TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

It depends on what you are talking about. They are using basic molecular building blocks such as lipids, proteins, etc to build cells from scratch. These basic building blocks already occur naturally so using them does nothing to take away from the fact that this could occur naturally at one point in our biological history. Of course our method of synthesizing a cell from scratch skips over many of the intermediate steps that may have taken place i.e. RNA world hypothesis, etc. but these too are being replicated. Again we are trying to replicate in a lab something that had the entire planet as a lab and took place over billions of years. Not an easy endeavor.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Even if the answer is no parts can be removed without the cell function ceasing it doesn't matter.You have fallen for the irreducible complexity trick and you don't understand what is wrong with it.An irreducible complex thing can be created not just by adding bits one at a time it can be created by subtracting things too. With that the whole IC argument is dead.

i put it the wrong way...i made it sound like i was saying a living cell could not change in any way which it might do, im not sure.what i meant is that a living cell could not develop unguided to become a living cell because the complete genetic code is a requirement for cell reproduction.Proteins depend on DNA for their formation and yet DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein. So if we are to believe that a living cell evolved, then we have to believe that the DNA and the protein evolved both separately and together...this is like saying the chicken and the egg evolved apart from each other but were dependent on each other to evolve.

yes i know it can.

Rather that actually acknowledge the point made you actually resort to a quote mine? After all the discussion here at EvC about the dishonest use of such things in the creationist community this is the best you can do?A perfect example, thank you for it.

Hi Peg, I think you are becoming more and more confused.Your skin (and other) cells are constantly reproducing in the same way that single cell eukaryote organisms reproduce. Skin cells are constantly dying and being replaced by new cells.Skin - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Cells are formed through mitosis at the basale layer. The daughter cells (see cell division) move up the strata changing shape and composition as they die due to isolation from their blood source.

---

Mitosis - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Mitosis is the process by which a eukaryotic cell separates the chromosomes in its cell nucleus into two identical sets in two nuclei.[1] It is generally followed immediately by cytokinesis, which divides the nuclei, cytoplasm, organelles and cell membrane into two cells containing roughly equal shares of these cellular components. Mitosis and cytokinesis together define the mitotic (M) phase of the cell cycle - the division of the mother cell into two daughter cells, genetically identical to each other and to their parent cell.

---

It takes something like 20 years, iirc, for your whole body to be replaced with new cells by this simple method of reproduction.Of course this process is "guided" by the DNA in the cells, but you have the same process in bacteria as mammal skin.Enjoy.

---

Yes & no. Today such would not occur as the condensation of free amino acids can still occur, but with all the life in the oceans, this would be absorbed by living cells before long chains could be formed, plus the ozone layer prevents most of the calalytic ultraviolet radiation from reaching the oceans. In the primoidial ocean there was no life to stop the condensation and no ozone layer to block out UV rays.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Peg, in the scenario for abiogenesis I outlined for you, we saw proto-cells reproducing. How much protein and DNA did these proto-cells contain?

well you set yourself up for it by using the word 'created'

no, i dont think i'm confused.I know living cells reproduce, no problem there. But in order for the cell to live at all, it needs all of its parts to do so.

ok i want to ask you a new question about the ocean where these proto-cells would have first formedIf the organic soup really did cover the whole earth then surely some of its compounds would have been trapped in sedimentary rocks. I know you know a lot about rocks, so can i ask you if there is any evidence of these compounds left in the rocks?

Huh? Oh, the caving Believe me, as much as I love crawling through the tighest holes in rock, I am no geologist! Unfortunately, there is far too much evidence! Because of the ubiquitous nature of life on Earth, there are organic compounds of every type, everywhere - and I mean everywhere! And the other problem is that we cannot see abiogenesis still occuring because even if conditions were again suitable, the existing microbial life would gobble up anything that half resembled a new proto-cell in the making. The deep ocean hydrothermal vents are the favourite location for where abiogensis may have occurred, but today these are teaming with life of every magnitude.

What an uneducated and ignorant claim. And what 'parts' would those be? Are you saying you have systematically checked every single cell on Earth and tested each one to determine if you remove a 'part' that it would cease to survive? I think not. Can you be a little less ambiguous and more scientific here?

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

The DNA and protein in cells are interdependent on each other and are subject to the same environmental factors and thus CAN evolve together. A change in DNA would directly cause changes to proteins and other biomolecular chemicals in the cell and thus a mutation in DNA would result in a direct change in protein configuration in many cases. Please show why they could not.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Ah! I see, He had it coming 'cause he was dressed so sexy.So you're saying we can't rely on your self restraint to not lie through your teeth if you see a opportunity. Nice to know.

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.