Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 4:05 PM
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,830 Year: 9,866/19,786 Month: 2,288/2,119 Week: 324/724 Day: 49/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   Mamalian red blood cells
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1049 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 1 of 51 (500432)
02-26-2009 9:19 AM


I am posting this topic primarily because I think it is evidence of God's creation. However, I also think the evidence of red blood cells in mammals defies evolutionary theory. So, I am asking evolutionists for any explanation they may have for this wonder of life.

As most of you know, our blood is predominantly red, because of red blood cells. The Hemoglobin in the cell joins with oxygen molecules in our lungs and transports this "breath of life" (spirit) to every one of the six trillion cells in the human body. But did you know that these cells really no longer fit the definition of a biological cell? In fact they are dead!

The red blood cells are manufactured in the bone marrow, and just like all other cells they are alive, have DNA to reproduce, and mitochondria to manufacture energy for the cell. But something "miraculous" happens about the seventh day (how interesting) of its life. The red blood cell extrudes out their nucleus with their DNA and then extrudes out their mitochondria (sequence not importatnt). They can no longer produce any proteins, or reproduce. They basically die on purpose. That is the definition of sacrifice. They do this so that they become smaller and can "hold" the oxygen without consuming the oxygen.

Because they are dead, they begin decaying. The hemoglobin proteins eventually start decaying and after about 120 days, they are no longer useful for carrying oxygen. The very oxygen that brings life to every cell in the body, destroys the hemoglobin over time.

Now to say the least, this is an amazing process. It is a process of sacrifice to give life to the rest of the body. Sounds like Jesus doesn't it? Maybe He designed it this way as evidence of His will and plan for us. I think He did! Throughout the Bible we see the correlation of life, blood, soul, and sacrifice.

Now I will stop the preaching and share why I think this is impossible under an evolutionary process.

As you know, evolutionary theory relies on the fundamental concept of self preservation and survival. All mammals have red blood cells that do the above biological process. In lower animals, from which we supposedly "evolved" their red blood cells do not extrude out the nucleus and the mitochondria. Therefore, mammalian red blood cells must have evolved. They don't teach this one in the schools!

Therefore, random mutations over time must have caused the red blood cells to sacrifice their life for the benefit of the organism. But hold on! This change in red blood cells is huge! Not small! Any organism that would have mutated to have living red blood cells turn into dead red blood cells would not have had the capacity to replenish these cells. The bones and the marrow would have had to change (mutate)to provide additional cells, because the red blood cells could no longer divide and multiply on their own. But they would only have about 120 days for those changes to evolve. Then the kidneys which filter the blood would have had to adapt to these new cells. The heart would have to adapt to these new cells. The blood pressure would change, because the capilaries would have to adapt. The fluid dynamics of the blood would have changed, and all the other organs would have to compensate. And not only would they have to compensate, but they would have to all coordinate together to compensate in avery short period of time.

Life is literally in the blood. Even small genetic changes in the blood system caused by mutations are catastrophic and at best cause fitness deteriation. The change of going from a living cell to a superbly functioning dead cell is enormous. And there is no evolutionary time for this. Death would be inevitable.

So here's the challenge topic, what "just so" story could explain an evolutionary pathway for living red blood cells to give up their life and that change be beneficial for the entire organism without having catastrophic consequenses for the life of the organism.

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : Changed last sentence


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Capt Stormfield, posted 02-26-2009 11:28 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 4 by Theodoric, posted 02-26-2009 11:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 5 by Stile, posted 02-26-2009 11:52 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 02-26-2009 11:56 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-26-2009 1:20 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Meddle, posted 02-26-2009 2:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 20 by lyx2no, posted 02-26-2009 5:57 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 21 by Stagamancer, posted 02-27-2009 2:21 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2009 4:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 31 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-17-2009 6:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 51 (500441)
02-26-2009 10:02 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 403
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 3 of 51 (500445)
02-26-2009 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 9:19 AM


I am posting this topic primarily because I think it is evidence of God's creation. However, I also think the evidence of red blood cells in mammals defies evolutionary theory. So, I am asking evolutionists for any explanation they may have for this wonder of life.

So here's the challenge topic, what "just so" story could explain an evolutionary pathway for living red blood cells to give up their life and that change be beneficial for the entire organism without having catastrophic consequenses for the life of the organism.

