Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Barcs

Now as for evolution I personally do no accept that Human's came from chimp's

First of all MAN created god not the other way and lots of them Names of god(s)

Also as this is already been stated we have not descended from chimps and nowhere does it say that unless religious people say it!!!

An idiots guide to the APE family tree

Hope that is simple enough to understand

In a previous post there was a paper that identified similarities between albumen proteins in Gorillas and Humans and from that they suggested that a common ancestor with Gorillas @ 5 million years ago. It would appear that your chart of relationships seems to need revision.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Barcs

Now as for evolution I personally do no accept that Human's came from chimp's

First of all MAN created god not the other way and lots of them Names of god(s)

Also as this is already been stated we have not descended from chimps and nowhere does it say that unless religious people say it!!!

An idiots guide to the APE family tree

Hope that is simple enough to understand

In a previous post there was a paper that identified similarities between albumen proteins in Gorillas and Humans and from that they suggested that a common ancestor with Gorillas @ 5 million years ago. It would appear that your chart of relationships seems to need revision.

Well if you LOOK at the family tree there is a common ancestor for both called HOMININAE that could be the reason could it not.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Barcs

Now as for evolution I personally do no accept that Human's came from chimp's

First of all MAN created god not the other way and lots of them Names of god(s)

Also as this is already been stated we have not descended from chimps and nowhere does it say that unless religious people say it!!!

An idiots guide to the APE family tree

Hope that is simple enough to understand

In a previous post there was a paper that identified similarities between albumen proteins in Gorillas and Humans and from that they suggested that a common ancestor with Gorillas @ 5 million years ago. It would appear that your chart of relationships seems to need revision.

Well if you LOOK at the family tree there is a common ancestor for both called HOMININAE that could be the reason could it not.

They suggested that this occurred much more recently than the common ancestor with Chimpanzees (@ 50 million years ago).

My reading of the paper is that there the data spoke of the similarities between albumen proteins and said nothing about a common ancestor. The common ancestor bit was a conclusion drawn by the authors of the paper. While one explanation of the data may be a common ancestor, it could also be that there were simply similarities and no common ancestor.

It would seem that some peers are happy enough with papers that mislead through omission of conclusions that might buck the popular paradigm.

Now here is the point, at no point did I deny evolution as a possible avenue however I take particular exception to people whom claim a theory is a fact, most supporting evidence is third hand and based entirely on interpretation, there have been double standards applied for some time through this perversion of the scientific standards which interprets a theory as a fact simply on the basis of it being established and accepted, peer pressure and social opinion are in part to blame for this but a scientist whom does not keep an open mind is not unbiased scientist and so is practicing with a set of pre concieved notion's of what the result should be.
This lead's to any Contradictory evidence beind put too far more rigorous interpretation than the Accepted evidence which happens to fit the profile of the expected result and this leads inneviteble to more potential of flawed hypothesis which no matter how well they may be accepted lack therefore true validity as long as this level of double standard is both practiced and accepted withing the scientific community.
Now as for my little spanner about the nephilim it was primarily to draw a point and not something I would not posit as a fact or even my own belief, however it remains as valid an interpretation of the limited data on that subject that I have as any other I have seen though admittedly it is conjecture and nothing more.

The stance that the science is solid is a mistake in that it is showing a determined and biased belief that the science is correct which procludes any potential that it may be flawed (Elevating to to a belief system) when in fact most evolutionary scientists themselves though they will state there belief in the science would admit it to be flawed but then they are researching it to try to fix those flaws and construct a coherant model that agree's with the basic theory, a theory that is itself changable, like I pointed out genetic adaptation was not part of Darwins model, he never even knew about genetic's and his model was that animals could spontaneously adapt over time to fit eco system niches as you know, that is not the case though animals that are adaptable do have a higher survivability and are not tied to one food source or ecological niche.

A scientist whom was wanting to defent his commitment to evolutionary principles would state the following.
His acceptance and personal belief that the model was correct or valid.
He would not treat it as a solid unchangable fixed fact of reality as he is a scientists and accepts that his own belief must be open to change in the face of any new and contradtory criteria.

