The Origin and Evolution of Cells

a reply to: Barcs

It's funny the lengths you folks go through to deny science.

I don't 'deny science' , I deny science made life though... do you?

DNA, seeds, eggs, cell division and the magic of the womb are exponentially far above sciences puny efforts to describe them.

a reply to: peter vlar

The overwhelming majority of mutations are neutral

If you mean they have 0 effect, then wheres the improvement. If you mean they heal , life does the healing. Still doesn't explain where the regenerative powers come from, let alone life itself, let alone how life 'learned' to replicate itself.

a reply to: Phantom423

or·gan·elle ˌôrɡəˈnel/ noun BIOLOGY any of a number of organized or specialized structures within a living cell.

Compartmentalizing structures "within a living cell" doesn't explain how it came to be alive or learned to divide.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423

or·gan·elle ˌôrɡəˈnel/ noun BIOLOGY any of a number of organized or specialized structures within a living cell.

Compartmentalizing structures "within a living cell" doesn't explain how it came to be alive or learned to divide.

If you don't understand the science, there's no way to answer your question. There must be a thousand posts on this board answering exactly the same question. The article from NCBI links to a wealth of information on origins, development and evolution. Did you read any of them? I would wager a martini that you did not. If you're lazy and you want someone else to do the hard work for you, please don't look to me.

DNA, seeds, eggs, cell division and the magic of the womb are exponentially far above sciences puny efforts to describe them.

If that's your take on the science, then you should stick with it. You won't get an argument from me. I think it's brilliant that you can make a statement like that with a straight face while typing. It's like scratching your head while rubbing your belly. Absolutely phenomenal.

a reply to: Phantom423

The article from NCBI links to a wealth of information on origins, development and evolution. Did you read any of them? I would wager a martini that you did not. If you're lazy and you want someone else to do the hard work for you, please don't look to me.

Blah blah, theres a thousand people all agreeing with you and a bunch of 'scientificum' explaining it, but you can't put it in a nutshell, or one simple cell, either.

Thanks again for deflecting.

a reply to: intrptr

Ironic deflection for the win!

That's a "no" then?... you didn't read any of the information.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: intrptr

Ironic deflection for the win!

That's a "no" then?... you didn't read any of the information.

An answer to my question from page one?

If the first cell wasn't able to replicate how did the second cell appear?

a reply to: intrptr

Misunderstood the answer, your thinking that mutations are bad. Mutations are why life is so varied. Mutations allows for changes to happen at the genetic level. Without mutations, nothing can evolve.

It's the bad mutations that are bad, heh.

originally posted by: cenpuppie
a reply to: intrptr

Misunderstood the answer, your thinking that mutations are bad. Mutations are why life is so varied. Mutations allows for changes to happen at the genetic level. Without mutations, nothing can evolve.

It's the bad mutations that are bad, heh.

Mutations favor decay, deformity and disease, not improvement.

If a cell is mutated, the next time it goes to divide it can't , preserving the genome. Mutations that do survive become cancers foreign to the body. If as you say mutations enhance the genome, then there should have been as many that favor weirdness too. Genetic deformations. For what massive genetic mutation looks like, google Falujah Iraq after the employment of Depleted Uranium weapons. Were are all the 'improvements' ?

warning: not for the squemish

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Barcs

It's funny the lengths you folks go through to deny science.

I don't 'deny science' , I deny science made life though... do you?

Science didn't make life. Science is a method that helps us learn things. Chemistry & cause and effect is what "made" life possible, not science. Science is just the way we try to figure out how it happened.

DNA, seeds, eggs, cell division and the magic of the womb are exponentially far above sciences puny efforts to describe them.

Huh? All of that is already known by science. There is no magic of the womb, LOL! Just because you don't like science and default to ignorance and mystical explanations, doesn't make any of that wrong or magical.

Mutations favor decay, deformity and disease, not improvement.

Repeating the same lie, doesn't make it true. Changing the code, can change morphological features. Your claim is wrong. Most creatures experience dozens to hundreds of mutations every time a cell replicates. The vast majority are neutral as said above. I guess when your only response is "blah blah blah", it makes sense why you don't understand anything about any of it.

If a cell is mutated, the next time it goes to divide it can't , preserving the genome.Mutations that do survive become cancers foreign to the body. If as you say mutations enhance the genome, then there should have been as many that favor weirdness too. Genetic deformations. For what massive genetic mutation looks like, google Falujah Iraq after the employment of Depleted Uranium weapons. Were are all the 'improvements' ?

