How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: cooperton

Yes when they can't debate the biological scientific facts this is what they do.......it's sad really.

Poor Evolutionists beaten by their own revered science.....

THe cut that you believe what you wrote makes me cert sad for you guys. I am debating biological facts and asking for cooperton to support his position, which he can’t. So no, not “poor evolutionists” it’s the poor willfully ignorant who don’t understand the most basic aspects of biology yet you guys feel that your high school education makes you experts in the finer points of subjects I’ve studied, taught and worked in for decades. How many digs have you worked on? How many papers have you written and had torn apart by your peers because you presented a hypothesis that was antithetical to current understanding of archaic hominids only to be vinidicated by further research and then proven by others looking into the same work? Have you spent any time in a lab doing mundane work like cleaning fossilized remains and then documenting and measuring attachment point scars and then ran the numbers to determine muscle mass of a Neanderthal? Because I and others here have actually done all the BS work and put forth our own hypotheses and presented them for peer review.

The only thing you beat us at is gullibility and willful ignorance. Google is a lovely tool but if you don’t understand the material you misinterpret it and present it as fact. That’s what cooperton does and you’re just another scientifically ignorant cheerleader. He didn’t answer my questions, he engaged in ad hominem attacks. It’s pathetic and shows that he’s way out of his depth. And you cheer away because you’re scared of science being correct because it destroys your minority world view if evolution is true. I feel for folks like you.

originally posted by: peter vlar

THe cut that you believe what you wrote makes me cert sad for you guys. I am debating biological facts and asking for cooperton to support his position, which he can’t.

You're avoiding your blatant mistakes by lashing out at other people now. You were unaware that all organisms require transcription and translation regulated by epigenetic control. This is a basic biological concept... and you were asking for evidence of that... it makes me doubt you know even the most basic concepts of biology.

Even worse, you never admit when you're wrong. you also still think:

"epigenetic mutations is actually nothing more than the way genes are expressing themselves after an SNP event."

Even though SNP events are hard-wired changes, whereas epigenetics are alterations in gene expression (transcription and translation). The online blog article you gave to try to support your baseless assertion was 8 years old and not up to date with current understandings in epigenetics. It was attempting to attribute perceived inheritability to SNPs, which we now know that epigenetics are actually inheritable, so it is an out-dated article that didn't even say what you wished it would say.

Admit you are wrong or stop wasting other people's time with your self-perceived infallibility.

originally posted by: cooperton
You guys are something else. Epigenetics is the modification of gene expression. Gene expression is the process of transcription and translation of a gene to form proteins, which can be modified according to physiological needs.

All organisms require gene expression transcription and translation, of which its modification is referred to as "epigenetics". This is basic stuff. You guys are literally denying basic biology to try to argue with me.

I'm not arguing against epigenetics, I'm arguing against your flawed claim that it conflicts with evolution and is required for expression of every single gene to ever exist.

Epigenetics is not the only way transcription and translation changes occur. It is one way out of 3 that gene expression can change on that level.

How does that counter evolution or help intelligent design? Epigenetics is something that works along with evolution. It is not an alternative. There is no conflict, unless you are really suggesting that it completely replaces genetic mutations as a mechanism for evolution. Is that what you are getting at?

originally posted by: Barcs

I'm not arguing against epigenetics, I'm arguing against your flawed claim that it conflicts with evolution and is required for expression of every single gene to ever exist.

It will be tough to explain if you don't grasp the necessity of every gene to be regulated. A gene that gets transcribed and translated into a protein NEEDS to be regulated, otherwise there will be an excess or scarcity of that protein. Many diseases occur due to a lack of epigenetic control... further demonstrating all genes require regulation. Even the most basic single-celled organisms all have epigenetic mechanisms regulating the expression of their genetic code.

I can't communicate the difficulty this offers evolutionary theory if you don't understand this basic concept.

There are many regulating factors that ensure that a proper genetic expression is maintained to adapt to various behavioral and environment cues. Take for example nuclear receptors, they respond to biochemical cues and upregulate or downregulate gene expression based on the stimulus. This, and other mechanisms like it, are necessary for an organism to maintain homeostasis - a survival necessity.

a reply to: cooperton

Can you explain to us the science of how wine turns into blood? Or the science of how drinking the blood and uttering an incantation bestows eternal life? Or the science of a tree that grows fruit containing literal knowledge? Or the science of a snake that can talk? Or the science of humans instantly turning into salt? Or the science of a human living inside a whale?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

THe cut that you believe what you wrote makes me cert sad for you guys. I am debating biological facts and asking for cooperton to support his position, which he can’t.