It's an interesting question. If you were a scientist, how would you go about seeking an answer? What kind of research do you think is required here? What kind evidence would lead you to say "Oh, yeah, I get it. That's obviously how the function of hemoglobin evolved."

More to the point, since you have established right at the beginning of your post that you are making an argument from ignorance, do you think anyone should even try? Is your faith increased by your ignorance? Would it be diminished if the evolutionary pathway to hemoglobin were to be determined? Did those who lived in the (quite recent) era before the function of hemoglobin was understood have a poorer understanding of salvation than you? I fail to see any point to your post, or to your argument.

Capt.

Edited by Capt Stormfield, : edit typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 9:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 12:13 PM Capt Stormfield has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6317
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 4 of 51 (500449)
02-26-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 9:19 AM


Premise is false
But did you know that these cells really no longer fit the definition of a biological cell? In fact they are dead!

Please supply any documentation that says these cells do not fit the definition of a biological cell.

Why would the lack of a nuclei mean the cell is dead? Since it can not create new cells means it is dead?

Science has determined how the red blood cells are created by the body to have no nuclei.

Here is some science.

Losing the nucleus enables the red blood cell to contain more oxygen-carrying hemoglobin, thus enabling more oxygen to be transported in the blood and boosting our metabolism.

His cell-culture system began with red blood cell precursors drawn from an embryonic mouse liver (in mammalian embryos, the liver is the main producer of such cells, rather than bone marrow as in adults). The cultured cells, synchronized to develop together, divided four or five times before losing their nuclei and becoming immature red blood cells.

“During normal cell division, each daughter cell receives half the DNA,” comments Lodish. “In this case, when the red blood cell divides, one daughter cell gets all the DNA. What’s fascinating is that in this case, that daughter cell gets eaten by macrophages. Until now, scientists were unable to study these cells because they were unable to see them.”

Unless you can validate the premise of your argument, then you have no argument at all.


Facts do not have an agenda. Facts are just Facts.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 9:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 1:34 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3531
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 5 of 51 (500450)
02-26-2009 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 9:19 AM


Jumping the gun - faster than a speeding bullet
AlphaOmegakid writes:

Therefore, random mutations over time must have caused the red blood cells to sacrifice their life for the benefit of the organism. But hold on! This change in red blood cells is huge! Not small! Any organism that would have mutated to have living red blood cells turn into dead red blood cells would not have had the capacity to replenish these cells. The bones and the marrow would have had to change (mutate)to provide additional cells, because the red blood cells could no longer divide and multiply on their own. But they would only have about 120 days for those changes to evolve. Then the kidneys which filter the blood would have had to adapt to these new cells. The heart would have to adapt to these new cells. The blood pressure would change, because the capilaries would have to adapt. The fluid dynamics of the blood would have changed, and all the other organs would have to compensate. And not only would they have to compensate, but they would have to all coordinate together to compensate in avery short period of time.

You are making the assumption that all this evolution must happen at once.

However, what if the body had already evolved to a point (for other means) where the red blood cells going dead did not destroy the rest of the body?

So here's the challenge topic, what "just so" story could explain an evolutionary pathway for living red blood cells to give up their life and that change be beneficial for the entire organism without having catastrophic consequenses for the life of the organism.

The "just so" story is that when the evolution of live red-blood cells to dead red-blood cells occured, the rest of the body was already in a position that it didn't affect it negatively.

We can test for this to be true or not. You say that "lower animals" have live red-blood cells. I predict that there exists some lower animal that already has the same capabilities that higher mammals do such that if the live red-blood cells of this lower animal were to change to dead red-blood cells, then the lower animal would not necessarily die.

Are you willing to bet your idea on the same test? Are you willing to accept that your idea is not, actually, evidence of God's creation or evidence that defies evolutionary theory if such a lower animal can be identified?

If so, I will proceed.

If not, then I thank you for your time, but your unverifiable methods for searching out the truth of the matter are useless no matter what conclusion you claim they point to.

