em todos os sistemas de visão.  Saber como dobrar a  proteína é essencial porque as proteínas devem assumir a estrutura 3D correta. 

10.
Se a opsina  estiver dobrada da forma errada, ela vai ser tóxica. E ela só vai ter função com um tamanho minimo , constituída por uma cadeia de aminoácidos , enfileirados na sequencia correta. 

No caso da opsina, o tamanho médio é em torno de 350 amino ácidos. Imagine, que em cada posição, a célula tem que escolher entre 20 amino ácidos diferentes, e só um dos 20 é o correto, e confere função no final. Nos podemos propor evolução, mas a opsina só vai dobrar e ter função,  se chegarmos ao tamanho mínimo de em torno de 350 aminoácidos. 

E para isto ocorrer, teríamos uma entre a potência de 450 possibilidades. 

11.
Vou lhe dar uma idéia do tamanho destes números. 
Acreditar que uma  proteína funcional deste tamanho poderia surgir naturalmente, é como acreditar que você iria ganhar na loteria o maior prêmio  acertando seis números, durante todos os dias de a sua vida. Resumindo : E impossível.  Este fato, por si só,  basicamente põe a teoria de Darwin em cheque para explicar a origem da opsina - e , na verdade de toda biodiversidade.  

12.
Recentemente,  um artigo cientifico  reportou a descoberta de 7 vezes maior complexidade de dobragem de proteínas em Rodopsinas do que anteriormente acreditado!  O líder do projeto, Tom Perkins disse : "O aumento da complexidade foi deslumbrante. Se você perde a maioria dos estados intermediários, então você realmente não entende o sistema". A precisão de como uma proteína tão minúscula como opsina se dobra é absolutamente desconcertante. 

13
Retinal é a segunda molécula, que junto a opsina, forma a rodopsina. 
Ela é uma molécula anexada no meio das sete hélices transmembranares da opsina, e fundamental para visão.  Para funcionar, a estrutura dela também precisa ser correta em todos os detalhes.   Ela  é uma molécula única com um design químico que permite a interação ideal com a opsina, e este ajuste fino é essencial para que o mecanismo funcione. A luz do sol bate em retinal, e  no prazo de picossegundos, ela  muda de forma, é como se estivesse ativando um disjuntor. 

Os elétrons que circulam na molécula de retinal são redistribuídos, e isto provoca uma rotação em um local específico, e  o movimento desta rotação muda a forma física de retinal e ativa a opsina, e  toda uma cadeia e processos  complexos de vários passos, que no final permitem a visão, ou outras funções, como direcionar o flagelo na alga.  

Aqui vocês percebem, que são estes detalhes  que explicam como as coisas a nível molecular funcionam, e a pergunta relevante é: 
Como Retinal obteve sua forma atomica funcional correta, se todo o arranjo tem que ser correto desde o início ? 

14.
O bolso aonde Retinal é inserida tem a estrutura e o tamanho também preciso, correto, e exato. Quando a opsina percebe a mudança de retinal, uma transformação fisica extremamente complexa ocorre na opsina, aonde ela muda de forma em várias etapas, entre as quais a sexta hélice faz um movimento, que aciona em seguida toda uma cadeia de transdução de sinal,  e no caso da alga, um fluxo de cálcio e outros processos celulares, que acionam o flagelo para nadar na direção correta.  

Supõe se que opsinas surgiram de uma familia ancestral de proteinas chamadas de Receptores acoplados à proteína G que tinham outras funções do que a visão, e não tinham retinal. A evolução teria que ter tido  antevisão para  evoluir  e criar um bolso para poder inserir retinal, e criar um novo mecanismo funcional.  Teria que existir, já prontinho, um metodo de fabricação de  Retinal, e os mecanismos para inserir  e fixa-la no lugar certo, na sétima hélice da opsina e no lugar certo desta hélice. 

15.
O tamanho do problema se torna mais evidente, se considerarmos a complexidade para produzir Retinal. Um artigo informa sobre uma conservação evolutiva intrigante dos principais componentes envolvidos na produção e reciclagem de retinal. A síntese de retinal precede uma via complexa de vários passos enzimáticos a partir de moléculas de carotenoides encontradas em plantas. Não haveria nenhuma vantagem evolutiva para evoluir tal  processo de biossíntese, e suas enzimas, que são como os robôs em uma linha de montagem, a menos que houvesse como saber de antemão a utilidade que Retinal iria ter, e a forma que iria precisar,  para poder  encaixa-la no bolso da opsina para formar uma proteína Rodopsina funcional.

17 enzimas e passos corretos são necessários para produzi-la. . 

Outro fato  extraordinário é  que a rodopsina consegue reconhecer apenas um único fóton, a menor entidade física  com propriedade quântica. Qualquer detector feito pelo homem precisaria ser resfriado e isolado do ruído para alcançar tal façanha. O olho pode  reconhecer de alguns fótons  até ao níveis de luz  10 bilhões de vezes maior.  

No livro: Evolução dos pigmentos visuais e não visuais, o autor confessa:
A evolução inicial da opsina permanece um mistério surpreendente, e há muitas questões ao longo de sua história evolutiva para a qual não temos respostas.

E o autor de um outro artigo escreve:
O enigma original de Darwin sobre a evolução ocular parece agora  estar em um nível molecular.

16.
Uma alga detectar a luz é uma coisa, mas para  nadar, precisa ter um dispositivo para nadar; que são os flagelos.  Seguem os componentes essenciais para alcançar este objetivo

1. um fotorreceptor que detecta a luz, que são as rodopsinas
2  pontos de pigmentos que refletem a luz para opsina e a ajuda a perceber a direção da luz solar para o organismo a se orientar. 
3  um sistema de informação entre a mancha ocular e o flagelo, geralmente mediante sinalização com calcio.
4. O flagelo para poder se locomover. 
 
Este é um sistema interdependente . Esta é uma explicação simplificada. Na verdade, todo o processo é muito mais complexo

Não são apenas quatro, mas 11 passos essenciais, e se algum deles faltar, a alga não pode reagir as variações da iluminação solar. A seleção natural não selecionaria nenhum passo evolutivo intermediário, já que o sistema, se não tiver todos os componentes e o sistema no lugar , não seria um sistema funcional. Nenhum passo intermediário tem função.

18.
A segunda estrutura notável é o flagelo, que é o mascote do movimento do Design Inteligente.  O flagelo bacteriano usa mais de 60 proteínas estruturais. 

19
Enquanto isso, os flagelos usados em células eucarióticas, das quais as algas Chlamydomonas fazem parte,  usam mais de  650 proteínas diferentes. Todas necessárias. Uma complexidade estrondosa. 

O que ajuda a montar o flagelo é a centriola , localizada na base, ou no pé do flagelo. 

20. 
A centriola  organiza a montagem dos flagelos. Pelo menos 13 complexos de proteinas são necessárias para montar esta parte. Cada uma dessas 13 proteínas é essencial, se uma faltar, não tem como montar a Centriola. 24 

21.
Para  montagem deste Flagelo, são usados rodovias intracelulares! E pelo menos 500 proteínas são necessárias. 
O transporte intra flagelário  é um meio altamente orquestrado e dedicado ao transporte de proteínas nos  flagelos. Uma vez que o flagelo não possui ribossomos, todos os componentes necessários para a sua construção devem  ser sintetizados no citoplasma e, em seguida, importados para o flagelo, transportados em rodovias no flagelo,  antes de chegar à ponta distal. Em 1993, um transporte ativo como se fossem minúsculos "robôs com duas pernas e braços" foi descoberto dentro do flagelo de organismos unicelulares como algas, e denominado transporte intra flagelar. Este transporte desempenha um papel fundamental na construção do flagelo, pois sua inativação bloqueia a formação do flagelo em todas as espécies estudadas até agora. Todas as células eucarióticas tem tipo uma antena, com a estrutura igual ao flagelo. Estudos em 2007 descobriram que uma das proteínas de transporte envolvida, chamada de  BBSome, se houver mutação, o tornará cego, obeso e surdo, irá destruir seu sentido do cheiro, e fará com que  dígitos e dedos extras cresçam e faz com que os rins falhem.  Se considerarmos não só as proteínas estruturais do flagelo, mas também todas as proteínas necessárias para montá-lo, parece que a teoria de Darwin perdeu mais um pouco de credibilidade..... 

22.
As algas sincronizam sua natação mediante seus dois grandes flagelos fazendo um movimento  extremamente elegante. Embora pareça simples, esse movimento envolve dez mil máquinas moleculares complexas trabalhando em conjunto. Milhares de cílios que estão  em uma superfície podem bater em sincronia para executar coletivamente uma tarefa. Mesmo as células não conectadas podem sincronizar suas batidas. Como eles são capazes de fazê-lo?  À medida que cada flagelo bate , isso perturba o líquido em torno dele, gerando um fluxo de fluido periodicamente variável que exerce forças de fricção em outros flagelos próximos. Isso combina mecanicamente os flagelos uns aos outros, e se este acoplamento hidrodinâmico for forte o suficiente para superar tanto o ruído quanto a falta de correspondência nas freqüências de batimento natural, então o flagelo se sincroniza de forma puramente auto-organizado.

