Posts by Vidqun

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Vidqun

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?

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Vidqun

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.

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Vidqun

Cofty, must say, you are hard to please. None of what I wrote is copy and paste. I put it in my own words as per instruction. And I did explain to you that I was not up to date with the latest developments. When I tried to access your article, I was unsuccessful, so I went with Wiki instead. You could just have ignored the text, and responded to my objections: 1) Genome size, 2) Loss of genetic autonomy, 3) Examples used.

That's why endosymbiosis has not yet advanced from theory to fact, there's still too many loose ends. Yes, Cantleave did explain endosymbiosis quite nicely, and I thank him for that. And I am trying to explain to you my objections to endosymbiosis.

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! You want to make up rules as you go along and are not really interested in anybody else's opinion, especially concerning ID, because it clashes with your personal agenda, whatever that is. Could it be that you have become a disciple of Richard Dawkins. Yes, he also hated religion with a fervent hatred.

Allow me two quotes from him: "By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can f$%k off" (quote censored). I think here he was quoting someone else.

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Vidqun

The Wiki article reveals a few flaws with the theory symbiogenesis:

1) Genome size. Cyanobacteria and a-proteobacteria are the most closely related free-living organisms to plastids and mitochondria respectively. However, plastid and mitochondria exhibit a dramatic reduction in genome size when compared to their bacterial relatives. Chloroplast genomes in photosynthetic organisms are normally 120-200kb encoding 20-200 proteins and mitochondrial genomes in humans are approximately 16kb and encode 37 genes, 13 of which are proteins.

2) Loss of genetic autonomy: The authors, i.e., Keeling and Archibald, argue that the host cell has assumed control of the regulation of the former endosymbiont's division, thereby synchronizing it with the cell's own division. The mechanisms of gene transfer are not fully known; however, multiple hypotheses exist to explain this phenomenon.

The cDNA hypothesis is based on studies of the genomes of flowering plants. Protein coding RNAs in mitochondria are spliced and edited using organelle-specific splice and editing sites. Nuclear copies of some mitochondrial genes, however, do not contain organelle-specific splice sites, suggesting a processed mRNA intermediate. The cDNA hypothesis has since been revised as edited mitochondrial cDNAs are unlikely to recombine with the nuclear genome and are more likely to recombine with their native mitochondrial genome. If the edited mitochondrial sequence recombines with the mitochondrial genome, mitochondrial splice sites would no longer exist in the mitochondrial genome. Any subsequent nuclear gene transfer would therefore also lack mitochondrial splice sites.

Bulk-flow hypothesis views escaped DNA, rather than mRNA, as the mechanism of gene transfer. According to this hypothesis, disturbances to organelles, including autophagy (normal cell destruction), gametogenesis (the formation of gametes), and cell stress, release DNA which is imported into the nucleus and incorporated into the nuclear DNA using non-homologous end joining (repair of double stranded breaks). For example, in the initial stages of endosymbiosis, due to a lack of major gene transfer, the host cell had little to no control over the endosymbiont. The endosymbiont underwent cell division independently of the host cell, resulting in many "copies" of the endosymbiont within the host cell. Some of the endosymbionts lysed and high levels of DNA were incorporated into the nucleus. A similar mechanism is thought to occur in tobacco plants, who show a high rate of gene transfer and whose cells contain multiple chloroplasts. In addition, the bulk flow hypothesis is also supported by the presence of non-random clusters of organelle genes, suggesting the simultaneous movement of multiple genes.

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. However, these processes never transcend the species barrier, which the endosymbiotic hypothesis suggests.

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Vidqun

Cofty: Are you not even curious enough to ask for details? Is this not your professional field?

Thanks, I quickly looked it up on Wiki, seems I am out of date. No I haven’t been active in Microbiology or Clinical Pathology for many years. But unfortunately copy and paste are out of the question, so I left it at that.

Cofty: Some of the genes were transferred to the nucleus of the host cell and some of the genes are still active in the mitochondria for very good reason.

