JILLIONS of Creation proof!

[notto]

What evidence? Scholarly consensus? The very same which persuaded the world that the Sun revolved around the Earth?

The same scholarly consensus that explained how viruses and bacteria cause disease and the same consensus that led us to treatments and cures.

You seem to be moving further from the argument in a silly effort to discredit science by demanding things that are impossible. You have been presented with evidence yet you fail to address it except to (rather obviously) hand wave it away.

If science did this, diseases wouldn't get cured, we would never have got to the moon, and we would still be trying to turn lead into gold.

Why don't you practice what you preach and address the evidence instead of running away from it.

 

[Aeschylus]

Very well, you are on the ball. The very same scholarly consensus that held that the atom was the smallest particle of matter?

I think you have your wires crossed on this one, two millenia before there wa anything that could truly be described as science a Greek philosopher called democritus postulated that there was a definite limit on how many times you could divided up a piece of matter, because he believed that matter was msadeof indivisble partilces called atoms. Fast forward 2000 years and Bosovich, formulated another simalir atomic theory (infact this atomic theory still forms part of the basis for the current model of fundamental particles), but you still should note that Bosovich's atom is not the same as what we call the atom. This theory was then used by others as a model to describe the behaviour of gases (again it's worth noting that the 'atoms' in this version of atomic theory were infact usually what we call molecules today). A little later it was determined chemically that all the normal matter we observe around us was made out out various substances called 'the elemnts', individual particles of of each element wer called 'atoms', though as far as I am aware there was no consensus on whether they were the smallest substance, but the name stuck.

Later still it was determined that the atom contained smaller particles still called electrons which gave the elemnts their chemical properties and afterwards it was discoverd that the atom also conatined a nucleus (which in itself contains protons and neutrons which are in turn composed of quarks and gluons).

 

[WWJND]

peschitta-enthusiast = pwned.

Next demonstration of might vs. right please.

I'm learning so much...

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

What does pwned mean?

 

[Ishmael Borg]

What does pwned mean?

It is an intentional misspelling of 'owned' (in the 'thoroughly defeated' sense). I guess it started with a misspelling in an online computer game. Its origins are debated here:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwned

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

Intenshunal miscpellihs? I love it

 

[The Barbarian]

It has not been proven that organelles were individual organisms.

Science never "proves" anything at all. However, the evidence cited for endosymbiois is overwhelming. More evidence can be found here:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Endosymbiosis.html

"But", you might ask, "is there any hard evidence that endosymbiosis actually happens?"

Turns out that there is.

Endosymbiosis in amoebae: recently established endosymbionts have become required cytoplasmic components.

Jeon KW, Jeon MS.

A strain of large, free-living amoeba that became dependent on bacterial endosymbionts which had infected the amoebae initially as intracellular parasites, was studied by micrurgy and electron microscopy. The results show that the infected host cells require the presence of live endosymbionts for their survival.Thus, the nucleus of an infected amoeba can form a viable cell with the cytoplasm of a noninfected amoeba only when live endosymbionts are present. The endosymbiotic bacteria are not digested by the host amoebae and are not themselves used as nutritional supplement. While the host amoebae are dependent specifically on the endosymbionts, the latter can live inside amoebae of different strains, indicating that their dependence on the host cells is not yet strain specific.


J Cell Physiol. 1976 Oct;89(2):337-44.

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

Interesting, I shall take a look!

 

[peschitta_enthusiast]

That actually didn't prove that you could combine seperate organisms to form one individual organism.

 

[the_gloaming]

That actually didn't prove that you could combine seperate organisms to form one individual organism.

Why are you completely ignoring my posts ? If the evidence posted by myself, lucaspa, the barbarian and everyone else does not support endosymbiosis, then please provide an explanation of why things are the way they are. Please do not resort to God did it. Or if you do, explain WHY He did it and in the process, attempt to deceive us by making it appear as if endosymbiosis has occured. As soon as you resort to "we cannot comprehend the mind of God" or something along those lines, you lose. This is meant to be a scientific argument.

 

[Jet Black]

That actually didn't prove that you could combine seperate organisms to form one individual organism.

all hail the holy strawman.

 

[mrversatile48]

http://evolution-facts.org/EncyclopediaTOC.htm

Regards,

Chris

The acceptance of evolution is proportional to the degradation of society. No creation, no God, no accountability for our actions. This is the reason why this most unscientific of unscientific theories is so accepted by a supposedly logical world.

I posted that link, Tues pm, to a thread called something like "10 falsifications of YEC"

As I just said there, a mod asked me to edit & reference my post, so I had to do a "Confessions of a Novice Nerd", saying I don't know how to do links to individual posts, & just PM'd the mod to ask how..

What makes it even funnier was that the request referred to the lead post from a thread called something like "9 evidences against evolution"

That 1, I'm still trying to find..

Have fun out there!

Ian

 

[lucaspa]

""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.

No, we are talking about symbiosis at the start. The bacteria that formed mitochondria and the other eukaryotic cell were in a symbiotic relationship. Over generations, the mitochondrial bacteria lost more of its functions, because the host cell already did them, so duplication of effort simply was a cost. Some genes from the mitochondria were transferred to the nucleus of the host.

 

[lucaspa]

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?

Change in genetic code, since the ability is inherited. Remember, "adaptation to the environment" refers to a population, not an individual. For a population to become adapted, the genetics of a few or one individual has to spread so that every individual in the population has the allele or alleles (depending on whether the trait is in one gene or many genes).

New Information via Evolution
1. Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Ohno, S, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81:2421-2425, 1984. Frame shift mutation yielded random formation of new protein, was active enzyme nylon linear oligomer hydrolase (degrades nylon) http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
2. http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CB/CB904.html
3. http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CB/CB101_2.html
4. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4661_issue_16_volume_5_number_2__4_10_2003.asp#New%20Proteins%20Without%20God's%20Help
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...2&dopt=Abstract6. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/12/18547. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/inf...ipoprotein.html8. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf9. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/8/3485

Beneficial mutations
1. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dup_favorable.html
Accelerated evolution
2. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html New apo-lipoprotein mutation that adds antioxidant activity.
3. Sequence of favorable mutations in E. coli http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/7/3807
4. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513 Mutation giving extra dense bones
5. Karl C. Diller, William A. Gilbert, and Thomas D. Kocher. Selective Sweeps in the Human Genome: A Starting Point for Identifying Genetic Differences Between Modern Humans and Chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19(12):2342–2345. 2002
6. Pardis C. Sabeti, David E. Reich et. al. Detecting recent positive selection
in the human genome from haplotype structure. Nature 419 24 OCTOBER 2002.
7 Hollox EJ, Poulter M, Zvarik M, Ferak V, Krause A, Jenkins T, Saha N, Kozlov AI,
Swallow DM. Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Jan;68(1):160-172. Epub 2000 Nov 28. Lactase haplotype diversity in the Old World.
8. Gilad Y, Rosenberg S, Przeworski M, Lancet D, Skorecki K. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jan 22;99(2):862-7. Evidence for positive selection and population structure at the human MAO-A gene.
9. Mundy NI, Cook S. Mol Biol Evol. 2003 Jun 27. Positive Selection During the Diversification of Class I Vomeronasal Receptor-Like (V1RL) Genes, Putative Pheromone Receptor Genes, in Human and Primate Evolution.
10. Swanson WJ, Nielsen R, Yang Q. Mol Biol Evol. 2003 Jan;20(1):18-20. Pervasive adaptive evolution in Mammalian fertilization proteins.
11 Zhang J, Webb DM, Podlaha O. Genetics. 2002 Dec;162(4):1825-35. Accelerated protein evolution and origins of human-specific features: Foxp2 as an example.
12. Torgerson DG, Kulathinal RJ, Singh RS. Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Nov;19(11):1973-80. Mammalian sperm proteins are rapidly evolving: evidence of positive selection in
functionally diverse genes.

 

[lucaspa]

Let them reproduce it then... It has not been proven that organelles were individual organisms.

Reproducing the phenomenon is not necessary, unless you are denying cause and effect.

The present is the way it is because the past was the way it was. Modern cells are the way they are because of what happened in the past. And those past events left evidence we can study today.

I have read somewhere that Lynn Margulis has observed the engulfing of one strain of bacteria by another to form a hybrid organism. I've got to find the reference. Has anyone else read that?

BTW, it's not all organelles. The claims are only being made for some of them. Of course, if the organelles evolved within the cells, evolution still stands. Descent with modification is safe whether Margulis' theory is correct or not. Margulis is talking about how evolution happened, not whether it happened.

 

[lucaspa]

What evidence? Scholarly consensus? The very same which persuaded the world that the Sun revolved around the Earth?

Post #119 The observations in the post by TheGloaming quoted by notto.

Please stop changing the subject. Address the evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

That actually didn't prove that you could combine seperate organisms to form one individual organism.

Actually, it did. You have separate organisms combined such that you have one individual organism -- the amoeba + bacteria. Without the component of endosymbiont, the amoeba can't reproduce.

It is fun watching you move the goalposts, however. Don't they get heavy?