Impressionante e admirável, para dizer o mínimo !! 

23.
Com isso, termino minha palestra. Se alguem quiser conhecer mais minhas pesquisas, podem acessar online as duas livrarias virtuais em forma de  forum: 

Evidências de Deus , uma fé racional, 

e em inglês:
Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins aonde tem quase 3600 postagens.

além dos dois widbooks , que podem ser lidos online, o primeiro:

Design inteligente, a melhor explicação para a origem do universo e o planeta terra, e
Evidências de Deus , uma fé racional

e o livro : A molecula de Deus

Obrigado pela atenção, e se houver dúvidas, estou a disposição de voces para responder as perguntas.

For one thing I repeatedly noted the difference in how life is constituted now from how it was likely constituted early on.  While today all life that I know of is cellular, it was my explicit suggestion that the earliest life could have been non-cellular

That is speculation based on NO evidence whatsoever. If life not based on cells would be possible, and existed, we should find some kind of evidence in the fossil record, and eventually such kind of life would still exist today.

Are you saying it’s categorically impossible that proto-membranes might have formed early on?

I say the cell had to arise all at once. No step-wise evolutionary manner was possible.

Cell Membranes, origins through natural mechanisms, or design ?  

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2128-membrane-structure#3798

According to this website : The Interdependency of Lipid Membranes and Membrane Proteins
The cell membrane contains various types of proteins, including ion channel proteins, proton pumps, G proteins, and enzymes. These membrane proteins function cooperatively to allow ions to penetrate the lipid bilayer. The interdependency of lipid membranes and membrane proteins suggests that lipid bilayers and membrane proteins co-evolved together with membrane bioenergetics.

The nonsense of this assertion is evident. How could the membrane proteins co-evolve, if they had to be manufactured by the machinery , protected by the cell membrane ?

The cell membrane contains various types of proteins, including ion channel proteins, proton pumps, G proteins, and enzymes. These membrane proteins function cooperatively to allow ions to penetrate the lipid bilayer.

The ER and Golgi apparatus together constitute the endomembrane compartment in the cytoplasm of eukaryotic cells. The endomembrane compartment is a major site of lipid synthesis, and the ER is where not only lipids are synthesized, but membrane-bound proteins and secretory proteins are also made.

So in order to make cell membranes, the Endoplasmic Recticulum is required. But also the Golgi Apparatus, the peroxysome, and the mitochondria. But these only function, if protected and encapsulated in the cell membrane.  What came first, the cell membrane, or the endoplasmic recticulum ? This is one of many other catch22 situations in the cell, which indicate that the cell could not emerge in a stepwise gradual manner, as proponents of natural mechanisms want to make us believe.

Not only is the cell membrane intricate and complex (and certainly not random), but it has tuning parameters such as the degree to which the phospholipid tails are saturated. It is another example of a sophisticated biological design about which evolutionists can only speculate. Random mutations must have luckily assembled molecular mechanisms which sense environmental challenges and respond to them by altering the phospholipid population in the membrane in just the right way. Such designs are tremendously helpful so of course they would have been preserved by natural selection. It is yet another example of how silly evolutionary theory is in light of scientific facts.

Because we know that the atoms that make up the planet now were mostly the same as then.  We know that non-living processes will form compounds that are components of living organisms.

Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:

‘… just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.’63

An analogy is written language. Natural objects in forms resembling the English alphabet (circles, straight lines, etc.) abound in nature, but this fact does not help to understand the origin of information (such as that in Shakespeare’s plays). The reason is that this task requires intelligence both to create the information (the play) and then to design and build the machinery required to translate that information into symbols (the written text). What must be explained is the source of the information in the text (the words and ideas), not the existence of circles and straight lines. Likewise, it is not enough to explain the origin of the amino acids, which correspond to the letters. Rather, even if they were produced readily, the source of the information that directs the assembly of the amino acids contained in the genome must be explained.


I’m not committed to the early predecessors of cellular life being structured in the same way that modern DNA or RNA is.  All that’s necessary are naturalistic mechanisms that are able to store and reproduce information, which could plausibly have changed incrementally until at some time we see the existence of cells and DNA.

More baseless guesswork and speculation.

Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/

In our opinion, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made.

Summarizing the state of the art in the study of the code evolution, we cannot escape considerable skepticism. It seems that the two-pronged fundamental question: “why is the genetic code the way it is and how did it come to be?”, that was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, might remain pertinent even in another 50 years. Our consolation is that we cannot think of a more fundamental problem in biology.


You seem to, for understandable reasons, want to assume that any life has to look like modern life.  That makes it much less likely that all of the complexity that exists could have come from raw materials.  But of course, there are other possibilities.  You act as if the current inability to give a full explanation of abiogenesis ipso facto proves the falsity of abiogenesis.  You have evaluated one abiogenesis hypothesis, and a straw man at that, and therefore concluded that the only theory in competition with theism must be wrong.


http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2176-lucathe-last-universal-common-ancestor

The last universal common ancestor represents the primordial cellular organism from which diversified life was derived. This urancestor accumulated genetic information before the rise of organismal lineages and is considered to be either a simple 'progenote' organism with a rudimentary translational apparatus or a more complex 'cenancestor' with almost all essential biological processes. Recent comparative genomic studies support the latter model and propose that the urancestor was similar to modern organisms in terms of gene content.

How were ribonucleotides first formed on the primitive earth? This is a very difficult problem.
I look forward to investigations into it and any progress we might make.  Do you?

Why should i ? I have a formed opinion, which i told you already.

Again. How do you possibley know ??
I have all along asserted our mutual lack of knowledge in this field.  You assert that you know.  I’m skeptical of your assertion.

Feel free to keep your skepticism and wilful ignorance, if that position pleases you.

But by all means if your proof is conclusive, do publish and let’s see the consequent scientific consensus that will follow.  Please.  I eagerly await the breakthrough and paradigm shift in modern science.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1508-will-we-eventually-discover-a-naturalistic-explanation-for-first-life

If a certain line of reasoning  is not persuasive or convincing, then why do atheists not change their mind because of it? The more evolution papers are published, the less likely the scenario becomes. Some assertions have even been falsified. We should consider the fact that modern biology may have reached its limits on several  subjects of biology. All discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in vague suppositions and guesswork, statements of blind faith, made up scenarios,  or in a confession of ignorance.  Fact is  there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This lack of understanding is not just ignorance about some technical details; it is a big conceptual gap.  The reach of the end of the road is evident in the matter of almost all major questions. The major questions of macro change and abiogenesis  are very far from being clearly formulated, even understood,  and nowhere near being solved, and for most, there is no solution at all at sight. But proponents of evolution firmly believe, one day a solution will be on sight. Isn't that a prima facie of a " evolution of the gap" argument ? We don't know yet, therefore evolution and abiogenesis ? That way, the God hypothesis remains out of the equation in the beginning, and out at the end, and never receives a serious and honest consideration. If the scientific evidence does not provide satisfactory explanations through naturalism, why should we not change your minds and look somewhere else ?


That’s an unsophisticated distortion of my argument.  I’m not appealing in any way from evolutionary processes.  I’m not merely appealing to vast amounts of time, but also of the existence of natural processes that we know would have given rise to components of life.

Which are ??


 How those components then formed more complex components, and then those more complex components could have again assembled into something more complex until we reach a point where life emerges—we don’t know.  But it’s not impossible, and it’s the best hypothesis on the scientific market.


Ahm , we don't know, therefore naturalism. Nice naturalism of the gaps argument, LOL.....


Or you can try to enumerate every possible hypothesis (those currently proposed by scientists and those people haven’t even thought of yet) and disprove each.  So far you’ve disproved only the weakest version of abiogenesis.

We have enough reasons to reject abiogenesis as a viable option.

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/articles/science-and-scripture/the-origin-of-life/

CLAIM: Advocates of this view argue that naturalistic science will eventually explain all mysteries in scientific knowledge. If we allow God to fill in these gaps, eventually he will be displaced, when science explains how life originated naturally.

RESPONSE: I have dealt with the “God of the gaps” argument in an earlier article. However, in addition to that material, we should consider the fact that modern biology may have reached its limits on this subject. For instance, biochemist Klaus Dose writes,

  More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.

In his 1999 book The Fifth Miracle, agnostic Paul Davies writes :


  When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origin… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details; it is a major conceptual lacuna.

More recently in 2010, Davies explains,

“All that can be said at this time is that the problem of life’s origin is very far from being clearly formulated, and nowhere near being solved.”

Agnostic microbiologist Franklin Harold writes,

  Of all the unsolved mysteries remaining in science, the most consequential may be the origin of life… The origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight.

We might also point out that the scientific evidence for the origin of life persuaded one of the world’s leading atheists, Antony Flew, to begin to believe in God. In his 2007 book There is a God, Flew explains,

“The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind.”



