an easy way to understand evolution...

originally posted by: stormson

change happens, and once all those changes build up, what is the result? evolution.

This pretty much sums it up. I don't see why this is hard for anyone to understand. It always trips me out when you get people trying to sound intelligent who say "I don't believe in evolution but I believe in adaptation." What exactly do you think happens after many generations of repeated adaptations?

Evolution.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Just in case no one here can be bothered to quickly check a few of the links I'm posting, or making some use of google or wikipedia...
[.ex]Mitochondria are commonly between 0.75 and 3 μm in diameter[5] but vary considerably in size and structure.[/.ex]
Source: wikipedia

The earlier link about the difference between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells has prokaryotic cells listed as:
[.ex]1-10um[/.ex]
Which I'm assuming is supposed to say "μm". You can think of the box the toddler is playing with as the prokaryotic organism in this storyline and the shaped holes in the box as machinery in the cell membrane of a prokaryotic cell that allows for smaller objects to enter the cell from outside (these are btw much smaller than the box and holes the toddler is working with, and if you want to cheat and take the top of as she does in an endosymbiont scenario, who's going to put the box back together again in nature so that the box is one whole again?). Also note that there are many many other differences between prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells that need to be overcome by processes caused or directed by the laws of nature alone in the entire endosymbiont storyline (and the subject of retention and passing on specific altered coding in the DNA to offspring also comes into play, so that the offspring produces things like mitochondria from their own genome, as we see in eukaryotic cells; but that's a whole other can of worms that opens up there, or flaws in the marketing attempts referred to as "evidence", "science", "factoids" that supposedly relate to the storyline in some positive or confirming manner, etc.).

edit for the bolded part: let's go with "prokaryotic cell" since that seems to be the terminology used in more serious articles about this endosymbiont storyline (as well as the link from study.com) such as this one as summarized here:

Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9 *

*: No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

Source: The Cell—Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

I'm not sure if the storyline is suggesting that this condition described as "some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them" is sustained for millions of years as well as (or) "unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated" before this particular prokaryotic cell passes anything on when it finally replicated or reproduced after everything is done (for which it needs to stay alive or in existence for millions of years). That's where the subject of "retention" also comes in especially if one wants to talk about a generation-by-generation process over millions of years instead. For example, was all the coding required for the production of mitochondria by the offspring or next generation passed on in one generation where this unspecified prokaryotic cell ingested this mythological pure mitochondria organism I've heard about in stories about the endosymbiont story?

Ah well, enough trying to figure out the details of how the mythology is exactly proposed. Some people probably have every version covered with a fanciful storyline complete with technical jargon to bedazzle, confuse and distract from the facts and what we actually know or can know for sure:
Five Questions for Michael Behe

originally posted by: stormson
factoids!

did you know that the mitochondria of a cell was once a completely separate organism?

What happens to pure mitochondria if you take them out of the eukaryotic cells that they are currently found in and drop them in nature (preferrably an oceanic environment as per the evolutionary storylines where life first evolved and developped further before land-dwelling lifeforms came into existence)? How long will the mitochondria stay intact or survive if you want to count them or imagine them as individual lifeforms otherwise phrased as "completely separate organisms"?

What kind of environmental conditions exist near a hydrothermal vent? Notice how the mythological organisms in the video below are presented without any regard for thinking about whether such lifeforms could possible exist and survive for long enough to reproduce with modifications to the original (requirements for so-called "biological evolution", which starts in the storyline the moment one implies* something is alive and generating generations of living organisms as is done in the video below which seems to be the 2nd most popular video on youtube about the subject of abiogenesis a.k.a. "chemical evolution"). *: of course they won't always spell it out that they're suggesting a living organism, vagueness is preferred (and making certain things appear "simple" related to the earlier linked question "Is any form of life really simple?" As depicted in the animated figures in the cartoonlike presentation starting around 4:00 below but really kicking off at 6:06):

If you have trouble with the word "alive" or the term "living organism", try this definition early in the video:
Chapter 7 Section (7.4)
This biologist can be honest and clear about what's alive and what isn't as well:

I wonder if anyone has ever tried getting a mitochondrion (eg. the smallest that one can find, perhaps 0.75 μm) inside and past the cell wall (membrane) of a unicellular prokaryotic bacteria (eg. a big one, like 5 μm, I found another site that puts the sizerange of a single prokaryotic cell at 0.1 - 5 μm rather than the earlier mentioned 1-10 μm from the other site and wikipedia, I wonder why some people can't be clear on this...) and somehow circumnavigating the problems described in the last video above when or if you break apart the cell wall (coming back to my thoughts concerning the toddler video) to accomplish that particular engineering project. So that we can have a look at what happens then.

originally posted by: stormson

change happens, and once all those changes build up, what is the result? evolution.

originally posted by: face23785
This pretty much sums it up. I don't see why this is hard for anyone to understand. It always trips me out when you get people trying to sound intelligent who say "I don't believe in evolution but I believe in adaptation." What exactly do you think happens after many generations of repeated adaptations?

