Jump to content


Photo

A "simple Cell"?


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#41 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 09 March 2009 - 08:47 AM

No, guidance doesn't require intelligence. If a rock rolls down a hill, it is guided by the contours of the hill, no intelligence required.

View Post

So, you're equating a rock rolling down a hill with a life force… it’s not hard to see your problem here.

Nature selects for function, and that's why you can see complex systems like the leukocytes and the attack mechanisms of their opponents.

View Post

What is nature, that it can select anything? Please explain what nature is (not what you presuppose it’s effects to be).

#42 RobotArchie

RobotArchie

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London, UK

Posted 09 March 2009 - 09:57 AM

I find it slightly odd that Websters 1828 Dictionary has been invoked here a number of times to 'define' this or that.........

Might I suggest that use of a more modern dictionary may be less contentious? For example, it would appear that 'evolution' as it is being discussed here does not exist. The reason being that the dictionary is older than the theory............. eg

http://1828.mshaffer.../word/evolution


EVOLU'TION, n. [L. evolutio.] The act of unfolding or unrolling.


1. A series of things unrolled or unfolded; as the evolution of ages.

2. In geometry, the unfolding or opening of a curve,and making it describe an evolvent. The equable evolution of the periphery of a circle, or other curve, is such a gradual approach of the circumference to rectitude, as that its parts do all concur, and equally evolve or unbend; so that the same line becomes successively a less arc of a reciprocally greater circle, till at last they change into a straight line.

3. In algebra, evolution is the extraction of roots from powers; the reverse of involution.

4. In military tactics, the doubling of ranks or files, wheeling, countermarching or other motion by which the disposition of troops is changed, in order to attack or defend with more advantage, or to occupy a different post.


***************************************************************

EVOLVE, v.t. evolv'. [L. evolvo; e and volvo, to roll; Eng. to wallow.]


1. To unfold; to open and expand.

The animal soul sooner evolves itself to its full orb and extent than the human soul.

2. To throw out; to emit.
EVOLVE, v.i. To open itself; to disclose itself.

****************************************************************

However, I find it slightly - though understandibly - remiss of Mr Webster not to have included an earlier 'theory of evolution' which was quite widely known of though not accepted as a scientific fact from the cutting edge of science at the time of publishing his venerable tome of knowledge. To wit: "The first systematic presentation of evolution was put forth by the French scientist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1774-1829) in 1809"

#43 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 09 March 2009 - 02:34 PM

I find it slightly odd that Websters 1828 Dictionary has been invoked here a number of times to 'define' this or that.........

Might I suggest that use of a more modern dictionary may be less contentious? For example, it would appear that 'evolution' as it is being discussed here does not exist. The reason being that the dictionary is older than the theory............. eg

http://1828.mshaffer.../word/evolution
EVOLU'TION, n. [L. evolutio.] The act of unfolding or unrolling.
1. A series of things unrolled or unfolded; as the evolution of ages.

2. In geometry, the unfolding or opening of a curve,and making it describe an evolvent. The equable evolution of the periphery of a circle, or other curve, is such a gradual approach of the circumference to rectitude, as that its parts do all concur, and equally evolve or unbend; so that the same line becomes successively a less arc of a reciprocally greater circle, till at last they change into a straight line.

3. In algebra, evolution is the extraction of roots from powers; the reverse of involution.

4. In military tactics, the doubling of ranks or files, wheeling, countermarching or other motion by which the disposition of troops is changed, in order to attack or defend with more advantage, or to occupy a different post.
***************************************************************

EVOLVE, v.t. evolv'. [L. evolvo; e and volvo, to roll; Eng. to wallow.]
1. To unfold; to open and expand.

The animal soul sooner evolves itself to its full orb and extent than the human soul.

2. To throw out; to emit.
EVOLVE, v.i. To open itself; to disclose itself.

****************************************************************

However, I find it slightly - though understandibly -  remiss of Mr Webster not to have included an earlier 'theory of evolution' which was quite widely known of though not accepted as a scientific fact from the cutting edge of science at the time of publishing his venerable tome of knowledge. To wit:  "The first systematic presentation of evolution was put forth by the French scientist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1774-1829) in 1809"

View Post


This is all a big red herring and you know it. The use of this citation is to demonstrate how definitions have changed over time. Science at one time allowed the concept of God performing phenomena. Science today does not. Science today is atheistic as defined by the mainstream.

#44 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Yorkshire, England

Posted 10 March 2009 - 02:09 AM

So I guess those plant breeders you can't see?  You can't see that they are designing those "resistant" plant breeds?  You can't see that those breeders are genetic engineers working towards a purpose and goal in what they do.  Open your eyes man.  We saw clear evidence of design long before Darwin posited that it wasn't needed.  Your own article refutes everthing you just said, but you can't see it can you?


Did you actually read that little article? The clever little attack weapon has not appeared in the plants, and it was certainly not designed by the plant breeders.

Here's some more reading material to aid your understanding, and encourage your interest in biology:

http://en.wikipedia....onary_arms_race

Plenty of info. here!

Guidance doesn't require intelligence :D  :)  :lol: Please look up the word!  All guidance requires intelligence.  A rock falling down a hill is an unguided process, not a guided process.  The contour of the hill does not guide anything.  In fact, if the contour of the hill is precisely known, the exact path of the rock can be calculated.


Guidance does not automatically imply sentience on the part of the guider (you can be guided by the light of the moon, for an obvious example). The rock rolling down a hill is certainly guided by the contours of the hill (+ gravity, obviously!).

Let's try this:

God selects for function, and that's why you can see complex systems like the leukocytes and the attack mechanisms of their opponents.

Works for me!

View Post


Weird god! Have you looked at these mechanisms in detail? I suppose there are arms dealers who sell to both sides in a conflict. :)

#45 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 10 March 2009 - 01:49 PM

Weird god! Have you looked at these mechanisms in detail? I suppose there are arms dealers who sell to both sides in a conflict.


Exactly.Since the Bilble already says he condemmed both of them including everything else.

#46 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 March 2009 - 07:37 AM

A "simple" function in a "simple" cell:

4PKjF7OumYo

When we talk about matter and life and the idea that life is just complex chemical reactions there is something that is rarely mentioned that is very important. Living organisms are not cooperating with the chemical's state of least resistance, if you please. They are exploiting chemical reactions by creating unstable states that normally break down and must receive regular maintenance to continue. This is empirically demonstrated in the fact that dead tissue can not be reanimated after only a short time. Why is this? Without the body actively maintaining these unstable connections and configurations the chemicals will make neutral bonds that make life impossible. The only viable option is for another life form that is still actively generating and sustaining it's own system, to consume and recycle the tissue that is no longer viable for the original organism that has lost its capacity for maintenance because it is dead.

#47 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 30 March 2009 - 06:55 PM

Why? Have you never heard of the evolutionary arms race? When we look at any quandary, it would be for those proposing a designer. Did the same designer design the complex attack mechanisms of pathogens, and the complex defence mechanisms of the hosts?

View Post


Actually, when you look at any quandary, it shouldn’t indicate what world view you hail from. All scientific endeavors should approach everything as a quandary until you can find the answer for it. If you cannot find the answer for it, it remains a quandary.

And, to answer your question simply, yes, the same designer design the complex attack mechanisms of pathogens, and the complex defense mechanisms of the hosts? By the way, thanks for admitting the complexity of the design...


The evolutionary arms race, unlike the designers, is something real that we can see in action on a small scale. http://www.physorg.c...s103988780.html

View Post


So, you’ve seen one species evolve into another species under a microscope? Can we se the evidence for this…

Although I do appreciate the writer of the article liberally misconstruing the word evolving for the word adapting, because the pathogen remains a pathogen even after it adapts…

“The evolutionary arms race”, sound like some good fiction.

Parasites and hosts, like predators and prey, co-evolve. And the "mechanisms" in bodies evolve in relation to one another.
No, guidance doesn't require intelligence. If a rock rolls down a hill, it is guided by the contours of the hill, no intelligence required.

View Post


The parasites remain parasites, no evolution involved. The same for the host… But you are correct about one thing, for evolution no intelligence is required


Nature selects for function, and that's why you can see complex systems like the leukocytes and the attack mechanisms of their opponents.

View Post


Nature selects? So nature is sentient now? Nature has a mind of it’s own? I would love to discuss this in detail… No, really, I would!

#48 Guest_ajgrovery_*

Guest_ajgrovery_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2009 - 06:13 AM

simple is a relative term

while a bacteria is very complex it isnt as complex as you

when they say simple single cell organism they are saying the organism is simple compared to others

#49 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 01 April 2009 - 06:17 AM

simple is a relative term

while a bacteria is very complex it isnt as complex as you

when they say simple single cell organism they are saying the organism is simple compared to others

View Post


If this is in reply to my post above, the word "simply" isn't in the context you are speaking of... In not, a big Oooooops on my part ;)

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 May 2009 - 10:16 AM

Here is another molecular process that is just fascinating:

WRxsOMenNQM

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 11 May 2009 - 12:45 PM

simple is a relative term
while a bacteria is very complex it isnt as complex as you
when they say simple single cell organism they are saying the organism is simple compared to others

View Post


"Relative" is a relative term when you come to think of it, but your explaination does nothing to detract from the complexity of the cell or its design. Nor does it refute the non-randomness of that design.

#52 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 11 May 2009 - 01:11 PM

It's all a game, anymore. Originally, one could readily discern that all cells must be complex by observing what they do. This is still the case, so we get the apples & oranges play.

A single-celled lifeform does appear to be simpler than those with many cells. No joke. It's only one cell. But the cell itself, because there's just one, has to perform all the jobs. There's no division of labour. If the cell doesn't do it, it doesn't get done.

