How do creationists explain mitochondria?

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
For Science to win against Religion, or Faith, Science has to use the doctrines beleifs, teachings, philosophies and every trapping of religion on religion against religion to prove it false.


Its amazing how this is done a consistent basis, but the religious people just close their eyes and ears and reject it.
For example, point out to any "normal" American Christian the hypocrisy of what he believes (fighting wars, the hate for the poor in this country, the love of material goods which is basically idolatry, all anti-Christian ideals) and they will actually argue with you about it why they are right. Never, have I seen one, say "Yknow, youre right...Jesus was the Prince of Peace, would he have wanted me to shoot a Muslim, or to turn the other cheek?"

They will fight and argue and scream and complain and say that you hate their beliefs and are an intolerant liberal, which is just hilariously anti-Christian in so many ways, the irony never fails to amuse me. But never once have I seen them actually change their mind.

It is easy to point out the hypocrisy of humans and their religious moral codes that in this country are basically window dressings only, but it is just as easy for the hypocrites to start screaming how all they need is their faith. I guess it matters not to them where that faith is placed.




posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
It is not a fact that mitochondria were once free-living 'alphaproteobacteria'. Many microbiologists think it is likely that mitochondria were once free-living prokaryotes that somehow took up residence in larger cells, but this is a THEORY called "The endosymbiotic THEORY". It remains the theory to explain the fact that these mitochondria have different DNA than the 'host'.

The endosymbiotic theory was presented in the 1960's. It didn't concern only mitochondria (turned out to be right), but also plastids (turned out to be right) and certain other vestiges (turned out to be wrong). After the molecular revolution, there's no uncertainty whatsoever, from what mitochondria descent. Mitochondria form a monophyletic group with the SAR11 clade within Rickettsiales with as high bootstrap values as 100%. Further still, mitochondrial genomes are highly reduced, and in fact most of their genes have been transferred to the host genomes, i.e. we find alphaproteobacterial genes from nuclear DNA! These genes are transcribed from the nuclear DNA, and translated into proteins by cytoplasmic ribosomes, and imported into mitochondria. The alphaproteobacterial origin of mitochondria is a scientific fact, and your attempt to refute it by post-modernistic "everyone is just as right" attitude is nonsense. If you want to go on, refute the paper and the decades of scientific inquiry that it stands on.

PS. It's not even only about sequence similarities, but many mitochondrial genomes even retain the same exact order of some genes also found in contemporary free-living alphaproteobacteria. Google e.g. Reclinomonas americana mitochondrion. The genes of all other mitochondria are a subset of its genes (excluding those that were horizontally transferred later).
edit on 12-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Yet another ignorant creationist. If you're going to trash scientific theories, at least go to the bother of understanding exactly what scientific theories and scientific facts are.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by lpowell0627
 

Scientists explain flagella like this. But this thread is not about flagella. It's not about the origin of life or the the origin of universe or even claims of irreducible complexity either. On the contrary, it's about mitochondria and the common ancestry of all animals, plants, fungi, protists, etc., a scientific fact creationists often deny on the basis of "macro evolution" being impossible. I'm arguing, that the molecular data obtained from mitochondrial genomes trashes the claim of impossibility of "macro evolution".
edit on 12-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


Great response. The link is a logical executioner's axe to the flagella talking point.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Snoopy1978
 


OP, I agree fully with you, but mtDNA is just a small part of the equation. If we add up all the evolutionary proofs, there is nothing left for creationists. I have begged so many creationists to explain endogenous retroviruses, Cytochrome c, atavism, embryogenesis, adaptive radiation, etc, etc, etc ......

They keep on picking at the (still) incomplete parts, or insist on the so-called missing link, or just ignore the evidence ....

I have come to the conclusion, that no matter how many proofs you throw in front of them, they will keep on denying.

Oh yes, and they also don't know the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis, doesn't matter how many times you explain it to them.

As a result, I have just given up trying to argue with the creationists.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellhound604
 


That's a great idea!

I've come to similar conclusion.

