What stopped this evolution?

[juvenissun]

A fundamental challenge to evolutionists. I don't think they can provide an answer, now and ever:

Why can't an eukaryotic cell evolve into a prokaryotic cell, or vice versa? Why is there such a clear cut boundary between the two?

Do not try to describe these cells. I know the differences.

A challenge on this issue to Christians: Why does God create these two different cells, so biologists call them two different 'kingdoms"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

A fundamental challenge to evolutionists. I don't think they can provide an answer, now and ever:

Why can't an eukaryotic cell evolve into a prokaryotic cell, or vice versa? Why is there such a clear cut boundary between the two?

Do not try to describe these cells. I know the differences.

A challenge on this issue to Christians: Why does God create these two different cells, so biologists call them two different 'kingdoms"?

The answer is actually very simple. Because that's not how evolution works.

It's the same reason a dog doesn't evolve into a cat, or a cat into a dog. That's not how evolution works. Things don't evolve into other things. Life simply evolves. Whether we are talking dogs and cats, or eukaryotes and prokaryotes, the same rules apply. The evolution of dogs and the evolution of cats are rooted in the selective pressures over their ancestors--sure enough, both dogs and cats share a common ancestor in the same way that you and your cousin share a common ancestor. And just like you/your spouse aren't going to give birth to your cousin or grandfather, neither is a dog going to evolve into a cat, and neither are going to evolve into their common ancestor. Humans are never going to evolve into chimps, or into the common ancestor of chimps and humans. And no chimp is going to evolve into a human. Humans are humans, nothing is going to evolve into us, and we aren't going to evolve into anything that has already evolved.

If you go and learn how evolution works, and how it doesn't work, then this question is incredibly simple to answer and incredibly simple to understand. But that does mean learning about evolution.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

A fundamental challenge to evolutionists. I don't think they can provide an answer, now and ever:

Why can't an eukaryotic cell evolve into a prokaryotic cell, or vice versa? Why is there such a clear cut boundary between the two?

Even worse --

In the long running evolution experiment started around the 1980's a prokaryote culture was preserved (bacteria) and has been under observation ever since. Did those single celled prokayrotes ever evolve into a eukayrote like an Amoeba?

No.

80,000 generations of direct observation and they never produce a eukaryote.

80,000 generations is "supposedly" less time (in terms of generations) than it took for humans to evolve from their supposed ancestor species.

A challenge on this issue to Christians: Why does God create these two different cells, so biologists call them two different 'kingdoms"?

Why not have them as two different species, kingdom? We have ants, rabbits, etc no need for all to be the same thing.

 

[juvenissun]

The answer is actually very simple. Because that's not how evolution works.

It's the same reason a dog doesn't evolve into a cat, or a cat into a dog. That's not how evolution works. Things don't evolve into other things. Life simply evolves. Whether we are talking dogs and cats, or eukaryotes and prokaryotes, the same rules apply. The evolution of dogs and the evolution of cats are rooted in the selective pressures over their ancestors--sure enough, both dogs and cats share a common ancestor in the same way that you and your cousin share a common ancestor. And just like you/your spouse aren't going to give birth to your cousin or grandfather, neither is a dog going to evolve into a cat, and neither are going to evolve into their common ancestor. Humans are never going to evolve into chimps, or into the common ancestor of chimps and humans. And no chimp is going to evolve into a human. Humans are humans, nothing is going to evolve into us, and we aren't going to evolve into anything that has already evolved.

If you go and learn how evolution works, and how it doesn't work, then this question is incredibly simple to answer and incredibly simple to understand. But that does mean learning about evolution.

-CryptoLutheran

I am not asking why can‘t a tree evolve into a dog. I am asking why can’t we have a moving (walking) tree (plant). Is movement a very very desirable function for survivorship? Can an eukaryote cell move?

 

[juvenissun]

Even worse --

In the long running evolution experiment started around the 1980's a prokaryote culture was preserved (bacteria) and has been under observation ever since. Did those single celled prokayrotes ever evolve into a eukayrote like an Amoeba?

No.

80,000 generations of direct observation and they never produce a eukaryote.

80,000 generations is "supposedly" less time (in terms of generations) than it took for humans to evolve from their supposed ancestor species.

Why not have them as two different species, kingdom? We have ants, rabbits, etc no need for all to be the same thing.

Two “Kingdoms” is taken as the beginning of known evolution. My question to Christian is: why two? why not just one, or more than two? Evolutionist (or scientist) can not answer this question. Can a theologian give an answer?

 

[BobRyan]

Two “Kingdoms” is taken as the beginning of known evolution. My question to Christian is: why two? why not just one, or more than two? Evolutionist (or scientist) can not answer this question. Can a theologian give an answer?

Christians would argue that God created all the major "kinds" in a literal 7 day week. Not just prokaryotes and not just eukaryotes.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am not asking why can‘t a tree evolve into a dog. I am asking why can’t we have a moving (walking) tree (plant). Is movement a very very desirable function for survivorship? Can an eukaryote cell move?

That isn't what you asked. But at any rate:

No, motility is not a necessary function for survival. That's obvious because not only are plants thriving, but there are myriad animals and fungi that thrive as well as non-mobile, sessile organisms.

Plenty of eukaryote unicellular organisms move. So do many multicellular eukaryotes, such as human beings.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[juvenissun]

That isn't what you asked. But at any rate:

No, motility is not a necessary function for survival. That's obvious because not only are plants thriving, but there are myriad animals and fungi that thrive as well as non-mobile, sessile organisms.

Plenty of eukaryote unicellular organisms move. So do many multicellular eukaryotes, such as human beings.

-CryptoLutheran

If some eukaryote cells move, then why no plant can move?

 

[juvenissun]

That isn't what you asked. But at any rate:

No, motility is not a necessary function for survival. That's obvious because not only are plants thriving, but there are myriad animals and fungi that thrive as well as non-mobile, sessile organisms.

Plenty of eukaryote unicellular organisms move. So do many multicellular eukaryotes, such as human beings.

-CryptoLutheran

If some eukaryote cells move, then why no plant can move?

 

[ViaCrucis]

If some eukaryote cells move, then why no plant can move?

Already addressed. They don't need to. They do just fine without it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[juvenissun]

Already addressed. They don't need to. They do just fine without it.

-CryptoLutheran

Absolutely not. If a plant could move, it would do much better than other plants.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Absolutely not. If a plant could move, it would do much better than other plants.

You are literally surrounded by plants. They seem to be doing just fine without walking around. Your protest against that is contradicted by the evidence literally everywhere around you.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jipsah]

In the long running evolution experiment started around the 1980's a prokaryote culture was preserved (bacteria) and has been under observation ever since. Did those single celled prokayrotes ever evolve into a eukayrote like an Amoeba?

No.

Neither did any of them evolve into a platypus, a pikachu, or a Pentacostalist. So much for evolution!

 

[BeyondET]

I am not asking why can‘t a tree evolve into a dog. I am asking why can’t we have a moving (walking) tree (plant). Is movement a very very desirable function for survivorship? Can an eukaryote cell move?

The walking palm trees of Costa Rica.
They move a couple of cm each day about 20m a year. Pursues better exposure of sun light.

 

[juvenissun]

The walking palm trees of Costa Rica.
They move a couple of cm each day about 20m a year. Pursues better exposure of sun light.

I bet it is due to soil creep.

 

[CoreyD]

A fundamental challenge to evolutionists. I don't think they can provide an answer, now and ever:

Why can't an eukaryotic cell evolve into a prokaryotic cell, or vice versa? Why is there such a clear cut boundary between the two?

Do not try to describe these cells. I know the differences.

A challenge on this issue to Christians: Why does God create these two different cells, so biologists call them two different 'kingdoms"?

I'll answer the question for Christians.
Experts estimate that there are around 200 cell types in the human body. Cell types can look different, and carry out distinct roles within the body.
What we know, is that all cells have a specific role, so just as engineers use different metals for different purposes, God - the greatest of all designers - created different cells for different purposes.

 

[juvenissun]

I'll answer the question for Christians.
Experts estimate that there are around 200 cell types in the human body. Cell types can look different, and carry out distinct roles within the body.
What we know, is that all cells have a specific role, so just as engineers use different metals for different purposes, God - the greatest of all designers - created different cells for different purposes.

Thanks. But your answer is not enough.
Plants and animals are so different that even killing a plant is NOT counted as killing.
What is God‘s purpose to make plants?
Yeah, my simple and my best answer is: God says: this creation is GOOD.
Yes, plants are very good. Thanks God that plants NEVER evolved into planty_animal.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

The walking palm trees of Costa Rica. They move a couple of cm each day about 20m a year. Pursues better exposure of sun light.

This is not a thing. The idea that these palm trees track sunlight by moving through the forest—by growing new roots toward the light and letting the old roots die off—"is a myth that tourist guides find amusing to tell visitors to the rainforest," according to biologist Gerardo Avalos, who studied these palms in detail (Radford 2012).

-----

Radford, B. (2012, January 16). “Can ‘Walking Palm Trees’ Really Walk?” Live Science.

 

[CoreyD]

Thanks. But your answer is not enough.
Plants and animals are so different that even killing a plant is NOT counted as killing.
What is God‘s purpose to make plants?
Yeah, my simple and my best answer is: God says: this creation is GOOD.
Yes, plants are very good. Thanks God that plants NEVER evolved into planty_animal.

At first, I thought you said FOOD. That's it.

 

[juvenissun]

At first, I thought you said FOOD. That's it.

Not a joke, good point. God values more sheeps than grains. They are NOT created equally.