As I said above, there are always mutations every single time a cell replicates the genetic code. Most are transcription errors. You may want to read up on this. Your red herring about Falujah is absurd. You are talking about nuclear radiation making extreme changes to the DNA. That is not the same as transcription mutations. Please stop being so dishonest with your cherry picking. What about the thousands of lab experiments that show genetic mutations that don't have a devastating effect on the organisms?

a reply to: Barcs

Science didn't make life. Science is a method that helps us learn things. Chemistry & cause and effect is what "made" life possible, not science. Science is just the way we try to figure out how it happened.

Then stop Capitalizing it, the theories about origins are as dogmatic as the 'B'ibles version of origins.

Since I discount both I find it highly amusing they both agree life developed... somehow.

But I could as easily argue that 747 jets are winged beings from another world, poofed into creation by Gods.

Which they were, lol...

originally posted by: intrptr
Then stop Capitalizing it, the theories about origins are as dogmatic as the 'B'ibles version of origins.

Um, proper grammar states that you capitalize words at the beginning of sentences, but nice red herring.

Since I discount both I find it highly amusing they both agree life developed... somehow.

What you discount doesn't affect science. Abiogenesis goes into more detail than "somehow".

But I could as easily argue that 747 jets are winged beings from another world, poofed into creation by Gods.

Which they were, lol...

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. Anyone can literally argue anything, but facts and tests speak louder than words and its kind of funny how my entire response was ignored.

originally posted by: nOraKat
The interesting thing about cells, is that not only does it contain all of the design needed for mammals to evolve, but for all the other myriad lineages of life that support a habitable planet. For example, phytoplankton not only feeds starts the food chain, but provides oxygen for the atmosphere. Without all the organisms on Earth, we would not have an atmosphere that protects us from space, for larger more complex organisms to evolve in the first place. The cell not only contains the design for a complex organism but the design for an adaptable symbiotic system where myriads of lineages of living things support each other to create a habitable planet.

And beyond that it contains culture - like Music and art, Giligans Island, Quantum computing, planes, trains and skyscrapers.

Interesting take, although I might add we could extrapolate further and say that this all starts with the underlying genetic code, Gilligan's Island and all.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: nOraKat
The interesting thing about cells, is that not only does it contain all of the design needed for mammals to evolve, but for all the other myriad lineages of life that support a habitable planet. For example, phytoplankton not only feeds starts the food chain, but provides oxygen for the atmosphere. Without all the organisms on Earth, we would not have an atmosphere that protects us from space, for larger more complex organisms to evolve in the first place. The cell not only contains the design for a complex organism but the design for an adaptable symbiotic system where myriads of lineages of living things support each other to create a habitable planet.

And beyond that it contains culture - like Music and art, Giligans Island, Quantum computing, planes, trains and skyscrapers.

You're wrong in thinking all life needs oxygen, or that there needs to be some "design" for animals to evolve. Evolution is simply the result of mutations in DNA.

Anaerobic organims don't need oxygen in the atmosphere. First organisms on Earth "breathed" the primitive atmosphere, which was created by volcanic gasses.

Do people still describe evolution as "simply the result of mutations"?

a reply to: Barcs

747s were 'poofed' into existence as far as undiscovered native tribes in the amazon are concerned. They have no idea how one is built or by whom...

image search

theguardian

WE are as primitive as them trying to figure out where DNA, eggs, seeds, cell division and wombs originated.

Another consideration is Cargo Cults of WWII.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: nOraKat
The interesting thing about cells, is that not only does it contain all of the design needed for mammals to evolve, but for all the other myriad lineages of life that support a habitable planet. For example, phytoplankton not only feeds starts the food chain, but provides oxygen for the atmosphere. Without all the organisms on Earth, we would not have an atmosphere that protects us from space, for larger more complex organisms to evolve in the first place. The cell not only contains the design for a complex organism but the design for an adaptable symbiotic system where myriads of lineages of living things support each other to create a habitable planet.

And beyond that it contains culture - like Music and art, Giligans Island, Quantum computing, planes, trains and skyscrapers.

You're wrong in thinking all life needs oxygen, or that there needs to be some "design" for animals to evolve. Evolution is simply the result of mutations in DNA.

