Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    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.
    Go.Read.Some.Books (actual science ones)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ah, old friend, irreducible complexity - we battle again.

    I will assure you - nothing at all is proven to be irreducibly complex. Not the eyes, nor the ears, nor cells. You're imagining a sudden formulation of what we know as 'cell', when that is indeed not the case. A cell's evolution is already heavily documented and debated. To paraphrase Dawkins, as many people have mentioned him in this thread, you are creating a 'god of the gaps'. The logic behind this is such; I cannot feasibly understand how a cell has evolved - thus god.

    Look at how immeasurably ridiculous, strained, flawed that logic is.

    I think the funniest phrase I've heard in connection with this was one about the fossil record. Someone said that every time a new fossil is found which fills an evolutionary gap, the creationists claim that there are now two holes, one either side of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morecambebay)
    Go.Read.Some.Books (actual science ones)
    I've read lots of science books. I am currently doing so right now lol.

    Basically:

    HIV works like this:

    You have receptors proteins on the surface of the cell membrane. Basically, the HIV virus laches onto the receptors, and stops them from functioning properly. Mind well, if HIV laches onto the immune system cells, it can stop your immune systems actually obtaining the correct signals that lach onto it's receptor, and so will not be able to produce the correct respone. If it does not work, then : A your immune system will not work, you will be prone to many many illness. The immune system is vital.

    How could such a thing come into place?

    Science without religion is lame.
    And religion without science is dumb.

    - Albert Einstein
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AskMeAnything)
    Ah, old friend, irreducible complexity - we battle again.

    I will assure you - nothing at all is proven to be irreducibly complex. Not the eyes, nor the ears, nor cells. You're imagining a sudden formulation of what we know as 'cell', when that is indeed not the case. A cell's evolution is already heavily documented and debated. To paraphrase Dawkins, as many people have mentioned him in this thread, you are creating a 'god of the gaps'. The logic behind this is such; I cannot feasibly understand how a cell has evolved - thus god.

    Look at how immeasurably ridiculous, strained, flawed that logic is.

    I think the funniest phrase I've heard in connection with this was one about the fossil record. Someone said that every time a new fossil is found which fills an evolutionary gap, the creationists claim that there are now two holes, one either side of it.
    I've heard of Richard Dawkins, i've watched many of his videos. He is overrated if you ask me.

    You have not adressed my question.

    I know the basic concepts of evolution. I can understand evolution onto a genetic level. BUT it makes no scientific sense!
    Please adress my questions, tackle them scientifically. Tell me the exact answers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AskMeAnything)
    Ah, old friend, irreducible complexity - we battle again.

    I will assure you - nothing at all is proven to be irreducibly complex. Not the eyes, nor the ears, nor cells. You're imagining a sudden formulation of what we know as 'cell', when that is indeed not the case. A cell's evolution is already heavily documented and debated. To paraphrase Dawkins, as many people have mentioned him in this thread, you are creating a 'god of the gaps'. The logic behind this is such; I cannot feasibly understand how a cell has evolved - thus god.

    Look at how immeasurably ridiculous, strained, flawed that logic is.

    I think the funniest phrase I've heard in connection with this was one about the fossil record. Someone said that every time a new fossil is found which fills an evolutionary gap, the creationists claim that there are now two holes, one either side of it.
    Who was talking about God? This was a discussion purely about the possibility of evolution until you brought that up.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    I've read lots of science books. I am currently doing so right now lol.

    Basically:

    HIV works like this:

    You have receptors proteins on the surface of the cell membrane. Basically, the HIV virus laches onto the receptors, and stops them from functioning properly. Mind well, if HIV laches onto the immune system cells, it can stop your immune systems actually obtaining the correct signals that lach onto it's receptor, and so will not be able to produce the correct respone. If it does not work, then : A your immune system will not work, you will be prone to many many illness. The immune system is vital.

    How could such a thing come into place?

    Science without religion is lame.
    And religion without science is dumb.

    - Albert Einstein
    Just because YOU do not understand something, it doesnt mean other people - like scientists- dont. Use google, surf around amazon for a while, its not difficult. (unless of course your aim is to stay willfully ignorant). And stop copy and pasting things from creationist websites...I swear Ive seen that exact phrasing elsewhere.

    Nice irony in the einstein quote by the way, you dont seem to realise that you are being dumb by using religion without science.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AskMeAnything)
    Ah, old friend, irreducible complexity - we battle again.

    I will assure you - nothing at all is proven to be irreducibly complex. Not the eyes, nor the ears, nor cells. You're imagining a sudden formulation of what we know as 'cell', when that is indeed not the case. A cell's evolution is already heavily documented and debated. To paraphrase Dawkins, as many people have mentioned him in this thread, you are creating a 'god of the gaps'. The logic behind this is such; I cannot feasibly understand how a cell has evolved - thus god.

    Look at how immeasurably ridiculous, strained, flawed that logic is.

    I think the funniest phrase I've heard in connection with this was one about the fossil record. Someone said that every time a new fossil is found which fills an evolutionary gap, the creationists claim that there are now two holes, one either side of it.

    Tell me how the cell was, before it evolved
    Evolution is in tiny stages correct?
    So tell me what the small stage, (want to use greek symbol to show this but can't, if you don't understand this, dwrry, physicists and mathmaticians will) was?

    Tell me, how the mitocondria with complex folded cristae to maximise surface area, and mebrane, combined with golgi apparatus and rough endoplasmic reticulum, and DNA control the whole thing?

    If even ONE of these processes was removed. For example, if the golgi apparatus worked in any different way, for example, if it did not package proteins from the ribosomes and combined with microtubles to move these to the golgi apparatus, LIFE WOULD NOT EXIST!
    The whole cell would be totally nullified.

    My challange to you is,

    tell me ANY possible cell, that could have mutated(that's what evolution runs on ) into a the human cell we have?

    Change anything in a bacteria cell , it won't work. Everything is interlinked. Add one irregular brick on a tower, it will fall.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morecambebay)
    Just because YOU do not understand something, it doesnt mean other people - like scientists- dont. Use google, surf around amazon for a while, its not difficult. (unless of course your aim is to stay willfully ignorant). And stop copy and pasting things from creationist websites...I swear Ive seen that exact phrasing elsewhere.

    Nice irony in the einstein quote by the way, you dont seem to realise that you are being dumb by using religion without science.
    Type my sentence into google, proof i am not copying. This is my own knowledge, or the little i know of what there is to know.

    As for not understanding, i do understand BUT IT MAKES LITTLE SCIENTIFIC SENSE!

    Either use science to debate me. I don't want to use philosophy atm...i want to use science, thanks.

    The HIV thing i said is common knowledge, i am challenging evolutionists to debate how it works.

    To other posters, saying ' so and so is a big scientific figure and they approve of something' is a flawed choice of argument. You are appealing to authority.
    Offline

    16
    Here you go, google is amazing isnt it!!!
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...oforigin.shtml

    As for your comment above, I was not appealing to authority, I was trying to point out to you that there is actually something to be said for know in gwhat you are talking about...thats why we have experts. Seeing as you are now starting to accuse others of reasoning errors, shall we try and count up how many you have made? Ill start, how about the fact that you are basing the credibility of evolution on one part of the mass of evidence which supports it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by morecambebay)
    Here you go, google is amazing isnt it!!!
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...oforigin.shtml


    Not my words.

    -sigh- not a single evolutionist has used science to back up evolution.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Not my words.

    -sigh- not a single evolutionist has used science to back up evolution.
    You're right. You a lowly sixth form student have managed to disprove the biggest scientific theory in recent history. When do you want to collect your noble prize? Oh, I tell you what you should do...you should try and get published in one of those journal thingies. How good will that look on your ucas eh?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Tell me how the cell was, before it evolved
    Evolution is in tiny stages correct?
    So tell me what the small stage, (want to use greek symbol to show this but can't, if you don't understand this, dwrry, physicists and mathmaticians will) was?

    Tell me, how the mitocondria with complex folded cristae to maximise surface area, and mebrane, combined with golgi apparatus and rough endoplasmic reticulum, and DNA control the whole thing?

    If even ONE of these processes was removed. For example, if the golgi apparatus worked in any different way, for example, if it did not package proteins from the ribosomes and combined with microtubles to move these to the golgi apparatus, LIFE WOULD NOT EXIST!
    The whole cell would be totally nullified.

    My challange to you is,

    tell me ANY possible cell, that could have mutated(that's what evolution runs on ) into a the human cell we have?

    Change anything in a bacteria cell , it won't work. Everything is interlinked. Add one irregular brick on a tower, it will fall.
    I personally am not a scientist; I am a philosopher. I would love to give you that answer; but I cannot understand this evolutionary biology, as I have not studied biology in many years.

    But do you truly believe you are the only person who has looked at it? Do you truly believe that such a large proportion of biologists would believe in evolution - those with experience and careers in biology - if such fundamental things could not be proven - or, if not proven, at least be the most probable outcome.

    How do you explain the large, growing fossil record to support evolution? Is some sort if deity, creator, magic-maker, more probable than the probability that you just cannot fathom something that others can?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You know it did take hundreds of millions of years for cells to evolve, right?

    And as with all evolution they started off simple and become more and more complex.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The replication of a basic molecule simply by breaking bonds with an enzyme and attracting complementary nucleotides doesn't need much in the way of special equipment. In an ever larger capsule/cell this process merely becomes more complex, possibly butchering the equipment used in other cell processes on the way-much easier than inventing new equipment by a long shot. Bear in mind that evolution can actually make quite large steps as well as small ones, when large copying mistakes are made such as inversions. A molecular biologist could give you a good answer.

    Let me give you the example of ants removing a diseased larvae from a colony. Only two genes are needed to notice that a larvae is diseased, pull the wax cap off that is sealing it in place, and carry it out of the colony to avoid contamination of others.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Not my words.

    -sigh- not a single evolutionist has used science to back up evolution.
    You're very stupid. Your argument is based upon the fact that nobody on here can be bothered to research and type up the full origin and workings of the cell. You could use the same argument but replace cell with computer or watch.
    If you were willing to research this info yourself then you would be able to disprove your argument.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    -sigh- not a single evolutionist has used science to back up evolution.
    Read my signature.

    (Original post by TinFish)
    how come species around or even us are not evolving anymore?
    They are. Most species don't reproduce quickly enough for us to be able to directly observe evolution, which is a very slow process but some species, viruses for instance, because they reproduce so rapidly can be observed evolving. This is how they acquire resistance to vaccines.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Tell me how the cell was, before it evolved
    Evolution is in tiny stages correct?
    So tell me what the small stage, (want to use greek symbol to show this but can't, if you don't understand this, dwrry, physicists and mathmaticians will) was?

    Tell me, how the mitocondria with complex folded cristae to maximise surface area, and mebrane, combined with golgi apparatus and rough endoplasmic reticulum, and DNA control the whole thing?

    If even ONE of these processes was removed. For example, if the golgi apparatus worked in any different way, for example, if it did not package proteins from the ribosomes and combined with microtubles to move these to the golgi apparatus, LIFE WOULD NOT EXIST!
    The whole cell would be totally nullified.

    My challange to you is,

    tell me ANY possible cell, that could have mutated(that's what evolution runs on ) into a the human cell we have?

    Change anything in a bacteria cell , it won't work. Everything is interlinked. Add one irregular brick on a tower, it will fall.
    Big mistake. Evolving across different hierarchical groups is theoretically possible, but you would need either to come up with a bizarre journey or have the cell devolve back to a simple ancestor and then all of the way into a human.

    I ask you: Turn a propeller into a jet engine in a series of incremental steps, each more efficient than the last. It would be either impossible or a series of nightmarish botch jobs, like the recurrent laryngeal nerve that creationists love so much.

    It would take me years to tell you every mutation it would take to turn a prokaryote cell into a human body cell. You have misunderstood evolution.
    Offline

    13
    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.
    By evolution.

    I'm not exactly someone who supports evolution militantly, but that's basically your counter-argument. What is even more intriguing is how a double-circulatory system was formed from a single circulatory system when no intermediates or any sign of them have been found (obviously with such a complex change, there would have been a LOT of intermediate forms). This is why I say that evolution is still a theory, although I'm not against it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As for the hilarious 6000bc thing, for all of a millions of facts that disprove it, my favorite is that there are actual living plants on this planet that were still alive 20000 years ago. Not a relation of that plant, but that actual plant.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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 remind me of a video on youtube that seemed to think that the Human eye could not have just appeared. Well of course not. The human cell did not start as a human cell it started as some tiny simple bacteria and across the last however many million years it grew more and more adapated as circumstances changed. Your argument is one of the worst arguments against evolution about as bad as saying evoultion disproves God.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.