I don’t know everything in Chemistry, although I am currently working to figure some of it out (unfortunately I’m also busy studying Modal Logic, Electricity and Magnetism, and ancient history—shall I suggest to you that because these subjects lack evidence of a god and you don’t know about them, that therefore you’re just stubborn if you don’t accept my authority in the matter?).  Are you suggesting that I can’t believe anything, just because I don’t know everything?  Only tenured Chemistry professors with the most advanced modern knowledge of the subject are allowed to hold any belief about abiogenesis?  It’s not enough that I know the basic ideas and I know that the subject is a wide-open question in modern science (even though, ironically, evolution is a completely closed matter in the field of Biology, where all of the experts agree—and yet you give hints that you don’t believe in it)?

they agree on what exactly ?? and why ??

No, we all go on the best information that we have at any given time.  Do I believe in evolution like a religion?  No, it has a probability of truth.  A probability that is many times greater than theism, sure

No kidding. How do you possibly know ? You admitted you are not a expert in the field.......


Thats another unsubstantiated claim….....
Again, I’m not attempting to substantiate it.  That’s the work of scientists.  I’m pointing out that naturalism isn’t without any possible answer to abiogensis.

And i am poiting out that abiogenesis is a utterly failed hypothesis. Its simply IMPOSSIBLE.

Abiogenesis is impossible

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-abiogenesis-is-impossible

A number of researchers have concluded that the spontaneous origin of life cannot be explained by known laws of physics and chemistry. Many seek “new” laws which can account for life’s origin. Why are so many unwilling to simply accept what the evidence points to: that the theory of evolution itself is fundamentally implausible? Dean Kenyon answers, “Perhaps these scientists fear that acceptance of this conclusion would leave open the possibility (or the necessity) of a supernatural origin of life” (p.viii).
1


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10818565

The origin of the first cell, cannot be explained by natural selection


The cell is irreducible complex, and hosts a hudge amount of codified, complex, specified information. The probability of useful DNA, RNA, or proteins occurring by chance is extremely small. Calculations vary somewhat but all are extremely small (highly improbable). If one is to assume a hypothetical prebiotic soup to start there are at least three combinational hurdles (requirements) to overcome. Each of these requirements decreases the chance of forming a workable protein. First, all amino acids must form a chemical bond (peptide bond) when joining with other amino acids in the protein chain. Assuming, for example a short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45. The second requirement is that functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet in abiotic amino acid production the right-handed and left-handed isomers are produced in nearly the same frequency. The probability of building a 150-amino-acid chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L-form is roughly 1 chance in 10^90. The third requirement for functioning proteins is that the amino acids must link up like letters in a meaningful sentence, i.e. in a functionally specified sequential arrangement. The chance for this happening at random for a 150 amino acid chain is approximately 1 chance in 10^195. It would appear impossible for chance to build even one functional protein considering how small the likelihood is. By way of comparison to get a feeling of just how low this probability is consider that there are only 10^65 atoms in our galaxy.

 I would love for us to learn what happened and how, but currently nobody knows.  Does that mean a god must have done it?  No, it means that possibly it was one of the various theories of naturalistic abiogenesis that we have not *yet* been able to substantiate, or if all else fails, I guess the insanity of theism is all that’s left.

Again. Nice naturalism of the gaps argument... LOL....

Nice evolution of the gaps argument.
Thing is, the gaps keep closing in our favor and against yours.

Nope. Exactly the oposit is the case.



Title Page
Copyright page
Dedication
Figures and Tables
Authors' Note
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Part I: The Mystery Unfolds
1. Questions, Questions—Always Questions
2. Are There Any Answers?
3. Putting Creation to the Test
4. The Naturalistic Approach
Part II: The Facts of Life
5. An Early or Late Apperance?
6. A Slow or Sudden Arrival?
7. Where's the Soup?
Part III: From the Bottom Up and Top Down
8. The Search for Chemical Pathways
9. Look! Only One Hand
10. The Codes of Life
11. Beneficial Boundaries
12. Life's Minimum Complexity
Part IV: Looking for Loopholes
13. Extreme Life
14. Life on Mars?
15. Europa and Beyond
16. Life, Seeded on Purpose
Part V: A Model for Life
17. Solving the Mystery
Epilogue
Appendix A: Biblical Creation References
Appendix B: Carbon-12 Enrichment in Photosynthesis
Glossary of Terms
About the Authors
About Reasons to Believe
Endorsements
Notes

 Alajuela 38, , , Baba 40 / Panda 40 / Tashiba 40, Bentley 38, Cheoy Lee 43,  Corbin 39, Creala 36, Creala 40,   Fast Passage 39, Flying Dutchman 35/Baba 35, , Freya 39, Globe 38, Hans  , Hans Christian 38 Mk 11, Hans Christian 38 Traditional, Hans Christian 41, Hans Christian 43, Hans Christian 48, , Ingrid 38, Jason 35, Lafitte 44, Landfall 39, , , Liberty 38, Lord Nelson 35, Lord Nelson 41, Mao Ta 36, Nassau 34,  Noon Ocean 34, Nor'Sea 27, Northsea 127, Orca 38, Pacific Seacraft 25, Pacific Seacraft 34, Pacific Seacraft 37, Pacific Seacraft Crealock 40, Pacific Seacraft Crealock 44, Pacific Seacraft Mariah 31, Pan Oceanic 38, Pan 0ceanic 43, Pan Oceanic 46, Passport 42, Passport 51, Polaris 43, Rafiki 37, Roughwater 33 / Aries 32 / Weatherly 32,  Saltram Saga 36, Saltram Saga 40, Saturna 33, Sea Eagle 31, Sea Maid 45, Skookum 34, Slocum 37, Slocum 43, Southern Cross 28, Southern Cross 31, Southern Cross 35, Southern Cross 39, Spindrift 43, Swanson 28, Swanson 42, Ta Chiao 34 / CT 34, Ta Chiao 38 / CT 38, Tanton 43, Tanton 44, Tashiba 31, Tashiba 36, Tayana 37 Yachts, Tayana Vancouver 42, Traveller 32, True North 34, Union 32, Union 36, Valiant 32, Valiant 37, Valiant 40 / 42, Valiant 47 / 50, Vancouver 25, Vancouver 36 - Harris, Vector 39, Vineyard Vixen 29, Vineyard Vixen 34, Voyager 26, Westsail 28, Westsail 32, Westsail 42, Westsail 43, Windjammer 34, Young Sun 35, Young Sun 43[/list]
[/list]

Have you heard about United Faith Facebook groups? I can create a Facebook Group for you, the name is United Faith, and you can add pastors of the churches of your city and friends to join, and share information. The network, United Faith, has the goal to create Facebook groups for cities all around the world which will be named under the umbrella name United Faith. The goal is to get protestant - evangelical Churches, Pastors, and believers of various denominations closer together, to know each other, share information, each group on a geographically limited scale, and to join forces to spread the Gospel, and the Christian Faith where they are, together.


Have you heard about United Faith - Facebook groups? I can create a Facebook Group for you, the name is United Faith, and you can add pastors of churches of your city and friends to join, and share information. The network, United Faith, has the goal to create Facebook groups for cities all around the world which will be named under the global name United Faith. The goal is to get protestant - evangelical Churches, Pastors, and believers of various denominations closer together, to know each other, share information, each group for a specific city or region, and to join forces to spread the Gospel, and the Christian Faith and ask for help where needed. United Faith is not a charity organization making donations. What we are doing, is providing to you a tool - through United Faith groups, so you can make your ministry known, and join forces with others nearby you, and to grow.

As an Administrator, you can moderate a local group, so all groups are joined and interconnected altogether. You have to commit to add at least 20 local Pastors and friends to start the group ( the more, the better ). any member can share information of any sort related to direction, organization, problem-solving, organize events together, inform others of specific prayer requests, and join forces to pray for specific issues etc. The goal is to spread the Gospel, glorify our Creator, make HIM known to the nations, and do it as a joint venture, in a coordinated manner. Anyone can join any other United Faith group, worldwide.

So i am asking you to join forces and create this Network. If you live for example in Bangalore, i can create a local Group United Faith Bangalore, and all you have to do is starting to add people. I will be here to administrate the various Groups, together with others which will join. I will also constantly download and dispose of Christian literature, books, free for download in the group, to any member.

Have you heard about United Faith - Facebook groups?

I can create a Facebook Group for you, the name is United Faith, and you can add pastors of churches of your city and friends to join, and share information. The network, United Faith is creating Facebook groups for cities all around the world which will be named under the global name United Faith. The goal is to get protestant - evangelical Churches, Pastors, and believers of various denominations in every city closer together, to know each other, share information, and to join forces to spread the Gospel, and the Christian Faith and ask for help where needed. United Faith is not a charity organization making donations. What we are doing, is providing to you a tool - through United Faith groups, so you can make your ministry known to others, grow faster,and join forces with people nearby you.

As an Administrator, you can moderate a local group. All groups are joined and interconnected together. You have to commit to add at least 20 local Pastors and friends to start the group ( the more, the better ). any member can share information of any sort related to direction, organization, edification, organize events together, inform others of specific prayer requests, and join forces to pray for specific issues etc. The goal is to spread the Gospel, glorify our Creator, make HIM known to the nations, and do it as a joint venture, in a coordinated manner. Anyone can join any other United Faith group, worldwide.

So i am asking you to join us and create this Network. If you live for example in Bangalore, we can create a local Group United Faith Bangalore, and all you have to do is starting to add people. We will be administrating the various Groups, together with others which will join. I will also constantly download and dispose of Christian literature, books, free for download in the group, to any member. Come and join our fast growing family.

Escherichia coli class-I RNR enzymes serve as a model of study of class-I RNR enzymes. These RNRs comprise two homodimeric subunits: R1 and R2. R1 is the center where the complex nucleotide-reduction process occurs, and the subunit serves as a paradigm for the secondary and tertiary structures adopted by the active sites of all classes of RNR. R2 contains the diiron(III)–tyrosyl-radical (Tyr) cofactor. The Tyr has unusual chemical stability ( half-life is 4 days ) and is essential to the nucleotide-reduction process. The class-I-RNR diiron metal cluster and amino-acid free radical provide a model for the mechanism of metal-cofactor assembly and the basis for the differential chemical reactivities of a wide range of proteins that require similar diiron clusters for catalysis.

Alanine

Alanine, Asparagine, Aspartate, Glutamate, and Glutamine Are Synthesized from Pyruvate, Oxaloacetate, and

doc pessoais,
cert casamento
doc esposa
comprovante residencia
contrato compra e venda
levantamento da area

declaração incra e itr

You are for twenty years arguing there is no evidence of God. Why ? 
Could it be, that the arguments that have been provided, ARE sound, and God does indeed exist, and you are just self delusional ?



Matt Dillahunty 1999: There is no evidence of Gods existence.
Matt Dillahunty 2019: I have not seen any evidence of Gods existence.

For over twenty years, Matt argues, claims, and tries to prove what he does not believe with the enthusiasm of a believer. 

Why do positive, active, strong militant atheists or weak atheists/agnostics promote naturalism with such fervour and time spending?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2379-why-do-postive-active-strong-militant-atheists-promote-naturalism-with-such-fervor-and-time-spending

During this, time this "gentleman" has received every week half a dozen calls from believers making their case, providing all kind of arguments.
Matts verdict: Nobody has EVER made a sound syllogism, sound in its terms. From a valid premise to a valid conclusion.

Amazing !!!  I list 17 syllogisms for the existence of God, and I have not seen ONE refuted by unbelievers in a convincing way. 

1. Factories are the result of intelligent design
2. Biological cells are factories
3. Therefore, biological cells are designed.

1. Life is either created or not created.
2. Life must have been created by intelligence. 
3. Therefore, most probably, God exists. 

125 reasons to believe in God
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god

Matt sticks to scientism, uses blind faith in evolutionary claims and abiogenesis, and uses all kind of escapes to deny the God hypothesis. When a caller is more eloquent and well versed and informed, he becomes VERY outspoken, aggressive, interrupts the callers, or mutes them, to the point that he lowers the lever to namecalling ( You're an idiot !! ).
When a caller is less schooled to refute his claims, and contradicts himself, or makes logical fallacies, then there is a crowd from the production behind the scene loud laughing and using scorn.

Matt hides behind his "working horse slogan": I don't make any claims, the caller makes the claims that God exists, so the burden of proof is on him. This is a convenient tactic to hide and stay in advantage right from the beginning. He has only to deny but does not have to provide any evidence of a better alternative.

So what is this show all about?  Matt, I wrote to you on FB messenger. You said: If you know what position I hold on abiogenesis, I will not block you. I said: Your claim is: " I don't know". You blocked me. Unblock me, I am inviting you to expose your case on my timeline on Facebook. Since you claimed that NOBODY did demonstrate you a syllogism with sound premise and inference, I posted mine above. Refute it if you can. Good luck.

In this episode back in 2014, Jonathan McLatchie called in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDDmZ6sK--Q&fbclid=IwAR2eQB1atHbJNNUQ_TU15yWngByfybK67uguRciZebHPkCsFYFfbuJr8Zqw

It begins at he 9.55 min. I think Jonathan did a tremendous job. If someone makes such an eloquent and clear case for Intelligent Design, and the other side is unable to grasp that information only comes from intelligence, that person cannot be brought to reason by reason. Matts escape was to claim that if science has not yet found natural causes to explain the information stored in DNA, it will keep searching further until such a source is found. Because, otherwise, the scientific investigation comes to a stop. Did it come to his mind, that science could take the default position that the DNA Code IS due to design by a designer and that the claim is falsified when science can demonstrate that other, natural, non-intelligent causes are a viable alternative? Truth is, that complex, specified ( instructional ) codified information is a hallmark of intelligent design, and in order to specify the complex arrangement of the minimal protein set of 560 proteins of a supposed LUCA, with an average of 400 left-handed amino acids, it would take the shuffle of random attempts 10^ 150000 times until getting a functional set. That's in the realm of the IMPOSSIBLE. But certain people are unable to grasp and understand that.

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT? A RESPONSE TO MATT DILLAHUNTY
https://crossexamined.org/intelligent-design-circular-argument-response-matt-dillahunty/?fbclid=IwAR1j1P9I9-AVnqnFok_oq9Ig9pMj603jeLxOeSPBBZJq6pSwiE0E-MTizQs

Main topics on complex, specified/instructional coded information in biochemical systems and life
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2625-information-main-topics-on-complex-specified-instructional-coded-information-in-biochemical-systems-and-life?fbclid=IwAR3Ku-fUpZ3XvX2UaaLV4X_Vsqoj5tj6M7qudtOtmCIrGC6SGXFFOCN31C8

The problem of information

Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician - Father of Cybernetics
"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day."

It has to be explained:
- a library index and fully automated information classification, storage and retrieval program ( chromosomes, and the gene regulatory network )
- The origin of the complex, codified, specified, instructional information stored in the genome and epigenetic codes to make the first living organism
- The origin of the genetic Code
- How it got nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences
- How it got more robust than 1 million alternative possible codes
- The origin of the over twentythree epigenetic codes
- The origin of the information transmission system, that is the origin of the genetic code itself, encoding, transmission, decoding and translation
- The origin of the genetic cipher/translation, from digital ( DNA / mRNA ) to analog ( Protein )
- The origin of the hardware, that is DNA, RNA, amino acids, and carbohydrates for fuel generation
- The origin of the replication/duplication of the DNA
- The origin of the signal recognition particle
- The origin of the tubulin Code for correct direction to the final destination of proteins

none of the above items can be explained by evolution since evolution depends on all this.

1. Regulation, governing, controlling, recruiting, interpretation, recognition, orchestrating, elaborating strategies, guiding, instruct are all tasks of the gene regulatory network.
2. Such activity can only be exercised if no intelligence is present if the correct actions were pre-programmed by intelligence.
3. Therefore, most probably, the gene regulatory network was programmed by an intelligent agency.

1. The setup of functional Information retrieval systems, like a library classification system, is always tracked back to intelligence
2. The gene regulatory network is a fully automated, pre-programmed, ultra-complex gene information extraction system
3. Therefore, its origin is best explained through intelligent setup

1. DNA stores information based on a code system, and codified, complex, instructional information, with the same function as a blueprint.
2. All codes and blueprints come from intelligence.
3. Therefore, the genetic code and the instructions to build cells and complex biological organisms, stored in DNA, were most likely created by an intelligent agency.

1. Cells use sophisticated information transmission and amplification systems (signalling pathways), information interpretation, combination and selection ( the Gene regulatory network ) encoding and transcription ( DNA & RNA polymerase machines ) transmission (mRNA), and decoding ( Ribosome ) systems.
2. Setup of information transmission systems, aka. transmission, amplification, interpretation, combination, selection, encoding, transmission, and decoding are always a deliberate act of intelligence
3. The existence of the genetic information transmission system is best explained by the implementation of an intelligent designer.

