Jump to content


Photo

A "simple Cell"?


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 08 March 2009 - 12:10 PM

I think it's still fair enough to describe a particular cell as 'simple' today in a relative sense to perhaps another, more complex cell or groups of cells.......

View Post

Do you agree that the pseudoscience that Darwin and others prescribed to, things like protoplasm and Junk DNA of late has been sufficiently falsified to say their concepts of simple biological matter have been totally demolished, scientifically?

#22 RobotArchie

RobotArchie

    Junior Member

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

Posted 08 March 2009 - 04:12 PM

Do you agree that the pseudoscience that Darwin and others prescribed to, things like protoplasm and Junk DNA of late has been sufficiently falsified to say their concepts of simple biological matter have been totally demolished, scientifically?

View Post



HI! :)

I'm pretty sure that Darwin didn't have any opinion on junk DNA for the simple reason that DNA wasn't known about in Darwin's lifetime...... where do you get these ideas from?

#23 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 08 March 2009 - 05:44 PM

I'm pretty sure that Darwin didn't have any opinion on junk DNA for the simple reason that DNA wasn't known about in Darwin's lifetime...... where do you get these ideas from?

View Post


That's what the - "of late" part was there for... ;)

Oh and welcome to the boards!

#24 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 08 March 2009 - 08:01 PM

With regard to the OP, I think I'd be inclined to cut Mr Darwin and the scientists of their time just a wee bit of slack in their use of the word 'simple'....... they *simply* didn't have the technical apparatus which would give them the ability to look deeper into the insides of cells to see the true complexity therein.......

View Post

It never took any degree of genius to understand that the capacity of cells to do the things they do is utterly incompatible with simplicity. The assumption that a cell was a 'simple' thing (if anyone ever actually made it rather than simply lying outright) has never been consistent with the evidence.

I think it's still fair enough to describe a particular cell as 'simple' today in a relative sense to perhaps another, more complex cell or groups of cells.......

Fair to hide behind ignorance, or fair to assume one's audience is ignorant? No cell is known to be any simpler than another. No human has demonstrated himself knowledgeable enough to make the evaluation.

#25 Guest_Daemon77_*

Guest_Daemon77_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 March 2009 - 08:29 PM

It never took any degree of genius to understand that the capacity of cells to do the things they do is utterly incompatible with simplicity. The assumption that a cell was a 'simple' thing (if anyone ever actually made it rather than simply lying outright) has never been consistent with the evidence.

Fair to hide behind ignorance, or fair to assume one's audience is ignorant? No cell is known to be any simpler than another. No human has demonstrated himself knowledgeable enough to make the evaluation.

View Post


You have failed to understand the concept that was given to you by Robot, and have displayed scientific ignorance on your part in your second paragraph.

Believe it or not there was a time in human history when we haven't discovered the cell yet. And when we did there was no evidence to contradict the idea that the cell was simple, this would be Darwin's generation. As technology got more advanced we were able to look at the cell with more and more magnification and resolution. And of course, now we understand how incredibly complex a cell is, but it is important to understand that Darwin had no way of knowing how complex a cell was.

Now on to the scientific ignorance. There are cells that are more complex than others. When you have the time look up Prokaryote cells and Eukaryote cells.
In brief Eukaryote cells are much more complex than Prokaryote cells. They have membrane bound organelles which Prokaryotes do not, plus many, many more organelles. Eukaryotes have a nucleus and a nucleolus where Prokaryotes have only a nucleoid which is much simpler. All in all Prokaryotes are much simpler than Eukaryotes.

#26 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 March 2009 - 08:39 PM

You have failed to understand the concept that was given to you by Robot, and have displayed scientific ignorance on your part in your second paragraph.

Believe it or not there was a time in human history when we haven't discovered the cell yet. And when we did there was no evidence to contradict the idea that the cell was simple, this would be Darwin's generation. As technology got more advanced we were able to look at the cell with more and more magnification and resolution. And of course, now we understand how incredibly complex a cell is, but it is important to understand that Darwin had no way of knowing how complex a cell was.

