"Basicially the problem is that a primitive bacteria cannot evolve mitochondria by 'jugglilng its genes'. It would require that one of these primitive bacteria absorb and adapt by swallowing or absorbing an entirely new cell. On earth this has never been observed happening with prokaryotic cells. However eukaryotic cells indeed have been observed to do this. For a prokaryotic cell to transform to a eukaryotic cell it would have to do things that seem to only happen in eukaroytic cells"
I belive that is what they are saying. A unique event that happened only once in four billion years.
Well, I still don't think they're saying it was one organism, but whatever...
It appears there was a saltation, a unique jump, from simple life to complex life that the scientists cannot explain. A translation that is not accountable by Darwin's or neo-Darwinian theory. I believe this supports my theory of planned transition from original life to evolution and gradual changes in life.
I see three problems here.
It appears there was a saltation, a unique jump, from simple life to complex life that the scientists cannot explain.
The inability of science to explain something is not evidence for something else. You are making a God of the Gaps argument and those are not good ideas.
Science cannot explain what causes one particular atom to go through radioactive decay, so would you say that God is picking and choosing which ones will?
A translation that is not accountable by Darwin's or neo-Darwinian theory.
Not being accountable by neo-Darwinian theory is not positive evidence for design. We see the ID crowd making this same mistake over and over where instead of finding evidence to support their position, they try to discredit the opposing position as if theirs will be left by default. This is incorrect.
Assuming this "jump" cannot be explained by the current Theory of Evolution, when we do find out how this "jump" happened, the scientific explanation will still be that of naturalistic phenomenon and it might even be just an addition to the current theory.
I believe this supports my theory of planned transition from original life to evolution and gradual changes in life.
Positive evidence supports theories. Showing how another theory cannot explain something is not providing positive evidence for your theory.
What you need to do, is come up with a mechanism for how the transition was planned and how it was employed and then find the evidence that supports that theory.
Saying "I believe it was planned" is not a theory and saying "look, evolution can't explain this" is not providing support for that non-theory.
The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas
Agreed mutations can and do occure. However you can shake up the scrabble board as often as you like and you will never get a Shakespeare.
That's why you need a selective pressure. If you kept all the random mix of letters that did make words and re-shook all the ones that didn't, eventually you would have enough words to at least make some line from Shakespeare.
quote:Walking sticks regained flight after 50 million years of winglessness Maxwell and his collaborators at Brigham Young University discovered that some species lost the ability to fly at one point of their evolution and then re-evolved it 50 million years later.
What, I thought this was an open site for debate. what makes me a troll.
What makes you a troll is that you avoided the responses that promoted a healthy discussion of your questions and instead focused on the more flaming repsonses that you could impose your martyr conplex upon. You showed no intention of actually seeking any knowledge or information about the questions you asked but instead just wanted bitch about the evolutionists.
I think the evidence points to design you do not.
Then what's left to discuss? Since this site is still really active, it seems there's a little more to it than that.
I enjoy this type of debate that is why I am here. challenging myself to look up new information and see how it fits my beliefs.
Your behavior shows otherwise.
name calling shows your true collors my friend.
You're a big fat stinky doo-doo head.
Alot of scared people on this site.
You're the one who ran away...
to bad have your debates amongst yourself.
Good! We'll just continue learning without you. Too bad you're gonna be left in the dust.
One of the most commonly argued proofs of evolution is the pentadactyl limb pattern,
Wierd... I've been here for years and this is the first time I've seen it.
From my point of view, the most commonly argued proof of evolution is that its as blindingly fucking obvious as gravity and the only reason to deny it is because it conflicts with your theological views.
Well that, and the simple fact that not one single example of any animal has ever been shown to be unable to be produced by the process of evolution.