Evolution.

Best not watch the video below beyond 4:13. It might not have a beneficial effect on one's thinking.

The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.—Pr 2:10, 11; 18:15; see KNOWLEDGE.

Source: Understanding: Insight, Volume 2

Amiga Scenedemo - Smoke & Mirrors by Ghostown and Loonies (Revision 2013)

originally posted by: stormson
Here is an easy way to understand evolution, with a few interesting factoids at the end.

think of evolution as language.

now lets say that language is latin. the romans created latin in italy and spread it to france, spain, and portugal. after rome fell, so did latin. each region started to change and adapt the language to suit its own region and culture. add to that the various invasions where the invaders language was incorporated into the mix; such as al, which is an arabic word from the muslim invasion of southern spain, into spanish. then you have regional differences within the language, such as lisping from spain spanish verses lack of vosotros in mexican spanish.

if it wasnt for the catholic church and western science, latin would be completely dead. think about it. italian is probably the closest thing to latin there is, but give an italian speaker a novel written in latin and see how well they would do in translating it. they could do it, but not well. this vast difference in language only took 2000 years to achieve. add another 2000 years and how different would it be?

how does this relate to evolution. well, the same principles apply. think of the genes of dna as being words. for the most part these genes stay the same and in the same order. however, sometimes the genes get out of place, or are recreated slightly off, and is carried on. just like some words get added to a language, or the use of that word changes. its the build up of small changes that create the large changes, like latin to spanish.

factoids!

did you know that the mitochondria of a cell was once a completely separate organism? see, way back there was an organism that was really good at gathering food source, but couldnt make energy, and there was another organism that was really good at creating energy, but not in gathering the food. one day these two joined. the first cell gathered the food, the second created the energy. a partnership was formed and holds till this day. that is why mitochondrial dna is different from your dna, even though it lives in almost every cell in your body.

some of the evolution deniers say that dna cannot be added to. thats not true. matter of fact, around 20% of your dna is viral dna. thats right, dna from virus is in your genetic code. without that viral code, we would not exist because it changed out dna enough to create a placenta! weird, right? even now there are virus that combine their dna with ours, namely hep b. fortunately hep b targets liver cells and not gamete cells, or we would be mutating all the time.

now think about this. a virus is not alive, or dead. it is just rna/dna surrounded by a capsule. rna and dna are nothing but proteins. they dont have any of the internal cell organelles that make a cell "alive". they dont take in nutrients or excrete waste like every other living thing. however, they reproduce. once they get near a target cell, they invade and replicate themselves. could virus be the "missing link" between protein formation and single cell formation? all the while single cell organisms are joining with mitochondria?

so, if language can change so rapidly over just 2000 years, how would dna change over millions of years? how would the dna changes effect the host over millions of years? homo sapiens has only been around for 65,000 years, btw, and in that time we changed from a black african to yellow asians and white europeans and red indians. we have gained in height. we have gained the ablility to drink milk from other animals, a mutation from 10,000 years ago. we've lost our wisdom teeth and gained new cancers not seen 400 years ago. change happens, and once all those changes build up, what is the result? evolution.

Hey, thanks for RESURRECTING this thread.

Sorry but this is pure fantasy mixed in with bits and pieces of scientific factoids - hence science fiction.

The OP is dabbling in pure fantasy of which he/she has no understanding.

Case in point (for example):

This short statement:

...it is just rna/dna surrounded by a capsule...

Taken from these statements (bold mine)

now think about this. a virus is not alive, or dead. it is just rna/dna surrounded by a capsule. rna and dna are nothing but proteins. they dont have any of the internal cell organelles that make a cell "alive". they dont take in nutrients or excrete waste like every other living thing. however, they reproduce. once they get near a target cell, they invade and replicate themselves. could virus be the "missing link" between protein formation and single cell formation? all the while single cell organisms are joining with mitochondria?

So, if as stated

...it is just rna/dna surrounded by a capsule...

Then, where did the "capsule" came from?

Which came first, the "capsule" or the rna/dna?

Without the "capsule" - the rna/dna will be destroyed by its environment.

But without the rna/dna already formed - what will form the "capsule"?

Pure fantasy is the answer.