Edited by Stile, : Changed my text of lower "mammal" to lower "animal"... 'cause that's what the guy actually said and I got it wrong... 'cause I'm dumb like that... and I ramble too...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 9:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 6 of 51 (500451)
02-26-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 9:19 AM


The red blood cells are manufactured in the bone marrow, and just like all other cells they are alive, have DNA to reproduce, and mitochondria to manufacture energy for the cell. But something "miraculous" happens about the seventh day (how interesting) of its life.

Why is it interesting that it happens about the seventh day? Pubic lice eggs take about seven days to hatch - is that equally interesting?

The red blood cell extrudes out their nucleus with their DNA and then extrudes out their mitochondria (sequence not importatnt). They can no longer produce any proteins, or reproduce. They basically die on purpose.

Cells dying on purpose is quite common. Why do you say that a cell becoming anucleatised is death? Is the ability to reproduce essential to defining something as a 'living cell'? Wouldn't the kind of death that kills the cells in the human tail during development be a more accurate 'death' than the process that mamallian red blood cells go through?

Now to say the least, this is an amazing process. It is a process of sacrifice to give life to the rest of the body. Sounds like Jesus doesn't it? Maybe He designed it this way as evidence of His will and plan for us. I think He did! Throughout the Bible we see the correlation of life, blood, soul, and sacrifice.

Hmm, why does it sound like Jesus? Did Jesus remove his testicles? It sounds more like Osiris' story to me...someone who due to events completely beyond his control (the red blood cell is tightly constrained by chemistry) lots his private parts. The 'sacrifice to give his life to the rest of the body' sounds more like soldiers dying in battle to me.

I don't see what is unique to the Bible about correlating life/blood/sacrifice together and correlating life/soul together seems fairly Hellenistic to me.

Sounds like you have just managed to find a way to frame the story in a way that sounds parallel to the Jesus story.

As you know, evolutionary theory relies on the fundamental concept of self preservation and survival.

No - it doesn't. It relies heavily on ensuring the reproduction of the germ line. If doing that means sacrificing one's life - that works as far as evolution is concerned. Just look at the insect world: kamikaze bees, suicidal sterile ants, mayflies and so on. Heck - there are plenty of spiders that risk death to mate with a hungry female.

All mammals have red blood cells that do the above biological process.

Almost like all mammals share a common ancestor with each other, but not non-mammals?

In lower animals, from which we supposedly "evolved" their red blood cells do not extrude out the nucleus and the mitochondria.

The populations out of which we evolved are long long dead. By 'we' what do you mean? Our great great great grandparents? I'm certain they had similar red blood cells. How about the common ancestor between chimps and humans? No - I think the evidence is that they had a similar set up.

You're going to have to go back to the common ancestor of all mammals - that's a long time ago. And obviously, when a new feature evolves, the new population must come from an old one that didn't have it.

Therefore, mammalian red blood cells must have evolved

While the conclusion is right - I'm not sure your reasoning is complete.

Therefore, random mutations over time must have caused the red blood cells to sacrifice their life for the benefit of the organism. But hold on! This change in red blood cells is huge! Not small! Any organism that would have mutated to have living red blood cells turn into dead red blood cells would not have had the capacity to replenish these cells.

But we have the capacity to replenish red blood cells. How do we do it? How are you sure that our primitive ancestor could not also do it this way?

Then the kidneys which filter the blood would have had to adapt to these new cells. The heart would have to adapt to these new cells. The blood pressure would change, because the capilaries would have to adapt. The fluid dynamics of the blood would have changed, and all the other organs would have to compensate. And not only would they have to compensate, but they would have to all coordinate together to compensate in avery short period of time.

And once more - you are assuming that the physiology of our primitive ancestors could not already cope with this before the red blood cell mutation event. You are also assuming that whatever disadvantages may have come about, would have overwhelmed the advantage given by the adaptation.

You are also assuming that the anucleatisation (?) process always happened at the same point during the 'life cycle' of the red blood cell. It could have been the case that after acting like any other 'primitive' red blood cell for all of its 'life' it then spat out its bits and had one last spurt of being hyper efficient.

What makes you so sure your assumptions are accurate? Or are you just relying on ignorance to squeeze Jesus into some interesting new gaps?