Anaerobic organims don't need oxygen in the atmosphere. First organisms on Earth "breathed" the primitive atmosphere, which was created by volcanic gasses.

Do people still describe evolution as "simply the result of mutations"?

Yes, lol.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: nOraKat
The interesting thing about cells, is that not only does it contain all of the design needed for mammals to evolve, but for all the other myriad lineages of life that support a habitable planet. For example, phytoplankton not only feeds starts the food chain, but provides oxygen for the atmosphere. Without all the organisms on Earth, we would not have an atmosphere that protects us from space, for larger more complex organisms to evolve in the first place. The cell not only contains the design for a complex organism but the design for an adaptable symbiotic system where myriads of lineages of living things support each other to create a habitable planet.

And beyond that it contains culture - like Music and art, Giligans Island, Quantum computing, planes, trains and skyscrapers.

You're wrong in thinking all life needs oxygen, or that there needs to be some "design" for animals to evolve. Evolution is simply the result of mutations in DNA.

Anaerobic organims don't need oxygen in the atmosphere. First organisms on Earth "breathed" the primitive atmosphere, which was created by volcanic gasses.

Do people still describe evolution as "simply the result of mutations"?

Yes, lol.

Much like your oft repeated insistence that mutations are primarily harmful, stating that the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is based entirely on mutations arne is also patently false.

It baffles me when people are so insistent that aspects of evolutionary biology are incorrect or false don’t actually understand the basics of the science they believe can be dismissed with a simple wave of the hand like a Jedi mind trick.

Certainly mutations are what lead to genetic and morphological variation but there are many other factors such as environment and epigenetics that drive which mutations become prominent within eco niche specific adaptation. A mutation that is beneficial to an organism in a temperate environment will lead to a detrimental trait in an arid it arctic eco niche. It’s why we have members of the same genus, (I’ll use Volpes [Fox] as an example) that are closely related but incapable of surviving in their cousin species eco niches. Red Fox are relegated to temperate zones, Arctic Fox aren’t able to survive very well in the same eco niche as Red Fox and would die in the natural environment of the Fennec Fox. The mutations lead to emergence of new traits but it’s external factors that select which genes make their way through a given population over successive generations.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: nOraKat
The interesting thing about cells, is that not only does it contain all of the design needed for mammals to evolve, but for all the other myriad lineages of life that support a habitable planet. For example, phytoplankton not only feeds starts the food chain, but provides oxygen for the atmosphere. Without all the organisms on Earth, we would not have an atmosphere that protects us from space, for larger more complex organisms to evolve in the first place. The cell not only contains the design for a complex organism but the design for an adaptable symbiotic system where myriads of lineages of living things support each other to create a habitable planet.

And beyond that it contains culture - like Music and art, Giligans Island, Quantum computing, planes, trains and skyscrapers.

You're wrong in thinking all life needs oxygen, or that there needs to be some "design" for animals to evolve. Evolution is simply the result of mutations in DNA.

Anaerobic organims don't need oxygen in the atmosphere. First organisms on Earth "breathed" the primitive atmosphere, which was created by volcanic gasses.

Do people still describe evolution as "simply the result of mutations"?

Mutations provide the "raw material" for natural selection to work with. Without mutations, there would be no evolution.

My comment was addressing the notion that cells "contain all of the design needed for mammals to evolve".

originally posted by: intrptr
747s were 'poofed' into existence as far as undiscovered native tribes in the amazon are concerned. They have no idea how one is built or by whom...

We know 747s were made by humans. I'm not sure how this is even an argument. So since we don't know the answer to something we should all pretend we do and make it up? And that is justifiable to you??? Sorry, but the tribe is ignorant of modern technology. That doesn't prove anything except that ignorance leads to irrational behavior, and that's directly correlated to the religious war on evolution. It's completely 100% based on ignorance. Thanks for proving my point for me.

WE are as primitive as them trying to figure out where DNA, eggs, seeds, cell division and wombs originated.

This was already addressed, but repeating lies is how you folks operate so no surprise. Keep invoking magic to explain what we don't fully understand... but again scientists already know most of that. DNA is still a work in progress, but there are very good ideas backed by experiment. But yeah, it's all magic because you don't understand it.

originally posted by: intrptr
Do people still describe evolution as "simply the result of mutations"?

Yes, lol.

Yes, creationists do because they are ignorant.

double post