Cofty, with one sentence, you have summarized some incredibly complicated processes there. Just ask the genetic engineers if you are in doubt. What you are actually saying, some of the organism’s genes were transferred to the nucleus and some were kept in the organel, with all this happening naturally and spontaneously. A one-celled organism orchestrated all this by itself: First it would decide which part of its genetic material had to be shed, which part had to be kept, and which part it had to transfer to the nucleus of its host. Again: By what mechanism would it be able to accomplish such a feat (on its own)? Was it not perhaps assisted by the Big Genetic Engineer, you know, prodded in the right direction?

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Vidqun

If you say so Cofty. I see that it has moved up from hypothesis to theory. Still not a law or fact. From there a follow-up question: What would happen to the nuclear material of the organism(s) that became organelles? Would it be absorbed by the nuclear material of the host cell? Sounds a lot like gene splicing to me. By what process would it happen? I know the geneticists can do that. Question is, would a single-celled organism be able to accomplish such a feat?

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Vidqun

Let’s first look at the autogenous hypothesis: Specialized internal membranes that derived from a procaryotic plasma membrane evolved into organelles characteristic of euchariotic cells. The nuclear envelope, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi complex and organelles bounded by single membranes evolved this way.

Don’t you see a problem with this hypothesis? A very rudimentary, basic structure (plasmamembrane) turns into a highly complex structure, then differentiates into unique, specialized organelles. This is contrary to nature and cannot be demonstrated.

Now for the endosymbiotic hypothesis: This seems to be Cantleave’s first choice. This hypothesis proposes that forerunners of eucaryotic cells were associations of small, symbiotic procaryotic cells living within larger procaryotic cells. The focus here is mainly on the origin of chloroplasts and mitochondria. Chloroplasts are believed to be descendants of photosynthetic procaryotes. The proposed ancestors of mitochondria are believed to have been oxygen-requiring heterotrophic bacteria (heterotrophs obtain food by eating other organisms or their byproducts). It has been suggested that photosynthetic procaryotes and oxygen-requiring heterotrophs gained entry into the large procaryotic cell as undigested prey or internal parasites.

In the case of invagination of food, it would be stored as an inclusion or it would by broken down by enzymes. The organism is not normally assimilated into the predatory cell. What about the notion of internal parasites? These do not get assimilated into the host either. They live off the host but does not become part of the host.

Some questions: 1) How did these get past the capsule, cell wall and cytoplasmic membrane? 2) How did they survive inside the host long enough for them to be assimilated by the host? Again this is contrary to nature. 3) We cannot demonstrate the process in a lab in favourable conditions. What are the chances of this process taking place in unfavorable conditions outside?

Cantleave poses the question: Why would two systems of reproduction occur within a single cell unless these organelles have a different ancestry from the nucleus? Your answer is: Different organisms were assimilated into a single organism. I answer, because they were designed that way.

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Vidqun

Cofty, I don't understand why you want to go that way. Why don't you just respond to what is there. You can have all the time in the world.

I view the BBC debates as a good example of debating. On the one side you have a group with a premise. On the other side you have a group opposing the premise. The you have a moderator(s) to keep the playing fields even. I realize this is not the BBC, but an Internet Forum to assist recovering ex-JWs, so things should theoretically be relaxed and informal.

Perhaps do a thread with somebody else as an example, then we will all know what you want and in what format you want it. Or is it that you have a hidden agenda, to ridicule those that have a contrary view?

19

Great article about intelligent design in science without being religious

by EndofMysteries in

for those who think that belief or the possibility of intelligent design means you must accept or believe everything or anything you have heard about god or a god is incorrect.

i'll quote one line from the article, " but intelligent design, unlike creationism, is not based upon the bible.

design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

Vidqun

Amen! Oops, musn't say that here.

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

Vidqun

Cofty, I have said what I wanted to say. You can use that in your new thread. From there I will view your information and add what I deem necessary. Let’s not make hard and fast rules that we cannot keep. Perhaps one should lay the groundwork first and establish basic definitions, and work from there. This will be of assistance to those following the thread. Scientific method starts with the postulation of a theory or hypothesis. The process would include observation and accumulation of evidence. From these a theory or hypothesis could either be proved or rejected.

Hypothesis, theory, law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. Hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation (a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs). Theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth (the theory of evolution). Law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions (the law of gravitation). See Webster.