Consideringlily, Oncedeceived and defining evolution

[Aegist]

So I guess I'm too late to add to this thread?..

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know if you are still hot to prove that you are as or more knowledgeable than me.

I bumped this for Tom and others who would like to discuss this, I made my post to you previously.

Personally, I was more interested in the science discussion and what your reasoning was behind your contentions of evolution.

You didn't supply the evidence that I lacked to determine whether I had all pertinent info.

I am bored of trying to pry answers out of you. What answers you did give mined my previous posts or web sites.

Yes, as you have repeatedly said.

If the poll was still here, you would see that it is not just my opinion that your knowledge of evolution does not equal or surpass mine.

I think that most people could not even venture a guess by the material that has been presented so far just who knows what.

Instead, you can go on deluding yourself that evolution is somehow insufficient to explain anything critics seize upon at the moment until it is explained. After it is explained there is never a retraction or concession.

I never made that claim. You just continue providing strawman comments.

What science hasn't explained about evolution will continue to shrink as knowledge grows. Evolutionary critics will have less ground to stand on.

If you had actually read my op you would have seen that I am not anti-evolution. You really are not concerned with what I have to say, you just like to put your thoughts down as my agruments.

Evolutionary science has more than met the burden of proof even without ID proponents' nitpicks.

If I am nitpicking then provide the information that you keep saying that you have but have not presented.

This thread hasn't been productive and at this point is a waste of my time.

That is perfectly fine with me.

I will give you the last word.

How totally gracious of you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So I guess I'm too late to add to this thread?..

Not at all.

 

[Aegist]

Well if I may then, I would like to offer my little slither of knowledge in the matter. I come from a molecular biology background, and I think that evolution really needs to be understood from that basis for a true grasp of its magnificence to be possible.

As such i will just add two points: Evolution is simply what happens when you have something which
1. Copies itself in an 'exact' manner
2. Occasional changes (mutations) will occur in some copies.
3. There is a selective pressure. That is, some copies will copy themselves faster (more often) than others, or some will not be able to copy themselves at all, and everything in between.

And THAT is evolution.

this has been repeatedly done with computer programs, and I think that Evolution can occur with anything (not just a biological phenomenon). As long as those 3 criteria are present, evolution will necessarily occur.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well if I may then, I would like to offer my little slither of knowledge in the matter. I come from a molecular biology background, and I think that evolution really needs to be understood from that basis for a true grasp of its magnificence to be possible.

What an interesting statement. You feel that evolution is magnificent? How can a process be magnificent? I am just curious, not trying to belittle your comment in anyway.

As such i will just add two points: Evolution is simply what happens when you have something which
1. Copies itself in an 'exact' manner

True, but then we don't have any understanding of how the first replicator came into being. That kind of gets things off the ground...so to speak.

2. Occasional changes (mutations) will occur in some copies.

Nothing can change unless the information can be transferred to the next generation which again goes back to step one.

3. There is a selective pressure. That is, some copies will copy themselves faster (more often) than others, or some will not be able to copy themselves at all, and everything in between.

See step one.

And THAT is evolution.

Yes I agree. I just don't think that we have the knowledge of just how that all began.

 

[Aegist]

What an interesting statement. You feel that evolution is magnificent? How can a process be magnificent? I am just curious, not trying to belittle your comment in anyway.

It is beautiful simple. So simple, so precise, so indesputably exact...and the consequences are beyond imagining.

I respect mathematical simplicity which creates astoundingly complex beauty. I think it comes under the title of Chaos Theory actually.

True, but then we don't have any understanding of how the first replicator came into being. That kind of gets things off the ground...so to speak.

We don't know, but thanks to evolution we know it only needed to happen once. Thanks to radiometric dating, geology, astrophysics, and several other lines of inquiry we know that there was about 1 Billion years for life to have started.

So the conditions in which a replicator (not a cell, not a virus, but a replicator which has subsequently evolved into viruses and cells) could originate was an area the size of a planet with alternating hot and cold of the sun, water, atmosphere, electrical activity, chemical variations, crust based thermal activity and 1 billion years of time.

That is a lot of space, a lot of time, and a lot of chaos creating chemical variations.