Science papers that shift the origin of biodiversity,  body form and cell-shape to genetic AND epigenetic mechanisms : 

Integrins and ion channels in cell migration: implications for neuronal development, wound healing and metastatic spread.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20549944

Morphogenetic fields in embryogenesis, regeneration, and cancer: Non-local control of complex patterning
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3413735/

Principles of planar polarity in animal development
http://dev.biologists.org/content/138/10/1877

Morphogenetic Systems as cognitive agents
http://ase.tufts.edu/biology/labs/levin/research/newdirections.htm

Research on the Dynamics of Information Processing in Biological Structures
http://ase.tufts.edu/biology/labs/levin/research/index.htm

Molecular pathways regulating mitotic spindle orientation in animal cells
http://dev.biologists.org/content/140/9/1843

Evolutionary bioscience as regulatory systems biology
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012160611000911?np=y

Global Control Regions and Regulatory Landscapes in Vertebrate Development and Evolution
http://bejerano.stanford.edu/readings/public/80_Function_GCRs.pdf

CONTROL OF TRANSCRIPTION BY SEQUENCESPECIFIC DNA-BINDING PROTEINS
http://www.garlandscience.com/res/pdf/9780815341291_ch08.pdf

The transcription factor code: defining the role of a developmental transcription factor in the adult brain.
For the human brain to develop and function correctly, each of its 100 billion neurons must follow a specific and pre-programmed code of gene expression. This code is driven by key transcription factors that regulate the expression of numerous proteins, moulding the neurons identity to create its unique shape and electrical behaviour.
https://www.findaphd.com/search/projectdetails.aspx?PJID=41943

Unraveling a novel transcription factor code determining the human arterial-specific endothelial cell signature
Our pioneering profiling study on freshly isolated ECs unveiled a combinatorial transcriptional code that induced an arterial fingerprint more proficiently than the current gold standard, HEY2, and this codeconveyed an in vivo arterial-like behavior upon venous ECs.
http://www.bloodjournal.org/content/122/24/3982?sso-checked=true

The transcriptional regulatory code of eukaryotic cells--insights from genome-wide analysis of chromatin organization and transcription factor binding.
The term 'transcriptional regulatory code' has been used to describe the interplay of these events in the complex control of transcription. With the maturation of methods for detecting in vivo protein-DNA interactions on a genome-wide scale, detailed maps of chromatin features and transcription factor localization over entire genomes of eukaryotic cells are enriching our understanding of the properties and nature of this transcriptional regulatory code.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16647254

The Splicing code
rigin and evolution of spliceosomal introns
http://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-11

The rna binding protein binding code
A compendium of RNA-binding motifs for decoding gene regulation
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7457/full/nature12311.html

microRNA binding code
The code within the code: microRNAs target coding regions
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20372064

The Glycan or Sugar Code
Biological information transfer beyond the genetic code: the sugar code
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10798195

Epigenetic Regulation by Heritable RNA
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3990477/

Macroevolution. Fact, or fantasy ?  2

Micro evolution and secondary speciation is a fact. The macrochange however from one organism into another  in long periods of time, the change of body plans and evolutionary novelties  is not a fact, not even a theory, or even a hypothesis. Its just fantasy without a shred of evidence. Its not possible.  Show me some examples of observed facts;  please provide and give me empirical data of a unorganized undirected unguided Neo-Darwinian accidental random macro-evolutionary event of a change/transition, where  one "kind" can evolve into another beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) ,  like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plans, What is an evolutionary novelty? A list of most-often cited examples include the shell of turtles (Cebra-Thomas et al. 2005), flight (Prum 2005), flowers (Albert, Oppenheimer, and Lindqvist 2002), the ability of great tits to open bottles of milk (Kothbauerhellmann 1990), the transition from the jaw to the ear of some bones during the evolution of mammals from reptiles (Brazeau and Ahlberg 2006), eyes (Fernald 2006), hearts (Olson 2006), bipedalism (Richmond and Strait 2000), and the origin of Hox genes (Wagner, Amemiya, and Ruddle 2003);   Ernst Mayr, a major figure of the MS, defined novelties as “any newly acquired structure or property that permits the performance of a new function, which, in turn, will open a new adaptive zone” (Mayr 1963, 602)something that we merely don't have to just put  blind faith in?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612191
In the last 25 years, criticism of most theories advanced by Darwin and the neo-Darwinians has increased considerably, and so did their defense. Darwinism has become an ideology, while the most significant theories of Darwin were proven unsupportable. 

Dissecting Darwinism
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/
regarding the origin of the species and life (DNA), even Darwin commented, “If it could be shown that complex systems could not arise by small sequential steps, then my theory would completely break down.” Irreducibly complex systems involving thousands of interrelated specifically coded enzymes do exist in every organ of the human body. At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA and the inability to explain the incredible information contained in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin of DNA. As new theories emerge that explain the origin of life, the inevitable emotional accusations of heresy and ignorance are not surprising in a period of scientific revolution. It is therefore time to sharpen the minds of students, biologists, and physicians for the possibility of a new paradigm.

Lynn Margulis

Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement... Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation.

The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another….No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.

I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change - led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.

biology is opening the black box, and demonstrating how organisms develop. We are slowly getting out of a state of ignorance in regard of what mechanisms determines cell shape, assignment of their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis).

The process of morphogenesis, which can be defined as an evolution of the form of an organism, is one of the most intriguing mysteries in the life sciences. The discovery and description of the spatial– temporal distribution of the gene expression pattern during morphogenesis, together with its key regulators, is one of the main recent achievements in developmental biology. Nevertheless, gene expression patterns cannot explain the development of the precise geometry of an organism and its parts in space. 1

Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's doubt pg.218: 

Contemporary critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge, of course, that preexisting forms of life can diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and genetic mutation. Known microevolutionary processes can account for small changes in the coloring of peppered moths, the  acquisition of antibiotic resistance in different strains of bacteria, and cyclical variations in the size of Galápagos finch beaks. Nevertheless, many biologists now argue that neo-Darwinian theory does not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of new body plans or events such as the Cambrian explosion. For example, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, formerly of Yale University, has expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate by minor changes at the genetic level. Geneticist George Miklos, of the Australian National University, has argued that neo- Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and structure. Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff have attempted to develop a new theory of evolution to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argue, cannot adequately explain large-scale macroevolutionary change. As they note: 

Starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its neo-Darwinism's adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but  microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved." 

pg. 204 

Genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means "above" or "beyond," so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. "Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form." "epigenetic" or "contextual information" plays a crucial role in the formation of animal "body  assemblies" during embryological development. 

Recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all. "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution," it has "no theory of the generative." neo-Darwinism "completely avoids the question of the origination of phenotypic traits and of organismal form."

Mechanisms known to affect the phenotype.


1. The RNA methylation
2. The DNA dinucleotide methylation
3. The DNA CpG island methylation
4. The histone methylation
5. The chromatin remodeling
6. The DNA coiling
7. The microRNA regulation
8. The alternative splicing
No gene sequence alterations in the list, because
- Deletions, insertions and frameshift mutations are misinterpretations of the alternative splicing mechanism
- Retrogenes and genetic recombinations are misinterpretations of the alternative splicing mechanism
- RNA based gene duplications are misinterpretations of the alternative splicing mechanism
So, what do the evolutionists have left for supporting their idea of random mutations and natural selection?
Point mutations, which don't occur randomly. Methylated cytosine may flip to thymine and this alteration will not be repaired by the repair mechanisms. This is a designed feature. At intensive level it leads to gene inactivation, further it leads to chromatin remodeling and yet further, to chromosome loss. The DNA of every organism gets only degraded, little by little.

1.Darwin's proposal of natural selection, including the most recent proposal, the modern synthesis. accounts for biodiversity, and has withstood the paradigm of biological sciences upon today and rests on peer review and general scientific consensus.
2. At least 23 epigenetic mechanisms, not DNA related, have been discovered, which influence morphological innovation, development and body form.
3. The theory of evolution, in all its forms and variations, which build only on gene variations, has been falsified.

Cell and body shape and organism development depends on the following : 
Membrane targets and patterns 
Cytoskeletal arrays
Centrosomes 
Ion channels, and 
Sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code)
Gene regulatory networks

Various codes and the encoded epigenetic information is required
The Genetic Code
The Splicing Codes
The Metabolic Code
The Signal Transduction Codes
The Signal Integration Codes
The Histone Code
The Tubulin Code
The Sugar Code
The Glycomic Code
The non-ribosomal code
The Calcium Code
The RNA code
A domain substrate specificity code of Nonribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPS)
The DNA methylation Code
The coactivator/corepressor/epigenetic code
The transcription factor code
The post-translational modification code for transcription factors
The HOX Code

"The fact of evolution is widely acknowledged and has been a central pillar of modern biology since prominent natural historians (i.e., paleontologists, systematists, and evolutionary theorists) and Mendelian geneticists began to reconcile findings from their respective fields in the mid-1930s and forged what came to be known as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis little more than a decade later (Bowler, 2003 and Mayr, 1983; for a pre-Modern Synthesis perspective, see Patten, 1920). However, despite broad acceptance of this framework, the tempo and mode of evolution (see Simpson, 1984) have remained persistent points of controversy and debate among contemporary biologists (Gould and Eldredge, 1977, Gould and Lewontin, 1979, Coyne, 2008, Noble, 2015 and Shapiro, 2011). Indeed, Laland et al. (2015) recently suggested that evolutionary theory is now at a major crossroads, due largely to the fact that the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis has not satisfactorily incorporated progress in developmental biology, genomics, and ecology—findings that could otherwise greatly illuminate the pace, nature, and mechanisms of evolutionary change. They propose a new framework, the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES), which underlines a prominent role for constructive developmental processes in evolution and champions a reciprocal causal picture of organismal change, i.e., the idea that “… organisms shape, and are shaped by, selective and developmental environments” ( Laland et al., 2015, p. 2). 