No matter how many times you point out fulfilled prophecies from the Bible, those who don't believe in it say it never happened no matter how much proof you give them.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
They it explain it like this : God

Thats the only way they can.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Druscilla
For Science to win against Religion, or Faith, Science has to use the doctrines beleifs, teachings, philosophies and every trapping of religion on religion against religion to prove it false.


Its amazing how this is done a consistent basis, but the religious people just close their eyes and ears and reject it.
For example, point out to any "normal" American Christian the hypocrisy of what he believes (fighting wars, the hate for the poor in this country, the love of material goods which is basically idolatry, all anti-Christian ideals) and they will actually argue with you about it why they are right. Never, have I seen one, say "Yknow, youre right...Jesus was the Prince of Peace, would he have wanted me to shoot a Muslim, or to turn the other cheek?"

They will fight and argue and scream and complain and say that you hate their beliefs and are an intolerant liberal, which is just hilariously anti-Christian in so many ways, the irony never fails to amuse me. But never once have I seen them actually change their mind.

It is easy to point out the hypocrisy of humans and their religious moral codes that in this country are basically window dressings only, but it is just as easy for the hypocrites to start screaming how all they need is their faith. I guess it matters not to them where that faith is placed.

Are you kidding me? I guess when you say "normal American Christian" it's true.. but that's not what Christianity is about. If you actually talked to a Christian and he actually said that, he isn't a Christian. YOU understand our beliefs better than.. well most Christians.

I'm a sinner. I'm a thief. I'm a liar. I'm an adultery. I'm a murderer. I'm a slanderer. I'm a drunkard. I'm a sloth. I have anger. I have vengeance. I have greed. I have envy. I have PRIDE. I'm a hypocrite.

I also believe in God. I love everyone, even those who hate me. I pray for them, most of all. Why? Because I don't deserve anything. I don't deserve my family. I don't deserve my girlfriend. I don't deserve to live. Yet I do have all these things.. why? Obviously not Karma. I think it's because I'm actually trying to change. I no longer "practice" sin. I actually get conviction. I now do things that I never would have done before - I love people. I serve them. I care for them. I help them. Is that for my own self-gratification? No, why would I? It's impossible for me to love people who spit in my face, to hate me.. but God can. And since he's living inside of me, he shows his love to the people I connect with.

I don't hate gays, I don't hate Muslims, I don't hate atheists.. I never use the word "test of faith" when arguing about sciences. I'm an evidence-based reasoning type of guy. I don't own many materialistic things, so don't argue that I'm living a wealthy lifestyle. I don't even go to Church anymore, at least not the "building" church. I also believe in the Bible 100%, I don't match scripture with opinion, but scripture with scripture.

Yet people still mock me, and I love them, because Jesus loves them, and because I was just like them, before I found God.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vandettas
They it explain it like this : God

Thats the only way they can.


Yet you explain it like this: Chance

That's the only way you can.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
edit on 10/10/2011 by clintdelicious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Valiant effort, but it's based on the premise the creationists will respond free of their programming.
This is beyond the breadth and scope of their limitation.

There are none so blind as those who WILL not see.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


A Creationist would simply answer that Mitochondria are simply a biological mechanism used in the majority of life forms that we have seen. They would argue that, while we can order organisms into phylogenetic trees, that this is because of a similarity of function. The fact that there appears to be some sort of organizational link is due to the way we render the trees by this very data. Using a different criteria may produce different tree structures.

Simply put, they'd say "God made it that way" and that the order you are seeing is because you put them in that order.

And they'd have a point.

I agree that there is much that supports Evolutionary theory but I don't believe that it is the "full story". There are too many oddities which almost, but not quite, fit the time-frames and statistical details expected to arise from the mechanisms of the theory.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
ae you really asking for a literal answer ?

if god can create light, the universe, the solar system, the planet, what's a little cellular work ?

silly debate at best

and I'm an evolutionist



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Deetermined
Either way, the answers aren't coming in anyone's human lifetime.