Multicellular life has specialized cells that only do a few tasks. Plants are different than animals. Because they're immobile, they have to be prepared to handle contingencies on the spot. So in some ways their cells are more complex.

Now this suggests that the more complex the lifeform, the simpler the cells will be. But wait a minute! The cells in animals have to carry the complete blueprint for the whole critter.

So how is complexity to be measured? By workload? By structural intricacy? By information content? The answer to what's most complex will depend on the yardstick, and no group's going to be clearly ahead in all cases.

"Simple cell" is just a misleading term for use on unsuspecting or uninformed targets. 'Simple' isn't just "relative" here; it's subjective.

#53 Peacebone

Peacebone

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 15
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Florida

Posted 18 May 2009 - 11:26 AM

"Simple cell" is just a misleading term for use on unsuspecting or uninformed targets.


I disagree here. The term "simple cell" _can_ be misleading if not taken in the context it is intended for. In the context of a biology class, for instance, a prokaryotic cell can indeed be called simple, as it is not as specialized as eukaryotic cells are. I see no way that this is misleading. And believe me, you don't need to tell those with an interest in biology that cells are complex.

Both you and I believe that all cells are complex, I just believe that cells are _reasonably_ complex and can be explained naturally.

#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 May 2009 - 11:33 AM

I just believe that cells are _reasonably_ complex and can be explained naturally.

View Post

Please explain to us, by demonstrable and empirical data how cells arise naturally.

#55 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 18 May 2009 - 11:38 AM

I disagree here. The term "simple cell" _can_ be misleading if not taken in the context it is intended for. In the context of a biology class, for instance, a prokaryotic cell can indeed be called simple, as it is not as specialized as eukaryotic cells are. I see no way that this is misleading. And believe me, you don't need to tell those with an interest in biology that cells are complex.

Both you and I believe that all cells are complex, I just believe that cells are _reasonably_ complex and can be explained naturally.

View Post


So you can explain how the design, as evidenced in a cell, can come about naturally? Please, start with its origins. How did it originate naturally?

#56 Peacebone

Peacebone

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Age: 15
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Florida

Posted 18 May 2009 - 11:40 AM

Please explain to us, by demonstrable and empirical data how cells arise naturally.


Empirical data or no empirical data, I cannot prove that abiogenesis was the foundation of life. Here seems to be some compelling evidence, though. Link

#57 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 May 2009 - 11:51 AM

Empirical data or no empirical data, I cannot prove that abiogenesis was the foundation of life. Here seems to be some compelling evidence, though. Link

View Post

You should read the rest of this thread and be not too impressed with parlor tricks. RNA world is the Miller/Urey experiment with a twist... basically lot's of cheats and still totally lacking in what it purports to lend an explanation to; namely the spontaneous generation of life.

#58 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 18 May 2009 - 12:00 PM

Empirical data or no empirical data, I cannot prove that abiogenesis was the foundation of life. Here seems to be some compelling evidence, though. Link

View Post


But you said “I just believe that cells are _reasonably_ complex and can be explained naturally”. Adam simply asked for an explanation to back up your assertion.

Though, I do find it amazing that you would link to a site that claims to have prebiotic proof that “nucleotides, could have spontaneously assembled themselves” as your evidence. This site begs the very question against the “Compelling” evidence.

So I ask; where did the nucleotides come from that “supposedly” spontaneously assembled themselves? Where did these nucleotides get the direction to “supposedly” spontaneously assemble themselves? Where is the compelling evidence that pushed this hypothesis along?



I also like the way Dr. Sutherland breathed sentience into chemistry when he assumed: “My assumption is that we are here on this planet as a fundamental consequence of organic chemistry, so it must be chemistry that wants to work.”

#59 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 May 2009 - 12:09 PM

So peacebone,

Do you admit your ideas of how life arose doesn't have to do with empirical data but it is instead an assertion based on a philosophy of naturalism? This isn't a trick question. It would actually gain you some favorable points if you admit the bias that you approach the data with. I personally wouldn't judge you, I have biases too. I look at the world Christianly.

#60 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 18 May 2009 - 12:42 PM

Inside every single living cell in your body you have little protein motors called kinesin which transport organelles along micro tubule tracks. As you watch these clips keep in mind that the ordinary living cell in the human body, like the common epithelial type cells which multiple and die rapidly, have this process occurring numerous times right now in your body per every cell. The common epithelial cell's size is about the size that would allow 40 to be stacked side by side stretching across the diameter of a period at the end of a sentence:

686qX5yzksU

http://pubs.acs.org/...or/chemEng.html

That big sack being dragged along by the kinesin is a vesicle which are basically bags of stuff, often enzymes, the cell needs to move from one side to another.  :D

View Post



Your video posts are awesome. Thank you for sharing.

Question: Is Kinesin evolution or is it put into the abiogenesis deck by evolutionist? Is it something they feel is fair game to discuss or taken as a given.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users