So here's the challenge topic, what "just so" story could explain an evolutionary pathway for living red blood cells to give up their life and that change be beneficial for the entire organism without having catastrophic consequenses for the life of the organism

Now - I have not looked into the studies of the evolution of mammalian red blood cells, I was simply pointing out where your argument is lacking necessary evidence or relies on some point of problematic reasoning. I have no idea what the answer is, are you sure there is as big a problem here as you are making out? Have you made any attempt to study the literature on this subject for yourself?

Out of curiosity - if a complete account of the evolution of the mammalian red blood cell were given...would that convince you evolution was true?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 9:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1049 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 7 of 51 (500452)
02-26-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Capt Stormfield
02-26-2009 11:28 AM


quote:
It's an interesting question. If you were a scientist, how would you go about seeking an answer? What kind of research do you think is required here? What kind evidence would lead you to say "Oh, yeah, I get it. That's obviously how the function of hemoglobin evolved."

First of , you don't know that I am not a scientist. And secondly, you may want to explore the differences between hemoglobin and red blood cells. Hint: It similar to the difference between pebbles and Mt. Everest.

quote:
More to the point, since you have established right at the beginning of your post that you are making an argument from ignorance, do you think anyone should even try? Is your faith increased by your ignorance? Would it be diminished if the evolutionary pathway to hemoglobin were to be determined? Did those who lived in the (quite recent) era before the function of hemoglobin was understood have a poorer understanding of salvation than you? I fail to see any point to your post, or to your argument.

If you think I am using argument ad ignoratiam, then please spell this out. I have stated quite a few facts about red blood cells. Some from a religious perspective, but most from a biological perspective. Then I have asked a question about you and others supplying evidence of how this process of extrusion of the DNA and the mitochondria evolved. This is not about hemoglobin! It is about mammalian red blood cells. You have created a strawman/red herring.

First off, you don't know that I am not a scientist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Capt Stormfield, posted 02-26-2009 11:28 AM Capt Stormfield has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Granny Magda, posted 02-26-2009 1:17 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 17 by Capt Stormfield, posted 02-26-2009 4:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 18 by kuresu, posted 02-26-2009 5:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-26-2009 5:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 8 of 51 (500462)
02-26-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 12:13 PM


Hi AΩKid,

quote:
First off, you don't know that I am not a scientist

Call it a lucky guess.

quote:
If you think I am using argument ad ignoratiam, then please spell this out.

I believe that what Capt. S is suggesting is something along the lines of this;

"I can't imagine how mammalian red blood cells evolved into their current form, therefore this is evidence that they did not evolve."

You have to acknowledge that the above is fallacious nonsense. The problem is that your argument sounds very much along these lines. Perhaps you could tell us where it differs?

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 12:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 2:05 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 51 (500463)
02-26-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 9:19 AM


You seem to be assuming that in reptiles red blood cells are produced by the division of other red blood cells. But a few seconds' thought would show you that since a zygote is not a red blood cell, they must in fact have a mechanism for producing red blood cells from other types of cell. And then a quick google round the internet would have shown you that, like mammals, they make red blood cells in their bone marrow. So if you want a "just-so story" as to how mammals acquired this trait, here's one: we inherited it from the reptiles, from which we are descended.

However, as we know, you did not want an answer to your question, so you didn't bother to spend the few seconds thought and effort it would have taken you to find it yourself. What you wanted was ignorance, which can be had with no thought or effort at all.

Your remaining confusion about what evolution is and how it works could best be corrected by reading a frickin' biology text book.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 9:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1049 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 10 of 51 (500465)
02-26-2009 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Theodoric
02-26-2009 11:51 AM


Re: Premise is true
Please supply any documentation that says these cells do not fit the definition of a biological cell.

Why would the lack of a nuclei mean the cell is dead? Since it can not create new cells means it is dead?

Ok, lets go to Biology 101, oops I mean 9th grade Biology...

quote:
The cell is the structural and functional unit of all known living organisms. - wiki

quote:
Each cell is at least somewhat self-contained and self-maintaining: it can take in nutrients, convert these nutrients into energy, carry out specialized functions, and reproduce as necessary. Each cell stores its own set of instructions for carrying out each of these activities.-wiki

Now please note that the cell is the smallest known living organism. When red blood cells are created in the marrow, they are living. But after they extrude out their DNA and their mitochondria, they no longer self maintain, they can't produce any more proteins, they can't convert nutrients into energy, and they can't reproduce. The cell is nothing more than a dead organism that is performing a function. Just like decaying leaves fertilize the soil.