Now on to the scientific ignorance. There are cells that are more complex than others. When you have the time look up Prokaryote cells and Eukaryote cells.
In brief Eukaryote cells are much more complex than Prokaryote cells. They have membrane bound organelles which Prokaryotes do not, plus many, many more organelles. Eukaryotes have a nucleus and a nucleolus where Prokaryotes have only a nucleoid which is much simpler. All in all Prokaryotes are much simpler than Eukaryotes.

View Post


Hold on there sparky, CTD understands this subject far more than you or Robot has shown throughout this thread.

So far, evolutionist have failed to show any reliable evidence that these bacteria have evolved.

And what point are you trying to make with Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes, I mean we all know they exist, but I see them both as complex.

Let me ask you this... If the Prokaryote is so simple, why don't you just go make one if you know so much about it.

#27 Guest_Daemon77_*

Guest_Daemon77_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 March 2009 - 10:24 PM

Hold on there sparky, CTD understands this subject far more than you or Robot has shown throughout this thread.

So far, evolutionist have failed to show any reliable evidence that these bacteria have evolved.

And what point are you trying to make with Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes, I mean we all know they exist, but I see them both as complex. 

Let me ask you this... If the Prokaryote is so simple, why don't you just go make one if you know so much about it.

View Post


I assure you that I know much more than what I have been able to reveal throught this thread. I would be writing for days if I told you everything I knew about evolution. CTD showed scientific ignorance by stating that no cell is less complex than another. And Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes is a prime example to show how different cells can be and that some cells are more complex than others. When one makes this elementry mistake it is questionable at the least to say that this person knows what they are doing when it comes to biology in general let alone evolution. In the scientific community one would ask for the others credentials at that point.

And if you truly believe that Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes are the same complexity read a biology 101 textbook. And just because Prokaryotes are more simple doesn't mean they are simple. More simple is a relative term.

#28 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 08 March 2009 - 11:17 PM

I assure you that I know much more than what I have been able to reveal throught this thread. I would be writing for days if I told you everything I knew about evolution. CTD showed scientific ignorance by stating that no cell is less complex than another. And Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes is a prime example to show how different cells can be and that some cells are more complex than others. When one makes this elementry mistake it is questionable at the least to say that this person knows what they are doing when it comes to biology in general let alone evolution. In the scientific community one would ask for the others credentials at that point.

And if you truly believe that Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes are the same complexity read a biology 101 textbook. And just because Prokaryotes are more simple doesn't mean they are simple. More simple is a relative term.

View Post

I didn't say no cell is more complex or less complex than another. I said nobody knows.

And affixing labels doesn't prove jack. Nobody knows even 1/10 of what goes on inside any cell, even those that have been studied the most. Your argument targets those who are ignorant about how much is and isn't known.

And if you know so all-fired much about evolution, there are some outstanding questions hereabouts. Here is but one example:

http://www.evolution...topic=1976&st=0

And I've been waiting even longer for legitimate examples of 'natural selection' in this thread.
http://www.evolution...topic=1655&st=0

Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate some knowledge?

#29 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 08 March 2009 - 11:34 PM

As for the time when it's alleged people didn't know enough to understand a cell is complex, all they had to do is look at what cells do: cells form tissues, which form organs, which form life. Life is remarkably and obviously complex on any scale which one chooses to study it.

Was Darwin ignorant of the eye, the ear, the foot, or the thumb? Did nobody tell him cells build these things? The word 'simple' doesn't come to mind, if one honestly considers the matter for even a few seconds. 'Wonderful', 'splendid', 'amazing', and 'fascinating' come to mind - not 'simple'.

There was a time in my life when I didn't know what DNA was. I had no clue what was contained inside a cell. Yet I knew whatever it was performed miracles. I cut Darwin and his atheist promoters no slack on this one. They knew very well they were peddling bunk.

#30 Guest_Daemon77_*

Guest_Daemon77_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 March 2009 - 12:09 AM

I didn't say no cell is more complex or less complex than another. I said nobody knows.

And affixing labels doesn't prove jack. Nobody knows even 1/10 of what goes on inside any cell, even those that have been studied the most. Your argument targets those who are ignorant about how much is and isn't known.

Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate some knowledge?