I know of no evidence to disprove the theory itself though it as a theory has been used as a tool to try to deny religions beliefs when in fact it does not disprove them.
There have over time been reports of human remains that do not fit the accepted time line of norman anthropology which may mean that the sub branch that shelters under the cloak of evolutionism that is specific to the human race is flawed.
It is indeed in this field more than any other that evidence contradictory to the accepted age of humanity is most attacked and treated with a double standard, this evidence weather skeletal remains, imprint's or artifact's is universally derided while similar but accepted evidence is not nearly treated in this fashion but is actually accepted because it fit's in the right place for the anthropological theory to not want to test it too closely.

You know in the mahabarata of india there are tales of kings over 500.000 years old and they used an army or intelligent giant apes to build a mythical bridge between india and sri lanka.

You know of the rumor that since the late 1800s something rotten has taken root at the smithsonian institute and indeed there has been a hidden agenda among some faction to conceal evidence that did not fit the percieved or accepted criteria.

www.6000years.org...

This as you can point out and rightly so does not disprove Evolution as a valid theory that it remains however it also does appear to show that the evolutionary model for the human race is not correct.

Stories such as these are not isolated or even wrong, they are repeated time and time again, some may be mere urban legend, some of the items may have been sold off to private collectors by corrupt staff but if the story of the artifacts being dumped into deep water is true then the culprit's have commited a massive fraud against the human race.

One thing a scientist seeks above all else is the truth, not a belief but the truth.

It is page 14 so forgive me if I missed it as I was skimming over.


So has anyone provided any evidence of animal species simply magic wanded "poofed" into existence?

originally posted by: peter vlar

By everyone I have to assume you mean all the people who don't differentiate between the scientific definition of fact and theory versus a laypersons definition of those two terms.

We're all laypersons here.
I think the real scientists are in the lab creating evolution in a petri-dish.

originally posted by: WASTYT

We're all laypersons here.

Not true. There are several people posting in this thread who work in science or science related fields or who have a degree in a related field of study.

I think the real scientists are in the lab creating evolution in a petri-dish.

You don't create evolution. It happens on its own.

a reply to: peter vlar

No it can happen under influence (there fore can all evolution be regarded as influenced change), selective breeding, genetic manipulation etc.
The concept however that all species arose from common ancestry is however radically different in that we regardless of mechanism whether evolution was a factor or not regard an intelligence as our ancestral cause where as the atheist regard it as a post protoplasmic soup (I am being kind by missing out the soup stage) ameoba like single celled organism that eventually learned to swim, fly, play tennis and type on a computer.
This is not about how many qualifications or what doctorates you may have as this is a fundemental principle of belief and I would point out that there are creationists no doubt more highly qualified than anyone currently posting on this thread.

Here is the point for all of us believers and you none believers, if God is there and he cares about us do you think it matters to him if we evolved or were created or would he care anyway.

What about soul.
Now I can not define it but here is a pseudo scientific idea to mull over as since the whole question has turned into a Evolutionist versis Not bothered Creationist argument it is worth looking at possible other factor's.

Now take the concept of inductance, this is a very real mechanical magnetic force by which our modern world generates electricty, through magnatic and to a much lesser level thermal differential (though now we also have widely used solar which as you know use photonic absorbption to induce electrons to enter less stable higher orbital in order to shed the excess energy and produce a potential difference in the solar array thereby creating a viable emf, but I digress back to the analogy.

Inductance and the related sympathetic resonance are two interesting phenomena as a analogy though they are linear and what I am talking about in this next secion is quite different to the way that they work and I doubt we have a technology yet to measure it but perhaps in some quantum laboratory somewhere.

Now given the concept that if parallel reality is a reality of the structure of the universe then.

Beside you right now in a perhaps near infinite (now there is no such thing as near infinite as a mathematician would point out but you catch the rough meaning) there are OTHER YOU (though are they genuinely seperate from you) doing the same thing in the same place but something has caused that reality to diverge in which these other you exist, this divergence however is not necessarily clean and cut and perhaps these realitys phase in and out of synchronization and perhaps eventually remerge in many cases.

Now it has been a factor of quantum research for some time since Schroedingers cat in the box analogy that obsevation and perhaps consciousness effect the state or reality around them.

So is this mechanism singular to a being in one single reality or is it an effect of a consciousness that spans multiple parallel realitys without being aware that it is doing so and therefore do we each genuinely inhabit a unique reality all of our own.

To draw an analogy, a man dies in one reality but in the close phasing reality's that are out of sync and in sync as well the realitys that are not phased but are phased with them independantly the man lives.