My personal theory is that an RNA molecule which catalysed RNA duplication was the origin of life. Thanks to our use of PCR, it is easy to see how cycling thermal temperatures can assist in cycles of replication, and that is what I think life perhaps started as. A molecule, or worst case scenario a cluster or several molecules which was constantly cycled through hot thermal vent water and cool ocean waters, which cycled the molecule through self-replication, and priming for the next step of replication.

Going back to PCR, I just want to point out why that is important: For anyone who doesn't know anything about PCR, check out the wikipedia entry on it. PCR is a prime example of how a chemical molecule (DNA) is so easily copied. PCR uses highly evolved molecules (huge DNA molecule, polymerase protein, and designed proimers). But in the end the whole process is just these molecules doing what they do...obeying chemical laws. This process is smooth, accurate, and exact because of the highly evovled state they have reached (3 billion years worth of evolution would want to perfect them somewhat!). But this lesson shows us that molecules without all of the complexities of modern cells can still enter a simple cycling scenario where replication is possible just by chemicals interacting in chemical ways.


As soon as my hypothetical RNA molecule accidently comes together ONCE...the evolutionary pathway has started. One becomes two. twop becomes four. ...not long after, competition for Nucleatides will start...selection will occur. etc.

Nothing can change unless the information can be transferred to the next generation which again goes back to step one.

See step one.

Yes I agree. I just don't think that we have the knowledge of just how that all began.

And we certainly do not have that knowledge. Which is why we have to hypothesis how it could be possible. The fact that we have life means life started from non-life. It must have come from somewhere, and sometime. Whether it started on Earth or not is hardly important. the fact is: Abiogenesis MUST have happened at least once.

i think it happened on Earth, and I think it is a simple enough idea to grasp. but that is neither evidence nor conclusive. It is just an hypothesis.

 

[Tomk80]

Okay, here are my thoughts. I'll just throw some things out here, since I think the last part of the thread is a bit confusing.

I agree that there is probably still a lot of confusion surrounding the exact relationships between archaea, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. I also agree with consideringlily that microfossils might at least shed some light on these relationships, although I don't think they will clear up the confusion entirely (if much at all). However, I do not agree that this is where the theory of evolution breaks down. Although it will need additions.

The crossing of the phylogenies in these single-celled organisms provides (or rather provided) a serious question for common ancestry, as this conclusion is for a large part based on the twin-nested hierarchy. However, I do think that Lynn Margulis has offered a good reason for the origin of eukaryotes with her theory of endosymbiosis. I think that this theory at least has some good points going for it, for example the bahavior of different organelles in the eukaryote cells. Next to this, the interchangability of genetic material between different single-celled organisms has been well-documented. So in all, while it is very problematic when tracing the actual lineages between micro-organisms, I think there are very good explanations on why this is. So I do not think that this breaks down either common ancestry or the theory of evolution at that point.

On a larger scale, I view this problems in the way I see some problems in human evolution. We do not know the precise pathways different genes took in evolving (although here we are a lot closer). But yet, the evidence that this is what happened is stronger than for any other explanation. Furthermore, the fact that we don't know how a specific protein originated, also does not take away that evoltuion is the most likely pathway for it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is beautiful simple. So simple, so precise, so indesputably exact...and the consequences are beyond imagining.

It is beautiful, I agree, but simple no. It is true to my mind at least that the consequences are beyond imagining as well as the pathway in which life started.

I respect mathematical simplicity which creates astoundingly complex beauty. I think it comes under the title of Chaos Theory actually.

The fact that the world can be understood in a mathematical sense to me is astounding in its own right. The total complexity of life can be experienced in numerical systems is incredible if life happened by an accidental chemical event.

We don't know, but thanks to evolution we know it only needed to happen once. Thanks to radiometric dating, geology, astrophysics, and several other lines of inquiry we know that there was about 1 Billion years for life to have started.

You must give an explanation for how evolution could do it even once to give it credit. You must also explain how life could form almost immediately when the earth was cooled and the first crust appeared. One billion years sounds like a lot of time but in the case of life it is not the full billion years but only a small fraction of that.

