Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 11 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 102
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564

    The Simplest Cell

    While we have a breather in the thread; 'What's The Best Evidence For Evolution', I thought I would look at some information on living cells. Human cells are very complicated and plant cells are compliacated too. So I thought I would do a search for information on the simplest cell. We can all do the same these days and find out what webpages Google has referenced. On the first page of Google I came across two articles. The first article is from Science Week and the second is from a website created by Adolfo Serralta connected with the Bible. I do not know if Adolfo Serralta wrote this article or whether it has been donated, but it illustrates the difficulties which are apparent in the article from Scientific Week.

    Evolution is based on all life/living matter originating from the simplest of cells. It is difficult to make a simple cell in the laboratory or for a simple cell to form on its own. Nature shows us many plants and insects etc. that have to produce lots of seeds and eggs for one to survive and grow. It makes sense that there has to be an environment conducive for the chemicals/materials to come together and combine to form lots of partial cells and eventually to produce complete cells for one or two complete cells to begin the process of dividing and multiplying. Everything about the processes involved with cell production is highly complicated as these two articles convey. I present the two articles to provide a balanced presentation; one from a scientific source and the second from a non-scientific source. The Science Week article is from the year 2005 so advances can be expected. If anyone has some later research as evidence to support the case for Evolution, then that is welcomed.

    http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050325-1.htm

    ScienceWeek

    ORIGIN OF LIFE: IN SEARCH OF THE SIMPLEST CELL

    The following points are made by Eörs Szathmary (Nature 2005 433:469):

    1) In investigating the origin of life and the simplest possible life forms, one needs to enquire about the composition and working of a minimal cell that has some form of metabolism, genetic replication from a template, and boundary (membrane) production.

    2) Identifying the necessary and sufficient features of life has a long tradition in theoretical biology. But living systems are products of evolution, and an answer in very general terms, even if possible, is likely to remain purely phenomenological. Going deeper into mechanisms means having to account for the organization of various processes, and such organization has been realized in several different ways by evolution. Eukaryotic cells (such as those from which we are made) are much more complicated than prokaryotes (such as bacteria), and eukaryotes harbor organelles that were once free-living bacteria. A further complication is that multicellular organisms consist of building blocks -- cells -- that are also alive. So aiming for a general model of all kinds of living beings would be fruitless; instead, such models have to be tied to particular levels of biological organization.

    3) Basically, there are two approaches to the "minimal cell": the top-down and the bottom-up. The top-down approach aims at simplifying existing small organisms, possibly arriving at a minimal genome. Some research to this end takes Buchnera, a symbiotic bacterium that lives inside aphids, as a rewarding example. This analysis is complemented by an investigation of the duplication and divergence of genes. Remarkably, these approaches converged on the conclusion that genes dealing with RNA biosynthesis are absolutely indispensable in this framework. This may be linked to the idea of life's origins in an "RNA world", although such an inference is far from immediate.

    4) Top-down approaches seem to point to a minimum genome size of slightly more than 200 genes. Care should be taken, however, in blindly accepting such a figure. For example, although some gene set A and gene set B may not be common to all bacteria, that does not mean that (A and B) are dispensable. It may well mean that A or B is essential, because the cell has to solve a problem by using either A or B. Only experiments can have the final word on these issues.

    5) A top-down approach will not take us quite to the bottom, to the minimal possible cells in chemical terms. All putative cells, however small, will have a genetic code and a means of transcribing and translating that code. Given the complexity of this system, it is difficult to believe, either logically or historically, that the simplest living chemical system could have had these components.

    6) The bottom-up approach aims at constructing artificial chemical supersystems that could be considered alive. No such experimental system exists yet; at least one component is always missing. Metabolism seems to be the stepchild in the family: what most researchers in the field used to call metabolism is usually a trivial outcome of the fact that both template replication and membrane growth need some material input. This input is usually simplified to a conversion reaction from precursors to products.

    Nature http://www.nature.com/nature

    --------------------------------

    Related Material:

    ORIGIN OF LIFE: ON TRANSITIONS FROM NONLIVING TO LIVING MATTER

    The following points are made by S. Rasmussen et al (Science 2004 303:963):

    1) All life forms are composed of molecules that are not themselves alive. But in what ways do living and nonliving matter differ? How could a primitive life form arise from a collection of nonliving molecules? The transition from nonliving to living matter is usually raised in the context of the origin of life. But some researchers(1) have recently taken a broader view and asked how simple life forms could be synthesized in the laboratory. The resulting artificial cells (sometimes called protocells) might be quite different from any extant or extinct form of life, perhaps orders of magnitude smaller than the smallest bacterium, and their synthesis need not recapitulate life's actual origins. A number of complementary studies have been steadily progressing toward the chemical construction of artificial cells (2-5).

    2) There are two approaches to synthesizing artificial cells. The top-down approach aims to create them by simplifying and genetically reprogramming existing cells with simple genomes. The more general and more challenging bottom-up approach aims to assemble artificial cells from scratch using nonliving organic and inorganic materials.

