Quantcast
How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

Forums - General Discussion - How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

bimmylee said:

Are these quotes from the Bible, from which you have removed all context, somehow supposed to support your position? You don't even explain where in the Bible they are from, or by whom they are written, or under what circumstances. Fail.

"The very monitor you use to read this on is made from the same knowledge that says the world is billions of years old." I never said that it wasn't. I'm an Old Earth Creationist, but you didn't care enough to ask and wrongly assumed otherwise. Fail.

Your comment involving Muslims is puzzling. I am not Muslim. Am I supposed to account for them or something, just because I believe that an intelligent creator exists? The lumping together of different groups of theists (and I use that term loosely here) is both ignorant and unfounded. Fail.

"There is a plethora of evidence for evolution, and there is absolutely none for intelligent design." You have made it clear that you aren't interested in healthy debate. It's easy to tell by your word usage following that sentence that you refuse to be convinced to the contrary, regardless of what anyone really says to you. That being said, I will save myself the trouble of continuing this debate. Good job.

You believe in a talking snake.  Fail.

Copy and paste will show you those Bible verses in less than two seconds, I dont have to hold your hand here.  Fail.

Christian Fundamentalists and Muslim Fundamentalists that resist progress fail.  Fail.

Until you can actually present any evidence for Intelligent Design, I get to denounce it as ridiculous, just as I get to say that flying elephants are ridiculous because I haven't seen any evidence for them either.



Around the Network
bimmylee said:

@Scoobes

You automatically get a million respect points for not believing an ounce of the bull that is "The Da Vinci Code." Well done! Your argument regarding Christianity and politics is interesting; I would very much like to know where you get your information for such a position. Also, don't forget that the Bible is actually a compilation of many books by many authors, and its historical accuracy amongst other ancient texts is second to none... but that is an entirely different argument.

@Both of you, in regards to Mitochondria

Firstly, I sincerely appreciate your mentioning of Endosymbiotic Theory in the first place, as I had never heard of it previously. As for why Mitochondria have to be able to live on their own, it's because that's the only way you could ever get conclusive proof from this theory. If they did at one time, it would have been millions of years ago, and that's the problem. It can't be replicated. This is not  to say that it is a useless theory; clearly these similarities are real, and I actually find them quite interesting myself. All I meant to say is that it is not the be-all end-all theory, which is why I still hold that macro-evolution is no more defensible than Intelligent Design.

I'm at Uni so I don't have the books available to quote, but I'll try and dig them out for you. Some of the information is also from documentries I've watched (which is where the archaelogist/priest came in) so I'm not sure if I'll be able to dig up what the programmes were, but I'll try. To be fair to Dan Brown, I believe he used some of my sources for background info on his books, but then went into overdrive for the sake of his fictional story. The odd titbit of info may have some vague bearing in reality, but the vast majority is dross. My partner did a unit of Religious studies as part of her degree which was also taught by a priest so I'll ask her for some info as well.

Give me a few days, if you haven't heard anything then PM me a reminder as I'm pretty busy at uni at the moment.



bimmylee said:
Scoobes said:
bimmylee said:
ManusJustus said:
bimmylee said:

Endosymbiotic theory is far from foolproof.

There is no way for Mitochondria to live outside of the cell. There is also no way to prove that they ever did. Stating similarities proves nothing. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim; in this case, it is you with the claim that Mitochondria were once their own cells. It is impossible to prove this, because there is no record of it ever happening; if you actually tried to test it, you would lose every time.

If you have to make yourself feel better with cowardly attacks on one's level of education, of which you know nothing, then so be it. How big of you.

A talking donkey told me it doesnt in a 2000+ year old book.

VS

Evidence that mitochondria and plastids arose from ancient endosymbiosis of bacteria is as follows.

