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.

 

How do creationists explain mitochondria?

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 




Both sides will always be right according to their own perceptions.


Do you even know what science is?

Science is a self-correcting process, it is ALWAYS changing as new information is found. Used to be we thought space was filled something called the ether, then we got new information, new data, new facts, turns out we were wrong. Used to be we though the Universe was in a steady state and was eternal, then we found the evidence of the Big Bang thanks to Hubble and others, now we know better.

Science is about knowing better.

Religion and faith are about believing harder.

The two couldn't be more different.




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 



I wasn't gonna reply to this thread but I can't help myself but smile because you people - of the evolution persuasion - can't see the obvious even though it's starring you in the eye.

Here let me help you -

The reason you're seeing a similarity is because there's only ONE God and ONE Creator. In other words - it confirms that they all have the same Designer and Maker.


OK?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


So your explanation is that God is just supremely unimaginative?

And on the third day (or sixth depending on which of the two creation accounts in Genesis you want to read) God ran out of ideas, so he just scraped together some chimp DNA and some clumps of clay, said a few magic words, added a tiny dash of intelligence and bippity boppity boo - ADAM!




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by edmc^2
 


So your explanation is that God is just supremely unimaginative?

And on the third day (or sixth depending on which of the two creation accounts in Genesis you want to read) God ran out of ideas, so he just scraped together some chimp DNA and some clumps of clay, said a few magic words, added a tiny dash of intelligence and bippity boppity boo - ADAM!




hahahah -bippity boppity boo -- that's funny.

the op was asking why the presence of mitochondria in living things.




What are mitochondria? Mitochondria are found inside virtually all eukaryote (animals, plants, fungi, protists, etc.) cells in huge numbers, and their primary task is to produce energy for the cell. Like their hosts and bacteria, they are bound by a double lipid membrane, and indeed, they even carry their own DNA molecules, and reproduce independently of the host cell.


simple answer from a Creation pov is like I said:

The reason you're seeing a similarity is because there's only ONE God and ONE Creator. In other words - it confirms that they all have the same Designer and Maker.

If you can't accept that - well, nothing I can do bout it.

tc

later...



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
well if you poison cockroaches over several generations the survivors will increase thier tolerance till the poison kills basically none of the cockroaches
this is EVOLUTION
and god created evolution so christians could call him/her/it a lier


PS
learning is evolution!



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I'm extremely aware of and knowledgeable about science.
You, however, I think, need work on your reading comprehension skills.

Have you read my other posts? Are you having trouble understanding that no matter what evidence you present to a person of faith that regardless the evidence, and even sometimes in spite of the evidence, the person of Faith will deny that evidence and claim some other 'proof', or scripture they feel nulls said evidence.

When the two sides argue, the arguments are immutable.
Science is to fact as Faith is to validation of any fantasy imaginable without or even in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Science is rational. Faith is irrational.
They are two totally different siades that can never mix. Faith will always think itself right. Science will always think itself right, even when it self corrects because it's entirely open to self correction where self correction makes anything science says stronger from a scientific standpoint.

I am not saying that Science is wrong or putting science to question. I'm saying it's entirely pointless in attempting to argue anything with anyone of faith because it's like trying to play chess with a dog while discussing Italian opera, and the latest in high fashion. Dog isn't going to get it, and the only thing important to the dog is it's master.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Although there's no scientific consensus about the exact way how mitochondria became a part of us, it's a fact that they were once, about 1.5 billion years ago, free-living alphaproteobacteria. The image below depicts the many models there are for the origin of eukaryotes (notice they all agree on the origin of mitochondria, i.e it was an alphaproteobacteria of some sort):



As many here no doubt know, phylogenetic trees depicting the relationship of animals, plants, fungi, etc. have been derived from nuclear genes (genes that are encoded by nuclear DNA). Creationists deem these relationships false, and often claim that there is a mechanism that at some point prevents change from happening (the artificial micro vs macro separation), i.e. they claim that common ancestry is impossible.


Rhinoceros, forgive me for my prior posts and for not responding directly to the topic of your original post.

Actually, I thank you for inspiring me to do more research into the matter.

The research process was slow and painful on mitochondria, but picked up much faster after researching alphaproteobacteria and Rickettsia.

Guess what? I can definitely see the bridge now between microevolution and macroevolution.

So, needless to say, where did all of this research lead me towards the end?

SOIL LIFE


In balanced soil, plants grow in an active and steady environment. The mineral content of the soil and its heartiful structure are important for their well-being, but it is the life in the earth that powers its cycles and provides its fertility. Without the activities of soil organisms, organic materials would accumulate and litter the soil surface, and there would be no food for plants. The soil biota includes:

Megafauna: size range - 20 mm upward, e.g. moles, rabbits, and rodents.
Macrofauna: size range - 2 to 20 mm, e.g. woodlice, earthworms, beetles, centipedes, slugs, snails, ants, and harvestmen.
Mesofauna: size range - 100 micrometres to 2 mm, e.g. tardigrades, mites and springtails.
Microfauna and Microflora: size range - 1 to 100 micrometres, e.g. yeasts, bacteria (commonly actinobacteria), fungi, protozoa, roundworms, and rotifers.

Of these, bacteria and fungi play key roles in maintaining a healthy soil. They act as decomposers that break down organic materials to produce detritus and other breakdown products. Soil detritivores, like earthworms, ingest detritus and decompose it. Saprotrophs, well represented by fungi and bacteria, extract soluble nutrients from delitro. The ants (macrofaunas) help by breaking down in the same way but they also provide the motion part as they move in their armies. Also the rodents, wood-eaters help the soil to be more absorbant.


en.wikipedia.org...

Now, you may not like my final conclusion, but at least we're one step closer to coming together.

My final conclusion is that not only did God create man from the dust of the earth, but He created ALL LIFE from the dust of the earth.

So, now that we know where life comes from, we have to start figuring out how the earth was formed to create the dust and the life in it, that ultimately created more life.

Genesis 2:7


7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


"Minerals are links between Earth and human health"

www.emory.edu...
edit on 13-4-2012 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
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.


It's not like that at all. One side has evidence behind it, the other does not. It's not the same as arguing personal opinion. It's not like the supporters of blue, have tangible evidence to suggest it is indeed better. It is like arguing the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. The "red" side spreads lies about blue, and makes conclusions based on false premises about blue. That is more like what the argument is about. It's far beyond personal opinion, it's ignorance vs knowledge essentially.

What you are saying is like saying, "Mathematics will always prove itself accurate to its own perceptions within mathematics". Well of course, but it doesn't mean that 1+1 will ever not equal 2.


edit on 13-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
well if you poison cockroaches over several generations the survivors will increase thier tolerance till the poison kills basically none of the cockroaches
this is EVOLUTION
and god created evolution so christians could call him/her/it a lier


PS
learning is evolution!


That is not evolution, it's called building up a tolerance. Give the same man enough hydrocodone or any other drug like coc aine for instance and they build up a tolerance which will eventually lead to them overdosing to death. That is not evolution because when those people detox they come down and given enough time their bodies will reset to normal. So are you advocating that humans "evolve" and "devolve" when they take poisons and build up a tolerance and then come down after a time? What an absurd notion.

You need to go back to school and relearn what evolution is because

You FAIL.

So, by babies growing up they are evolving? Learning is evolving? ROFL.
edit on 13-4-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 





I'm saying it's entirely pointless in attempting to argue anything with anyone of faith because it's like trying to play chess with a dog while discussing Italian opera


Having once BEEN a person of faith, an old earth creationist no less, I tend to disagree. Now none of the arguments I had ever single-handedly changed my mind but if I had never hit on opposition to my views, it the seeds of doubt had never been planted, I'm not sure I would have escaped that belief system as early as I did (or at all). It may SEEM quite fruitless on the surface to debate with religious folks but there are plenty of skeptics, agnostics, atheists, etc who had come out of religion thanks in part to arguments against religion.

The only way that I see science arguing it's always right is when it argues that the scientific method is BETTER equipped to discern reality than any other method yet devised, in that sense you are right, however most ideas in science are always ready to be falsified. I suppose it could be said that science is righter, as in closer to reality.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


No idea, never heard of it. See the problem with evolutionists they think everything just evolved out of thin air, when they don't realize things don't just suddenly appear out of nowhere, for something to exist it has to be created.



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I find all these arguments just funny... and a result of sheer ignorance. On the other hand I also feel sad that real spirituality has degenerated to such an extent nowadays. I wish we could go back to the age when science and religion (faith) were considered to be one and the same. ie, the search for knowledge was equivalent to the search for God.

My this post might give you more details.




posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I'm extremely aware of and knowledgeable about science.
You, however, I think, need work on your reading comprehension skills.

Have you read my other posts? Are you having trouble understanding that no matter what evidence you present to a person of faith that regardless the evidence, and even sometimes in spite of the evidence, the person of Faith will deny that evidence and claim some other 'proof', or scripture they feel nulls said evidence.

When the two sides argue, the arguments are immutable.
Science is to fact as Faith is to validation of any fantasy imaginable without or even in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Science is rational. Faith is irrational.
They are two totally different siades that can never mix. Faith will always think itself right. Science will always think itself right, even when it self corrects because it's entirely open to self correction where self correction makes anything science says stronger from a scientific standpoint.

I am not saying that Science is wrong or putting science to question. I'm saying it's entirely pointless in attempting to argue anything with anyone of faith because it's like trying to play chess with a dog while discussing Italian opera, and the latest in high fashion. Dog isn't going to get it, and the only thing important to the dog is it's master.


I have observed times when Scientists are irrational in their beliefs and religious people being quite rational.

Take for instance the scientific belief that random chance, operating on true nothingness, has given rise to all matter, which now is of such incredible order that it has produced intelligent life. Is that rational?



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
That is not evolution, it's called building up a tolerance. Give the same man enough hydrocodone or any other drug like coc aine for instance and they build up a tolerance which will eventually lead to them overdosing to death. That is not evolution because when those people detox they come down and given enough time their bodies will reset to normal. So are you advocating that humans "evolve" and "devolve" when they take poisons and build up a tolerance and then come down after a time? What an absurd notion.

To be fair, he did say "over several generations" and technically if a roach has a certain mutation that makes him not vulnerable to the type of poison being used, the trait will become prevalent. He was trying to describe natural selection, albeit the poison might not be the best example. Nonetheless, the poison is still part of their environment and if they can't survive it, they die out. This means that more cockroaches survive and pass down the beneficial genes. A better example is fur color, where a creature's ability to survive relies directly on its ability to blend in with its surroundings.
edit on 13-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


No idea, never heard of it. See the problem with evolutionists they think everything just evolved out of thin air, when they don't realize things don't just suddenly appear out of nowhere, for something to exist it has to be created.


Yes, the theory of evolution totally talks about things evolving from thin air, unlike creation where things definitely were not created out of thin air.
I like this role reversal.


Take for instance the scientific belief that random chance, operating on true nothingness, has given rise to all matter, which now is of such incredible order that it has produced intelligent life. Is that rational?


Could you please cite me the scientific theory that is based on "true nothingness", whatever that even means.
It must be comedy hour on here. Thanks for making my evening.
edit on 13-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


No idea, never heard of it. See the problem with evolutionists they think everything just evolved out of thin air, when they don't realize things don't just suddenly appear out of nowhere, for something to exist it has to be created.


Yes, the theory of evolution totally talks about things evolving from thin air, unlike creation where things definitely were not created out of thin air.
I like this role reversal.


Take for instance the scientific belief that random chance, operating on true nothingness, has given rise to all matter, which now is of such incredible order that it has produced intelligent life. Is that rational?


Could you please cite me the scientific theory that is based on "true nothingness", whatever that even means.
It must be comedy hour on here. Thanks for making my evening.
edit on 13-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Sure:
All about Science - Big Bang Theory Overview
Discover Magazine - Before the Big Bang
superstringtheory.com - What Came Before the Big Bang?
and, for completeness, a dissenting view (which mentions the predominant accepted theory):
Scientists glimpse universe before the Big Bang

That's for starters.


edit on 13/4/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I'm extremely aware of and knowledgeable about science.
You, however, I think, need work on your reading comprehension skills.

Have you read my other posts? Are you having trouble understanding that no matter what evidence you present to a person of faith that regardless the evidence, and even sometimes in spite of the evidence, the person of Faith will deny that evidence and claim some other 'proof', or scripture they feel nulls said evidence.

When the two sides argue, the arguments are immutable.
Science is to fact as Faith is to validation of any fantasy imaginable without or even in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Science is rational. Faith is irrational.
They are two totally different siades that can never mix. Faith will always think itself right. Science will always think itself right, even when it self corrects because it's entirely open to self correction where self correction makes anything science says stronger from a scientific standpoint.

I am not saying that Science is wrong or putting science to question. I'm saying it's entirely pointless in attempting to argue anything with anyone of faith because it's like trying to play chess with a dog while discussing Italian opera, and the latest in high fashion. Dog isn't going to get it, and the only thing important to the dog is it's master.


I have observed times when Scientists are irrational in their beliefs and religious people being quite rational.

Take for instance the scientific belief that random chance, operating on true nothingness, has given rise to all matter, which now is of such incredible order that it has produced intelligent life. Is that rational?



Yes, it's entirely rational as your statement is an indication of your lack of understanding in regards to how enough random chaos over enough time creates patterns, harmonics, and organized stable structure.

You might take note of how much easier it is for authorities to enact crowd control than it is to control a single person.

take note that no matter how chaotically you pour any liquid into any container, that liquid will still organize readily to the shape of the container.

Take note that no matter how seemingly random or chaotic the pattern of leaves between a maple tree and an oak tree, no matter the randomness or chaos in shaping the growth pattern of the trunks, you will still recognize that one tree is indeed an oak, and the other indeed a maple.

Further, as a criticism against faith, or gods, if there is indeed some god, and there is indeed some creation force or personality at work, then, if such is so, please tell me who or what created these gods, or whatever god is your preference, and what created that or those gods, and what created that or those before them, and before them, and before them?

We keep getting algebraically and geometrically expansive values of 'before', which in turn gets into the dimensionality and nature of time.
Regardless that, you still have this neverending spiral of precedent personalities that absolutely must present themselves as progenitors if you accept that there is even just one progenitor.

In smaller words; if you accept there is one god, or any number of gods, if you have the smallest bit of reason about you, you then must accept that if a personality is responsible for creation, then there has to then be a personality that created that personality, and a personality before that, just as you, and any other animal or known life had a mother/father/progentor/predecessor.

If all organization must come from organization then where did that organization come from?
In math, this is similar to the Golden Spiral: Golden Spiral, or the golden ratio describing an endless infinite spiral.
Such an argument for the validity of a god would then at least have some mathematical backing, but, as said, it'd have to accept an endless procession of pre-proto-ur--former-creators through an infinite line of creationism.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
Sure:
All about Science - Big Bang Theory Overview
Discover Magazine - Before the Big Bang
superstringtheory.com - What Came Before the Big Bang?
and, for completeness, a dissenting view (which mentions the predominant accepted theory):
Scientists glimpse universe before the Big Bang


Big Bang theory explains the expansion, not what happened prior to it. That argument is like saying evolution explains the origin of life. There aren't any science experiments that suggest "nothing" ever existed. It is impossible to study anything prior to just after the singularity started to expand. Anything before the singularity is a pure guess or hypothesis. There is not any scientific evidence anywhere to suggest "nothing" existed at any point in time. Our human understanding of time is what we base that on, but the truth of the matter is that while there are a few good mathematical theories out there about what came prior or what lies beyond our known universe, there is nothing based on tangible evidence.
edit on 14-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


No idea, never heard of it. See the problem with evolutionists they think everything just evolved out of thin air, when they don't realize things don't just suddenly appear out of nowhere, for something to exist it has to be created.


2 way problem...

What created Big Bang?!?? what was before BB?!?!?

Who created God, were is his/hers "parents"?!!?!?

If a creationist need to disprof Evolution it haz to look at its own belife.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey

2 way problem...

What created Big Bang?!?? what was before BB?!?!?

Who created God, were is his/hers "parents"?!!?!?

If a creationist need to disprof Evolution it haz to look at its own belife.


That's not a 2-way problem. People who know the Bible already know the answer to your 1st question, obviously, you don't know the Bible.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join