Origin of the vertebrate body plan via mechanically biased conservation of regular geometrical patterns in the structure of the blastula

We present a plausible account of the origin of the archetypal vertebrate bauplan. We offer a theoretical reconstruction of the geometrically regular structure of the blastula resulting from the sequential subdivision of the egg, followed by mechanical deformations of the blastula in subsequent stages of gastrulation. We suggest that the formation of the vertebrate bauplan during development, as well as fixation of its variants over the course of evolution, have been constrained and guided by global mechanical biases. Arguably, the role of such biases in directing morphology—though all but neglected in previous accounts of both development and macroevolution—is critical to any substantive explanation for the origin of the archetypal vertebrate bauplan. We surmise that the blastula inherently preserves the underlying geometry of the cuboidal array of eight cells produced by the first three cleavages that ultimately define the medial-lateral, dorsal-ventral, and anterior-posterior axes of the future body plan. Through graphical depictions, we demonstrate the formation of principal structures of the vertebrate body via mechanical deformation of predictable geometrical patterns during gastrulation. The descriptive rigor of our model is supported through comparisons with previous characterizations of the embryonic and adult vertebrate bauplane. Though speculative, the model addresses the poignant absence in the literature of any plausible account of the origin of vertebrate morphology. A robust solution to the problem of morphogenesis—currently an elusive goal—will only emerge from consideration of both top-down (e.g., the mechanical constraints and geometric properties considered here) and bottom-up (e.g., molecular and mechano-chemical) influences.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610716300542

Cell and body shape, and organism development does  depend on genetic AND epigenetic information

Above and beyond: Epigenetic information  genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal.  Developmental biologists, in particular, are now discovering more and more ways that crucial information for building body plans is imparted by the form and structure of embryonic cells, including information from both the unfertilized and fertilized egg. DNA helps direct protein synthesis. Parts of the DNA molecule also help to regulate the timing and expression of genetic information and the synthesis of various proteins within cells. Yet once proteins are synthesized, they must be arranged into higher-level systems of proteins and structures. The three-dimensional structure or spatial architecture of embryonic cells play important roles in determining body-plan formation during embryogenesis. Developmental biologists have identified several sources of epigenetic information in these cells.  Organismal form and function depend upon the precise arrangement of various constituents as they arise during, or contribute to, embryological development. Thus, the specific arrangement of the other building blocks of biological form—cells, clusters of similar cell types, dGRNs, tissues, and organs—also represent a kind of specified or functional information.

The Gene regulation network Epigenetics refers to heritable changes in gene expression that occur without alteration in DNA sequence. These changes may be induced spontaneously, induced by environmental factors or as a consequence of specific mutations. There are two primary and interconnected epigenetic mechanisms: DNA methylation and covalent modification of histones. In addition, it has become apparent that non-coding RNA is also intimately involved in this process. The different mechanisms that control epigenetic changes do not stand alone, and there are a clear interconnection and interdependency between DNA methylation // Histone modification and incorporation of histone variants // Chromatin remodelling in Eukaryotic Cells //  Non-coding RNA-mediated epigenetic regulation

Epigenetic Codes The Genetic Code // The Splicing Codes // The Metabolic Code // The Signal Transduction Codes // The Signal Integration Codes // The Histone Code //  The Tubulin Code //  The Sugar Code //  The Glycomic Code // The non-ribosomal code //  The Calcium Code //  The RNA code  // A domain substrate specificity code of Nonribosomal synthetases (NRPS) //  The DNA methylation Code //  The coactivator/corepressor/epigenetic code

Junk DNA  MicroRNAs--"Once Dismissed as Junk"--Confirmed To Have Important Gene Regulatory Function In 2008 Scientific American noted that microRNAs were "once dismissed as junk" and said the following: Tiny snippets of the genome known as microRNA were long thought to be genomic refuse because they were transcribed from so-called "junk DNA," sections of the genome that do not carry information for making proteins responsible for various cellular functions. Evidence has been building since 1993, however, that microRNA is anything but genetic bric-a-brac. Quite the contrary, scientists say that it actually plays a crucial role in switching protein-coding genes on or off and regulating the amount of protein those genes produce.

Transposons and Retrotransposons  Striking evidence has accumulated indicating that some proviral sequences and HERV proteins might even serve the needs of the host and are therefore under positive selection. The remarkable progress in the analysis of host genomes has brought to light the significant impact of HERVs and other retroelements on genetic variation, genome evolution, and gene regulation.

Centrosomes  play a central role in development: a frog egg can be induced to develop into a frog merely by injecting a sperm centrosome—no sperm DNA is needed. Another non-genetic factor involved in development is the membrane pattern of the egg cell. 

Cytoskeletal arrays  The precise arrangement of microtubules in the cytoskeleton constitutes a form of critical structural information. neither the tubulin subunits, nor the genes that produce them, account for the differences in the shape of the microtubule arrays that distinguish different kinds of embryos and developmental pathways. Instead, the structure of the microtubule array itself is, once again, determined by the location and arrangement of its subunits, not the properties of the subunits themselves. Jonathan Wells explains it this way: “What matters in [embryological] development is the shape and location of microtubule arrays, and the shape and location of a microtubule array is not determined by its units.” Directed transport involves the cytoskeleton, but it also depends on spatially localized targets in the membrane that are in place before transport occurs. Developmental biologists have shown that these membrane patterns play a crucial role in the embryological development of fruit flies.

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

Ion channels and electromagnetic fields  Experiments have shown that electromagnetic fields have “morphogenetic” effects—in other words, effects that influence the form of a developing organism. In particular, some experiments have shown that the targeted disturbance of these electric fields disrupts normal development in ways that suggest the fields are controlling morphogenesis.2 Artificially applied electric fields can induce and guide cell migration. There is also evidence that direct current can affect gene expression, meaning internally generated electric fields can provide spatial coordinates that guide embryogenesis.3 Although the ion channels that generate the fields consist of proteins that may be encoded by DNA (just as microtubules consist of subunits encoded by DNA), their pattern in the membrane is not. Thus, in addition to the information in DNA that encodes morphogenetic proteins, the spatial arrangement and distribution of these ion channels influences the development of the animal.

The Sugar Code These sequence-specific information-rich structures influence the arrangement of different cell types during embryological development. Thus, some cell biologists now refer to the arrangements of sugar molecules as the “sugar code” and compare these sequences to the digitally encoded information stored in DNA. As biochemist Hans-Joachim Gabius notes, sugars provide a system with “high-density coding” that is “essential to allow cells to communicate efficiently and swiftly through complex surface interactions.” According to Gabius, “These [sugar] molecules surpass amino acids and nucleotides by far in information-storing capacity.” So the precisely arranged sugar molecules on the surface of cells clearly represent another source of information independent of that stored in DNA base sequences.  These cascades are, along with the cell event itself, associated with the “coding information” on a cell surface, or, using another terminology, are realized due to an instruction for the cell from the morphogenetic field of an organism. The concrete signal transduction pathways connecting the "coding information" on a cell surface and the expression of the given sets of genes need to be elucidated. 

Neo-darwinism and the challenge of epigenetic information:  These different sources of epigenetic information in embryonic cells pose an enormous challenge to the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. According to neo-Darwinism, new information, form, and structure arise from natural selection acting on random mutations arising at a very low level within the biological hierarchy—within the genetic text. Yet both body-plan formation during embryological development and major morphological innovation during the history of life depend upon a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. If DNA isn’t wholly responsible for the way an embryo develops— for body-plan morphogenesis—then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely and still not produce a new body plan, regardless of the amount of time and the number of mutational trials available to the evolutionary process. Genetic mutations are simply the wrong tool for the job at hand. Even in a best-case scenario—one that ignores the immense improbability of generating new genes by mutation and selection—mutations in DNA sequence would merely produce new genetic information. But building a new body plan requires more than just genetic information. It requires both genetic and epigenetic information—information by definition that is not stored in DNA and thus cannot be generated by mutations to the DNA. It follows that the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot by itself generate novel body plans, such as those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion.

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and multiple inheritance systems, the ‘-omics’ revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge about the factors responsible for evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process. A renewed and extended theoretical synthesis, advocated by several authors in this issue, aims to unite pertinent concepts that emerge from the novel fields with elements of the standard theory. The resulting theoretical framework differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities. Whereas the MS theory and its various amendments concentrate on genetic and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasizes the role of constructive processes, ecological interactions and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity as well as its social and cultural conditions. Single-level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation. Among other consequences, the extended framework overcomes many of the limitations of traditional gene-centric explanation and entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process. All these features stimulate research into new areas of evolutionary biology.

A well-established paradigm that has its roots in a major theoretical integration that took place approximately eight decades ago, traditionally labelled the modern synthesis (MS) or Synthetic Theory, still dominates evolutionary thought today. In the meantime, the biological sciences have progressed extensively. The material basis of inheritance has been unravelled and entire new fields of research have arisen, such as molecular genetics, evolutionary developmental biology and systems biology. In addition, new evolutionarily relevant factors have been described, including non-genetic inheritance, developmental bias, niche construction, genomic evolution and others. Clearly, our understanding of evolution has significantly expanded, and it would be surprising if these empirical and conceptual advances had no theoretical consequences, so that in the midst of a substantial growth of knowledge, the central theory uniting the different fields of biology remained unaltered.

