Friday, March 9, 2018

Beginning AronRa's Series, Third Video ending with a Digression

Systematic Classification of LIfe ep1 The Root of the tree
AronRa | Ajoutée le 30 mars 2017

1:43 exactly when did Linnaeus specifically state "common descent"?

Near end ... am I to understand you consider chloroplasts of, I suppose green plants, to be cyanobacteria in endosymbiosis?

Systematic Classification of Life - ep2, Eukarya
AronRa | Ajoutée le 30 mai 2017

1:02 Just to make some terminology clear.

What you have said so far, on your view, is not part of evolution, evolution is not even concerned with it.

However, you are concerned with explaining it before you explain evolution, so, how about giving Hovind a break about words like "stellar" and "chemic" evolution?

I found "chemic evolution" in Edgar Andrews too, and he is a British man of science.

After completing a BSc degree in theoretical physics at the University of London in 1953, Edgar Andrews obtained a PhD in applied physics in 1960 (more specific: solid-state physics) and a DSc (higher doctorate) in physics in 1968. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Physics (FInstP), Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (FIMMM), Chartered Engineer (CEng, UK) and Chartered Physicist (CPhys). Andrews is also an international expert on the science of polymers (large molecules).

So, if he considered "chemical evolution" was a concept, perhaps it was in 1980 which I suppose was the original year for what was updated in 1989 as From Nothing to Nature – A Basic Guide to Evolution and Creation.

I had certainly read him before 1989, probably as early as 1980 or 1981 ... in Swedish Translation.

1:30 "all the Lead we have was once Uranium"

A postulate for U-Pb dating, and an unverified one.

2:32 "RNA can be produced spontaneously in the right chemical environment."

RNA can or aminoacids can?

Miller Urey outcome as I know it was simple amino acids. Do you have an experiment in which these turn to RNA that I have missed? Was I somehow wrong? About Miller Urey, that is ...

3:17 OK, my guess was right, you consider eucaryotic green plants (as opposed to both animals an fungi) exist thanks to endosymbiosis incorporating cyano-bacteria.

These produce oxygen as a waste product - do they do that with starch too?

Or some carbohydrate?

"Cyanobacteria use the energy of sunlight to drive photosynthesis, a process where the energy of light is used to synthesize organic compounds from carbon dioxide. Because they are aquatic organisms, they typically employ several strategies which are collectively known as a "carbon concentrating mechanism" to aid in the acquisition of inorganic carbon (CO2 or bicarbonate). Among the more specific strategies is the widespread prevalence of the bacterial microcompartments known as carboxysomes.[32] These icosahedral structures are composed of hexameric shell proteins that assemble into cage-like structures that can be several hundreds of nanometers in diameter. It is believed that these structures tether the CO2-fixing enzyme, RuBisCO, to the interior of the shell, as well as the enzyme carbonic anhydrase, using the paradigm of metabolic channeling to enhance the local CO2 concentrations and thus increase the efficiency of the RuBisCO enzyme"

So, before there were green plants, what did eucaryota live off? RuBP?

"Ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP) is an organic substance that is involved in photosynthesis. It is a colourless anion, a double phosphate ester of the ketopentose (ketone-containing sugar with five carbon atoms) called ribulose.",5-bisphosphate

Hmmm ... seems somehow legit ...

Within the generally less so general scenario. One "gotcha" I counted on ...

Bef. 4:12 "Oxygen is ... highly reactive and ... organisms adapted to exploit that."

You have heard of teleology? You just made a teleological claim ... adaptations had a purpose.

Do purposes exist outside wills and minds?

6:00 2 bill y o eucarya ... what type?

Animal, green plant, fungi, one celled fungi (like yeast cells and mold) or what?

7:55 I have no problem admitting to being eucaryote.

Eucaryote similarity of cell structure clearly points to a common origin.

It clearly therefore excludes an eternal steady state fixity of near fixity of species having no origin in common either in or above time. Democritus was wrong.

Next question is, did God create Eucaryotes all over the places days 3 to 6 excluding 4 (I suppose stars are not eucaryotes ...) or did some other god or did all Eucaryotes evolve from a 2 bill y or more old Eucaryote which evolved or formed from Procaryotes by among other things probably endosymbiosis?

Systematic Classification of Life - ep3, Metazoa
AronRa | Ajoutée le 4 juin 2017

"like looking at human history the most ancient times were an age where little or nothing changed from generation to generation"

0:41 With potassium dates it could be from either side of flood. With a certain anatomy and a certain tool shape, you discard potassium and go right ahead with carbon.

This means potassium dated men would often be contemporary to certain men carbon dated to 40 000 BP, carbon date for the Flood of Noah, or older.

Before the Flood, we had Noah, but he wasn't buried in the Flood. We also had Nod, a civilisation probably reflected best in Mahabharata ... it was hid too deep in the Flood to be found.

The Europeans we do find from then were somewhat debased often cannibals, like Neanderthals in Belgium or Antecessors in Atapuerca.

However, according to tooth enamel, some Neanderthals in Spain lived off pine nuts (yes, pesto rules) and the Heidelbergians of Terra Amata have also not been mentioned as cannibals that I have heard of.

This means, while all of Europe was as savage as pre-Columbian America or even Amazonas, it was sometimes purer than Nod (I suppose some people in Henoch in Nod would have called the cannibals in Atapuerca amateurs in evil ...).

These are then usually from last generation before the Flood. After the Flood, the new population of Europe came from the Ark, and 40 000 BP to 11600 BP are the centuries (1, 4 or 5 1/3 according to Ussher, St Jerome or Syncellus) between Flood and Babel.

Much being similar is partly due to it taking time for Noah et fam. to recover the infrastructural basis for pre-Flood not all but some technology (Nimrod would arguably have tried to propel a space craft by exploding Uranium, see Mahabharata for concept, and if God hadn't confused the tongues, he could have succeeded trying which would have damaged earth and humanity lots more than your worries about car fuels ...)

Partly it is also due to long lifetimes back then. One of my timelines (based on carbon 14 rise) makes cessation of cave paintings coincide with Syncellus date for death of Shem ... this means, if Japheth and his wife died about same time, the cave paintings could be be Japheth's wife - from those dated 35 000 BP to those dated less than 20 000 onto 15 000 BP. I suppose she had some ancestry among Europe's back then savages, which means woodmen. This would have been useful, since Noah would have known these Neanderthals and their half breed relatives had survival skills relevant to post-Flood immediate situation, and it would explain why some of us have more Neanderthal genes than others : one of Noah's inlaws was part Neanderthal.

So, whether lower or upper Palaeolithic, it was not half or even quarter as slow as you imagine.

Next time, if any, on with video 3 to its main point.

Except there was no flood.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Except you are making allegations in negative against both universal tradition (Flood not just in Hebrew but vast majority of other traditions too in some kind of parallel and mostly a Flood setting), and against a very plausible explanation for Geologic so called "Column" which would be better named "Bio-Map".

No comments: