It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Interesting, but given the idea that the theory of evolution proposes that all things started out simple and then evolved through small changes into more complex lifeforms, it is possible that given enough time small changes will become the highly complex organs you speak of.
originally posted by: stormcell
The simplest organisms are jellyfish. They have a ring of photo-receptors which are directly tied into a simple neural network that control muscle contractions.*
...
What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. 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.”
originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: cooperton
I hate to burst your bubble, but your entire argument is built on faulty premises, and you are wrong. I'm at work so I don't have time to get into it right now, but if nobody else has done so by the time i get home then I will gladly explain the various ways that you are wrong!
originally posted by: peter vlar
Cooperton is dead set on his antiscience/ pro ignorance campaign.
originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: cooperton
I hate to burst your bubble, but your entire argument is built on faulty premises, and you are wrong. I'm at work so I don't have time to get into it right now, but if nobody else has done so by the time i get home then I will gladly explain the various ways that you are wrong!
Present empirical evidence to demonstrate that my premise is wrong, because I presented empirical evidence to demonstrate that it was right. Looking forward to your critique.
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton
You mean aside from the standard strawman arguments and basic quote mines? Let’s see, how about basing your anti evolutionary tirade on presenting only one of several mechanisms of evolutionary biology and then pretending the ireducible complexity actually is a thing. We can start there. The eye, the heart... all Of it has been explained more times than I can count in the last 8 1/2 years I’ve had this account. People like you simply ignore those explanations and start an entire new thread as if it hasn’t been explained to you dozens of times already.
originally posted by: cooperton
To think you know something that is wrong is very harmful, because you are incapable of considering other ideas. To realize you actually don't know, is a great leap in the right direction because you are no longer anchored by an erroneous, dead end belief system.
It’s not worth the effort or your time to bother. The logical fallacies and the appropriate science has been demonstrated repeatedly. Cooperton is dead set on his antiscience/ pro ignorance campaign.
... we discovered that all organisms have organs, tissues, cells, proteins, and molecules that are all dependent on each other for proper functioning.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton
You mean aside from the standard strawman arguments and basic quote mines? Let’s see, how about basing your anti evolutionary tirade on presenting only one of several mechanisms of evolutionary biology and then pretending the ireducible complexity actually is a thing. We can start there. The eye, the heart... all Of it has been explained more times than I can count in the last 8 1/2 years I’ve had this account. People like you simply ignore those explanations and start an entire new thread as if it hasn’t been explained to you dozens of times already.
You called me antiscience - what part of my OP was rejecting empirical scientific observations? I openly embrace science, and I dug deep and found that there is no foundation for the theory of evolution. My opinion on the scientific data is up for debate, but to call me antiscience is libel.
In this way, our consciousness is the integral manifesting factor of the cosmos. This may be unbelievable, but the quantum experiments are repeatable, observable, scientific fact.
So if the invisible Primordial Awareness manifested on the material plane, what would It (for lack of a better word) look like? A human being.
originally posted by: edmc^2
It’s not worth the effort or your time to bother. The logical fallacies and the appropriate science has been demonstrated repeatedly. Cooperton is dead set on his antiscience/ pro ignorance campaign.
Wow! I expected more from you pete but to say coop is "antiscience/ pro ignorance"? That's a stretch. Why, the op itself is full of scientific findings and facts. How was that "antiscience/ pro ignorance"?
Could it be you can't refute it?
... we discovered that all organisms have organs, tissues, cells, proteins, and molecules that are all dependent on each other for proper functioning.
originally posted by: Maroboduus
originally posted by: edmc^2
It’s not worth the effort or your time to bother. The logical fallacies and the appropriate science has been demonstrated repeatedly. Cooperton is dead set on his antiscience/ pro ignorance campaign.
Wow! I expected more from you pete but to say coop is "antiscience/ pro ignorance"? That's a stretch. Why, the op itself is full of scientific findings and facts. How was that "antiscience/ pro ignorance"?
Could it be you can't refute it?
... we discovered that all organisms have organs, tissues, cells, proteins, and molecules that are all dependent on each other for proper functioning.
Good grief... what is there to refute? His entire argument betrays an ignorance as to how evolution actually works. Since organs now depend upon each other they cant have evolved? What? That's exactly how evolution freaking works. Over long periods of time, organs and organisms grow increasingly more complex and evolve alongside each other, which can absolutely lead to interdependent organs. I mean... I cant even wrap my head around how somebody with even a cursory understanding of evolution can argue that interdependent organs somehow disprove evolution. It's so ridiculous and absurd, and shows such a complete ignorance of the subject at hand, that it's hard to even argue seriously against it.
... we discovered that all organisms have organs, tissues, cells, proteins, and molecules that are all dependent on each other for proper functioning.
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
I have thought for a while now that the majority of evolution is actually driven by epigenetic mechanisms.