In fact, our theoretical understanding of biological evolution has not remained unaltered. Slight modifications and adjustments to the received theory are recognized even in the most traditional quarters. But in the past decade, without much notice by general audiences, a more wide-ranging debate has arisen from different areas of biology as well as from history and philosophy of science, about whether and in which ways evolutionary theory is affected, challenged or changed by the advances in biology and other fields. As usual in such cases, more conservative perspectives and more progressive ones are in conflict with each other, with differences ranging from minor to intense. A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution, indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike. In the present essay, I will concentrate on the arguments and debates triggered by one particular alternative to the standard theory that has become known under the term extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). This proposal for an integration of revised and additional components of evolutionary theory into a coherent explanatory framework, as recently elaborated by Laland et al., has caught on as one of the crystallizing points in the ongoing debate. No claim is made that this approach represents the only way of addressing theory revision in biology.

The theory of evolution is the fundamental conceptual framework of biology all scientific explanations of living phenomena must be consistent with. As it does not describe a universal law regarding a single natural phenomenon, such as gravity, but rather the principles of organismal change over time, based on the highly complex inputs and interactions of a multiplicity of different factors, evolutionary theory cannot be expected to remain static but is subject to change in the light of new empirical evidence. This is a normal process of scientific advancement and not a heretical undertaking as it is sometimes perceived to be. Explanations of organismal diversity have changed significantly during pre- and post-Darwinian periods, and it should not come as a surprise that fresh stimuli arise from the new methodologies and the expanded scope of modern biological research. Indeed, a growing number of challenges to the classical model of evolution have emerged over the past few years, such as from 

evolutionary developmental biology, 
epigenetics, 
physiology, 
genomics, 
ecology, 
plasticity research, 
population genetics, 
regulatory evolution, 
network approaches, 
novelty research, 
behavioural biology, 
microbiology
systems biology 

further supported by arguments from the cultural  and social sciences, as well as by philosophical treatments. None of these contentions are unscientific, all rest firmly on evolutionary principles and all are backed by substantial empirical evidence.

Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous, but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory, which they see as having ‘co-evolved’ together with the methodological and empirical advances that already receive their due in current evolutionary biology. But the repeatedly emphasized fact that innovative evolutionary mechanisms have been mentioned in certain earlier or more recent writings does not mean that the formal structure of evolutionary theory has been adjusted to them. To the contrary, the discrepancies between the current usage of evolutionary concepts and the predictions derived from the classical model have grown. Hence, it will be useful to characterize some of the differences that exist between the MS theory and proposed alternatives.

The quest of evolution is about the origin of complex organismal features, such as morphological, physiological or behavioural traits, in order to explain the mechanism of the processes that generate these features and how—in turn these processes are investigated by developmental biology (evo-devo), systems biology, or the behavioural sciences.

Even though claims have been made that classical evolutionary biology has continuously incorporated aspects from new conceptual domains, the majority of tenets and explanations that appear in characterizations of the current theory are still derived from the MS account and its population genetic principles. In a condensed form, these tenets are as follows:

(i) all evolutionary explanation requires the study of populations of organisms;
(ii) populations contain genetic variation that arises randomly from mutation and recombination;
(iii) populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by natural selection, gene flow and drift;
(iv) genetic variants generate slight phenotypic effects and the resulting phenotypic variation is gradual and continuous;
(v) genetic inheritance alone accounts for the transmission of selectable variation;
(vi) new species arise by a prevention of gene flow between populations that evolve differently;
(vii) the phenotypic differences that distinguish higher taxa result from the incremental accumulation of genetic variation;
(viii) natural selection represents the only directional factor in evolution.



Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary
As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of new findings. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of other phenomena remains excluded. For instance, the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behaviour—whose variation it describes—actually arise, and it also provides no adequate means for including factors that are not part of the population genetic framework, such as developmental, systems theoretical, ecological or cultural influences.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/#RSFS20170015C15


What are the mechanisms on a molecular level responsible to make complex organisms?

Preprogrammed codified information, signalling, and physiological inheritance replaces Darwin's theory and its various subsequent adaptations,
extensions, and more recent proposals like the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES).  Darwins Theory of Evolution to explain biodiversity can
be replaced with

" Biochemical systems programming, signalling and physiological inheritance"

1. The Gene regulation network orchestrates gene expression
2. Various signalling 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 genes determine the shape of the body.
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. The precise arrangement of Cytoskeletal arrays provides critical structural information.
12. Membrane targets provide crucial information—spatial coordinates—for embryological development.
13. Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields influence the form of a developing organism
14. The Sugar Code forms information-rich structures which influence the arrangement of different cell types during embryological development.
15. Egg-polarity genes encode macromolecules deposited in the egg to organize the axes
16. Hormones  are special chemical messengers for development


1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/#RSFS20170015C15

Transmembrane proteins 
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2398-how-cell-membrane-proteins-point-to-the-requirement-of-planning-intelligence-and-design-for-their-biosynthesis-specific-function-and-insertion-in-the-cell-membrane

Signalling pathways:
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2351-the-essential-signaling-pathways-for-animal-development

The Gene regulation network
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2194-control-of-gene-expression-and-gene-regulatory-networks-point-to-intelligent-design

Epigenetic Codes
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2213-the-various-codes-in-the-cell

Chromatin dance in the nucleus through extensile motors
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2746-chromatin-dance-in-the-nucleus-through-extensile-motors-contribute-to-another-higher-order-promoting-gene-regulation-and-expression-design-or-evolution

Post-transcriptional modifications (PTMs) of histones 
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2727-post-transcriptional-modifications-ptms-of-histones-affect-gene-transcription

Chromatin remodeling
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2726-chromatin-remodeling

The transcription factor Code
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2738-transcription-factors-tf

The DNA methylation code and language
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2725-the-dna-methylation-code-and-language

Homeobox and Hox Genes
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2590p25-origins-what-cause-explains-best-our-existence-and-why#6167

" Junk DNA "
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2359-how-junk-dna-confirms-intelligent-design-predictions

Transposons and Retrotransposons
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2393-transposons-and-retrotransposons

Centrosomes
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2090-centriole-biogenesis-and-the-duplication-cycle-amazing-evidence-of-design

Cytoskeletal arrays 
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2096-the-astonishing-language-written-on-microtubules-amazing-evidence-of-design

Signaling between cells orients the mitotic spindle 
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2383-how-signaling-between-cells-can-orient-a-mitotic-spindle

Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2293-the-recent-groundbreaking-scientific-research-which-explains-the-real-mechanisms-of-biodiversity

The Sugar Code
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2071-carbohydrates-and-glycobiology-the-3rd-alphabet-of-life-after-dna-and-proteins

In order to elucidate what mechanisms define and orchestrate cell shape and size, body form and organization, the complex organization of organismal structure, physiology, development and behaviour, Gerd B. Müller evolutionary biologist,  expresses  skepticism about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, even if he acknowledges that it “still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution, as exemplified by recent textbooks”. In a recent paper from August 2017: Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary, of royal society publishing 1, he writes about Systems biology:

From a different domain, systems biology, arise theoretical conceptions that have the capacity to integrate several of the previously mentioned evolutionary components. The kind of systems biology capable of doing this is not the ubiquitous ‘-omics’ blossoming today, but the theoretical framework that deals with the study of systems properties of organisms and their interactions across levels of organization, from molecules to populations of organisms, including physiological, behavioural and cultural factors. Although today's organismal systems biology is mostly rooted in biophysics and biological function, its endeavours are profoundly integrative, aiming at multiscale and multilevel explanations of organismal properties and their evolution. Rather than merely evoking the powers of computation for analysing multiple interactions of biological components, the capacity of systems biology is better interpreted as a scientific attitude that combines ‘reductionist’ approaches (study of constituent parts) with ‘integrationist’ approaches (study of internal and external interactions). Having gone historically through ups and downs, systems theoretical conceptions, whether explicitly or implicitly, now form part of the theoretical foundations of many different fields and are beginning to take centre stage in evolutionary biology also.

These examples of conceptual change in various domains of evolutionary biology represent only a condensed segment of the advances made since the inception of the modern synthesis (MS) theory some 80 years ago. Relatively minor attention has been paid to the fact that many of these concepts, which are in full use today, sometimes contradict or expand central tenets of the MS theory. Given proper attention, these conceptual expansions force us to consider what they mean for our present understanding of evolution. Obviously, several of the cornerstones of the traditional evolutionary framework need to be revised and new components incorporated into a common theoretical structure.

This is a remarkable admission, and is full in line with my personal investigations, which have brought me to conclude that organismal architecture is based on a systemic level, that is, genetics is just one determinant, amongst in majority epigenetic mechanisms, in special , information based on signalling, and epigenetic Codes and languages. Following statement of Systemsbiology website: ( https://systemsbiology.org/ ) bolsters that view:

‘Systems biology is the study of an organism, viewed as an integrated and interacting network of genes, proteins and biochemical reactions which give rise to life. Instead of analyzing individual components or aspects of the organism, such as sugar metabolism or a cell nucleus, systems biologists focus on all the components and the interactions among them, all as part of one system. These interactions are ultimately responsible for an organism's form and functions.’