So the conditions in which a replicator (not a cell, not a virus, but a replicator which has subsequently evolved into viruses and cells) could originate was an area the size of a planet with alternating hot and cold of the sun, water, atmosphere, electrical activity, chemical variations, crust based thermal activity and 1 billion years of time.

A replicator is not as simple as you seem to want to depict. There are interdependent actions that are absolutely necessary for a single replication to occur. The time factor is relatively short and in reality maybe not as relevant as supposed.

That is a lot of space, a lot of time, and a lot of chaos creating chemical variations.

Chemical variations are one thing, but self replication is another. You must explain how this process occurred when RNA and DNA are both dependent on the other.

My personal theory is that an RNA molecule which catalysed RNA duplication was the origin of life. Thanks to our use of PCR, it is easy to see how cycling thermal temperatures can assist in cycles of replication, and that is what I think life perhaps started as. A molecule, or worst case scenario a cluster or several molecules which was constantly cycled through hot thermal vent water and cool ocean waters, which cycled the molecule through self-replication, and priming for the next step of replication.

The problem with this scenerio is that all nucleotides are right-handed today All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are right-handed. On the early earth right-handed as well as left handed nucleotides were present which all experiments so far have shown that having both inhibits copying.

And we certainly do not have that knowledge. Which is why we have to hypothesis how it could be possible. The fact that we have life means life started from non-life. It must have come from somewhere, and sometime. Whether it started on Earth or not is hardly important. the fact is: Abiogenesis MUST have happened at least once.

Yes, if you are determined to claim that it was all naturalistic in nature. The only problem with that is that you have to give a credible working model in which that is possible. Life started from non-life is no more descriptive than God did it for the Creationist.

i think it happened on Earth, and I think it is a simple enough idea to grasp. but that is neither evidence nor conclusive. It is just an hypothesis.

Yes, I agree it is a hypothesis, but it is not one without very serious difficulties.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay, here are my thoughts. I'll just throw some things out here, since I think the last part of the thread is a bit confusing.

In what way?

I agree that there is probably still a lot of confusion surrounding the exact relationships between archaea, prokaryotes and eukaryotes. I also agree with consideringlily that microfossils might at least shed some light on these relationships, although I don't think they will clear up the confusion entirely (if much at all). However, I do not agree that this is where the theory of evolution breaks down. Although it will need additions.

If you agree with consideringlily perhaps you can provide the information that she didn't provide?

I didn't claim that the ToE breaks down. I said that the systematic cladogram breaks down. My claim is that evolution is the label mankind has put on the processes of creation and that by putting on a purely natural materialistic worldview is not probable.

The crossing of the phylogenies in these single-celled organisms provides (or rather provided) a serious question for common ancestry, as this conclusion is for a large part based on the twin-nested hierarchy. However, I do think that Lynn Margulis has offered a good reason for the origin of eukaryotes with her theory of endosymbiosis. I think that this theory at least has some good points going for it, for example the bahavior of different organelles in the eukaryote cells. Next to this, the interchangability of genetic material between different single-celled organisms has been well-documented.

True, but when breaking this down there are numerous events that must occur for this to even be possible and those things...such as an explanation of how meiosis appeared. It also does not account for the appearance of the nucleolus. The Golgi apparatus needs to be explained. This is a good link to show this:
http://www.beyondbooks.com/lif71/4e.asp
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,helv] 4e. The Golgi Apparatus[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,helv,sans-serif] What happens to all the products that are built on the assembly line of a factory? The final touches are put on them in the finishing and packing department.[/FONT] [FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,helv,sans-serif]Workers in this part of the plant are responsible for making minor adjustments to the finished products. They inspect the products for flaws, clean them of any extra material added during their manufacture, wrap them, and target them for packing. The Golgi apparatus performs all these tasks in the cell.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,helv,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,helv,sans-serif]Golgi Apparatus Structure[/FONT]

The Golgi apparatus receives ER proteins and modifies them prior to shipping.[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,helv,sans-serif]
After leaving the production site of the ER, most products are transported to the Golgi apparatus. The GOLGI APPARATUS consists of several flattened saclike membranes. These sacs sit one on top of the other like a stack of pancakes, and all of the sacs are interconnected. The smooth ER manufactures the Golgi apparatus by pinching off parts of itself. These bits of membrane add themselves to the Golgi apparatus.
[/FONT] [FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,helv,sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,helv,sans-serif]Golgi Apparatus Function[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,helv,sans-serif]The Golgi apparatus is analogous to the finishing and packing room in a factory. Once the ribosome finishes manufacturing a protein in the rough ER, the protein needs to be prepared for use or export. Special enzymes will trim off any extra amino acids, and then the unfinished protein moves through channels in the smooth ER.[/FONT]

Animation of exocytosis[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,helv,sans-serif]
Eventually, some of the smooth ER membrane is pinched off as a SPHERICAL VESICLE. The proteins are either contained inside these structures or are carried on their surfaces. These vesicles are absorbed by the Golgi apparatus, and proteins are processed as they pass from one sac to the next. As the proteins move they are processed. When the protein is ready for export, it is pinched off of the Golgi and released into the cytoplasm.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,helv,sans-serif]What becomes of the final product of protein synthesis once it enters the cytoplasm? Some of these proteins eventually become membrane proteins and help with the functions of transport or self-recognition. These proteins are carried on the outside of the spherical vesicles and transported to the plasma membrane. Some of these proteins are retained within the cytoplasm for use by the cell.[/FONT]
Proteins are received by the cis face of the Golgi and exit through the trans face after modification. [FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,helv,sans-serif]Other proteins are stored inside the vesicles until they are needed for export. Hormones and enzymes are stored in this fashion until released though the plasma membrane in a process known as exocytosis. EXOCYTOSIS, a type of active transport, occurs when a vesicle inside a cell fuses with the cell's membrane and releases its contents to the outside environment.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,helv,sans-serif]All of this production leaves behind quite a mess! Who cleans up the trash?[/FONT]




Nor does it account for the microtubules which distinguish the eukaryotic cell. Above all, it does not explain how DNA came to be organised into chromosomes and enveloped in a nuclear membrane.

So in all, while it is very problematic when tracing the actual lineages between micro-organisms, I think there are very good explanations on why this is. So I do not think that this breaks down either common ancestry or the theory of evolution at that point.

I think the explanations are not so good when broken down.

On a larger scale, I view this problems in the way I see some problems in human evolution. We do not know the precise pathways different genes took in evolving (although here we are a lot closer). But yet, the evidence that this is what happened is stronger than for any other explanation. Furthermore, the fact that we don't know how a specific protein originated, also does not take away that evoltuion is the most likely pathway for it.

The problem is that you pit evolution against Creation and that is where the problem lies. My viewpoint is that evolution is what we have labeled the process but that it has taken on more. It is the processes in which Creation was achieved but without God there are serious problems; I think that without God it is put out there like a god.

 

[Edx]

Life started from non-life is no more descriptive than God did it for the Creationist..

Yes it is, becuase it is at the very least hypothetically verifiable.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Chemical variations are one thing, but self replication is another. You must explain how this process occurred when RNA and DNA are both dependent on the other.

But they aren't... DNA, in a soup of appropriate aminos, will self replicate endlessly... as will RNA...

as will prions, which are a whole order of magnitude simpler...

so, you get your first prion through chance, and thats enough to kick start the whole deal

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes it is, becuase it is at the very least hypothetically verifiable.

Not if the hypothesis can not be verified.

 

[Edx]

Not if the hypothesis can not be verified.

I dont think thats true, but you said it was the same. It isnt. One is at least hypothetically verifiable, the other isnt. Its what makes ID a non-science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But they aren't... DNA, in a soup of appropriate aminos, will self replicate endlessly... as will RNA...

as will prions, which are a whole order of magnitude simpler...

so, you get your first prion through chance, and thats enough to kick start the whole deal

You have the cart before the horse here. You have to have DNA before it can self replicate endlessly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I dont think thats true, but you said it was the same. It isnt. One is at least hypothetically verifiable, the other isnt. Its what makes ID a non-science.

I didn't say it was the same, I said it was no more descriptive.

 

[Edx]

I didn't say it was the same, I said it was no more descriptive.

Well then this goes back to my point. Its not necessarily true that life cant come from non life. Gods actions necessarily break the laws of the universe and as such any assumptions or hypothesis' assuming such things cannot be tested or verified in any way whatsoever even hypothetically. We have a good idea how life could have arisen from non-living matter, it still needs a lot of work as a theory, but its no where near on par as "goddidit".

Ed

 

[Aegist]

It is beautiful, I agree, but simple no. It is true to my mind at least that the consequences are beyond imagining as well as the pathway in which life started.

I said it is beautiful because of its simplicity for a reason. No matter how complicated evolution may seem, no matter how complex and how many interplaying factors biologists propose and look at and try to factor, the fact is it comes down to 3 simple rules. Replicate accurate, but not perfectly, and compete.

That is simple in anyones language, and that is everything. With just that, all of this complexity arises. The law is simple, the consequences are vast. The law is beautiful, and from it, beautiful complexes arise.

The fact that the world can be understood in a mathematical sense to me is astounding in its own right. The total complexity of life can be experienced in numerical systems is incredible if life happened by an accidental chemical event.

You are putting the cart before the horse. The 'accidental' event didn't make life be mathematical, the laws of the universe made the chemical event occur in a mathematical way.

See when you say mathematical, understand it as logic. Maths = Logic. And the sort of logic we are seeing here is stupidly obvious: If a chemical molecule can form readily, and stay stable: That molecule will accumulate. If a molecule is somewhat stable, and causes replication of itself (or is replicated or whatever), then that molecule will numerate.

Obviously both of these statements are givens. There is no doubts about them, but that is all evolution is about, and all abiogenesis hypothesises. Really brutally obvious logic statements.

It wasn't the specific chemicals that made the laws of evolution simple, it is the laws of a sort of universal evolution (LOGIC) which made life. The origin of life is more akin to a phase change in that evolution. It stepped over from mearly stable creation of random molecules into a directed replication of a single molecule.

You must give an explanation for how evolution could do it even once to give it credit. You must also explain how life could form almost immediately when the earth was cooled and the first crust appeared. One billion years sounds like a lot of time but in the case of life it is not the full billion years but only a small fraction of that.

First of all, Darwinian evolution doesn't propose to explain it, and so no there is no need to explain how evolution created life. Evolution explains the variation of life AFTER it has started.

As for the gap there. Congratulations! You found something which humans don't know the absolute answer to! We'll get right onto that, and solve that, just for you!

And what do you mean by your comment on a billion years? [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]? A billion years is a whole HEAP of time. C'mon, upon you rmind up and consider it. 50 years is a long time to us, 500 years is talking about ancients. 2000 years ago is another world., 10,000 years ago is prehistoric. 1,000,000 years ago is beyond comprehension. 1,000,000,000 is too many zeros to count, and you tell me it isn't very long? What a load... Then consider that our lifespan is 80 years, with a replicative average of maybe 20 years. A bacterias replicative average is like 30 minutes. Not that either bacteria or us have any relevence on the pre-life chemical soup. But knowing how fast chemical reactions occur, 1 billion years isn't a matter of waiting for several years before each new attempt was made. Chemicals were interacting constantly, reacting, breaking down, re-combining, drying, heating, cooling etc constantly, on a global scale for a billion years.

Not much time. Stop kidding yourself.

A replicator is not as simple as you seem to want to depict. There are interdependent actions that are absolutely necessary for a single replication to occur. The time factor is relatively short and in reality maybe not as relevant as supposed.

Oh, you know the absolute minimum limits required for a generic replicator do you? Or are you trying to judge the first replicator from todays 'Post 3 BILLION YEARS of EVOLUTION Life'? The most simple replicator today is not simple. It is highly adapted, highly evolved, and incredibly complicated. I GUARANTEE life did not start out 100th as complicated as that... it started simple, it started poorly, it was fragile, pathetic, and probably didn't even successfully replicate 90% of the opportunities it had. But as long as it can replicate... then eventually it will, and then there will be two.

You doubt that replication can be simple? Did you take the time to look up what PCR was? Do you understand how DNA is replicated? Do you understand that RNA can form secondary structures and like proteins, catalyse reactions? Please take the time to put these two factors together and consider the consequences.

Replication need not be complicated. Accurate proof read reliable replication certainly does need to be. But thats what evolution creates, not what evolution comes from.

Chemical variations are one thing, but self replication is another. You must explain how this process occurred when RNA and DNA are both dependent on the other.

Thats like asking me how the first computer was made without Windows, because my computer is dependent on windows. I can't have one without the other!

Evolution has spent 3 billion years changing things. RNA and DNA are the same molecule, but with one atom difference. De-OXY-ribose nucleic acid instead of Ribose nucleic acid. One has no oxygen. That is the difference. And the fact that you now see DNA as the memory molecule and RNA as the worker molecule is one of the reasons I believe as I do. RNA does stuff as well as storing the information. But it seems DNA is a more stable molecule than RNA so any organism which copied its genetic code on DNA instead of RNA would ahve had an advantage. Nonetheless, it still needed to keep RNA versions of its genome around in order to form its active RNA enzymes. Eventually proteins replaced RNA in that role too, and now we only see RNA acting as the intermediate. It carries the genetic message to the transferRNA which translates the message into proteins.

As I have said before though, this is only my own theory. I don't recall having read it anywhere, but I wouldn't be surprised if I had read something like it somewhere. It isn't verified, or even well argued for. It is just something that makes sense to me which is possible. It is a hypothesis. The concept is POSSIBLE.

The problem with this scenerio is that all nucleotides are right-handed today All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are right-handed. On the early earth right-handed as well as left handed nucleotides were present which all experiments so far have shown that having both inhibits copying.

You find some funny 'problems'. The fact that life can only use one and not the other...of course life only synthesises the ones it can use. The others are useless to it...why waste resources creating energy and building parts which are useless to it.

Yes both would have existed early earth. yes, this might have been a problem...It only needed to happen once. It can have been the MOST improbable thing in the universe for all it matters. It only needed to have happened once. Just like being dealt a royal flush, its only highly improbable up until the moment it happens. After that time, it happened. Probability is irrelevent.

Yes, if you are determined to claim that it was all naturalistic in nature. The only problem with that is that you have to give a credible working model in which that is possible. Life started from non-life is no more descriptive than God did it for the Creationist.

Life started from non-life is not meant to be a descriptive premise. You are spot on, its like saying God did it. Which ironically, even if God did it, it would still be abiogenesis, llife coming from non-life. The point is to explain HOW. So HOW did life come from non-life?

Well, I am proposing that all of life is actually non-life reorganised. The average person does not consider a DNA molecule to be alive, a protein isn't alive, phospholipids aren't alive. but a cell is nothing more than the sum of its parts. As such, non-living chemicals created by chance before life began, eventually triggered a serious of self replicating molecules which lead down the slippery slope of 'life'.

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain HOW 'God did it'.

 

[Aegist]

You have the cart before the horse here. You have to have DNA before it can self replicate endlessly.

You didn't read Enemy Properly. He clearly said:

so, you get your first prion through chance, and thats enough to kick start the whole deal

Once you have your first one...it does happen. So we have the cart, then the horse, and then they're off and running.

The actual difficulty in the beginning would be the supply of nucleotides for repliction. But that would just slow the process down, not stop it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You didn't read Enemy Properly. He clearly said:

What SHE said, but thanks for the support

 

[Lilandra]

In what way?

If you agree with consideringlily perhaps you can provide the information that she didn't provide?

I can provide it, now that you have stopped being coy about your reasoning.

I didn't claim that the ToE breaks down. I said that the systematic cladogram breaks down.

I am not sure if you realize this but a cladogram is a symbolic representation of evolutionary relationships. It is sequenced by DNA analysis where it is possible and morphology where it is not.

So to say that you are not against evolution but against a systematic cladogram is like saying you believe the U.S. exists but you are against maps.

In other words, your statement makes no sense.

My claim is that evolution is the label mankind has put on the processes of creation and that by putting on a purely natural materialistic worldview is not probable.

Evolution is a natural process how else would you judge it by except a “purely naturalistic worldview”.

