by cofty 147 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Just watched an episode of the new Stephen Hawking show "Genius." Episode 5, "What Are We?" is right in line with the discussion here.
http://www.pbs.org/show/genius-stephen-hawking/
A few simple experiments and he proves how life can actually come from a sort of primordial soup under the right circumstances...circumstances that happen all the time. As he says, so it goes in the sub-atomic world.
It is worth a look for anybody, especially Creationists.
Do you realize the difference here? I entertain all options (as a true scientist should), whereas you will entertain only a single option. To you it's either your beloved evolution or bust
If the process discussed can not yet be explained by our current knowledge, the correct position would be "we don't know". Claiming that a designer for that process must exist is very much premature unless that designer is proven to exist, or until any and all possible alternative explanations have been proven wrong.
The former has not been done yet, the latter is impossible.
So instead of claiming ID, you should await future discoveries. That is open minded.
I am very much sure that Cofty and all other people who now accept that evolution is supported by incredibly many facts and observations, would change their view as soon as a theory comes along that even better explains all the evidence. But given the fact that there there is currently no evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, it highly unlikely that that will ever happen.
Also, while Cofty's challenge proves that apparently no creationist here can point to any verifiable evidence that the creation myth is literal truth, being able to cast doubt on our current understanding of how 1 or 2 processes came into existence does not invalidate the theory of evolution as the preferred scientific explanation of all relevant facts we know about. And it certainly does not proves creation must be true.
None of what I wrote is copy and paste. - Vidqun
That's not entirely true is it? Compare your last but one post with the text of this Wiki article...
This is the third or fourth time you have pasted text without any attribution and once again you have tried to totally misrepresent the content.
The Wiki article reveals a few flaws with the theory symbiogenesis:
This is so egregious as to qualify as a deliberate lie. The Wiki article is specifically about the evidence for endosymbiosis. Nowhere in the article does it describe any alleged "flaws" in the theory. None of the three points you raise are in any way presented as problems for the theory but as part of the narrative of explaining gene transfer.
The article even concludes with 13 bullet points of evidence for its veracity.
Let's review - You began your contribution to this thread by objecting that complex eukaryotic cells are evidence against evolution.
It was explained to you that complex cells originated as simpler prokaryotic cells that had formed an endosymbiotic relationship.
Next you objected that this was not real science since it had never been observed in the lab
I told you that it had been observed in the lab by your fellow microbiologist Kwang Jeon in 1966.
You neglected to read the original article I posted for you - see here - and raised a new objection about the mechanism of gene transfer.
If you had read the article you would have discovered that selective gene transfer was also observed by Jeon.
1 - Genome size - Why is this an objection? Even the Wiki article explains it nicely.
2 - Loss of genetic autonomy - Again why is this an objection? The reason some genes get transferred to the host cell's nucleus is part of the fascinating story of cellular respiration. As a microbiologist should you not know that already? I will describe the details in a future thread.
3 - Examples used - I have no idea what your point is?
Now that all of your objections to the evolution of prokaryotic cells via endosymbiosis have been answered you fell back on the last resort of creationists - insults and personal attacks.
To you it's either your beloved evolution or bust!
If i wasn't prepared to entertain challenges to evolution why did I start a thread offering anybody the opportunity to do exactly that?
You want to make up rules as you go along
No I laid out two or three very simple rules about how we could hold an honest conversation. The problem for you was simple. It required you to commit to responding to a challenge of my choice in support of evolution. Something you knew you could not do.
and are not really interested in anybody else's opinion,
That's correct. At last something we agree on. Since this is a conversation about facts I have no interest in anybody's opinion and nobody should have any interest in mine. Only evidence matters...
especially concerning ID, because it clashes with your personal agenda
ID conflicts with all the evidence.
The challenge remains on the table.
Cofty, I am sorry you couldn't follow my arguments. But as you insist, only the evidence matters. Hold that thought. The following would have been especially interesting to discuss:
3) The hypotheses are demonstrated by mechanisms found in “near-living relatives,” e.g., Cyanobacteria and a-proteobacteria, as well as flowering plants and the tobacco plant. Granted, these organisms have some of the ingredients of above hypotheses. However, the processes within these organisms do not assist said organisms to transcend the species barrier, which the endosymbiotic hypothesis suggests.
prokaryote(s) + prokaryote(s) > eukaryote (new bacterium)
We all know that’s impossible without the help of the genetic engineers. One cannot gloss over these things and hope they will go away. The objections to this theory and article are all mine (and in my own words), but you respond with: "So egregious as to qualify as a deliberate lie." That's some fancy English there, but I call it clouding the issue. Yes, I know, sometimes the truth hurts.
Okay let’s call it a day. Next
stop the bacterial flagellum. How about that for a next challenge.
However, the processes within these organisms do not assist said organisms to transcend the species barrier, which the endosymbiotic hypothesis suggests. - Vidqun
Endosymbiosis has nothing at all to do with "transcending a species barrier".
Are you really claiming that when two prokaryotic cells get together permanently in a endosymbiotic relationship and hundreds of genes are transferred from the organelle to the host nucleus the resulting eukaryotic cell is still the same species?
In other words you are claiming that a eukaryotic cell and a prokaryotic cell are the same species. And you claim to be a microbiologist?
I understand your arguments perfectly and I have refuted every one of them. Your arguments are deeply dishonest and frequently based on error and deliberate twisting of unattributed sources.
Your claim that complex eukaryotic cells refuted evolution has been proven false.
Your claim that endosymbiosis has been observed in the lab has been proven false.
Your claim that gene transfer between organelle and host is impossible has been proven false.
You have acknowledged none of that and now you are blustering nonsense about speciation.
Okay let’s call it a day. Next stop the bacterial flagellum. How about that for a next challenge.
No let's not call it a day. You still have all your work to do on this topic.
When we are done it will be your turn to answer my challenge.
The objections to this theory and article are all mine (and in my own words), - Vidqun
That is a lie.
The post in question consists of 443 words. Being generous at least 336 of those are a direct copy-paste from a Wiki article...
That's 75% of your post.
1 - You didn't provide a source.
2 - You dishonestly claimed the article "reveals a few flaws with the theory". It does not.
Cofty, you certainly have the cat by the tale here. Originally the question was: How can a prokaryotic cell (species) turn into a eukaryotic cell (new species)? There is a huge difference between the two, as the scanned illustrations show. Simple organism > more complicated organism. Researchers do not have access to primordial "prehistoric" bacteria for them to demonstrate the suggested processes, so they use existing bacteria and plants instead. Bad examples, for these do not have the ability to mutate to more complex organisms (as their hypotheses suggest). I don't know how to simplify it more. It's not a complicated argument. Or are you using smoke and mirrors to confuse the issue?
Dagney, Hawking's "Genius" series looks very interesting. Unfortunately, it isn't playing for me (I'm in Canada). Are there any other links that might work? I looked on YouTube but nothing direct there yet.
If evidence emerged to support creation would you change your mind?