The last sentence falsifies the current that status quo which still is a gene centric view, as seen at the website of Berkeley university:

Claim: Mechanisms: the processes of evolution: Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors. Evolution is responsible for both the remarkable similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life. Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective forces can act in order for evolution to occur. These mechanisms of evolution are:

- Descent and the genetic differences that are heritable and passed on to the next generation;
- Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection as mechanisms of change
Source: Understanding evolution: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_14

Question: Which of the items below does NOT define Cell and body form, size and shape,
and organism development, and diversity of life? If you cannot point it out, you demonstrate lack of knowledge
to argue about if Darwins Theory is true,  and confirmed, or not:

Genetic:
DNA Code sequence:
Genes involved in Cell-Cell communication and transcriptional control
Chromatin dance in the nucleus through extensile motors
Homeobox and Hox Genes
"Junk DNA"
microRNA
Transposons and Retrotransposons

Epigenetic ( beyond or outside the genetic information ) :

signalling pathways:

- Hedgehog (Hh)
- Wingless related (Wnt)
- Transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β)
- Receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK)
- Notch
- Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer  
- Activators of transcription (STAT) protein kinases
- Nuclear hormone pathways
- Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMP)
- Epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR)
- Fibroblast growth factors (FGF)
- DNA methylation 
- Histone modification and incorporation of histone variants
- Chromatin remodelling in Eukaryotic Cells  
- Non-coding RNA-mediated epigenetic regulation

1. Membrane targets and patterns
2. Cytoskeletal arrays
3. Centrosomes
4. Ion channels, and their location in the cell membrane
5. Sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar or glycan code)
6. Gene regulatory networks
7. Post-transcriptional modifications (PTMs) of histones

Epigenetic Codes:
The Genomic regulatory Code
The Splicing Codes
The Metabolic Code
The Signal Transduction Codes
The Signal Integration Codes
The Histone Code
The Tubulin Code
The Sugar Code
The Glycomic Code
The non-ribosomal code
The Calcium Code
The RNA code
A domain substrate specificity code of Nonribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPS)
The DNA methylation Code
The coactivator/corepressor/epigenetic code
The transcription factor code
The post-translational modification code for transcription factors
The HOX Code
The Synaptic Adhesive Code
The Apoptosis Code
The Ubiquitin Code
The bioelectric code
The transcriptional cis-regulatory code

The answer :
ALL of the above-mentioned items ( and many more which science will discover ) do influence cell shape, body form, and development. Genes have influence but do not stand alone.
I think, we, Creationists / ID-proponents, have made it into a hobby, to point out why Darwins Theory is false. Above points it out in a nutshell, why. You can save this list on your laptop, and use it, every time when an atheist wishes to educate you on evolution.

1. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015

PAUL bolliger
502344pp

Without that correct specific sequence, and without the genetic code consisting in triplet codons, formed of three nucleotides, the machinery that transcribes and translates the genes to make proteins can do nothing on its own, which is why the vital flame of life must be passed down from living cell to living cell, uninterrupted since the very beginning of life itself.

If nucleic acids are required to synthesize proteins and proteins are required, in turn, to synthesize nucleic acids, how did such a system of interdependent components ever arise? According to the naturalistic narrative, RNA both, somehow, stored genetic information and catalyzed the chemical reactions in primitive cells. Only later in evolutionary time did DNA take over as the genetic material and proteins become the major catalysts and structural components of cells.


Without that correct specific sequence, and without the genetic code consisting in triplet codons, formed of three nucleotides, the machinery that transcribes and translates the genes to make proteins can do nothing on its own, which is why the vital flame of life must be passed down from living cell to living cell, uninterrupted since the very beginning of life itself.

If nucleic acids are required to synthesize proteins and proteins are required, in turn, to synthesize nucleic acids, how did such a system of interdependent components ever arise? According to the naturalistic narrative, RNA both, somehow, stored genetic information and catalyzed the chemical reactions in primitive cells. Only later in evolutionary time did DNA take over as the genetic material and proteins become the major catalysts and structural components of cells.


As we will see in the upcoming video series, the synthesis, or make of DNA is by no means an easy task, but is an enormously complex process depending on a multitude of molecular machines, enzymes and proteins, prosthetic groups and co-factors, and some of the fastest molecular reactions known in nature. 

And furthermore, literally, production line processes requiring a multitude of steps which are highly sophisticated, regulated, precisely coordinated, controlled and complex.





And this brings us straight to one of the great Chicken & egg problems of origins of life research:

It takes Proteins to make all basic building blocks of life, namely amino acids, nucleotides, phospholipids, and carbohydrates. But all these basic building blocks of life, actually a fully working cell is required, to make proteins.

It takes ATP to make proteins. But it takes proteins to make ATP ( the energy currency of the cell).
It takes proteins to make amino acids ( the monomers that make proteins ). But it takes amino acids to make proteins
It takes DNA to make proteins. But it takes proteins to make DNA ( a great number of the cell machinery is actually employed to make DNA).
It takes proteins to make RNA. But it takes RNA to make proteins
It takes proteins to go from RNA to DNA.
It takes RNA and DNA to make proteins that turn RNA into DNA
It takes signalling networks to produce the right rate of products required in the cell
It takes these products to construct signalling networks
It takes Glutamate synthetase proteins ( veritable molecular computers ) to sense the right rate of nitrogen uptake, required in the cell.
It takes nitrogen to make Glutamate synthetase proteins


The four bases used in life would have had to be separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules nearby, and the solutions had to become sufficiently concentrated.
They next would have had to bind with ribose to form nucleosides. (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermodynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution: no experiment has been successful for condensing pyrimidine bases and ribose to give nucleosides.
Whatever the mode of joining base and sugar was, it had to be between the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar.
Phosphate had to be present at sufficient concentrations. (The concentrations in the oceans would have been very low)
The phosphate moiety had to be activated in some way so that phosphorylation of the nucleoside would occur.   The nucleotides now had to be activated, for example with polyphosphate or another alternative coupling agent, and a reasonably pure solution of these species created of reasonable concentration.
The activated nucleotides (or the nucleotides with coupling agent) now had to be polymerised. Initially, this could not have happened with a pre-existing polynucleotide template.  
All reactions had to take place well out of the ultraviolet sunlight; that is, not only away from its direct, highly destructive effects on nucleic acid-like molecules, but away too from the radicals produced by the sunlight, and from the various longer lived reactive species produced by these radicals.
What is required here is not some wild one-off freak of an event: it is not true to say ‘it only had to happen once’. Trillions of attempts would have had to occur to start the role of  RNA's both, as catalyst and informational carrier.
Prebiotic processes inherently function as random product generators, producing non-functional random substrates.
An enormous amount of empirical data have established, as a rule, that organic systems, given energy and left to themselves, devolve to give uselessly complex mixtures, “asphalts”. 
Biological nucleic acid replication is controlled by genetically encoded high-fidelity enzymes, and the self-assembly of such a complex and sophisticated system on the early Earth seems an extremely remote, unlikely possibility, it not saying, impossible at all. 



The Water Paradox: Water is commonly viewed as essential for life, and theories of water are well known to support this as a requirement. So are RNA, DNA, and proteins. However, these biopolymers are corroded by water. For example, the hydrolytic deamination of DNA and RNA nucleobases is rapid and irreversible, as is the base-catalyzed cleavage of RNA in water.

This leads to a paradox: RNA requires water to do its job, but RNA cannot emerge in water and cannot replicate with sufficient fidelity in water without sophisticated repair mechanisms in place. There are no solutions in sight to solve this paradox; life needs water that is inherently toxic to RNA necessary for life.

The minimal nucleotide quantity problem. The prebiotic conditions would have had to be right for reactions to give perceptible yields of bases that could pair with each other. Even if prebiotic events would have been able to make RNA prebiotically, not only a few nucleotides would have been required, but trillions.  A minimal cell requires a genome of approximately 541,000  nucleotides. 

Proposing that unguided random chemical reaction events would have produced trillions of repetitive units of each type of nucleotides, all right sized and complementary to form a double helix structure stretches far beyond what is plausible of what chance can do. Regardless of whether the actual minimum is 100,000  or 500,000 nucleotides, this is far beyond the possible range of a prebiotic nucleic acid generating mechanism.

It would eventually be able to generate a polymer with 200 nucleotides, which however soon would fall apart. Current understanding of information can give many explanations of the difficulties of creating it. It cannot explain where it comes from. 

The prebiotic appearance of nucleotides and long polymers is more difficult than the appearance of amino acids and proteins. Hence, it should take longer than a googol of googol years to for the appearance of a gene with 780 nucleotides able to code for a specifically required protein. Yet, a 200  ribonucleic acid degrades in a matter of days.

It is implausible that a googol of googol years would be enough time. On a practical basis this discussion is nonsense. These numbers are so extreme that the human mind cannot comprehend their significance.