    3) Although the definition of life is notoriously controversial, there is general agreement that a localized molecular assemblage should be considered alive if it continually regenerates itself, replicates itself, and is capable of evolving. Regeneration and replication involve transforming molecules and energy from the environment into cellular aggregations, and evolution requires heritable variation in cellular processes. The current consensus is that the simplest way to achieve these characteristics is to house informational polymers (such as DNA and RNA) and a metabolic system that chemically regulates and regenerates cellular components within a physical container (such as a lipid vesicle).

    4) Two recent workshops(1) reviewed the state of the art in artificial cell research, much of which focuses on self-replicating lipid vesicles. David Deamer (Univ. of California, Santa Cruz) and Pier Luigi Luisi (ETH Zurich) each described the production of lipids using light energy, and the template-directed self-replication of RNA within a lipid vesicle. In addition, Luisi demonstrated the polymerization of amino acids into proteins on the vesicle surface, which acts as a catalyst for the polymerization process. The principal hurdle remains the synthesis of efficient RNA replicases and related enzymes entirely within an artificial cell. Martin Hanczyc (Harvard Univ.) showed how the formation of lipid vesicles can be catalyzed by encapsulated clay particles with RNA adsorbed on their surfaces. This suggests that encapsulated clay could catalyze both the formation of lipid vesicles and the polymerization of RNA.



    --------------------------------

    ORIGIN OF LIFE: MODELS OF PRIMITIVE CELLULAR COMPARTMENTS

    The following points are made by M.M. Hanczyc et al (Science 2003 302:618):

    1) The bilayer membranes that surround all present-day cells and act as boundaries are thought to have originated in the spontaneous self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules into membrane vesicles (1-5). Simple amphiphilic molecules have been found in meteorites and have been generated under a wide variety of conditions in the laboratory, ranging from simulated ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice particles to hydrothermal processing under simulated early Earth conditions.

    2) Molecules such as simple fatty acids can form membranes when the pH is close to the pK[sub-a] (K[sub-a] is the acid dissociation equilibrium constant) of the fatty acid carboxylate group in the membrane (3). Hydrogen bonding between protonated and ionized carboxylates may confer some of the properties of more complex lipids with two acyl chains, thus allowing the formation of a stable bilayer phase. Fatty acid vesicles may be further stabilized (to a wider range of pH and even to the presence of divalent cations) by the admixture of other simple amphiphiles such as fatty alcohols and fatty acid glycerol esters. Recent studies have shown that saturated fatty acid/fatty alcohol mixtures with carbon chain lengths as short as 9 can form vesicles capable of retaining ionic fluorescent dyes, DNA, and proteins (4).

    3) Vesicles consisting of simple amphiphilic molecules could have existed under plausible prebiotic conditions on the early Earth, where they may have produced distinct chemical micro-environments that could retain and protect primitive oligonucleotides while potentially allowing small molecules such as activated mononucleotides to diffuse in and out of the vesicle. Furthermore, compartmentalization of replicating nucleic acids (or some other form of localization) is required to enable Darwinian evolution by preventing the random mixing of genetic polymers, thus coupling genotype and phenotype. If primordial nucleic acids assembled on mineral surfaces, the question arises as to how they eventually came to reside within membrane vesicles. Although dissociation from the mineral surface followed by encapsulation within newly forming vesicles (perhaps in a different location under different environmental conditions) is certainly a possibility, a direct route would be more satisfying and perhaps more efficient.

    4) In summary: The clay montmorillonite is known to catalyze the polymerization of RNA from activated ribonucleotides. The authors report that montmorillonite accelerates the spontaneous conversion of fatty acid micelles into vesicles. Clay particles often become encapsulated in these vesicles, thus providing a pathway for the prebiotic encapsulation of catalytically active surfaces within membrane vesicles. In addition, RNA adsorbed to clay can be encapsulated within vesicles. Once formed, such vesicles can grow by incorporating fatty acid supplied as micelles and can divide without dilution of their contents by extrusion through small pores. These processes mediate vesicle replication through cycles of growth and division. The authors suggest the formation, growth, and division of the earliest cells may have occurred in response to similar interactions with mineral particles and inputs of material and energy.


    http://www.bibleserralta.com/TheFirstCell.html


    Inorganic matter could have never evolved into a so called "
    first simplest cell"

    I advise that this article should be given to our young college group
    in an effort to help them avoid being misinformed by pseudo science.  Our young adults environment was and will be bombarded with false information.  It is important to prepare the college group in an effort to prevent a set back in their faith.

    There are only two alternatives to explain the existence of living beings:
    one is the theory of Creation and the other is the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. The hypothesis of evolution is just a new name given to the spontaneous generation after it was discredited and proved unscientific by Pasteur's experiments. Don't let anyone fool you by the new names. No matter if it is called evolution, mutation, or whatever, what does not belong to the theory of Creation, belongs to the hypothesis of spontaneous generation.

    The evolution hypothesis
    is based on the supposition that once upon a time the "first simplest cell" popped up from the sea and that the planet was a vast sphere of only inorganic products, until the so called "first simplest cell" appeared. After its appearance, according with the mentioned hypothesis, this cell started to live, procreate, and evolve towards more and more complex living entities. Of course, those who believe this hypothesis never bother themselves in explaining how the inorganic matter could organize itself into organic matter. To "explain" it they pass the bucket over to their god; they just put their faith in their god: "TIME". According to their faith, millions and millions of years can organize matter and do the same job that we Christians know God our Creator did. They do not explain how time can do the job; they just dogmatically affirm their god TIME can.

    According to the evolution hypothesis
    during millions of years water had only inorganic matters in its solution till one day, by some hocus-pocus act that cannot be explained nor proved, appeared the simplest living organism: the so called "first simplest cell". This cell was the first step in a huge evolution staircase of millions of steps, which led up to human beings. If complexity went a step down from this "first simplest cell", it would become just inorganic matter; but if complexity went one step up from inorganic matter it would become the "first simplest cell". According to evolutionists, this "first simplest cell" lived for a while feeding itself from the environment, and reproducing itself, so as to bring to existence other cells just as itself. As this process continued for millions of years, the Earth was populated by cells that evolved into more complex vegetation and animals.

    Can this hypothesis be substantiated, proved, or at least explained logically? Does it have no scientific or logical flaws? This is not a real scientific hypothesis because it has nothing to prove and there are several logical and scientific arguments to disprove it. It is just an act of faith by those who do not want to recognize that a Creator exists. Let us reason together using logics and our common sense, because this evolution hypothesis is out of all reason.

    The so called "first cell" also called the "simplest cell", could have never existed. Why not? Let's see first what the "simplest cell" had to have in order to perform the jobs assigned to it: to live,
    grow and reproduce.

    First. The "first simplest cell" had to have a membrane, otherwise it was just part of the environment. In order for the cell not to be part of the environment, there had to exist a separating factor or membrane. Until not very long ago the membrane was not well known. Today we have discovered so many functions in it that there is a whole subject of study about the membrane. Even a scientific publication named "Journal of Membrane" exist, because of the complexity of the membrane and a whole lot that is needs to be learned about it. So, the "first simplest cell" had to have a very complex membrane, that had to allow food to go through but not let the inside matter get out.

    Second.
    In order for the "first simplest cell" to keep living after popping up out of the environment, it had to have the possibility of taking inorganic matter from the environment, introduce
    it in its body, and process it so as to break it into less complex inorganic matter. This would have to be done in order to get the vital energy resulting from the breaking process, so that the cell could be alive. This process is what we call digestion, performed by the stomach, or better said, by the digesting apparatus. To break inorganic matter and get the energy resulting, is a complicated process that requires lots of knowledge about what chemical products will break other ones. It is not a simple thing. So, the so called "first simplest cell" had to have a very complex digesting apparatus.

    Third.
    Since this "first simplest cell" had to reproduce itself, it had to have a reproductive system. This reproductive system had to be skilled enough to know what would be the
    right time for reproduction,
    because the cell cannot reproduce unless it has enough matter for itself, so as not to die in donating its own matter to the other cell.

    Fourth.
    This "first simplest cell" had to have some ADN kind of thing, otherwise it wouldn't transmit to its descendants the necessary apparatuses to keep living, feeding and reproducing. Until some decades ago we did not know how complex the AND was. Now, that we have that knowledge we have to agree that any kind of chemical code that transmits characteristics from one cell to another is highly complex. This high complexity had to be present in the so called "first simplest cell". It is a nonsense to think that the so called first simplest cell could have ever existed.

    Fifth.
    Because the cell had inside itself other apparatuses apart from the stomach, and because those apparatuses need to be fed, then the so called "first simplest cell" needed a distribution
    system to carry the food from the stomach to other parts of the cell. This means that it had to have some sort of a simple distribution system.

    Sixth.
    The fact of having all these apparatuses brings forth another need. The "first simplest cell" had to have an apparatus to coordinate the works of the other ones. If not, an apparatus could be working or not working as it is necessary for the cell in order to live and reproduce. This means that the cell had to have a coordinating apparatus, sort of a central nervous system.

    As we can see this so called "first simplest cell" never could have been that simple, but instead highly complex, because in order to live and reproduce, it had to have many complex apparatuses. Each apparatus itself was complex enough as to not be deemed to pop up out of nothing. Much less can it be admissible to deem that all of them popped up together, in the same place, at the same time, joined together, coordinated themselves, and covered themselves with a working membrane to become a biological entity.

    As I said in the title of this article:
    Inorganic matter could never have evolved into a "first simplest cell".
    David
    Last edited by David M; 07-04-2012 at 04:45 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    While we have a breather in the thread; 'What's The Best Evidence For Evolution', I thought I would look at some information on living cells. Human cells are very complicated and plant cells are compliacated too. So I thought I would do a search for information on the simplest cell. We can all do the same these days and find out what webpages Google has referenced. On the first page of Google I came across two articles. The first article is from Science Week and the second is from a website created by Adolfo Serralta connected with the Bible. I do not know if Adolfo Serralta wrote this article or whether it has been donated, but it illustrates the difficulties which are apparent in the article from Scientific Week.

    Evolution is based on all life/living matter originating from the simplest of cells. It is difficult to make a simple cell in the laboratory or for a simple cell to form on its own. Nature shows us many plants and insects etc. that have to produce lots of seeds and eggs for one to survive and grow. It makes sense that there has to be an environment conducive for the chemicals/materials to come together and combine to form lots of partial cells and eventually to produce complete cells for one or two complete cells to begin the process of dividing and multiplying. Everything about the processes involved with cell production is highly complicated as these two articles convey. I present the two articles to provide a balanced presentation; one from a scientific source and the second from a non-scientific source. The Science Week article is from the year 2005 so advances can be expected. If anyone has some later research as evidence to support the case for Evolution, then that is welcomed.
    Excellent post David!

    It is great to review the current speculations about the simplest cell. The scientific article was typical science - trying to go from what we know to see what plausible explanations there might be for something we don't know yet. The unscientific religiously oriented article was not quite so enlightening since it was trying to argue that something we don't know is impossible. The author is obviously ignorant of science yet tries to use science to achieve their religious ends. So it's not really very helpful in this discussion except as a demonstration of creationist errors.

    I must say I am confused as to why you would present a non-scientific article about one of the most difficult problems in science. What could they possible contribute? They are entirely unqualified and biased. The title of the article shows that it is more religious polemics than science: "Inorganic matter could have never evolved into a so called 'first simplest cell.'" The polemical nature of the article is quite evident in the first paragraph:
    I advise that this article should be given to our young college group in an effort to help them avoid being misinformed by pseudo science. Our young adults environment was and will be bombarded with false information. It is important to prepare the college group in an effort to prevent a set back in their faith.
    That's not a very "balanced" approach! To call evolution a "pseudo-science" is like a high-school drop out who can't read or write calling Einstien a moron. It not only lacks any validity, but it also reflects back on the name-caller as the truly ignorant one.

    The article next moves straight into religious arguments and deliberately misinforms the reader in the process:
    There are only two alternatives to explain the existence of living beings: one is the theory of Creation and the other is the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. The hypothesis of evolution is just a new name given to the spontaneous generation after it was discredited and proved unscientific by Pasteur's experiments. Don't let anyone fool you by the new names. No matter if it is called evolution, mutation, or whatever, what does not belong to the theory of Creation, belongs to the hypothesis of spontaneous generation.
    Here we see the gross and inexcusable attempt to corrupt the students minds by conflating "spontaneous generation" (which was proven false by scientific experiment) with abiogensis (which has NOT been proven false by scientific experiment). This shows how profoundly corrupt the creationists really are. They are deliberately trying to deceive the students into believing that evolution has been proven false because spontaneous generation has been proven false. This is a diabolical tactic that condemns them as sons of the devil (from a Christian perspective of course).

    The mindless religious diatribe continues:
    The evolution hypothesis is based on the supposition that once upon a time the "first simplest cell" popped up from the sea and that the planet was a vast sphere of only inorganic products, until the so called "first simplest cell" appeared. After its appearance, according with the mentioned hypothesis, this cell started to live, procreate, and evolve towards more and more complex living entities. Of course, those who believe this hypothesis never bother themselves in explaining how the inorganic matter could organize itself into organic matter. To "explain" it they pass the bucket over to their god; they just put their faith in their god: "TIME". According to their faith, millions and millions of years can organize matter and do the same job that we Christians know God our Creator did. They do not explain how time can do the job; they just dogmatically affirm their god TIME can.
    Again, they are misrepresenting the science. When they say that the first cell "popped up from the sea" they are deliberately trying to deceive the student into thinking it was a sudden discontinuous process without any natural evolutionary antecedent that would make such an event understandable. Furthermore, scientists do not think mere time is all that was needed. Natural law - the laws of physics and chemistry - play a crucial role. The deceitful writer deliberately misrepresents scientists as if they had "faith" in a god called "time." This is an exceedingly perverse lie because many Christians believe in both God and evolution. So in effect the author was accusing any Christian who believes in evolution as having a false god. And we all know who the "accuser of the brethren" is. So now we have another witness that the writer is a son of the devil.

    The article now drops deeper into the abyss of creationist absurdity by using entirely unscientific and deliberately prejudicial language like "hocus-pocus" to infect the students with a knee-jerk reaction against modern science:
    According to the evolution hypothesis during millions of years water had only inorganic matters in its solution till one day, by some hocus-pocus act that cannot be explained nor proved, appeared the simplest living organism: the so called "first simplest cell". This cell was the first step in a huge evolution staircase of millions of steps, which led up to human beings. If complexity went a step down from this "first simplest cell", it would become just inorganic matter; but if complexity went one step up from inorganic matter it would become the "first simplest cell". According to evolutionists, this "first simplest cell" lived for a while feeding itself from the environment, and reproducing itself, so as to bring to existence other cells just as itself. As this process continued for millions of years, the Earth was populated by cells that evolved into more complex vegetation and animals.

    Can this hypothesis be substantiated, proved, or at least explained logically? Does it have no scientific or logical flaws? This is not a real scientific hypothesis because it has nothing to prove and there are several logical and scientific arguments to disprove it. It is just an act of faith by those who do not want to recognize that a Creator exists. Let us reason together using logics and our common sense, because this evolution hypothesis is out of all reason.
    They are right that the speculations about abiogenesis do not rise even to the level of a "scientific hypothesis" and that's exactly what any real scientist would tell you. The writer is trying to deceive the reader by making them believe that scientists assert these speculations as if they were "a real scientific hypothesis." Furthermore, they have deliberately conflated the entire theory of evolution and all the evidence supporting it with speculations about abiogenesis in an effort to discredit the theory. They are deceivers, pure and simple.

    Next, they present arguments about why the first cell could not have existed:
    First. The "first simplest cell" had to have a membrane, otherwise it was just part of the environment. In order for the cell not to be part of the environment, there had to exist a separating factor or membrane. Until not very long ago the membrane was not well known. Today we have discovered so many functions in it that there is a whole subject of study about the membrane. Even a scientific publication named "Journal of Membrane" exist, because of the complexity of the membrane and a whole lot that is needs to be learned about it. So, the "first simplest cell" had to have a very complex membrane, that had to allow food to go through but not let the inside matter get out.
    Here the writer deliberately misrepresents the science of cells. Yes, it is true that modern cells have very complex membranes, but there is no reason to assume that the first simplest cell was as complex as modern cells. The scientific article that you sited shows their error:
    1) The bilayer membranes that surround all present-day cells and act as boundaries are thought to have originated in the spontaneous self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules into membrane vesicles (1-5). Simple amphiphilic molecules have been found in meteorites and have been generated under a wide variety of conditions in the laboratory, ranging from simulated ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice particles to hydrothermal processing under simulated early Earth conditions.
    It is not obvious that the membrane is an insurmountable theoretical problem prohibiting abiogenesis.

    Next:
    Second. In order for the "first simplest cell" to keep living after popping up out of the environment, it had to have the possibility of taking inorganic matter from the environment, introduce it in its body, and process it so as to break it into less complex inorganic matter. This would have to be done in order to get the vital energy resulting from the breaking process, so that the cell could be alive. This process is what we call digestion, performed by the stomach, or better said, by the digesting apparatus. To break inorganic matter and get the energy resulting, is a complicated process that requires lots of knowledge about what chemical products will break other ones. It is not a simple thing. So, the so called "first simplest cell" had to have a very complex digesting apparatus.
    This argument is absurd. A "stomach" is not required, let alone a "very complex stomach." Their assertions have no basis in fact. There is no "stomach" in a bacterial cell! The scientific ignorance displayed in this article is abominable.

    The third point is equally ignorant:
    Third. Since this "first simplest cell" had to reproduce itself, it had to have a reproductive system. This reproductive system had to be skilled enough to know what would be the right time for reproduction, because the cell cannot reproduce unless it has enough matter for itself, so as not to die in donating its own matter to the other cell.
    Bacteria don't need to "know" anything. There is no need to "know the right time" for reproduction of bacteria. They just do it when the conditions are right.

    The fourth point has some validity:
    Fourth. This "first simplest cell" had to have some ADN kind of thing, otherwise it wouldn't transmit to its descendants the necessary apparatuses to keep living, feeding and reproducing. Until some decades ago we did not know how complex the AND was. Now, that we have that knowledge we have to agree that any kind of chemical code that transmits characteristics from one cell to another is highly complex. This high complexity had to be present in the so called "first simplest cell". It is a nonsense to think that the so called first simplest cell could have ever existed.
    Yes, the first cell had to have DNA. But to say that this makes abiogensis impossible is just an assertion that begs the question. And since the author of the article is grossly ignorant of the most basic science, no one in their right mind would believe anything they say merely because they said it.

    Well, that's enough for tonight. I'm done reviewing that pathetic article. Simply stated, the article is typical mindless creationist pablum. It is the purest bullshit. One of my avocations may be scatology, but I can only deal with so much before I need to take a break and breath some fresh air. But I'm really glad you posted it so now I can put it in my library of articles that show how utterly ignorant and corrupt creationists really are.

    Thanks!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Well, that's enough for tonight. I'm done reviewing that pathetic article. Simply stated, the article is typical mindless creationist pablum. It is the purest bullshit. One of my avocations may be scatology, but I can only deal with so much before I need to take a break and breath some fresh air. But I'm really glad you posted it so now I can put it in my library of articles that show how utterly ignorant and corrupt creationists really are.

    Thanks!

    Richard
    Hello Richard

    the article has given you the chance to answer the questions and address the problems it raises. I have a science education, so I know enough to understand basic science and the writer of the article is not claiming to be a scientific expert. I do not want to refute your every response and you are probably correct in some things you have stated in your reply. When the writer of the article referred to a "stomach", he was presenting the fact that the cell has to take in food an process it. This is a complex operation. We know the cell does not have a "stomach" as we know the stomach to be in humans, but we know what the writer means and it is not good to try and debunk the writer on these grounds. Your belittling the witer in this respect does you no credit; in the same way you state in the quote I have highlighted.

    OK, I appreciate you were tired at the time of saying what you said and that and your reasoning abandoned you for a while. I am trying to get us off this way of inserting our opinions. We have a number of points in this article and each one can be dealt with until the subject is exhausted; this would take longer than we have time for. Maybe we can deal with one to prove a point. As this article gets corrected, we should be leading up to situation where we have found and agreed to the lies and resigned them to the dustbin of history. We should be building on a foundation of truth, and until all the evidence is in, the jury cannot make a judgment. Thanks for your response. Now is the time for the more learned amongst us to give their explanations based on science (and not opinion) to correct the errors they see in your response.

    BTW, I meant regulator or referee when I said moderator in my post in another thread; I had forum-speak on my mind at the time. No-one is using offensive language to be moderated and that is good. It does need an impartial person to keep us on track when discussing these issues, which is what I have tried to do here. Present the facts without expressing (abusive) opinion such as "bullshit"; now I sense your frustration just as I was getting frustated by having to hear such words and arguments (please don't send me to that place again).

    Let's hope we can keep ourselves more disciplined in the way we respond to posts on this forum.

    All the best,

    David

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Richard

    the article has given you the chance to answer the questions and address the problems it raises. I have a science education, so I know enough to understand basic science and the writer of the article is not claiming to be a scientific expert. I do not want to refute your every response and you are probably correct in some things you have stated in your reply. When the writer of the article referred to a "stomach", he was presenting the fact that the cell has to take in food an process it. This is a complex operation. We know the cell does not have a "stomach" as we know the stomach to be in humans, but we know what the writer means and it is not good to try and debunk the writer on these grounds. Your belittling the witer in this respect does you no credit; in the same way you state in the quote I have highlighted.

    OK, I appreciate you were tired at the time of saying what you said and that and your reasoning abandoned you for a while. I am trying to get us off this way of inserting our opinions. We have a number of points in this article and each one can be dealt with until the subject is exhausted; this would take longer than we have time for. Maybe we can deal with one to prove a point. As this article gets corrected, we should be leading up to situation where we have found and agreed to the lies and resigned them to the dustbin of history. We should be building on a foundation of truth, and until all the evidence is in, the jury cannot make a judgment. Thanks for your response. Now is the time for the more learned amongst us to give their explanations based on science (and not opinion) to correct the errors they see in your response.

    BTW, I meant regulator or referee when I said moderator in my post in another thread; I had forum-speak on my mind at the time. No-one is using offensive language to be moderated and that is good. It does need an impartial person to keep us on track when discussing these issues, which is what I have tried to do here. Present the facts without expressing (abusive) opinion such as "bullshit"; now I sense your frustration just as I was getting frustated by having to hear such words and arguments (please don't send me to that place again).

    Let's hope we can keep ourselves more disciplined in the way we respond to posts on this forum.

    All the best,

    David
    Good morning David,

    I really appreciate your well-reasoned and thoughtful response. I accept your admonition that we should "keep ourselves more disciplined in the way we respond to posts on this forum." I admit that I spoke too harshly and used unnecessarily offensive language. Thank you for understanding that I was "tired." That's not an excuse - it is just a fact. Your post is an excellent example for all to follow, including myself. You are helping make this forum into a place for serious and mutually respectful discourse on very divisive issues. Your contribution is greatly appreciated.

    As for a moderator: The forum has done very well for many years because almost all people who come here seem to have a pretty good idea of how to talk to others. There have only been a few - maybe ten or so - times when I have had to edit out deliberately offensive comments that were aimed at other users. I try to keep the forum as open as possible. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to the language people use when criticizing ideas. For example, I don't moderate Cheow when he says "evolution is bullshit" or "evolutionists are liars." Perhaps this was an error since it opened the door for me to make the same mistake. But then again, is it really an error to call something a lie when you can prove it? Perhaps not, but even so it may not be edifying. It is important to note that I was consciously letting myself go because I felt a need to "slap down" the creationists using their own language since they habitually slander evolutionists as liars.

    One thing to keep in mind is that I "popped my top" when responding to the video that Cheow posted which slandered the entire body of evolutionary scientists as deliberate deceivers. This really got my blood boiling because their video contained a number of deliberate lies and misrepresentations which I proved with evidence. But still, my criticism would have been much stronger if I just let the facts speak for themselves as you suggest. And Rose gave me a similar criticism after reading your post. So I'm pretty much convicted on this point. Thanks for the "wounds" my friend!

    On the upside, my error gives me a chance to publicly repent, and to acknowledge your good words. That's the real freedom of having nothing to "protect." I can admit when I'm wrong, and thank my "accuser" for helping me mend my ways.

    I'm looking forward to more fruitful conversations with you, my friend.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Good morning Richard.

    Let's take our discussion of the simplest cell to the next stage.
    You say that the bacteria cell is the simplest. I have no reason to doubt that statement. I have a series of questions that have to be answered to get down to fundamentals. The questions can be answered by producing the latest scientific research. The article from Science Week I supplied was from the year 2005 and we can expect great steps forward to have taken place in the last 7 years. There must be recent evidence to show us the progress made.

    Here are the questions which have to be answered:

    1. What is the simplest bacteria known? (A diagram of the simplest bacteria to show us the essential components of bacteria would be a help)

    2. Is science saying there might have been even simpler cells not in existence today which formed intermediate paths leading to the simplest bacteria which has been found?

    3. What is the simplest component of bacteria to produce?

    4. Has science been able to manufacture all the compounds necessary to produce the simplest component of bacteria?

    5. Is there a list of all the compounds necessary to make the simplest component of bacteria, and if so, can you produce a list for us to see?

    6. Has the simplest component of bacteria already been manufactured in the laboratory?


    We have to start somewhere, so we have to get to the most basic parts from which to produce a cell of some kind.

    Let's find the best evidence for the beginning of Evolution


    All the best,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 07-06-2012 at 01:32 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313

    From prokaryotes to eukaryotes

    From prokaryotes to eukaryotes

    Living things have evolved into three large clusters of closely related organisms, called "domains": Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota. Archaea and Bacteria are small, relatively simple cells surrounded by a membrane and a cell wall, with a circular strand of DNA containing their genes. They are called prokaryotes. Virtually all the life we see each day — including plants and animals — belongs to the third domain, Eukaryota. Eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotes, and the DNA is linear and found within a nucleus. Eukaryotic cells boast their own personal "power plants", called mitochondria. These tiny organelles in the cell not only produce chemical energy, but also hold the key to understanding the evolution of the eukaryotic cell.

    The complex eukaryotic cell ushered in a whole new era for life on Earth, because these cells evolved into multicellular organisms. But how did the eukaryotic cell itself evolve? How did a humble bacterium make this evolutionary leap from a simple prokaryotic cell to a more complex eukaryotic cell? The answer seems to be symbiosis — in other words, teamwork.
    Evidence supports the idea that eukaryotic cells are actually the descendents of separate prokaryotic cells that joined together in a symbiotic union. In fact, the mitochondrion itself seems to be the "great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter" of a free-living bacterium that was engulfed by another cell, perhaps as a meal, and ended up staying as a sort of permanent houseguest. The host cell profited from the chemical energy the mitochondrion produced, and the mitochondrion benefited from the protected, nutrient-rich environment surrounding it. This kind of "internal" symbiosis — one organism taking up permanent residence inside another and eventually evolving into a single lineage — is called endosymbiosis.







    This is a very good site for understanding Evolution.
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313

    Endosymbiosis

    Lesson #2 on the evolution of the simplest cell...

    Biologist Lynn Margulis first made the case for endosymbiosis in the 1960s, but for many years other biologists were skeptical. Although Jeon watched his amoebae become infected with the x-bacteria and then evolve to depend upon them, no one was around over a billion years ago to observe the events of endosymbiosis. Why should we think that a mitochondrion used to be a free-living organism in its own right? It turns out that many lines of evidence support this idea. Most important are the many striking similarities between prokaryotes (like bacteria) and mitochondria:


    • Membranes — Mitochondria have their own cell membranes, just like a prokaryotic cell does.
    • DNA — Each mitochondrion has its own circular DNA genome, like a bacteria's genome, but much smaller. This DNA is passed from a mitochondrion to its offspring and is separate from the "host" cell's genome in the nucleus.

    • Reproduction — Mitochondria multiply by pinching in half — the same process used by bacteria. Every new mitochondrion must be produced from a parent mitochondrion in this way; if a cell's mitochondria are removed, it can't build new ones from scratch.

    When you look at it this way, mitochondria really resemble tiny bacteria making their livings inside eukaryotic cells! Based on decades of accumulated evidence, the scientific community supports Margulis's ideas: endosymbiosis is the best explanation for the evolution of the eukaryotic cell.
    What's more, the evidence for endosymbiosis applies not only to mitochondria, but to other cellular organelles as well. Chloroplasts are like tiny green factories within plant cells that help convert energy from sunlight into sugars, and they have many similarities to mitochondria. The evidence suggests that these chloroplast organelles were also once free-living bacteria.
    The endosymbiotic event that generated mitochondria must have happened early in the history of eukaryotes, because all eukaryotes have them. Then, later, a similar event brought chloroplasts into some eukaryotic cells, creating the lineage that led to plants.

    Despite their many similarities, mitochondria (and chloroplasts) aren't free-living bacteria anymore. The first eukaryotic cell evolved more than a billion years ago. Since then, these organelles have become completely dependent on their host cells. For example, many of the key proteins needed by the mitochondrion are imported from the rest of the cell. Sometime during their long-standing relationship, the genes that code for these proteins were transferred from the mitochondrion to its host's genome. Scientists consider this mixing of genomes to be the irreversible step at which the two independent organisms become a single individual.
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Good morning Richard.

