|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
DevilsAdvocate writes: What an uneducated and ignorant claim. And what 'parts' would those be? i'm sure i dont need to explain to you or anyone else here that there are many parts to the cell that rely on each other in order for the cell to function. centrioles & mircrotubules are linked, Chromosomes,DNA & histones rely on each other to function. And ribosomes contain 55 separate protein molecules all of which are required for the cell to function properly. Im not even scraping the surface here obviously, but if you think its ignorant of me to claim that a cell cannot live without all the parts that make it function, then i'm happy to be ignorant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4888 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
Hi Peg,
i'm sure i dont need to explain to you or anyone else here that there are many parts to the cell that rely on each other in order for the cell to function.
I've seen this argument many times; however, that just makes it all the easier to rebut. centrioles & mircrotubules are linked, Chromosomes,DNA & histones rely on each other to function. And ribosomes contain 55 separate protein molecules all of which are required for the cell to function properly. Im not even scraping the surface here obviously, but if you think its ignorant of me to claim that a cell cannot live without all the parts that make it function, then i'm happy to be ignorant. Imagine a cell as a skyscraper. There are windows, walls, doors. The doors must, obviously, have a wall to open through; the same is true for the windows; but what about the walls? It seems that there are just too many parts for them to have come together on their own. Wires, plumbing, heating, and, above all, framework: all are needed to give the wall shape and purpose. However, suppose that the generator and furnace can only go on the third floor (for reasons unknown). The first floor could be laid out with preliminary walls and such, as would the second floor directly following that. However, once you get to the third floor, you have to start making changes to the floors below. However, if you change anything below, you run the risk of having the third floor collapse in your face. So, while the preliminary design is being remodeled, scaffolds are put into place in order to keep the building upright. When the time comes when the new system is put into place, the scaffolds are removed and it looks to us impossible for them to have put into place a later system that involved changes to earlier systems. It is much the same with evolution.What we are missing is the scaffolding. T&U I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in- Dan Foutes "In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."- Douglas Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
but if you think its ignorant of me to claim that a cell cannot live without all the parts that make it function, then i'm happy to be ignorant. If not ignorant then at the very least redundant. You seem to have reduced the concept of Irreducible Complexity down to a tautologous core, 'a cell cannot live without all the parts it needs to live.' Of course you used function rather than live, and that raises a question. Cells can have many functions besides the simple one of allowing the cell to reproduce, and a number of these functions can be removed without impairing the cell's ability to reproduce. So the question becomes, what is a cell's function? Is it simply to reproduce or does it encompass all the other accessory functions that cell may have? If we take the wider view then your tautology becomes, 'a cell cannot properly function without the parts that allow it to function properly'. Either way, neither of these formulations says anything meaningful about evolution. As has been pointed out repeatedly the existence of an IC system, in the straightforward sense of a system which is rendered non-functional by the removal of any one of several contributing elements, is not a barrier to evolution and there are many evolutionary frameworks for the evolution of IC systems. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asking Junior Member (Idle past 5038 days) Posts: 19 Joined: |
You might want to read up on this experiment thats been running for the last 20 years demonstrating evolution in E. Coli
- http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ In particular you might want to read into E.Coli evolving (Via mutation) the ability to utilise citrate - http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/citrate2008/- Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab | New Scientist As for claims that the fossil record doesn't support evolution that is a simple lie. Edited by Asking, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
killinghurts Member (Idle past 4994 days) Posts: 150 Joined: |
Then, of course, there's the nylon eating bacteria
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4802 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
Has anyone built a tree based on a new feature never previously used in its history.
EX. Feathers - all species that have feathers. Was it a dinosaur that feathers developed for the first time or another bird during its origin of feathers. Skin origin from water to land and every other new variation that ends with human skin currently. internal specialized organs - We certainly have a wide range of species that do not have all of the specialized organs but still able to perform the same functions. We do have a pattern where many of them still live in the ocean while all land species have all the specialized organs. If a tree is done in this fashion, I think one could understand how all of the different varieties of species are connected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
If a tree is done in this fashion, I think one could understand how all of the different varieties of species are connected.
Or not. How would you determine what features we are to organize them by? Oh thats right there is Bariminists that are willing to make that determination Do you think all the egg layers are closely connected? Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Has anyone built a tree based on a new feature never previously used in its history. That's pretty much the basis of all modern cladistic taxonomic trees, looking for shared derived features or as they are technically known synapomorphies. A synapomorphy is a novel feature, feathers in your example, which is shared by 2 or more taxa and their common ancestor but which was absent in that ancestors own ancestors. The current evidence still points to the first feathers arising in dinosaurs before the diversification of the aves. So all feathered dinosaurs and birds are considered part of a clade which has feathers as a synapomorphic feature. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
barbara Member (Idle past 4802 days) Posts: 167 Joined: |
I will wait patiently for a new theory that explains life. Evolution and Creation don't explain anything. Science has not learned enough yet to state that what defines evolution now will not change in the future.
This unbelievable notion that one must choose sides in this debate of religion/evolution with no other alternatives to choose from simply because no other theories will be accepted is corrupt and self motivated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
barbara writes: I will wait patiently for a new theory that explains life. Evolution and Creation don't explain anything. Science has not learned enough yet to state that what defines evolution now will not change in the future. HUH? That does not even make any sense. What defines evolution? Do you mean change in a population over time?
barbara writes: This unbelievable notion that one must choose sides in this debate of religion/evolution with no other alternatives to choose from simply because no other theories will be accepted is corrupt and self motivated. There is no religious theory of evolution. The ONLY model that is available is the Theory of Evolution. So far there is no other option. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Science has not learned enough yet to state that what defines evolution now will not change in the future. Yes, it has. Evolution will always proceed on primarily the basis of random mutation and natural selection, just as it always has.
This unbelievable notion that one must choose sides in this debate of religion/evolution with no other alternatives to choose from simply because no other theories will be accepted is corrupt and self motivated. I guess you don't have to "choose sides", but one side is supported by an incredible weight of scientific evidence - more than for any other theory - and the other is supported only because it's consistent with one narrow view of Christianity. The decision doesn't seem all that hard, I guess. There are no scientific alternatives to evolution because there don't need to be - the theory is robust, well-substantiated, and capable of explaining all biological observations that have ever been made. Why do you need an alternative?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Here, here..I second that!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Are there more than one thing (two) that are necessary for a cell to reproduce and continue to exist? If so, how can you remove one of them, and still have a cell?
Would those two things not have to have developed simultaneously? Wouldn't that be impossible? Of course I think you already realize there are many more than two necessary for a cells existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Would those two things not have to have developed simultaneously? Wouldn't that be impossible? They would if what you wanted was the instantaneous de novo creation of reproduction capable cellular life. But that isn't how most origin of life scenarios proceed. If you can start with acellular or proto-cellular genetic reproduction then building cellular architecture around that does not require passing through impossible intermediate stages. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3630 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
But doesn't that require you to then hypothesize the use of thousands of functioning parts of the cell, BEFORE they came into being a part of their final systematic use?
Isn't that just sherking the responsibility of explanation?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024