You're avoiding your blatant mistakes by lashing out at other people now. You were unaware that all organisms require transcription and translation regulated by epigenetic control. This is a basic biological concept... and you were asking for evidence of that... it makes me doubt you know even the most basic concepts of biology.

Even worse, you never admit when you're wrong. you also still think:

"epigenetic mutations is actually nothing more than the way genes are expressing themselves after an SNP event."

Even though SNP events are hard-wired changes, whereas epigenetics are alterations in gene expression (transcription and translation). The online blog article you gave to try to support your baseless assertion was 8 years old and not up to date with current understandings in epigenetics. It was attempting to attribute perceived inheritability to SNPs, which we now know that epigenetics are actually inheritable, so it is an out-dated article that didn't even say what you wished it would say.

Admit you are wrong or stop wasting other people's time with your self-perceived infallibility.

Now to continue your charade of superior intellect you need to misquote me. You get more sad and desperate with each post. It’s quite amazing how resilient your confirmation biases are.

You have yet to use actual science to support your repeated claim that “all organisms require transcription and translation regulated by epigenetic control...”. Transcription/translation is just as regulated by SNP’s. They are errors in transcription during replication. You refuse to accept THIS basic aspect of genetics which proves you don’t understand the basics. Doubt whatever you like but your refusal to admit your own errors while crying wolf about others is hilarious.

I admitted that I could have more succinctly made my precious point about SNP’s. I am incorrect and do rush to type things out from my phone on occasion and when I’m wrong I do admit it. Give it a try sometime.

The post you’re replying to wasn’t even addressed. You simply resort to ad hominem and still refuse to actually support your claims. We’re talking about science here after all. That’s what we do. We cite or discuss our own work. What exactly is on YOUR cv pertaining to the topic? I’ve got an extensive one just like Noinden and there are many others here who are quite knowledgeable. Neither you nor Blue-jay aren’t on that list and you don’t ever addresss specific questions and utilize broad generalizations, personal bias and as hominems when backed into a corner and it’s all pretty obvious to anyone who payed attention in 10th grade biology

originally posted by: peter vlar

Now to continue your charade of superior intellect you need to misquote me.

It is not a misquote. You said it right here in the 6th paragraph of that post.

You have yet to use actual science to support your repeated claim that “all organisms require transcription and translation regulated by epigenetic control...”.

Look at any basic biology textbook... The fact I need to find examples for this statement demonstrate you do not have the foundational knowledge necessary to debate these issues. The process of protein creation through transcription and translation of genes, called genetic expression, needs to be tightly regulated through epigenetic modification.

Here are examples of:
improper epigenetic control of genetic expression leading to disease

Here is a chart from Egger G et al

this demonstrates the many diseases that are related to improper genetic expression regulation (terms like methylation, hypomethylation, histone acetylation, histone phosphorylation, promoter methylation, etc, are all types of epigenetic modification)

Not one organism has been found to be lacking epigenetic control
epigenetic regulation in horses

"Epigenetic modifications play a central role in the cellular and developmental programming of gene expression, serving as a molecular code for regulating the spatial and temporal patterns of gene expression. "

It is even present in the most basic known lifeforms - prokaryotes: epigenetics in eukaryotes and prokaryotes and epigenetic modification in prokaryotes
"Our results reveal the pervasive presence of DNA methylation throughout the prokaryotic kingdoms"

epigenetic information is even evident in viruses, which some consider non-living: Epigenetics of viruses

a reply to: TzarChasm

What science can't explain is known as a miracle. if science could fully explain it, it wouldn't be a miracle, would it ?

Thus the "Miracle Of Life"

a reply to: cooperton

Looks like peter vlar finally met his match on ATS, I have to say I am enjoying this thread more than most.

It's very educational.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

What science can't explain is known as a miracle. if science could fully explain it, it wouldn't be a miracle, would it ?

Thus the "Miracle Of Life"

Miracles are for people who have trouble with the scientific method.

a reply to: cooperton

Just want to be clear here... is God supposed to be an epigenetic influence?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Can you explain to us the science of how wine turns into blood? Or the science of how drinking the blood and uttering an incantation bestows eternal life? Or the science of a tree that grows fruit containing literal knowledge? Or the science of a snake that can talk? Or the science of humans instantly turning into salt? Or the science of a human living inside a whale?

One of the difference between our religions is that my religion accepts the potential for miracles and yours does not. If an Intelligent Being was capable of creating all things, then it would have no problem temporarily altering its physics to allow phenomenal things to happen to those who earnestly seek that Intelligent Being.

For your religion on the other hand, all phenomena that is not repeatable in a lab is immediately ignored. This is fine, but you have to realize that abiogenesis, the spawn of dual sexes, neural circuits, interdependent organs, self-healing, homeostasis, etc, etc are all quantum leaps in function that are insurmountable for conventional random mutation to ever create. Your religion requires many miracles, that is, extremely unlikely and essentially impossible events that are unfounded in observable science.

This is where I believe my religion makes much more sense. For things that are beyond our intelligible conception, you must assume a greater intelligent force acting upon the matter, whereas your religion assumes a random mutative principle to be the creative factor in the world. Sure, your religion could be correct, but it is far less likely, considering the immense complexity observed in the world around us, it is much more likely to have been created by an intelligent force rather than random mutations.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

What science can't explain is known as a miracle. if science could fully explain it, it wouldn't be a miracle, would it ?

Thus the "Miracle Of Life"

Sperm fertilizing an egg can't be explained by science? Really?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Can you explain to us the science of how wine turns into blood? Or the science of how drinking the blood and uttering an incantation bestows eternal life? Or the science of a tree that grows fruit containing literal knowledge? Or the science of a snake that can talk? Or the science of humans instantly turning into salt? Or the science of a human living inside a whale?

One of the difference between our religions is that my religion accepts the potential for miracles and yours does not. If an Intelligent Being was capable of creating all things, then it would have no problem temporarily altering its physics to allow phenomenal things to happen to those who earnestly seek that Intelligent Being.

For your religion on the other hand, all phenomena that is not repeatable in a lab is immediately ignored. This is fine, but you have to realize that abiogenesis, the spawn of dual sexes, neural circuits, interdependent organs, self-healing, homeostasis, etc, etc are all quantum leaps in function that are insurmountable for conventional random mutation to ever create. Your religion requires many miracles, that is, extremely unlikely and essentially impossible events that are unfounded in observable science.

This is where I believe my religion makes much more sense. For things that are beyond our intelligible conception, you must assume a greater intelligent force acting upon the matter, whereas your religion assumes a random mutative principle to be the creative factor in the world. Sure, your religion could be correct, but it is far less likely, considering the immense complexity observed in the world around us, it is much more likely to have been created by an intelligent force rather than random mutations.

Those are all opinions, not facts. So far we have zero measurable examples of supernatural interference in the formation of life or the universe. Your god is running out of gaps.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Can you explain to us the science of how wine turns into blood? Or the science of how drinking the blood and uttering an incantation bestows eternal life? Or the science of a tree that grows fruit containing literal knowledge? Or the science of a snake that can talk? Or the science of humans instantly turning into salt? Or the science of a human living inside a whale?

One of the difference between our religions is that my religion accepts the potential for miracles and yours does not. If an Intelligent Being was capable of creating all things, then it would have no problem temporarily altering its physics to allow phenomenal things to happen to those who earnestly seek that Intelligent Being.

For your religion on the other hand, all phenomena that is not repeatable in a lab is immediately ignored. This is fine, but you have to realize that abiogenesis, the spawn of dual sexes, neural circuits, interdependent organs, self-healing, homeostasis, etc, etc are all quantum leaps in function that are insurmountable for conventional random mutation to ever create. Your religion requires many miracles, that is, extremely unlikely and essentially impossible events that are unfounded in observable science.

This is where I believe my religion makes much more sense. For things that are beyond our intelligible conception, you must assume a greater intelligent force acting upon the matter, whereas your religion assumes a random mutative principle to be the creative factor in the world. Sure, your religion could be correct, but it is far less likely, considering the immense complexity observed in the world around us, it is much more likely to have been created by an intelligent force rather than random mutations.