View Post


Yes lets demonstrate a tiny bit of knowledge here shall we. The cell is very complex as you obviously know, but we do know very well what happens inside a cell. The first thing I would point out would be mitosis and meiosis, we cannot neglect the basics now can we. These processes take place inside the cell, and we know what happens in each processes in detail. If you wish I can tell you in a later post as well as all the other things I will mention. We also know what cells are made up of, what their membrane is made up of, if they have a cell wall we know what that is made up of, we know the chemical reactions that take place within the cell wall, we know how cells communicate with one another. We know how cells get their energy from ATP from both aerobic and anaerobic respiration, we know how the cell utilizes the ATP to form ADP to get the energy released. We know how cells transport material inside the cell as well as to outside the cell. We know the organelles within the cell, we know how cells replicate their own DNA, how the cell transcribes DNA to RNA and translates it to proteins. We know the structure of DNA and RNA, both parts of the cell, and there are even some papers out that go into on how organelles such as the mitochondria were once separate organisms and the two formed a symbiotic relation that eventually lead to the fusion of the two to create one organism.

As you can imagine this is only the beginning of what scientists really know about what goes on inside a cell. Scientists do know that some cells are more complex than others, this is seen in the differences between Prokaryotic cells and Eukaryotic cells. Now I deffer to your grand wisdom of the scientific fields, even though it seems you do not know what a scientific theory is, and ask: Where does it say in any science textbook or peer-reviewed journal that is up to date and reputable, that we don't know if some cells are more complex than others because we do not know what happens inside the cell?

#31 Guest_Daemon77_*

Guest_Daemon77_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 March 2009 - 12:17 AM

CTD

I am curious as to why you keep on bringing up atheism when talking about evolution. Darwin was not an atheist, and the majority of those who believe in evolution are not atheists. Pope John Paul II had no problem with evolution, and thousands of other well trained biblical scholars and preachers of the faith have signed the clergy letter project where they say that evolution and Christianity can be reconciled and it is possible and even encouraged to accept both as truth.

#32 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 - 04:57 AM

Is this even an argument???

View Post

Absolutely! The entire concept of abiogenesis relies on the concept of a simple cell. There is no such thing. The evidence suggests that there was never such a thing. The evidince is empirically clear that all life comes from life. The "simplest" form of life is a cell. And it is vastly complex.

We should fight for this terminology to be removed from real science.

#33 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 - 05:07 AM

With regard to the OP, I think I'd be inclined to cut Mr Darwin and the scientists of their time just a wee bit of slack in their use of the word 'simple'....... they *simply* didn't have the technical apparatus which would give them the ability to look deeper into the insides of cells to see the true complexity therein.......

I think it's still fair enough to describe a particular cell as 'simple' today in a relative sense to perhaps another, more complex cell or groups of cells.......

View Post


I don't have any problem with cutting Darwin some slack for his ignorance. We are all ignorant of many facts regarding this great creation of God.

Certainly there are cells that are more complex than others. So why don't scientists use that terminology. LESS COMPLEX This is factual and accurate. Simple is neither factual nor accurate. It is only atheistic bias that causes the continued use of the term "simple" or "simpler" in regards to a cell. It is just plain erroneous. And it is a part of brainwashing.

#34 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 - 05:55 AM

Now on to the scientific ignorance. There are cells that are more complex than others. When you have the time look up Prokaryote cells and Eukaryote cells.
In brief Eukaryote cells are much more complex than Prokaryote cells. They have membrane bound organelles which Prokaryotes do not, plus many, many more organelles. Eukaryotes have a nucleus and a nucleolus where Prokaryotes have only a nucleoid which is much simpler. All in all Prokaryotes are much simpler than Eukaryotes.

View Post


Now since you just invoked the "scientific ignorance" claim, lets see how you meet your own standard.

You say: "Eukaryotes have a nucleus and a nucleolus where Prokaryotes have only a nucleoid which is much simpler. "

This is not true. It is brainwashing. You can have a simple thing and you can have a simpler thing. Both are simple.

You can have a complex thing and a less complex thing. Both are complex. A less complex thing is not simpler. This is an unscientific term. It displays ignorance of facts and language.

Then you say: "All in all Prokaryotes are much simpler than Eukaryotes."