  • New mitochondria and plastids are formed only through a process similar to binary fission. In some algae, such as Euglena, the plastids can be destroyed by certain chemicals or prolonged absence of light without otherwise affecting the cell. In such a case, the plastids will not regenerate.
  • They are surrounded by two or more membranes, and the innermost of these shows differences in composition from the other membranes of the cell. The composition is like that of a prokaryotic cell membrane.
  • Both mitochondria and plastids contain DNA that is different from that of the cell nucleus and that is similar to that of bacteria (in being circular in shape and in its size).
  • DNA sequence analysis and phylogenetic estimates suggests that nuclear DNA contains genes that probably came from plastids.
  • These organelles' ribosomes are like those found in bacteria (70s).
  • Proteins of organelle origin, like those of bacteria, use N-formylmethionine as the initiating amino acid.
  • Much of the internal structure and biochemistry of plastids, for instance the presence of thylakoids and particular chlorophylls, is very similar to that of cyanobacteria. Phylogenetic estimates constructed with bacteria, plastids, and eukaryotic genomes also suggest that plastids are most closely related to cyanobacteria.
  • Mitochondria have several enzymes and transport systems similar to those of prokaryotes.
  • Some proteins encoded in the nucleus are transported to the organelle, and both mitochondria and plastids have small genomes compared to bacteria. This is consistent with an increased dependence on the eukaryotic host after forming an endosymbiosis. Most genes on the organellar genomes have been lost or moved to the nucleus. Most genes needed for mitochondrial and plastid function are located in the nucleus. Many originate from the bacterial endosymbiont.
  • Plastids are present in very different groups of protists, some of which are closely related to forms lacking plastids. This suggests that if chloroplasts originated de novo, they did so multiple times, in which case their close similarity to each other is difficult to explain.
  • Many of these protists contain "secondary" plastids that have been acquired from other plastid-containing eukaryotes, not from cyanobacteria directly.
  • Among the eukaryotes that acquired their plastids directly from bacteria (known as Primoplantae), the glaucophyte algae have chloroplasts that strongly resemble cyanobacteria. In particular, they have a peptidoglycan cell wall between their two membranes.
  • Mitochondria and plastids are just about the same size as bacteria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory

I almost feel like you're not paying attention on purpose.

 

There has NEVER been a recorded instance of a Mitochondria living on their own, as their own cell. Even IF they were once free-living bacteria, they would be expected to exhibit some vestigial remnants of their former condition... of which they have none. Notice how the word "similar" is so prevalent in this theory. It's the only thing it has to go by. Not actual proof. Sorry.

Also:

"A talking donkey told me it doesnt in a 2000+ year old book." Are you comparing Endosymbiotic Theory to some obscure children's book written by Julius Caesar? Because I know you're not talking about the Bible. Interesting.

Actually, I think he was. And it was (at least the New Testament) written... well edited, by the Eastern Roman Emperor Constantine (Not ole' Julius Caesar). Basically he needed to unify religion in Eastern Rome and took all the gospels that refered to Jesus' divinity and took out everything else and made them heretical. Even Mary Magdalene supposedly had a gospel according to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not to mention that Christmas was actually moved from the date of Christ's birth to coincide with the Winter Solstice to make it easier for Pagans to convert to the new religion. Constantine was also a bit of a nut-bar, he buried himself with 12 other tombs believeing himself to be the 13th disciple of Christ. Anyway, I've gone off topic and rambled, but one has to wonder how Christianity would have turned out without him.

Basically, in regards to the all the evidence presented, logic dictates that the most likely scenario is the endosymbiotic theory. To the bolded, half the things on that list are remnants of their former condition so I have no idea what you're on about. Idon't know what you contitute as "proof". You might as well say gravity doesn't exist because we can't see it, even though the effects are obvious.

"Well-edited by Constantine?" Please tell me you don't believe fools like Dan Brown; Brown says that Emperor Constantine imposed a whole new interpretation on Christianity at the Council of Nicea in 325. That is, he decreed belief in Jesus' divinity and suppressed all evidence of his humanity. This would mean Christianity won the religious competition in the Roman Empire by an exercise of power rather than by any attraction it exerted. In actual historical fact, the Church had won that competition long before that time, before it had any power, when it was still under sporadic persecution. If a historian were cynical, you would say Constantine chose Christianity because it had already won and he wanted to back a winner.

But of course, some people apparently like to draw their historical arguments from works of fiction, such as "The Da Vinci Code." Anyways...

I admit, I made a mistake. Some of the items on the list would indeed appear to be vestigial remnants. I overlooked it. HOWEVER, you cannot equate such a theory to gravity, which can be easily TESTED, and its effects are visible and obvious. Unless you can explain how the Scientific Method can be used to test Endosymbiotic Theory (which would be interesting), then no, there is no proof. It is more of an educated guess than anything else.


sorry but dont go around saying that (highlighted sentnce) when you have no proof that jesus perfromed any miracles or that there is in fact a god.Quite frankly i dont htink your in a postion to assert the Bible above other books,especailly as it has not been proven as true.



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"