Does that multi reality spanning (At right angles to the flow of time but not necessarily in synchronization to it) consciousness then still exist after the death of one corporeal host.

Does it gravitate to the living man in parallel or simply stop, or since it itself may continue to exist as a force on that structure by which it effected reality when corporeal does it instead remain as a constant self resonating effect that grows or stays constant with the structure of multy phasing reality's in or on a dimensional level we can not know as physical being's but may as conscious being's and if so would this in any way effect your idea about the structure of your own reality.

A photon of light exists as both a wave and a particle and an experiment called the apperture slit test poses interesting problems unless it can exist in muliple realitys at once, so it is a wave but in each singular reality appears as a particle when observed.

Now for some light relief.
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Barcs

No it is a scientific theory, based on observation and interpretation of the observed,

Nope. Scientific theories are based on facts. Plain and simple. There is no interpretation necessary. When you see that morphology is directly controlled by genes, and then see hundreds of genetic mutations one from generation to the next, it is blatantly obvious. Creationists and evolution deniers make up this imaginary boundary, claiming that mutations can not add up past a certain point, but have no evidence for this claim whatsoever. If something can speciate, then why can't it get even further away from the original, given enough time? No evolution denier ever answers these questions. They just make blanket statements like "a fruit fly will always be a fruit fly". What you don't seem to understand is that big changes require longer time periods. We're not going to witness large change within a single human lifetime. It's nonsensical. But again, if any evolution denier can provide evidence that genetic mutations stop adding up after a certain point, then I'll concede the argument, but whenever I ask the question, the subject gets changed. Let's see if you can back up that claim.

They won't debate because they can't debate. They have no data, no evidence, no bench work. Just rambling speculation.

Note that the most rabid followers of Creationist crap never show up after a challenge. They just disappear into the ether. I've shut down more than a few threads already

You just described LABTECH767 as a Creationist. From what I read, he has made no agreement with Creationist principles and was merely pointing out that you were misusing the term "Scientific Fact".

Scientific facts are established by empirical observation of repeatable experiments. A scientific fact would relate to a direct observation of the sort "the cell sample did not succumb to apoptosis within the normal time-frame and continued to reproduce" or "the radiation reading was 140 Becquerels".

A framework which may explain observed effects but itself is not directly observed, cannot become a scientific fact.

Recently, work with particle physics which give stochastic results, has led to a softening of this definition to include a mathematical expression of confidence in the data, the "six-sigma" confidence level.

Evolutionary Theory cannot be directly observed. We can see actions which it may explain but we can't see IT. An indication of this is that we have no unit of measure of Evolution.

Evolutionary Theory is also stochastic, based as it is upon random mutation. As such we cannot go and repeatedly re-evolve the same species and always get the same result. Any Evolutionary experiments are not repeatable due to this.

Since the repeat-ability of Evolutionary experiments is not possible and we have no numerical measure of it, we cannot gain any numerical confidence level but instead must base any 'confidence' on the vagaries of human estimation. As such, it will never reach the six-sigma confidence required.

Face it. Evolution stays a theory.

You're wrong. Read the articles posted above and read this one as well:

www.worldscientific.com...

Experiments are reproducible and the process of evolution has been observed in the lab.
If you don't understand how science is done, then read the those articles including the "Methods" sections.

This last link is a Bioinformatics paper that attempts to simulate Evolutionary Processes in a computer algorithm.

It is repeatable, but it is not Evolution, it is a computer program.

You're right - but I have other journal articles which demonstrate reproducibility. Out for about a week - when I get back will look them up and post. Some of this stuff gets deep into molecular genetics and how they conduct their experiments - I'm a physicist/organic chemist - so I have to look up a lot of their methods to understand them too. I'll get back to you with some links.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Looking back through most of your posts, your standard response seems to be to have a pick at the faith of others, whether the post you responded to had religious overtones or not.

You don't appear as altruistic as you describe yourself (and probably believe yourself) to be.

