Cofty,
yes I agree, we are making progress, albeit slowly. First of all, you gave me a
list of articles. Click
here and take a look for yourself...
Why?
Is it in order to prove your Googling skills? I look up the articles and
comment on them (not good). I did not bother giving references in order to save
time and because you gave me the impression that you were familiar with them
and their contents (not good). I can’t put the scientist findings in my own
words, I rather let them speak for themselves, thus I am forced to copy & paste (not good).
Please make up your mind.
I
am honored that you do spend your precious time on my bullshit. And yes, I do
look forward to this one: “On the Origin of the Eukaryotic Chromosome.” There’s
some interesting words and phrases I want to highlight.
Sheperdless,
I thank you for your input and I’m glad you found the quotes interesting. Not
sure about your color-car illustration though. Perhaps we should get back to the
OP.
Evolution
is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells
So,
no. 1 is directly related to the OP. Are you with me thus far? Now read part of
the quote again: “There are still quite a few gray areas in the figure where
either the higher plant sequences have not been determined or they are known
but the gene phylogeny is insufficiently clear (in our view) to make a
statement on the origin of the plant nuclear genes. Chloroplastic and cytosolic
pyruvate kinases are a good example of sequenced genes with an evolutionary
history that is so intriguingly complex (Hattori et al.,
1995) that one cannot yet tell where the plant nuclear genes come from.”
Now
the OP claims: Evolution is a Fact. After reading the above, would you say this
is the truth or a lie? To add to that, scientists and researchers can’t work
out above processes as yet. That means they cannot replicate them either.
However, evolutionists claim all these (very complicated) processes originated
randomly and spontaneously in a natural environment. Here I beg to differ. In
nature, one sees gradual decay, deterioration and disintegration, and not
constant improvement as the evolutionist contend. This is contrary to nature and will not change even in
a billion years.
No.
2 is supported by the scientists. They are studying endosymbiosis in the Amoeba
in order “to study interactions between hosts and infective agents such as
Mycobacterium, Legionella, Toxoplasma, Salmonella, and others,” because similar
processes are at work in mammals and humans. Coming back to complexity,
evolutionists argue that our immune system (highly complex) originated from
these processes (very basic and simplified). I find such claims difficult to
digest.
No.
3 makes the point that even if the genome of the cells are changed, these remain
human cancer cells. Similarly, the nuclear material of Amoeba proteus was
changed by endosymbiosis. This is now a variant of Amoeba, resistant to
X-bacteria. The process cannot be used to demonstrate a species change, as
evolutionists insist (Def.: The term symbiogenesis refers to the
genesis of a new species or kind of life through the merger of two or more
existing species. Endosymbiogenesis refers to the origin of a new lineage—a
sequence of species that forms a line of descent).
No. 4 points to the fact
that the process of natural selection do not favor xD amoebae, that underwent
endosymbiosis, to survive in a natural environment.
No. 5 reads in part, “This
relentless influx of organelle DNA has abolished organelle autonomy and
increased nuclear complexity.” If one compares a one-celled organism to a human,
I would venture to say that the human qualifies as a super organism, wouldn't you?
In other words, the route from a one-celled organism (simplified life form) to a
highly complex life form, is a tortuous one with many and huge chasms to overcome.
6.
"Members of the recA/RAD51 family have functions that have differentiated
during evolution." In the same breath the writer says: "However, the
evolutionary history and relationships of these members remains unclear."
I have a problem with such statements. Nevertheless, this is typical
evolutionary (Cofty) speak because all of them view evolution as a fact. I view it
differently.
7.
Yup, that happens when guesswork is involved. You get nowhere fast. But remember now, according to
evolutionists, in the “primordial soup” all these archaea and bacteria would flourish. How they got there no one can say. These ingest each other randomly,
right? From there one would expect all kinds of intermediate forms to exist and
develop. By the way, some snails do have chloroplasts, it seems. Or is the composition of a chloroplast so unique and specialized that it is
incompatible with a mammalian cell. So a fork in evolution would take place at
some juncture that would send archaea, bacteria, fungi and plants in one
direction and animals into a different direction with no intermediate forms. This would happen randomly
and spontaneously. In my mind that’s a long shot and why evolution should be viewed as a
theory and not a fact.
8.
At least the researchers are big enough and honest enough to admit this. So if you
oppose this point, are you really being honest?
9.
Evolutionists insist that in the murky past it was a open process of archaea
and bacteria merging to form new organisms, e.g., eukaryotes. Somewhere along
the line the open processes became closed, which in our day can only be unlocked
and changed by scientists and genetic engineers in specialized labs. It's an interesting concept nevertheless, but highly unlikely.