If you look up "life" you will also see these same definitions involved.

Now you did a good job searching the internet for some science on the subject, But this science says zero about how this process evolved. That is my question. Do you have an answer?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Theodoric, posted 02-26-2009 11:51 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Theodoric, posted 02-26-2009 2:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 16 by bluegenes, posted 02-26-2009 4:09 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6317
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 11 of 51 (500468)
02-26-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 1:34 PM


Re: Premise is true NOT
You have not given any evidence to prove the premise that red blood cells are dead.

According to the latest science(follow the link I provided earlier), they do not actually extrude their nuclei.

Wikipedia is far from the definitive info on cells. Are you saying since the RBC is specialized it is dead? Just because it cannot reproduce it is dead?

they can't convert nutrients into energy

According to your source they can.

As a result, the cells use none of the oxygen they transport; instead they produce the energy carrier ATP by fermentation, via glycolysis of glucose followed by lactic acid production.

Always best to provide the link to your source too. Like this maybe
Source

Do you happen to have a source that agrees with you that RBC's are some sort of dead cell? That they don't fit definition of a cell?

As this is a science forum, you really need something to back your assertion.

I would not consider discussing the process unless you can validate the premise. Which you have not.

Oh and it is spelled Mammalian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 1:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
Meddle
Member
Posts: 171
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 12 of 51 (500469)
02-26-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 9:19 AM


It seems that the process of enucleation is a variant of cell division. As you know erythrocytes divide several times as they mature from haemopoietic stem cells, and in each successive division both daughter cells get a full chromosome complement. However the final cell division before maturation is asymmetrical, and only one of the daughter cells gets both chromosome complements (and destined to be consumed by macrophages). The other daughter cell, with no genetic material, goes on to become the mature erythrocyte.
I found this article describing the genes involved in the process, specifically the proteins Rac1 and Rac2, and the effector gene mDia2. These are all involved in co-ordinating the actin cytoskeleton which normally controls chromosome migration to opposite poles of the cell. The cited Nature Cell Biology article can be found here

Couldn't find anything on mitochondria, or any other organelles, but since their distribution within the cell is dictated by their adhesion to the actin cytoskeleton also, it is likely that a similar process is involved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 9:19 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1049 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 13 of 51 (500470)
02-26-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Granny Magda
02-26-2009 1:17 PM


Call it a lucky guess.

Well you guessed wrong. I was trained in college for a scientific field. I was employed in a scientific field when I graduated. And since that time, I have been managing a company that produces products for a scientific field. I also have been published in a scientific publication. Does that make me a scientist?

quote:
A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. In a more restricted sense, scientist refers to individuals who use the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2]-wiki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Granny Magda, posted 02-26-2009 1:17 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by shalamabobbi, posted 02-26-2009 3:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Granny Magda, posted 02-26-2009 3:35 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 38 by mark24, posted 03-19-2009 8:10 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-19-2009 8:42 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1022 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 14 of 51 (500473)
02-26-2009 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 2:05 PM


just so stories..
what "just so" story could explain an evolutionary pathway for living red blood cells

Maybe He designed it this way as evidence of His will and plan for us.

I thought you didn't like just so stories?

Does that make me a scientist?

In your area of expertise. Einstien didn't think God rolled dice. He was wrong too.

How can you look at ERV pattern evidence and not believe evolution?
Just curious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 2:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 63 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 15 of 51 (500478)
02-26-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by AlphaOmegakid
02-26-2009 2:05 PM


quote:
Well you guessed wrong. I was trained in college for a scientific field. I was employed in a scientific field when I graduated. And since that time, I have been managing a company that produces products for a scientific field. I also have been published in a scientific publication. Does that make me a scientist?

No.

quote:
A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. In a more restricted sense, scientist refers to individuals who use the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2]-wiki

Can't say that I've noticed any of that on your part. You do realise though that your status as a scientist or otherwise is an irrelevance don't you? I thought you hated logical fallacies. Surely you're not trying to argue from authority?

Are you going to continue to imply that you are a scientist or are you going to explain how your blood cell argument differs from the fallacious one that I presented above?

Or are you going to go off topic of page one of your own thread?

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 02-26-2009 2:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019