Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ramses II)
    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.
    Comment on saying that tiny mutations would be needed to occour over millions of years for cell to form.

    But tell me this:

    Can you show me a single part in the current cell that could have been different?



    Name me any organelle. Tell me how it could have been different/worked differently, and how it evolved.

    Irreduceable complexity.

    Random mutations and MISTAKES in the genetic code cannot account for such a complex system.

    Heck, i don't even think we humans, withour brain power can create it all from the BASIC elements, INTENTIONALLlY
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    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.
    Can you tell me how the mitocondria evolved? It is a sub-cellular organelle.
    Tell me how that was before.
    Something must have mutated/evolved over millions of years no?
    So tell me the steps?
    Tell me the steps of ANY organelle.
    And for every step you tell me, tell me HOW it would impact on the other organelles, cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems if they existed in that timeline of 'evolution/mutation'.

    that is my challenge.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Asking a question beyond the reasonable scope of an online forum response that would otherwise demand potentially a dissertations worth of text and not receiving such a reply =/= 'disproving' a theory.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    Asking a question beyond the reasonable scope of an online forum response that would otherwise demand potentially a dissertations worth of text and not receiving such a reply =/= 'disproving' a theory.
    Ok, here's a simple question then:

    Answer this, using science or philosophy, i don't mind:

    What came first, Ribosomes or proteins?

    Ribosomes make proteins,and proteins make up some of the ribosome.

    So which came first?

    PS: even prokaryotes have ribosomes.
    Offline

    0
    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 cannot "prove" anything with science you can only disprove things.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Can you tell me how the mitocondria evolved? It is a sub-cellular organelle.
    Tell me how that was before.
    Something must have mutated/evolved over millions of years no?
    So tell me the steps?
    Tell me the steps of ANY organelle.
    And for every step you tell me, tell me HOW it would impact on the other organelles, cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems if they existed in that timeline of 'evolution/mutation'.

    that is my challenge.
    Do you not understand evolution? There is no one step its billions of little ones. Take the eye first a mutation causes some creature to be able to distinguish between light and dark. Or maybe even more mundane than this some tiny little change. Now slowly there are millions of tiny little changes each one changing the cell into something else until eventually this becomes the eye. I cannot show you the steps because I do not have a full genetic history of a creature. But look back to the ansetors of an animal around today and you will see much much more basic versions of advaned things the creature now has.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Do you not understand evolution? There is no one step its billions of little ones. Take the eye first a mutation causes some creature to be able to distinguish between light and dark. Or maybe even more mundane than this some tiny little change. Now slowly there are millions of tiny little changes each one changing the cell into something else until eventually this becomes the eye. I cannot show you the steps because I do not have a full genetic history of a creature. But look back to the ansetors of an animal around today and you will see much much more basic versions of advaned things the creature now has.
    MUTATION cannot account for 99.99999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 999 percent of evolution!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    MUTATION cannot account for 99.99999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999 999 percent of evolution!
    Not really sure where you get this from? Look at viruses yeah thats evolution really fast.

    Umm yes it can/ (someone correct me if im wrong but this is how I understand it) The mutations that were successful allowed the creature to become a better hunter/survier so that creature did not die out.

    Giraffes for example. You could see a giraffe with a longer neck as a mutation because this giraffe can reach the high leaves better it is strong more likely to survive whilst all the shorter necked giraffes die out leaving only long necked ones.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Ok, here's a simple question then:

    Answer this, using science or philosophy, i don't mind:

    What came first, Ribosomes or proteins?

    Ribosomes make proteins,and proteins make up some of the ribosome.

    So which came first?

    PS: even prokaryotes have ribosomes.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_World. You could have found this out yourself had you done a quick Google search.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Not really sure where you get this from? Look at viruses yeah thats evolution really fast.

    Umm yes it can/ (someone correct me if im wrong but this is how I understand it) The mutations that were successful allowed the creature to become a better hunter/survier so that creature did not die out.

    Giraffes for example. You could see a giraffe with a longer neck as a mutation because this giraffe can reach the high leaves better it is strong more likely to survive whilst all the shorter necked giraffes die out leaving only long necked ones.
    Good point, but there is one mistake i can immediatley see. A mutation is a random brekage in the DNA. It is when DNA malforms. How could the DNA mal form to such an extent, that the neck grew longer and longer? This malformation would have to have happened to another female species of many other giraffes to be passed on. How can the same random breakage and mutation occour time and time again? It's not possible.

    Also, why can't we see other organisms with long necks? If it is true that organisms with long necks survived, why don't we see ' evolution/mutation' producing other organisms? There are many many tall trees. Also, by the way, the giraffes neck is more than tall enough to reach tree's. Why didn't it stop ?

    Answer the first questions, then come to the last one. Thanks, good point by the way. This is how i wanted the debate to go. Simple examples.
    Offline

    14
    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.
    Thread starter is using science to prove evolution wrong, his argument is not to prove the existance of God. His logic is not flawed, the fact that your response is on your own interpretations of his debate is in fact flawed. Also when you say that cell evolution is already heavily documented then show me. And did you know that no scientiest to date has proven or demonstrated a single case of genetic mutation in any living creature! not even Richard Dawkins.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    There is no alternative theory that is based on science.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    There is no alternative theory that is based on science.
    Science is not about filling gaps.

    I don't want to spin this into God, because theology is not the basis of my debate, as a poster has pointed out just recently. I'd like to thank him.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Good point, but there is one mistake i can immediatley see. A mutation is a random brekage in the DNA. It is when DNA malforms. How could the DNA mal form to such an extent, that the neck grew longer and longer? This malformation would have to have happened to another female species of many other giraffes to be passed on. How can the same random breakage and mutation occour time and time again? It's not possible.

    Also, why can't we see other organisms with long necks? If it is true that organisms with long necks survived, why don't we see ' evolution/mutation' producing other organisms? There are many many tall trees. Also, by the way, the giraffes neck is more than tall enough to reach tree's. Why didn't it stop ?

    Answer the first questions, then come to the last one. Thanks, good point by the way. This is how i wanted the debate to go. Simple examples.
    To answer most of the questions simply: Mutations are only passed on if they're beneficial to the survival of the species. I'm sure there were a few giraffes with taller necks but they were not evolutionary viable either due to energy output/intake issues or various other physiological problems.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Good point, but there is one mistake i can immediatley see. A mutation is a random brekage in the DNA. It is when DNA malforms. How could the DNA mal form to such an extent, that the neck grew longer and longer? This malformation would have to have happened to another female species of many other giraffes to be passed on. How can the same random breakage and mutation occour time and time again? It's not possible.

    Also, why can't we see other organisms with long necks? If it is true that organisms with long necks survived, why don't we see ' evolution/mutation' producing other organisms? There are many many tall trees. Also, by the way, the giraffes neck is more than tall enough to reach tree's. Why didn't it stop ?

    Answer the first questions, then come to the last one. Thanks, good point by the way. This is how i wanted the debate to go. Simple examples.
    Because the creature with the longer neck does not die out it goes on to mate and have a large number of children the ones with long necks will be the only ones to survive so the long neck becomes part of the genetic code.

    It happanes again and again because it is not a mutation each time. In one giraffe there is a mutation to have a slightly longer neck that becomes part of the genetic code so when it mates this gene is passed on. Because the shorter necked giraffes cannot survive as well they do not breed as successfully so slowly the shorter necked giraffe begins to die out. Don't take this as fact I only ever did science up to a GCSE level so what im saying here could be complete BS.

    We only see long necks in animals where it is necessary. Say a bird mutates to have a longer neck, say this makes it harder to hunt so the bird gets less food and will due to natural selection will breed less as females tend to only bred with the strongest most suitable male.

    What do you mean by the tall tree example?

    As long as the longest necked giraffes are the fittest and strongest of the giraffes then they will be the main ones to breed and will breed the most successfully. If the long neck became a problem it would begin to revert or the species dies out. Evolve to each new situation or die.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Not really sure where you get this from? Look at viruses yeah thats evolution really fast.

    Umm yes it can/ (someone correct me if im wrong but this is how I understand it) The mutations that were successful allowed the creature to become a better hunter/survier so that creature did not die out.

    Giraffes for example. You could see a giraffe with a longer neck as a mutation because this giraffe can reach the high leaves better it is strong more likely to survive whilst all the shorter necked giraffes die out leaving only long necked ones.
    Although your theoretically correct, you should know the difference between genetic mutation and adaptation to the environment. The DNA of todays Giraffe is the same as its ancestor, the DNA of the human is the same as its ancestor. The theory of evolution is just a theory, its not proven and never will be.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sixthformer)
    Science is not about filling gaps.

    I don't want to spin this into God, because theology is not the basis of my debate, as a poster has pointed out just recently. I'd like to thank him.
    Science is about filling gaps in our knowledge.

    Evolution seems pretty water tight to me, and until someone comes along with a better scientific explanation I will stick with it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Using AS level Biology to try and argue your point is a major fail in itself. You don't know enough about biology yet even you're arrogant enough to think you do.

    Also, you're not the first person to have thought of this but you may be the first person to have thought that you're actually intelligent enough to grasp the concept of evolution and disprove it. You are wrong. Very wrong.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    Although your theoretically correct, you should know the difference between genetic mutation and adaptation to the environment. The DNA of todays Giraffe is the same as its ancestor, the DNA of the human is the same as its ancestor. The theory of evolution is just a theory, its not proven and never will be.
    I really think this word "theory" gets confused too easily. It's not just an idea.

    In science, a theory is the highest form of proof yet known about a subject; something that has the best explanation about the said topic for the time with the known evidence, and that has stood up to all challenges presented and survived. A theory is not liable to be slain by single facts, and they change all the time as new evidence comes to light. A law, even, is in fact lower than a theory - we use theories to explain laws.

    Outside of the scientific community the word "theory" is used to mean a "hunch" or perhaps "hypothesis".

    Not trying to jump on or attack anyone. Just trying to clear this up.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Peace0fM1nd)
    Although your theoretically correct, you should know the difference between genetic mutation and adaptation to the environment. The DNA of todays Giraffe is the same as its ancestor, the DNA of the human is the same as its ancestor.
    Have you taken GCSE Biology yet?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.