More importantly, how can you verify a supernatural worldview? How can you isolate supernatural mechanisms from natural ones?

Nor does it account for the microtubules which distinguish the eukaryotic cell. Above all, it does not explain how DNA came to be organised into chromosomes and enveloped in a nuclear membrane.

Here is part of the explanation of research that exists that you may not be aware of…

http://www.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc151/Eukaryotes/Eukaryotes.html

(all quotes are from the above site and have been attributed)

​

In answer to the contention that cellular ancestry is uncertain, the first clues of common ancestry of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells are outlined below.

Time Period: Proterozoic

The oldest eukaryotic fossil is approximately 1.5 billion years old. The origin of the eukaryotes must have appeared before because the fossil is of a relative complex single-celled organism.
Biologists are almost certain that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes because:
3. Both use RNA and DNA are the genetic material
2. Both use the same 20 amino acids
3. Both have ribosomes and DNA and RNA
4. Both have a lipid bilayer cell membrane.
5. Both use L amino acids and D sugars

Biologists are also almost certain that eukaryotes evolved only once (i.e., are monophyletic- descendants of a single common ancestor) because they all share:
3. microtubules (composed of the protein tubulin) and actin molecules-

• • cytoskeleton for support or intracellular transport.-
  • flagella (or cilia)

2. DNA in chromosomes (intertwined with histone protein)
3. membrane-bound organelles.

The second point I want to make is about the origin of various organelles. I believe there was a statement about how various structures inside the nucleus of a cell came to be wrapped in a nuclear membrane. A key difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells is the presence of the nucleus in eukaryotic cells. (The difference is so simple to understand it is in our sixth grade science curriculum.)

One of the best theories of the presence of various structures inside of eukaryotic cells was pioneered by Lynn Margulis. The Endosymbiosis Theory is supported by various lines of evidence. In short, the theory posits that organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts were captured symbiotic cells …

Endosymbiosis - Origin of Mitochondria and Chloroplasts

​

One of the most fascinating concepts to gain popularity in recent times is the endosymbiotic theory for the origin of the eukaryotic cell
According to this theory:
€a prokaryotic cell capable of engulfing other prokaryotes, engulfed aerobic bacteria.

-Rather than digesting them, the bacteria remain, as symbionts, benefiting the host cell by removing harmful O2 and helping in the production of ATP.
- As interdependence between the aerobic bacterium and the host cell grows, the bacterium becomes the mitochondrion.
- Some of these cells also engulf and keep blue-green algal cells which become chloroplasts.


Endosymbioic origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts is an old idea:
The physical appearance of chloroplasts and mitochondria as observed by light microscopy was the justification used by Schimpler (1883) to make the first explicit proposal of symbiotic, bacterial origin of plastids, while Walin (1922) did the same for mitochondria.
These observations appeared to be supported later by electron microscopy when it was discovered that both organelles were surrounded by two membranes - the inner one supposedly belonging to the symbiont and the outer one a remnant of the membrane used by the host cell to engulf the symbiont.

1. The chloroplast appears more closely related to the cyanobacteria than to the rest of the eukaryotic cell, indicating that it is an endosymbiont.
2. Conclusions for the mitochondria are less clearbut they usually appear to be more closely related to aerobic bacteria,

I think the explanations are not so good when broken down.


The problem is that you pit evolution against Creation and that is where the problem lies. My viewpoint is that evolution is what we have labeled the process but that it has taken on more. It is the processes in which Creation was achieved but without God there are serious problems; I think that without God it is put out there like a god.

I think the “problem” does actually originate in worldview. An Intelligent Design proponent inserts God into murky areas of evolution and is content with the explanation that God poofed various cell structures into existence. For example, I think this cell needs a mitochondria and then *poof a mitochondria appears.

The problem with divine caveat is it posits a tinkering God, incapable of creating natural processes to create complex life.

The problem with inserting God into a scientific explanation all together is it propagates ignorance. Example, positing God intervened in cellular evolution rather than actually attempting to find natural explanations like endosymbiosis.

I think that is why you are unaware of research that explains some of the mysteries of cellular evolution. You think you already know the answer. God did it.