I say no. Prokaryotes are complex. You stated so above. Secondly, upon what design criteria do you or any scientist define "simpleness".

Prokaryotes also have many complex features that Eukaryotes. Is a nucleous more complex than a flagellum?

#35 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 - 06:19 AM

I assure you that I know much more than what I have been able to reveal throught this thread. I would be writing for days if I told you everything I knew about evolution. CTD showed scientific ignorance by stating that no cell is less complex than another. And Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes is a prime example to show how different cells can be and that some cells are more complex than others. When one makes this elementry mistake it is questionable at the least to say that this person knows what they are doing when it comes to biology in general let alone evolution. In the scientific community one would ask for the others credentials at that point.

And if you truly believe that Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes are the same complexity read a biology 101 textbook. And just because Prokaryotes are more simple doesn't mean they are simple. More simple is a relative term.

View Post


Oh we can't wait until you make your full revelation! ;)

At the age of 19 I thought I knew it all also. You should be skeptical as a young theistic evolutionist. Don't you have any skepticism about your Biology 101 book?

Down syndome children are unfortunately called "simple." In reality they are much more complex than you.

You probably think that Prokaryotes don't have organelles don't you. Dis your Biology 101 book teach you that also. Well it was wrong. Science article

Then you say: "And just because Prokaryotes are more simple doesn't mean they are simple. More simple is a relative term."

:D :) :lol: You just called both Eukaryotes simple, and Prokaryotes more simple. It's a biological lie. You can learn from this if you want. Or you can live in your own ignorance. More complex and less complex are perfectly fine terms. Simple and simpler in regards to cells is just a mind trick of the language. It is a mind trick that is necessarry to give credance to evolutionary theory. It makes you believe that Eukaryotes are "simpler" less "evolved" organisms.

When you really learn some Biology, you will be amazed at how unbelievably complex Prokaryotes really are. The term "simple" is just a way of manipulating your "young mind full of mush".

#36 NowhereMan

NowhereMan

    Junior Member

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

Posted 09 March 2009 - 06:21 AM

Excellent links Adam. But they posit more quandaries for the evolutionists!


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?

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


If all of the mechanisms (and there are many) our bodies require to survive were not in place already (from the beginning), how did the body survive? Why was life not snuffed out in its infancy?


Parasites and hosts, like predators and prey, co-evolve. And the "mechanisms" in bodies evolve in relation to one another.

If evolution has the ability to do all the things evolutionists claim, how can it not be a metaphysical life-force? Guidance requires intelligence, does it not?

View Post


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.

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

#37 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 - 07:19 AM

CTD

I am curious as to why you keep on bringing up atheism when talking about evolution. Darwin was not an atheist, and the majority of those who believe in evolution are not atheists. Pope John Paul II had no problem with evolution, and thousands of other well trained biblical scholars and preachers of the faith have signed the clergy letter project where they say that evolution and Christianity can be reconciled and it is possible and even encouraged to accept both as truth.

View Post


Well while we are demonstrating our vast knowledge base ;) Maybe we should understand exactly what science and naturalism is all about.

Metaphysical naturalism is the philosophy that all phenomena in the universe have a nautural cause. This is the fundamental philosophical assumption within science and the scientific method. This means by assumption there is no supernatural cause. That is an atheistic philosophy by definition. If you don't think so, here is the Websters 1828 definition of nature:

1. In a general sense, whatever is made or produced; a word that comprehends all the works of God; the universe. Of a phoenix we say, there is no such thing in nature.

And look through nature up to natures God.

2. By a metonymy of the effect for the cause, nature is used for the agent, creator, author, producer of things, or for the powers that produce them. By the expression, trees and fossils are produced by nature, we mean, they are formed or produced by certain inherent powers in matter, or we mean that they are produced by God, the Creator, the Author of whatever is made or produced. The opinion that things are produced by inherent powers of matter, independent of a supreme intelligent author, is atheism. But generally men mean by nature, thus used, the Author of created things, or the operation of his power.



Darwin was a naturalist and an atheist. Science by todays definitions is atheistic.