That's not true at all. If people ignore scientific data when presented and continue to simply deny it and pretend it wasn't posted, they deserve to be ridiculed, but it's not because of their faith, it's because of their unwillingness to accept reality. The problem is that I go out of my way at times to provide information to others, backed by scientific papers. Instead of responding to the science in the papers, they change the subject or bring up fallacious reasons to deny it. I'm here to defend science, not attack religion. I have no problem with rational creationists, they just happen to be incredibly rare on this site. Science deniers are not rational people, but I don't attack their faith, I attack their misunderstandings of science. 95% of the threads here are started by fundamentalists looking to attack science. You don't see scientists and evolution supporters showing up at church services and attacking its claims. Leave science and scientists alone and you'll never see me post here again. Many folks here have a crusade going against science, but can't support with any hard evidence.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: peter vlar

No it can happen under influence (there fore can all evolution be regarded as influenced change), selective breeding, genetic manipulation etc.

I suppose that depends on what criteria you're using to define influence. Environmental factors influence gene expression for example. Genetic drift also influences gene expression. Trauma can influence it, physical and mental... Addiction can have an influence so sure... In a broad sense I guess. Can agree with you on that.

The concept however that all species arose from common ancestry is however radically different in that we regardless of mechanism whether evolution was a factor or not regard an intelligence as our ancestral cause where as the atheist regard it as a post protoplasmic soup (I am being kind by missing out the soup stage) ameoba like single celled organism that eventually learned to swim, fly, play tennis and type on a computer.

Why can't it be about the science? Why does it have to devolve into an atheist vs theist debate instead of discussing the facts. Once you open that door everything kicks into a holier than thou superiority complex and I'm levying that charge against both sides of the coin.

This is not about how many qualifications or what doctorates you may have as this is a fundemental principle of belief and I would point out that there are creationists no doubt more highly qualified than anyone currently posting on this thread.

Whatever belief works for you. I thinks it's bat $/it crazy myself but then I'm sure I spout tons of things on ATS that you would say the same about.

Here is the point for all of us believers and you none believers, if God is there and he cares about us do you think it matters to him if we evolved or were created or would he care anyway.

I don't really give any thought to what the god of Abraham thinks about anymore than I do Santa or the tooth fairy. It's just not on my radar.

What about soul.
Now I can not define it but here is a pseudo scientific idea to mull over as since the whole question has turned into a Evolutionist versis Not bothered Creationist argument it is worth looking at possible other factor's.

Personally, as far as this thread goes, what I believe regarding supernatural entities is totally irrelevant. Lets debate the science not the fluff and buff pseudo aspects.

No disrespect to the rest of your post because it appears you out some time and a lot of thought into it but as quantum theory isn't my field I'd rather not stick my neck out and talk about something I'm not terribly certain of.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But we do know the 99% of species on the planet are extinct.

Wait what?? How do we know that for a fact? Because somebody said so? It is a theory. Same as the dating of rocks. Or the age of our planet, the Big Bang etc.. Nothing more than theories.

And I don't see how you can use one theory against another and seem intelligent by doing that..

In fact, every now and then, God drops a new species. Some are members here, too..

originally posted by: Hellas
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But we do know the 99% of species on the planet are extinct.

Wait what?? How do we know that for a fact? Because somebody said so? It is a theory. Same as the dating of rocks. Or the age of our planet, the Big Bang etc.. Nothing more than theories.

Yes, so is gravity, but I don't see people jumping off of bridges because they don't believe in it. We have resounding evidence that 99% of the species that ever existed on the planet are extinct through FOSSIL evidence alone. You can pretend that it is up for debate all you want, but you are clearly in the wrong.

And I don't see how you can use one theory against another and seem intelligent by doing that..

In fact, every now and then, God drops a new species. Some are members here, too..

God drops a new species? Care to provide evidence of species appearing whole on the planet?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well my first questions is why do you think creationist believe God magics animals into earth ? That's absurd. First I have a question for you OP, if evolution is true should we not occasionally see new life start up all on its own? I mean life started that what according to evolutionist so I'd say life would still need to occasionally pop up from inorganic material. We don't see that happening ever.

Now you just posted evidence against evolution. You said 99% of all species are extinct. The majority of species today are heading toward extinction thanks to entropy. So my point is what you are saying shows that this reality is in a state of decay. The total opposite of what evolution claims.

God created us out of dust. The atoms that make us only form in the belly of stars meaning we are in a sense star dust. As for animals , I'd say God created the first archetypes, and DNA can handle the rest. God created DNA and made it sophisticated enough to create all the life today from those archetypes.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well my first questions is why do you think creationist believe God magics animals into earth ? That's absurd.

Read his post again, it was in Direct reply to a poster who did say god just pops them into exist ace from time to time. I agree thgh that the notin is absurd.

First I have a question for you OP, if evolution is true should we not occasionally see new life start up all on its own? I mean life started that what according to evolutionist so I'd say life would still need to occasionally pop up from inorganic material. We don't see that happening ever.

You're conflating two completly seperate fields of study and processes. Abigenesis which you are clearly referring to with life arising from inorganic material, is a chemical process and POSSIBLE origin of life in earth. It's a hypothesis, unproven and with competing hypothesis such as panspermia. Evolution on the other hand doesn't concern itself with how life began, its the study of how biological life has evolved since that point. Since I don't know te exact conditions that allowed for the spark that gave life I can't say whether or not life is or isn't popping up on its own under random circumstances. It took about 2 billion years between the appearance of the first dime life forms and the Cambrian explosion so you're certainly not going to see something appear one day and next Christmas its crawling out of the sea and growing legs by Memorial Day. That's just nt how it works.

Now you just posted evidence against evolution. You said 99% of all species are extinct and the major it of species today are heading toward extinction thanks to entropy. So my point is what you are saying shows that this reality is in a state of decay. The total opposite of what evolution claims.

No, it shows that evolution always finds a way for something to survive. When the dinosaurs all died off, it allowed the mammals which were the size of big squirrels and rats at their biggest, to become the dominant force on land for the past 65 million years. Before the dinosaurs it was amphibians, insects. When something dies something else will fill its niche. The fact that 99% of all species likely being extinct is not a testament that evolution doesn't work or is false, its a testament to the very crux of evolution, adaptabiliity

God created us out of dust. The atoms that make us only form in the belly of stars meaning we are in a sense star dust. As for animals an new species God created DNA and it sophisticated enough to create major variations among kinds.

Take out god being responsible for it and the rest is pretty spot on.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well I dont think God just magically drops new species, but care to provide evidence that a cell could appear without appearing as a whole? I would say the cell had to appear whole. A cell is a precise piece of biological machinery that uses a 4 bit code known as DNA that also had to come into existence all at once with all the information necessary in order for that machine operate properly and survive.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Howdy,
If I may, I'd like to step into this conversation you seem to be having. I apologize for intruding, but it is an interesting question that you ask about cellular components. (I'm no expert, but I had a few bio classes, so take this as general understanding, not conclusive evidence. )
It has long been theorized that modern cells could arise as the product of simpler, bacteria like, organisms consuming and not digesting, but symbiotically growing a relationship with the other internalized bacteria. For instance, the evidence of mitochondrial DNA, which is different from what most people think of as DNA, which is found in the eukaryotes' cell nucleus, supports this concept. Below is some more info on that...
en.wikipedia.org...

But you want simpler? It's easy to theorize how the cell membrane can come about... It's merely a phospholipid bilayer... As the name implies, this two stacked layers of phospholipids, which have an interesting quality of having a hydrophilic "head" and a hydrophobic "tail." In other words, the hydrophilic head would orient itself towards water due to polarity (I think polarity... it's been a while.) while the tail orients itself away from water because the tails are nonpolar. Now, imagine a chain of these phospholipids orienting itself to water (purely a physical/chemical response). Now, imagine two chains are in the same location. They would orient themselves tail-tail to keep the hydrophobic tails from touching the water. Because their would logically be an end to this chain where water could pass into the tail-tail section, this bilayer might then close the loop by becoming a ring with fluid on the outside and internal fluids. From this point on, it's a matter of other process to develop the organelles that actually make it live... Below is perhaps a better explanation.
en.wikipedia.org...
It's easy enough to see that natural processes can build the structures, at least some (but I'm sure all, if you can ask a more knowledgeable person), that compose a cell. I apologize that I am unfamiliar with the other organelles' origins, but I will remind you that DNA might not have been the first nucleic acid to develop. RNA is a popular choice for that model, but might also be incorrect.
Cheers.

a reply to: peter vlar

You're conflating two completly seperate fields of study and processes. Abigenesis which you are clearly referring to with life arising from inorganic material, is a chemical process and POSSIBLE origin of life in earth. It's a hypothesis, unproven and with competing hypothesis such as panspermia. Evolution on the other hand doesn't concern itself with how life began, its the study of how biological life has evolved since that point.

How do you get the Egg(Evolution) without the Chicken(Lifes Origin)?

