Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
73 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, nwr (3 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,327 Year: 4,439/6,534 Month: 653/900 Week: 177/182 Day: 10/47 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions about the living cell
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 4453 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 16 of 182 (527526)
10-01-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Jack
10-01-2009 4:44 PM


Re: Some answers
Why what?

Why..."we in fact find a continuum of complexity extant in living organisms".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Jack, posted 10-01-2009 4:44 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dr Jack, posted 10-01-2009 5:07 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2199
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 17 of 182 (527527)
10-01-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Jack
10-01-2009 4:33 PM


Re: Some answers
Mr Jack writes:

Well, in fact [...]

I appreciate your comment, but I don't quite follow how it connects with what I said. Could you explain?


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 10-01-2009 4:33 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Jack, posted 10-01-2009 5:04 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2199
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 18 of 182 (527528)
10-01-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 4:35 PM


Re: Some answers
Calypsis4 writes:

scientists are working on it; but why isn't nature doing it?

Why isn't nature doing what?


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 4:35 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:30 PM Parasomnium has taken no action

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 4453 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 19 of 182 (527530)
10-01-2009 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Parasomnium
10-01-2009 4:42 PM


Re: Facts?
That's not quite what mark24 asked. He asked you to answer in the same format you expect of us. It seems you only gave us your opinions. Can you also provide some facts?

Yes.

1. opinion God Almighty created all things.

Fact: The world/universe could not create itself because of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. We know of nothing in natural world that can create matter and no one has ever observed matter being created. Therefore its creation had to be supernatural.

2. opinion: the DNA helicase was created within the living cells of every organism on earth and functions (albeit imperfectly unlike at creation)in similar fashion to every other complex system on earth, both living and non-living. It was pre-programed by God.

fact: Since we cannot determine which came first, '(the chicken or the egg?)', then how many options do we have other than an intelligent Engineer? The only option is a supernatural option unless one wants to consider extraterrestrials planted the human race. However that only pushes the problem back further, it does not solve it.

3. The above answer suffices here for both opinion & answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 10-01-2009 4:42 PM Parasomnium has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by cavediver, posted 10-01-2009 5:11 PM Calypsis4 has replied
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 10-01-2009 5:50 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 20 of 182 (527531)
10-01-2009 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 4:46 PM


what was the origin of the tiny machinery that was necessary to produce the first cells and where does/did nature make such tools/machinery?

Nice video. Here's another as one potential answer to your question:

The way you make the incredible machinery of the modern cell is with slightly less complex machinery in slightly older cells, all the way back to the very simple machinery of the oldest cells. Sort of obvious really...

Friend: "With what?"
Evolutionist: "With rocks that I will use as hammers..."

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 4:46 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:29 PM cavediver has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 21 of 182 (527532)
10-01-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Parasomnium
10-01-2009 4:48 PM


Re: Some answers
I appreciate your comment, but I don't quite follow how it connects with what I said. Could you explain?

Well, I presume your point was that chromatin didn't form seperately to living things but evolved in already living things. This suggestion is, it seems to me, supported by the existance of extant organisms without chromatin and with more simplistic versions of chromatin. Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that chromatin is not needed for living organisms and that functional intermediates in DNA packing between organisms without histones and organisms with Eukaryotic histones exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Parasomnium, posted 10-01-2009 4:48 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Parasomnium, posted 10-01-2009 5:13 PM Dr Jack has taken no action

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 22 of 182 (527533)
10-01-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 4:47 PM


Re: Some answers
Why did I write it? Why is it the case that we find that in the real world? Why is it relevant? What?

Simply repeating yourself is rarely helpful.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 4:47 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 23 of 182 (527534)
10-01-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 4:57 PM


Re: Facts?
The world/universe could not create itself because of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Incorrect - 1LoT is simply an observation of the effect of the principles of statistical mechanics acting in a flat background space-time. They, and the 1LoT are inapplicable in the form you are implying in the region of the T=0 point in Big Bang cosmology space-time.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed

Incorrect - matter is being created and destroyed at every point of the Universe every moment of time.

We know of nothing in natural world that can create matter

Incorrect - matter fields are constantly creating and destroying quanta of matter. See above.

and no one has ever observed matter being created.

Incorrect - we see this process every day in the particle accelerators in use around the world.

You may be thinking of energy?

Therefore its creation had to be supernatural.

Nope...

Apologies for the OT reply - back to the topic at hand

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 4:57 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:34 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 33 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:59 PM cavediver has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2199
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 24 of 182 (527535)
10-01-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Jack
10-01-2009 5:04 PM


Re: Some answers
Mr Jack writes:

I presume your point was that chromatin didn't form seperately to living things but evolved in already living things. This suggestion is, it seems to me, supported by [etc.]

Crystal clear, thank you. I couldn't have said it better.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Jack, posted 10-01-2009 5:04 PM Dr Jack has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 6:05 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 4453 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 25 of 182 (527541)
10-01-2009 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by cavediver
10-01-2009 5:01 PM


Here's another as one potential answer to your question:

Thanks, but I have already viewed that more than once and the author failed to explain the origin of the necessary DNA machinery nor does he explain how that machinery happened to fall into working operable order by itself.

Thanks for your reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by cavediver, posted 10-01-2009 5:01 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by cavediver, posted 10-01-2009 5:52 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 4453 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 26 of 182 (527543)
10-01-2009 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Parasomnium
10-01-2009 4:50 PM


Re: Some answers
"Why isn't nature doing what?"

Never mind.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Parasomnium, posted 10-01-2009 4:50 PM Parasomnium has taken no action

  
Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 4453 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 27 of 182 (527544)
10-01-2009 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by cavediver
10-01-2009 5:11 PM


Re: Facts?
Incorrect - 1LoT is simply an observation of the effect of the principles of statistical mechanics acting in a flat background space-time. They, and the 1LoT are inapplicable in the form you are implying in the region of the T=0 point in Big Bang cosmology space-time.

No. it is correct. We are talking about a firmly established law of science that tells us that matter cannot be created, at least not by any known physical force.

You cannot postulate something that you have never observed, nor is testable (the 'Big Bang') against a law that has been repeatedly tested and observed countless times and conclude that 'it isn't applicable'.
That was an arbitrary conclusion on your part and it is not justified.

Matter cannot create itself and we know of no physical process that will overturn that fact...that includes the 'Big Bang'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by cavediver, posted 10-01-2009 5:11 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by slevesque, posted 10-01-2009 5:53 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 10-01-2009 5:57 PM Calypsis4 has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7316
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 28 of 182 (527548)
10-01-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 4:57 PM


Re: Facts?
The world/universe could not create itself because of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. We know of nothing in natural world that can create matter and no one has ever observed matter being created. Therefore its creation had to be supernatural.

Do you actually know what the first law of thermodynamics states? Can you explain how it disproves evolution? I mean much more than what you state above, because all that is misstatements with no actual explanation.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 4:57 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2883 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 29 of 182 (527549)
10-01-2009 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 5:29 PM


the author failed to explain the origin of the necessary DNA machinery

I don't think "failed" as that was not his intent. Perhaps we could follow on from his work and look at potential pathways that could lead to the DNA machinery. But first, I take it that you agree that self-replicating protocells could arise in this manner?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:29 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3880 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 30 of 182 (527550)
10-01-2009 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 5:34 PM


Re: Facts?
You should use the word energy instead of matter I think

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:34 PM Calypsis4 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Parasomnium, posted 10-01-2009 5:55 PM slevesque has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022