The answer to e.g. "Do all animals, plants, and fungi share a common ancestor?" is right here, in this thread, supported by objective undeniable evidence, and it's "Yes, all animals, plants, and fungi descent from a common ancestor". It's a scientific fact. So far, no creationist has even attempted to refute the evidence put forth in the frame-work of this thread.
edit on 12-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)


I seem to remember a certain chart of horse species ordered by size. This was very heavily pushed as a proof of Evolutionary theory for quite some time until someone questioned the order and relationships between the species. It turned out that the chart was irrelevant to Evolution as the chart was ordered by size and had nothing to do with genetic relationships.

Learn the lesson of history.

The chart was ordered by the people who created it. It shows a particular sequence because that is the sequence they used. It may be valid to order the chart that way, but it is invalid to draw conclusions from what may actually be an arbitrary ordering.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Just another nail in the coffin of the long-dead idea that is Creationism, yet chances are we will still be hearing about how evolution is collapsing and is a theory in crisis. Such is the nature of indoctrination.

A question occurred to me when I read your thread title, how exactly do Creationists EXPLAIN anything? God commanding things to come into existence and bringing inanimate matter to life is hardly an explanation, it's magic. You'd think a book inspired by the creator of the Universe would have some level of detail, perhaps outline God's creative process and where he drew his divine inspiration. At the very least there should be an alternate explanation as to why apes and humans look the same, behave basically the same, and share so much of our DNA. Yet Genesis boils it down to God using speech to create - magic words.

So really creationism can't explain anything, at least evolution can explain some things even if it doesn't have every answer (which creationists often expect it to). This is why when creationists talk about teaching creationism in school they aren't talking about an alternative theory with actual scientific facts behind it, they're talking about denying every fact associated with evolution until magic seems like a good alternative.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-4-2012 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I firmly believe in evolutional creativism

ok
you have goats
and you have spiders

and now you have spidergoats
evolution?
no
god?
no

do the spider goats know how they came to be?
was it evolution?
or god? they ask them selves



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Oh good show chap.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


Just another nail in the coffin of the long-dead idea that is Creationism, yet chances are we will still be hearing about how evolution is collapsing and is a theory in crisis. Such is the nature of indoctrination.

A question occurred to me when I read your thread title, how exactly do Creationists EXPLAIN anything? God commanding things to come into existence and bringing inanimate matter to life is hardly an explanation, it's magic. You'd think a book inspired by the creator of the Universe would have some level of detail, perhaps outline God's creative process and where he drew his divine inspiration. At the very least there should be an alternate explanation as to why apes and humans look the same, behave basically the same, and share so much of our DNA. Yet Genesis boils it down to God using speech to create - magic words.

So really creationism can't explain anything, at least evolution can explain some things even if it doesn't have every answer (which creationists often expect it to). This is why when creationists talk about teaching creationism in school they aren't talking about an alternative theory with actual scientific facts behind it, they're talking about denying every fact associated with evolution until magic seems like a good alternative.
edit on 12-4-2012 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-4-2012 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)


god commanding things makes more sense than.....primordial soup.....wait for it.......DNA ! how did that happen ? lucky lightning ?

and again, I'm an evolutionist



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


I'm no scientist. What I do know is that regardless of how abiogenesis happened, evolution is a demonstrable reality. By the way the first cells are, at their base, self-replicating proteins, that's really all life is - complex chemistry. We know stars and planets and heavy elements can all come into existence via natural process, life is made of some of the most common of those elements. So no magic is not a better answer, arguably magic is NEVER a better answer.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte

Originally posted by Vandettas
They it explain it like this : God

Thats the only way they can.


Yet you explain it like this: Chance

That's the only way you can.


Case in point to my original statement. Science will always justify itself as correct as it applies to science, using science.
Faith will do the same with faith.

They are both immutable and uneffected by each other. Both sides will always be right according to their own perceptions.

It's two kids arguing about Red or Blue being better, where neither will ever agree with the other.
Immovable object meets unstoppable force.

edit on 12-4-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join