Since I don't know te exact conditions that allowed for the spark that gave life I can't say whether or not life is or isn't popping up on its own under random circumstances. It took about 2 billion years between the appearance of the first dime life forms and the Cambrian explosion so you're certainly not going to see something appear one day and next Christmas its crawling out of the sea and growing legs by Memorial Day. That's just nt how it works.

Why do you assume I am looking at such small time spans? I dont care how long it takes for it occur again the fact is that if it occurred once based of of random chance(which by the way is mathematically absurd as in higher than 1 in 10^50) then it should occur again based of random chance.

No, it shows that evolution always finds a way for something to survive. When the dinosaurs all died off, it allowed the mammals which were the size of big squirrels and rats at their biggest, to become the dominant force on land for the past 65 million years. Before the dinosaurs it was amphibians, insects. When something dies something else will fill its niche. The fact that 99% of all species likely being extinct is not a testament that evolution doesn't work or is false, its a testament to the very crux of evolution, adaptability

How does it show that? Evolution states that over time everything gets more specialized correct? Yet, when certain specializations take hold other favorable traits lose part or all of their function. An example of this can be seen in experiments done on antibiotic resistance. As a bacteria gains a resistance to a drug it loses other favorable functions. As a result, when the drug is removed those bacteria die off and the previous unresistant bacteria again takes population majority as the resistant bacteria die off. If everything gets more specialized over time what does that mean as you rewind time? Everything is more adaptable because they are more versatile.

Read this: thetruthwins.com...

I see a reality in a state of decay. A fallen world. Idc if you agree these are just my opinions.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Hello again,
1. Eggs have existed for a long time, preceding chickens in the fossil record. I'd be careful with that analogy. ;D

2. You ask why life has not sprung into existence again? It might have before, it might be doing it now, elsewhere. It might be the case that the conditions on modern Earth are sufficiently different (and trust me, they are) from the Early Earth as to no longer allow for life to spontaneously develop again. It is also likely that life could form before because there was no life to hinder it. In the modern world, bacteria and microorganisms are quick to digest and organic molecules that could theoretically produce new life. Seeing as bacteria and microorganisms have completely dominated all of Earth's surfaces, it's not hard to imagine that life is hindering the ability for new life to create itself from organic molecules... Even if it took only 100 years for the right organic molecules in the right conditions to become a cell, you'd never see it in nature.

3. No, evolution does not say animals become more specialized/ or complex over time. Evolution suggests that they change over time producing new species. If you use your same analogy, if you take a dish with a 50/50 ratio of anti-biotic resistant bacteria to non-resistant strains (ignore the possibility of DNA transfer by any means) and quickly douse the dish in antibiotics, you kill the non-resistant bacteria. You continue this until none are left. You have a new bacteria population without non-resistant individuals. No worries of being overtaken by the non-resistant bacteria if there are no more resistant bacteria. This is demonstrative, in that most environmental conditions that would affect natural selection are not quick, nor do they quickly reverse themselves.

You are, however, correct in saying that less complex species tend to be more adaptable and have a longer presence in the fossil record than more complex species, in general. But complexity is not the same as "time spent evolving," as organisms might find it more favorable to adapt to less complex conditions overtime. (You don't need your appendix anymore, right? )

Cheers again.

a reply to: hydeman11

No problem on stepping in friend.

It has long been theorized that modern cells could arise as the product of simpler, bacteria like, organisms consuming and not digesting, but symbiotically growing a relationship with the other internalized bacteria. For instance, the evidence of mitochondrial DNA, which is different from what most people think of as DNA, which is found in the eukaryotes' cell nucleus, supports this concept. Below is some more info on that...

What you are referring to is the Endosymbiotic theory. Basically, what it says is that organelles in eukaryotes use to be free living bacteria and that eukaryotes. My point was Prokaryotic and Eurkaryotic cells need every part in order to function. In order for this theory or the theory posted about the phospholipid bilayer(lets not forget the Bilayer has enzymes in it very vital to the cell so it would also have to randomly form around these enzymes) to work the cells must be able to operate and maintain function and life until all the other parts fall into order. The problem is cells die when you remove parts. Just like a machine will break down when you remove parts from it. It needs all parts to form and be complete and function before it can work so I dont really think anything you have said is a good rebuttal, but I appreciate the thoughts.