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: 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Thanks, I quickly looked it up on Wiki, seems I am out of date.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.

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

Besty, you might be right. I interpreted it that he will not answer immediately, only after he does his homework. Now that I look at it again, I might be wrong. Anyway, this could be the first thread in the series, the initial salvo, with others to follow.

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

OneEyedJoe, the fact that we cannot reproduce the processes in a lab says a lot. What is the chances that it'll take place in the primordial soup? Cells decay and die when they finish their life cycle, they don't improve themselves and turn into a superior cell. That's contrary to nature.

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 above is a three dimensional reconstruction of some of the principal architectural features of an absorptive cell lying in the simple columnar epithelium of the small intestine.

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.