Those are all opinions, not facts. So far we have zero measurable examples of supernatural interference in the formation of life or the universe. Your god is running out of gaps.

WOW! - Great observation, just like Evolution!

But guess what - We also have zero reason for a natural reason for the universe, existence, or you for that matter. - Please tell us why the universe began, exists, and what the heck you are doing in it? - I'm basically Agnostic
so I'm open to any idea - But am really very tired of Humans trying to prove with nothing more than anecdotal evidence
the absolue existence of 'A' Creator - And the antithetical Atheists trying to 'prove' there is no such thing.

Personally I sitll believe I will meet the supreme Witch, mother of all creation.

- Then again anything is better than a meaningless void that does not, could not and never did exist
- By default Existence trumps the void. - Always did - And always will.

So before you deny even the possibility of someone's creator - Be sure you can fill in the empty spaces in your
non-existent void.

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

Can you explain to us the science of how wine turns into blood? Or the science of how drinking the blood and uttering an incantation bestows eternal life? Or the science of a tree that grows fruit containing literal knowledge? Or the science of a snake that can talk? Or the science of humans instantly turning into salt? Or the science of a human living inside a whale?

One of the difference between our religions is that my religion accepts the potential for miracles and yours does not. If an Intelligent Being was capable of creating all things, then it would have no problem temporarily altering its physics to allow phenomenal things to happen to those who earnestly seek that Intelligent Being.

For your religion on the other hand, all phenomena that is not repeatable in a lab is immediately ignored. This is fine, but you have to realize that abiogenesis, the spawn of dual sexes, neural circuits, interdependent organs, self-healing, homeostasis, etc, etc are all quantum leaps in function that are insurmountable for conventional random mutation to ever create. Your religion requires many miracles, that is, extremely unlikely and essentially impossible events that are unfounded in observable science.

This is where I believe my religion makes much more sense. For things that are beyond our intelligible conception, you must assume a greater intelligent force acting upon the matter, whereas your religion assumes a random mutative principle to be the creative factor in the world. Sure, your religion could be correct, but it is far less likely, considering the immense complexity observed in the world around us, it is much more likely to have been created by an intelligent force rather than random mutations.

Those are all opinions, not facts. So far we have zero measurable examples of supernatural interference in the formation of life or the universe. Your god is running out of gaps.

WOW! - Great observation, just like Evolution!

Except that we’ve seen evolution in real time with the Lenski experiment, have seen it in the genome, countless morphological examples and I can cite , literally, 100’s of thousands of papers providing evidence of the MES.

Not a single piece of evidence of an Abrahamic Creator.

But guess what

- We also have zero reason for a natural reason for the universe, existence, or you for that matter. - Please tell us why the universe began, exists, and what the heck you are doing in it? - I'm basically Agnostic
so I'm open to any idea - But am really very tired of Humans trying to prove with nothing more than anecdotal evidence
the absolue existence of 'A' Creator - And the antithetical Atheists trying to 'prove' there is no such thing.

Why, is entirely irrelevant. If you’re agnostic, why worry about it at all? For what it’s worth, atheists don’t try to prove that there aren’t gods. You can’t prove a negative via the scientific method. You only seek evidence to support something.

Personally I sitll believe I will meet the supreme Witch, mother of all creation.

So not actually agnostic them. Thanks for clarifying.

- Then again anything is better than a meaningless void that does not, could not and never did exist
- By default Existence trumps the void. - Always did - And always will.

Personal anecdotes aren’t very scientific now are They?

So before you deny even the possibility of someone's creator - Be sure you can fill in the empty spaces in your
non-existent void.

Nobody is outright denying anything. Just the lack of evidence in favor of a very specific religious worldview that shouldn’t affect you or your witch mother. Not believing in an Abrahamic deity doesn’t make someone’s life an empty void. It’s ludicrous straw man.

Double post

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
No because we are bi-pedal, rational, encephalized, self-repairing, self-replicating organic supercomputers. This does not happen by accident.

All you ever post is anecdotes. ACCIDENT IMPLIES INTENTION. We are not an accident, we are the result of natural processes.

Oh boy, Cooperton used one of the forbidden words.

Rephrasing the storyline to emphasize another aspect (as a red herring) doesn't change the part in the storyline that claims that we arrived on the scene "by chance". And that the existence of the forces of nature that govern natural processes is also a matter of chance. According to philosophical naturalism nobody fine-tuned the forces of nature so they could have been anything other than what they are.

In 1988 a book that attempts to explain how life could have arisen by chance was reviewed in the journal Search, published by the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science. On just one page of the book, science writer L. A. Bennett found “16 highly speculative statements, each depending on the preceding one for credence.” What was Bennett’s conclusion after reading the whole book? “It is far easier,” he wrote, “to accept an all-loving Creator instantaneously creating life and guiding it along its teleological [purposeful] pathways . . . than to accept the myriad ‘blind chances’ needed to support the author’s theses.”

In spite of the improbability of life originating by chance, what do evolutionists maintain?

A current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”​—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.⁠ (The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, 1976, p. 16.)

At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.”⁠ But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique. Most other books on evolution also skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. Thus Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists: “All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.” (The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 68.)

The recent explosive increase of knowledge has only served to magnify the gulf between nonliving and living things. Even the oldest known single-celled organisms have been found to be incomprehensibly complex. “The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” say astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. . . . so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”⁠ (Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 8.) And as information increases, the harder it becomes to explain how microscopic forms of life that are so incredibly complex could have arisen by chance.

Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.” (The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.) Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”⁠ (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65.)

How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.” (p.65 again)

So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”⁠ (p.65)

Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.” (Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75.) Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”⁠ (Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.)

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
No because we are bi-pedal, rational, encephalized, self-repairing, self-replicating organic supercomputers. This does not happen by accident.

All you ever post is anecdotes. ACCIDENT IMPLIES INTENTION. We are not an accident, we are the result of natural processes.

Oh boy, Cooperton used one of the forbidden words.

Rephrasing the storyline to emphasize another aspect (as a red herring) doesn't change the part in the storyline that claims that we arrived on the scene "by chance". And that the existence of the forces of nature that govern natural processes is also a matter of chance. According to philosophical naturalism nobody fine-tuned the forces of nature so they could have been anything other than what they are.

The laws of thermodynamics prevent energy and particles from doing just anything. Hydrogen always has one proton in its base state, for example. And two hydrogen one oxygen always makes water. Cohesion would be impossible if rules were always changing. But yes, there is a wide array of chance within those parameters. And any good blackjack player can reverse engineer the possibilities with enough experience in geology, chemistry, paleontology, biology, astrophysics, etc.

originally posted by: Barcs

Fossils of single celled life has been discovered that dates 3.5 billion + years back. That backs up the claim that they have been evolving for at least 3.5 billion years.

This argument sounded really dumb to me. With all due respect, don't you think that's a bit of a leap (of faith)? Shouldn't we at least try to make up some clever elaborate 'bedtime story' regarding the evolutionary stages in between now and 3.5 billion years ago before making such claims?

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story​—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”​—In Search of Deep Time—​Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117.

Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record. Henry Ernest Gee is a British paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and senior editor of the scientific journal Nature.

A 'bedtime story' is still better than nothing. It seems Barcs just wants us to take his word for it.

And since I probably talked too much in my previous comment, it may be useful to repeat something from that comment:

The recent explosive increase of knowledge has only served to magnify the gulf between nonliving and living things. Even the oldest known single-celled organisms have been found to be incomprehensibly complex. “The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” say astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. . . . so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”⁠ (Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 8.) And as information increases, the harder it becomes to explain how microscopic forms of life that are so incredibly complex could have arisen by chance.

The "fossils" Barcs is referring to seem to be those 'fossils' (if that's the right term) that are deemed to show the remains of cyanobacteria (or cyanobacteria-like organisms) which lived 3.5 billion years ago. So let's have a more detailed look at just 1 machine in 1 type of cyanobacteria to have a look at what type of machinery and complexity we're talking about here (and it may also be helpful to keep in mind some of the points made at 0:43 - 1:02 and 1:20 - 1:31 in the video at the end of my comment on page 15):

Here's a system of machinery that is present in cyanobacteria:

And here's 1 machine that is also used in the system of machinery above (among other functions it has):

And here's the point about the system of machinery responsible for photosynthesis, which also counts for the other machinery shown that works so well, it all just happens to work out (some people just find it hard to believe this is just a coincidence and the result of an "accident" to quote Richard Dawkins from my previous comment, rather than Cooperton who used the same word):