Atheism is the absence or rejection of belief in deities, or the explicit view that there are no deities.[1][2][3][4]

Many atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Many atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[5] and naturalism,[6], Atheism


Now your argument (argumentum ad populum) about John Paull II (et. al) is not only inaccurate it is fallacious. You may want to learn about logical fallacies as well. Especially how they are supposed to be un scientific.

#38 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 March 2009 - 07:38 AM

I assure you that I know much more than what I have been able to reveal throught this thread. I would be writing for days if I told you everything I knew about evolution. CTD showed scientific ignorance by stating that no cell is less complex than another. And Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes is a prime example to show how different cells can be and that some cells are more complex than others. When one makes this elementry mistake it is questionable at the least to say that this person knows what they are doing when it comes to biology in general let alone evolution. In the scientific community one would ask for the others credentials at that point.

And if you truly believe that Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes are the same complexity read a biology 101 textbook. And just because Prokaryotes are more simple doesn't mean they are simple. More simple is a relative term.

View Post


And you think you are the only one who can write for days about evolution?? I can tell you evolution and biology is one of my best subjects.

Never once did I say that Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes have the same complexity. Never once, and don't point your fingers and say I did.

I said they are more complex than you think, and If you truly think they are so simple then go find a lab, and produce some using your scientific skills.

#39 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 - 07:43 AM

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


Yes to your last question.

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 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?

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


Guidance doesn't require intelligence ;) :D :) 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.


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


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!

#40 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 09 March 2009 - 08:10 AM

Yes lets demonstrate a tiny bit of knowledge here shall we. The cell is very complex as you obviously know, but we do know very well what happens inside a cell.

Untrue.

The vast majority of DNA was until recently classified as "junk". They've barely begun to investigate what it does.

The first thing I would point out would be mitosis and meiosis, we cannot neglect the basics now can we.

I am not impressed that you have learned to include these terms. Given the nature of our communication, we can't even verify that you know how to spell them. As you don't discuss them at all, I don't see much point in bringing them up. I would've expected you to assert that one is somehow simpler than the other, at the very least.

These processes take place inside the cell, and we know what happens in each processes in detail. If you wish I can tell you in a later post as well as all the other things I will mention. We also know what cells are made up of, what their membrane is made up of, if they have a cell wall we know what that is made up of, we know the chemical reactions that take place within the cell wall, we know how cells communicate with one another. We know how cells get their energy from ATP from both aerobic and anaerobic respiration, we know how the cell utilizes the ATP to form ADP to get the energy released. We know how cells transport material inside the cell as well as to outside the cell. We know the organelles within the cell, we know how cells replicate their own DNA, how the cell transcribes DNA to RNA and translates it to proteins. We know the structure of DNA and RNA, both parts of the cell, and there are even some papers out that go into on how organelles such as the mitochondria were once separate organisms and the two formed a symbiotic relation that eventually lead to the fusion of the two to create one organism.

Knowing that cells do things isn't the same as knowing how they do them. I know that caterpillars become butterflies, but I don't know how the transformation is accomplished.

As you can imagine this is only the beginning of what scientists really know about what goes on inside a cell. Scientists do know that some cells are more complex than others, this is seen in the differences between Prokaryotic cells and Eukaryotic cells. Now I deffer to your grand wisdom of the scientific fields, even though it seems you do not know what a scientific theory is, and ask: Where does it say in any science textbook or peer-reviewed journal that is up to date and reputable, that we don't know if some cells are more complex than others because we do not know what happens inside the cell?

View Post

Lacking a nucleus does not indicate simplicity. By that standard, an old-time telephone switchboard is more complex than the internet.

Epulopiscium fishelsoni, called "Epulos" for short, live on a regular schedule and produce 2 to (sources say as many as 12, but most are lower - 6 avg.) offspring. They also have tens of thousands of back-up copies of their DNA. Would you care to explain what use they make of all those spare copies of DNA? Do you assume it's all unused junk?
http://people.ku.edu...own/babies.html
http://www.cals.corn...t-lab/intro.cfm
http://twistedbacter...ots-of-dna.html
http://www.accessexc...C/ST/st12bg.php

You list quite a few things that cells do. Your list is far from complete. Would you care to name any simple device that does half so much? A quarter? An eighth?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users