Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's what we call a bald-faced lie.Dexx said:How about this one from the 'mutations' section:
"Hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation. And this is what they learned: NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes) that was a permanent one, passing on from one generation to another"
No one thinks that happened, that's why there's no evidence for it.peschitta_enthusiast said:The very idea that the first cell was produced by little organisms coming together and deciding to collaborate to form one life-form is preposterous. It is grossly unscientific, and is yet to have any eveidence for it
Can you explain to me how TB and human cells have a symbiotic relationship? And please quit your silly taunts. This is a discussion forum, not second grade recess.peschitta_enthusiast said:""However, having one bacteria come to live in another bacteria, or a cell coming to live in another cell, is not a stretch. Think of tuberculosis. The tuberculosis bacterium must live inside another cell. So it is not so far-fetched.
""
That is a differnt issue, that is symbiosis. We are talking about supposed little organisms actually giving up their life and collaborating to form one cell, one life-form. That is a very dishonest example, to say that symbiotic animals, such as bacteria in termites' guts are the same thing. Naughty, naughty!
It seems to be a core Creationist argument. I'm very interested to know of examples of genetic mutations that gave the creature a clear benefit, that left them able to breed, and maybe even added complexity to their genome.Nathan David said:That's what we call a bald-faced lie.
Dexx said:It seems to be a core Creationist argument. I'm very interested to know of examples of genetic mutations that gave the creature a clear benefit, that left them able to breed, and maybe even added complexity to their genome.
Does the "fruit fly eating meat" example result from a change in genetic code or from a simple adaption to environment?
I see that you have given your normal amount of data and evidence to back up your assertions.peschitta_enthusiast said:"It seems to be a core Creationist argument. I'm very interested to know of examples of genetic mutations that gave the creature a clear benefit, that left them able to breed, and maybe even added complexity to their genome.
"
Very rarely does a mutation benefit. And it would take TRILLIONS of years to get so many beneficial mutations to make a new animal species, especially when considering you have to have male and female mutating at the same time. Now, Earth is not that old, whether you believe in 8000 years or a few billion. As I like to say, we are NOT dealing with infinite time
You were presented with much evidence of it and you have done nothing to refute that evidence except your continued assertions that there is no evidence. Why don't you address the evidence that was presented to you?peschitta_enthusiast said:"Can you explain to me how TB and human cells have a symbiotic relationship?"
Yes, symbiosis was the wrong word, it is more a parasitic relationship. Nevertheless, the fact remains, as with the symbiotic relation of termites and their gut bacteria, that these are all INDIVIDUAL animals. The guy above seems not to have studied BIOL101, where you are taught that organelles of a cell were originally individual animals. This "individual animals collaborating to form one life-form" is very different from close relationships like symbiosis, parasitism, commensalism etc. And there is no evidence for it.
the_gloaming said:from http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW1/MG1378.html :
-The RNA polymerases of organelles resemble those of eubacteria more than they do those of eucaryotes. Bacterial and organelle polymerases are sensitive to the same inhibitors and insensitive to inhibitors of eucaryotic RNA polymerases.
-Organelle protein synthesis is sensitive to the same inhibitors that inhibit protein synthesis in eubacteria and insensitive to some that inhibit cytoplasmic protein synthesis. Organelle and bacterial ribosomes are more similar to each other than either are to cytoplasmic ribosomes of eucaryotes.
-Phylogenetic analysis of small subunit rRNA nucleotide sequences suggested that mitochondrial rDNA shared a common ancestor with modern endosymbiotic bacteria (ricketsia, Agrobacterium, Rhizobium).
-Similarly, 16S rDNA phylogenetic analysis suggests that most plastid rDNA genes shared common ancestors with a cyanobacterium. Euglena and Chlamydomonas rDNAs probably arose from a different ancestral cyanobacterial rDNA..
-Intrageneric comparisons of organelle genomes reveal some species with the same gene in both organelle and nuclear genomes. One or the other may be inactive. Occasionally an active gene may be in the organelle for one species and in the nucleus for another of the same family.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_hypothesis :
Evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts arose via an ancient endosymbiosis of a bacteria is as follows:
-Both mitochondria and chloroplasts contain DNA which is fairly different from that of the cell nucleus, and in a quantity similar to that of bacteria. Further, they are surrounded by two or more membranes, and the innermost of these shows differences in composition compared to the other membranes in the cell. This is consistent with a cellular origin.
-New mitochondria and chloroplasts are formed only through a process similar to binary fission. In some algae, such as Euglena, the chloroplasts can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the chloroplasts will not regenerate.
-Much of the internal structure and biochemistry of chloroplasts, for instance the presence of thylakoids and particular chlorophylls, is very similar to that of cyanobacteria. Phylogenies built with bacteria, chloroplasts, and eukaryotic genomes also suggest that chloroplasts are most closely related to cyanobacteria.
DNA sequence analysis and phylogeny suggests that nuclear DNA contains genes that probably came from the chloroplast.
-Some genes encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle, and both mitochondria and chloroplasts have unusually small genomes compared to other organisms. This is consistent with an increased dependence on the eukaryotic host after forming an endosymbiosis.
-Chloroplasts appear in very different groups of protists, which are in general more closely related to forms lacking them than to each other. This suggests that if chloroplasts originated as part of the cell, they did so multiple times, in which case their close similarity to each other is difficult to explain.
What is wrong with this evidence ? How would you interpret it differently ?
peschitta_enthusiast said:And it would take TRILLIONS of years to get so many beneficial mutations to make a new animal species
especially when considering you have to have male and female mutating at the same time.
What a silly standard of proof you have. You have just invalidated 80% of science. This isn't the way science works and much like a murder investigation there is no need to 'reproduce' the murder in order to find and supply evidence that it happened.peschitta_enthusiast said:Let them reproduce it then... It has not been proven that organelles were individual organisms.
No, this time it's secular scholarly consensus. The kind that had nothing to lose from believing that the Earth was NOT the center of all creation.peschitta_enthusiast said:What evidence? Scholarly consensus? The very same which persuaded the world that the Sun revolved around the Earth?
I think it would be more accurate to conclude that science asserted that the atom was the smallest particle KNOWN at the time. Can you point us to a scientific assertion that it was absolutely the smallest?peschitta_enthusiast said:Very well, you are on the ball. The very same scholarly consensus that held that the atom was the smallest particle of matter?
Very well, you are on the ball. The very same scholarly consensus that held that the atom was the smallest particle of matter?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?