Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I shall use science in order to prove evolution wrong.

    Firstly, let me introduce to you the human cell.

    Argument 1 of many countless of others:

    The human cell is very complex.
    It contains a phospholid layer of cell membrane, and within this layer are proteins. These proteins range from intergrel proteins(channel proteins or ones that span across the membrane and have something to do with the transport of substances across the cell membrane.

    Now , inside this complicated cell are organelles. These are subunits which all work together, to enable the cell to perform the many life processes: movement, sensitivity, reproduction, respiration, excretion, and growth.

    Basically, how can such a complicated thing arise?

    How can glycoproteins and glycerolized contribute to the cell recognition? How could this arise? Yes, the hormone or target receptors have complimentary shapes, and or bind with the hormone or protein or chemical , and thus a response is trigged.

    My point IS. How can such a complex thing arise?

    DEBATE me.

    Let's keep this argument at a cellular/anatomical position.

    You can use other sciences though.
    TO ALL THOSE SERIOUS ABOUT DEBATING - read this!
    (Original post by DarkTitan)
    The eukaryotic cell is very advanced, its in perfect harmony...more or less with its organelles.

    In the case of a prokaryotic cell engulfing a mitochondrion, the host cell would have to incorperate the design of the mitochondrion with its own etc (DNA mixing in the right order) in a short space of time for the next offspring to also have a mitochondrion. Quite simply this cannot happen over a large amount of time, as the mitochondrion would have been disposed of within the first moment...The cell originially engulfed the mitochondron for energy...so why (more so how) would it change its mind and keep it?

    You also know that mutated DNA has to also make sense for it to be functional. One wrong sequence and that's it it wont make sense, which is mostly the case in probably 99.9999999999% of cases.

    To maintain a symbiotic relationship the host cell would have to allow oxygen into the cell for the mitochondrion to use in order to use the energy produced by the mitochondrion. How would a cell...which doesn't even know what to do with a mitochondron (not included within its own DNA) instantly know what to do with it and how to make use of it?

    There is no chance of mutation and such being of use...with the increasing number of cancer victims over the years, have you seen it being of use to the person? Nope.

    Evolution would make sense once everything is all put together (though its not so much evolution anymore its just varience).

    There was this lake forgot its name, somewhere in kenya where 3000+ fossils were found covering millions of years. And if I remember correctly the article showed consistency for long stretches of time and then suddenly within thousands of years changes in the species. Now I don't accurately remember what the correct wording was but from when I read that it seemed to challenge the slow process from one to another, rather it happened suddenly. It would seem to suggest genetic mutation, but to utilize a genetic mutation to a point where it benifits an organism it would take a long amount of time, which is not what was suggested by the findings.

    Don't like the word "chance" everything happens for a reason and a reason for why it happened, even wrong duplication of DNA is not chance. Its easy to say oh DNA mutation this DNA mutation that...in practice this is very different and much more complex that what people make it sound.
    You know even in university lecturers who are far far more knowledgeable than us in TSR say its a theory and not fact. Which means it is open to challenges and such. What if we are missing something here? What we think was genetic mutation could have been something else?

    Just because some people read a text book they might think what they read is fact. Well what happens when the next revised edition comes out and new discoveries force the removal of the previous understanding. How comes normal people accept it without a challenge? Weren't you so sure about the theory before? Think for your selves and not have blind faith in a text book.

    E.coli is about 3 microns. With 4.6 million base pairs in DNA in its chromosome. What are the chances a genetic mutation would occur in its 1000 base pair copying speed per second AND be of benefit. That's re-arranging 3 pairs or by deleting, missing one or what ever. 3/4.6 million and it has to be in the right place. Someone do the maths cos it aint gnna be me


    DINNER TIME!!!! :woo:


    nuff said
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    I shall use science in order to prove evolution wrong.

    Firstly, let me introduce to you the human cell.

    Argument 1 of many countless of others:

    The human cell is very complex.
    It contains a phospholid layer of cell membrane, and within this layer are proteins. These proteins range from intergrel proteins(channel proteins or ones that span across the membrane and have something to do with the transport of substances across the cell membrane.

    Now , inside this complicated cell are organelles. These are subunits which all work together, to enable the cell to perform the many life processes: movement, sensitivity, reproduction, respiration, excretion, and growth.

    Basically, how can such a complicated thing arise?

    How can glycoproteins and glycerolized contribute to the cell recognition? How could this arise? Yes, the hormone or target receptors have complimentary shapes, and or bind with the hormone or protein or chemical , and thus a response is trigged.

    My point IS. How can such a complex thing arise?

    DEBATE me.

    Let's keep this argument at a cellular/anatomical position.

    You can use other sciences though.
    You should probably read a book about evolution or something. The 'problem' you present is incredibly obvious, and as such has been addressed many times.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Also, your argument is no different from the old 'you can't have half an eye' debate.

    /boring
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, the theory that the mitochondria was once an independent prokaryote that developed a symbiotic relationship with other cells has some evidence behind it. After all, it produces it's own proteins and is generally built like it used to be self sufficient.

    The general conclusion on cells 'coming into being' is that DNA [or some precursor] was one of many replicating molecules formed in the 'primordial soup' by random collision of early compounds [feasible considering more basic organic molecules have formed in experiment, and we are talking hundreds of millions of years. We now have a battle between [of course unknowing] replicators over increasingly rare 'food' [remaining smaller a organic molecules]. The cell begins as an invention by replicators to protect themselves, and becomes increasingly complicated in what could be called an arms race. Someone correct me if I am wrong here or I am misrepresenting the biological community .

    I am at risk of derailing the thread, but I will throw in a couple of good facts behind evolution:

    The arrangement of fossils in rock strata are arranged exactly as evolution would predict. The only explanation I have heard from creationists is that certain animals sank faster than others in the flood. Why would not a single mammal drown before a single raptor? Why would massively heavy whale-sized more recent animals be above much lighter animals?

    Secondly, the fact that a haploid cell from primates tends to have 24 chromosomes. We have 23, with one that has two centromeres [generally the result of a fusion between two chromosomes].
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ramses II)
    Well, the theory that the mitochondria was once an independent prokaryote that developed a symbiotic relationship with other cells has some evidence behind it. After all, it produces it's own proteins and is generally built like it used to be self sufficient.

    The general conclusion on cells 'coming into being' is that DNA [or some precursor] was one of many replicating molecules formed in the 'primordial soup' by random collision of early compounds [feasible considering more basic organic molecules have formed in experiment, and we are talking hundreds of millions of years. We now have a battle between [of course unknowing] replicators over increasingly rare 'food' [remaining smaller a organic molecules]. The cell begins as an invention by replicators to protect themselves, and becomes increasingly complicated in what could be called an arms race. Someone correct me if I am wrong here or I am misrepresenting the biological community .
    DNA enables proteins to be made. Without DNA, you cannot have proteins. Without the ribosome, you cannot have proteins either.
    So which came first, DNA or proteins? How can the DNA of even a bacteria cell be made?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Read some Dawkins and he shall make you feel better.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    DNA first, ribosomes and proteins produced in the same order as they are in the development of a cell now.
    For DNA to 'evolve', replicators 'compete.' Those with greater copying fidelity and fecundity more likely to dominate, and so the replicators become increasingly complicated.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    I shall use science in order to prove evolution wrong.

    Firstly, let me introduce to you the human cell.

    Argument 1 of many countless of others:

    The human cell is very complex.
    It contains a phospholid layer of cell membrane, and within this layer are proteins. These proteins range from intergrel proteins(channel proteins or ones that span across the membrane and have something to do with the transport of substances across the cell membrane.

    Now , inside this complicated cell are organelles. These are subunits which all work together, to enable the cell to perform the many life processes: movement, sensitivity, reproduction, respiration, excretion, and growth.

    Basically, how can such a complicated thing arise?

    How can glycoproteins and glycerolized contribute to the cell recognition? How could this arise? Yes, the hormone or target receptors have complimentary shapes, and or bind with the hormone or protein or chemical , and thus a response is trigged.

    My point IS. How can such a complex thing arise?

    DEBATE me.

    Let's keep this argument at a cellular/anatomical position.

    You can use other sciences though.
    You are aware that evolution has been proven and observed in some species?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    DNA enables proteins to be made. Without DNA, you cannot have proteins. Without the ribosome, you cannot have proteins either.
    So which came first, DNA or proteins? How can the DNA of even a bacteria cell be made?
    DNA doesn't have to come into existence fully formed; the first (and presumably most difficult) step is the existence of a self-replicating molecule. This could then change over time into something like DNA.

    You have to be careful not to assume that, in the formation of a complex, interactive system, all the parts always had exactly the same function. This avoids the apparent improbability of interlocking mechanisms arising together spontaneously.

    I'd imagine a biologist can give you a much better explanation, but that's just something to think about initially...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yep, also known as the 'argument from personal incredulity'. It's not a proper argument.

    Anyway, your question is so vague. Are you talking about how the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes was made possible?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yep, also known as the 'argument from personal incredulity'. It's not a proper argument.

    Anyway, your question is so vague. Are you talking about how the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes was made possible?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Your argument seems essentially to be that you dont' understand evolution, therefore it is wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand cells and all that etc etc, however I'm pretty sure that unless you're the next Stephen Hawking, this problem has already been addressed and disproved :p:
    Offline

    14
    How ******* arrogant do you have to be to think that you are capable of disproving the work of the worlds greatest scientists whilst you are still in school?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is a reason why evolution is taught in schools, degrees are based on it, ect ect. It is utterly proven. Scientists are, by nature, very skeptical-the fact that they have universally accepted it should show you something.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I know this sounds stupid but how come species around or even us are not evolving anymore?

    I want to live in a world like Pokemon too
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TinFish)
    I know this sounds stupid but how come species around or even us are not evolving anymore?

    I want to live in a world like Pokemon too

    Evolution takes hundreds of thousands to millions of years. It is not something we can physically observe within a human lifetime, but looking through fossils and DNA patterns through time, THEN it can be seen. So, species are evolving around us - it just takes a while. Hope that answers your question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TinFish)
    I know this sounds stupid but how come species around or even us are not evolving anymore?

    I want to live in a world like Pokemon too
    Is that a serious question? They are evolving :rolleyes:.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TinFish)
    I know this sounds stupid but how come species around or even us are not evolving anymore?

    I want to live in a world like Pokemon too

    Aww, bless.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ramses II)
    There is a reason why evolution is taught in schools, degrees are based on it, ect ect. It is utterly proven. Scientists are, by nature, very skeptical-the fact that they have universally accepted it should show you something.
    The thing is,

    assume mitosis:

    The chromosomes in mitosis (chromosome pairs , one chromosome from each parent) basically are replicated. This means you now have double the number of chromosomes. Basically, these duplicated chromosomes align in the centre of the cell, and are then taken to opposite polls of the cells with the help of centrioles and microtubles, which aid in the process of movement within the cell.

    How could this process have functioned itself?
    Show me a way in which a process, or the process that perhaps evolved to become mitosis occoured?
    There's irreducible complexity.

    Yes , this is the ' half and eye' argument to an extent.

    By saying ' this is another half an eye argument', it does not mean the argument is flawed, weak, and not applicable.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.