    Let's take our discussion of the simplest cell to the next stage.
    You say that the bacteria cell is the simplest. I have no reason to doubt that statement. I have a series of questions that have to be answered to get down to fundamentals. The questions can be answered by producing the latest scientific research. The article from Science Week I supplied was from the year 2005 and we can expect great steps forward to have taken place in the last 7 years. There must be recent evidence to show us the progress made.

    Here are the questions which have to be answered:

    1. What is the simplest bacteria known? (A diagram of the simplest bacteria to show us the essential components of bacteria would be a help)

    2. Is science saying there might have been even simpler cells not in existence today which formed intermediate paths leading to the simplest bacteria which has been found?

    3. What is the simplest component of bacteria to produce?

    4. Has science been able to manufacture all the compounds necessary to produce the simplest component of bacteria?

    5. Is there a list of all the compounds necessary to make the simplest component of bacteria, and if so, can you produce a list for us to see?

    6. Has the simplest component of bacteria already been manufactured in the laboratory?


    We have to start somewhere, so we have to get to the most basic parts from which to produce a cell of some kind.

    Let's find the best evidence for the beginning of Evolution


    All the best,

    David
    Hi David,

    Good questions! I'll have to do some research to answer. The articles posted by Rose are a good place to start to get a basic understanding of the evolution of the simplest cells.

    One point occurred to me this morning. Scientists have concluded that the first cells were the prokaryotes with no nucleus. They believe they evolved about 3 billion years ago whereas it took another two billion years for the eukaryotes to evolve. Think about that - it took 2 billion years to evolve from a prokaryote to a eukaryote. How would you account for this fact from a creationist point of view? It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view, but why would God create prokaryotes and then wait for 2 billion years to move to the next step?

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    This is a very good site for understanding Evolution.
    Hello Rose

    Thank you for this post and the following post showing diagrams of bacteria. I shall accept this as answer to qestion #1 about supplying a diagram of the bacteria cell.

    In exchange for your link the website explaining Evolution, I give you this link to a website posing the question; Was Darwin right - Chance or design?

    At this stage of the discussion I do not want to tackle the complex components of the bacteria cell. We can discuss cell intergration and division once we have esablished evidence or proof for the simplest of components to be formed. Once we have estblished that the simplest component can be formed, we study the next least simplest component and so on until (if ever) we run in to a serious obstacle to the Evolutionay development of the bacteria cell. At the moment I am making no judgments.

    On the webpage I have given you the link to, it discusses bacteria; the simplest of cells. Halfway down the page there is a link to a a .pdf file which is an article from; New Scientist, 151(2047):49


    I will let you draw your own conclusions once reading the webpage and the New Scientist article.


    All the best,

    David

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Rose

    Thank you for this post and the following post showing diagrams of bacteria. I shall accept this as answer to qestion #1 about supplying a diagram of the bacteria cell.

    In exchange for your link the website explaining Evolution, I give you this link to a website posing the question; Was Darwin right - Chance or design?

    At this stage of the discussion I do not want to tackle the complex components of the bacteria cell. We can discuss cell intergration and division once we have esablished evidence or proof for the simplest of components to be formed. Once we have estblished that the simplest component can be formed, we study the next least simplest component and so on until (if ever) we run in to a serious obstacle to the Evolutionay development of the bacteria cell. At the moment I am making no judgments.

    On the webpage I have given you the link to, it discusses bacteria; the simplest of cells. Halfway down the page there is a link to a a .pdf file which is an article from; New Scientist, 151(2047):49


    I will let you draw your own conclusions once reading the webpage and the New Scientist article.


    All the best,

    David
    Hi David,

    Thanks for the links. The article on simple cells looks interesting. I only had time to glance at it, but it looks like they are trying to be true to science and deal with the facts. That's good. But it brings up something important. When creationists finally accept science (which that site seems to do) then what's the point? It doesn't matter if we must conclude that the first cell was designed by God because we are now so far removed from the Biblical story of creation (Young Earth, direct creation of each "kind", etc.). I would be very interested to know why you think any of this is important. The Bible says nothing about God creating the first cell and then letting (or guiding) evolution as the actual process of creation. Is this what you believe now? If not, I don't see why we are digressing on this point (except that it's totally fascinating!).

    What are the real issues where Christianity clashes with the modern scientific worldview? Here are a few questions that would help clarify things:

    1) Do you accept that life has been on this planet for about 3.8 billion years?

    2) Do you believe this basic timeline is correct in any way at all?

    • procaryotes began about 3.8 billion years ago,
    • eukaryotes about 2 billion years ago,
    • multicellular organisms about one billion years ago
    • Cambrian explosion (bilateral body plans) about half a billion years ago
    • dinosaurs about 300 million years ago
    • etc.


    3) If you don't accept the time line, how do you account for all the fossil evidence that shows organisms changed from less complex to more complex as time advanced?

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •