an easy way to understand evolution...

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: stormson

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
the romans created latin

What created DNA?

DNA most likely came from RNA.

And that's exactly why it's classed as a faith

Not really.

Faith is belief without evidence.

Now, answer this question. If humans just popped into existence like creationism/Id says we did, why do we have viral DNA in our cells? Why is that viral DNA required for placental formation? Shouldn't all our DNA be only human and contain everything we need to exist?

The fact we couldn't exist without the viral DNA shows that at some point in the past our ancestors didn't produce placental live birth. Just one step in the evolutionary process to get here.

Scientific "most likely" is the evidence is pointing this direction but we need a little more to be sure.

a reply to: stormson

Sorry are you assuming viral dna was not created when the human was?

Anyway, as you would be well aware

"Wemayowe our survival and complexity to a stowaway virus that springs to life in the very first cells of human embryos"
www.newscientist.com...

"Viral Gene Appears Crucial to Mammalian Reproduction"
www.scientificamerican.com...

"Moreover, a number of lines of indirect evidencehave pointed to a possible role in placental development"
www.pnas.org...


But I just want proof they were not there in the beginning, then you win...

Leave the superstition out of science stormy, please

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: stormson

Sorry are you assuming viral dna was not created when the human was?

Anyway, as you would be well aware

"Wemayowe our survival and complexity to a stowaway virus that springs to life in the very first cells of human embryos"
www.newscientist.com...

"Viral Gene Appears Crucial to Mammalian Reproduction"
www.scientificamerican.com...

"Moreover, a number of lines of indirect evidencehave pointed to a possible role in placental development"
www.pnas.org...


But I just want proof they were not there in the beginning, then you win...

Leave the superstition out of science stormy, please

Superstition is belief in a god with no direct evidence.

a reply to: stormson

I'm curious.how is this a factoid?

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.

sounded more like a fairy tale to me than a factoid.

originally posted by: edmc^2
sounded more like a fairy tale to me than a factoid.

Yes, some things are hard to believe, when you haven't done the research. You love to blindly dismiss science because you don't like it, but you ignore the elephant in the room that YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM is much more like a fairy tale, than science. I mean, come on, bro, your propaganda is creating more atheists.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
sounded more like a fairy tale to me than a factoid.

Yes, some things are hard to believe, when you haven't done the research. You love to blindly dismiss science because you don't like it, but you ignore the elephant in the room that YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM is much more like a fairy tale, than science. I mean, come on, bro, your propaganda is creating more atheists.

To the contrary SCIENCE is a beautiful tool when used properly. It not only confirms my belief but affirms them to be the reality.

For instance do you know that the Universe had a beginning according to the scriptures? Gen 1:1.

Science not only confirms it but affirms it!!

Imagine the shock.

So since you claim to be the SCIENCE EXPERT here, please explain where this factoid is based on/from?

...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.

Pure Imagination as Willy Wonka sang it or a silly story sprinkled with scientific nomenclatures?

a reply to: edmc^2

It's based on DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is separate from nuclear DNA. The mitochondria also has a double envelope which is what happens when something from the outside penetrates the cell.

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: edmc^2

It's based on DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is separate from nuclear DNA. The mitochondria also has a double envelope which is what happens when something from the outside penetrates the cell.

The Mitochondrias separate DNA along with the fact that Mitochondrias cell membrane is exactly like that if eukaryotes along with the way Mitochondria reproduce(budding and splitting into 2). Add in the fact that we see a similar process in plants with chloroplasts and there is a fair amount of evidence that indicates that endosymbiosis did in fact occur.

I will admit that it is not 100% proof that this occurred. It is however the best possible explanation for the body of facts currently known. I'm always open minded enough to look at any papers or data that disputes this or provides another answer/explanation, but I'm not seeing it.

With that said, science doesn't actually attempt to provide 100% air tight proof of anything. It's always about providing the best possible answers based on the body of evidence currently known. None of this means that it's rational to throw your hands in the air and proclaim that it's all a fairy tale. The evidence is there. If they disagree with it, provide data that shows current models in error. That never pans out though and we're stuck listening to incredulousness.

For a dumbed down for laymen explanation... evolution.berkeley.edu...

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: edmc^2

It's based on DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is separate from nuclear DNA. The mitochondria also has a double envelope which is what happens when something from the outside penetrates the cell.

What you described above is the scientific part - which I agree.

but what about this story?

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.

like I said - Pure Imagination or a silly story sprinkled with scientific nomenclatures.

a reply to: edmc^2

I'm not tracking what your asking? You agree that the two where separate at one time and the mitochondria joined with a single cell organism, right?

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: edmc^2

I'm not tracking what your asking? You agree that the two where separate at one time and the mitochondria joined with a single cell organism, right?

OK - let's break it down:

Where was this story based from?

way back there was an organism that was really good at gathering food source, but couldnt make energy,

a reply to: edmc^2

Currently the cell can produce very little energy itself and relies on the mitochondria to produce the energy. The cell is very good at gathering food stuff however. The way the mitochondria is shaped precludes it from gathering food effectively.

The two where separate at one point, now they aren't.

The only known organism lacking mitochondria is in the link.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: edmc^2

Currently the cell can produce very little energy itself and relies on the mitochondria to produce the energy. The cell is very good at gathering food stuff however. The way the mitochondria is shaped precludes it from gathering food effectively.

The two where separate at one point, now they aren't.

This is what I'm trying get at - since there was no scientist present when the first cell or "organism" was created, what made you conclude that..

The two where separate at one point, now they aren't.

??

assumption, wild guess, pure imagination?

a reply to: edmc^2

Read Peter vlars comment. He broke it down more scientifically than I am.

You even agreed with it.

As for no one seeing it happen, that's silly. I don't have to watch your grandparents mate to know they produced one of your parents. I just need DNA.

Double post

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: edmc^2

Currently the cell can produce very little energy itself and relies on the mitochondria to produce the energy. The cell is very good at gathering food stuff however. The way the mitochondria is shaped precludes it from gathering food effectively.

The two where separate at one point, now they aren't.

This is what I'm trying get at - since there was no scientist present when the first cell or "organism" was created, what made you conclude that..

The two where separate at one point, now they aren't.

??

assumption, wild guess, pure imagination?

I don't disagree with you that endosymbiosis is as yet a hypothetical scenario and doesn't meet the criteria currently to be considered a Scientific Theory. However, the evidence we do currently have certainly seems to indicate that endosymbiosis did in fact occur. The fact that the mitochondrial cell membrane is like that of the eukaryotes they are thought to have come from. They have a unique DNA separate from that of the host cells within which they live and mitochondria had a similar life cycle and engages in cell division exactly like eukaryotes. Is this 100% proof of an endosymbiotic event? No. Can you or anyone else however provide a scientific explanation that explains how and why mitochondria share so many properties and similarities with eukaryotes? Why it has its own unique DNA? Certainly happy to entertain a rational hypothesis if you can provide one that isn't based on incredulousness and confirmation bias.

originally posted by: edmc^2
For instance do you know that the Universe had a beginning according to the scriptures? Gen 1:1.

Science not only confirms it but affirms it!!

Completely wrong. We have no clue whether the big bang was the beginning or not. We can only measure back to just after the expansion started. Sorry, but there is no evidence that the universe ever began. We don't know what came prior to BB yet. Maybe one day, but science definitely has not confirmed or affirmed that.

a reply to: Raggedyman

You seem to (as always) miss that this is an analogy. Analogies are only partly useful. Thus an overly simplified one, will only be of use to those with the least ability in that area.

Evolution is not like a language in all reality. It is an analogy.

What you might wish to consider however is that there was at some point in our evolution a human species which first used language. Thus it did NOT have a precursor.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: stormson

I'm curious.how is this a factoid?

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.

sounded more like a fairy tale to me than a factoid.

Cute how the myth that is also called "the endosymbiont hypothesis" went from a mere unverified vague and untestable* story or idea/philosophy to a so-called "hypothesis" (implied scientific), then a "theory" (also implied as a "scientific theory"; including marketed under so-called "peer review") and apparently in the minds of some people posting on ATS even a "factoid" (I suspect caused by the earlier marketing techniques I hinted at but did not elaborate much on; including trust in and admiration of the wrong types of people and circles or cliques of people that like to pat eachother on the back for mutual promotion of their philosophies and myths affected by the 'publish or perish' phenomena as well). All the while when still no experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is even possible, let alone that it actually happened that way. Talk about terrible postdictions.

*: by reason of insufficient detailed specification, see this comment, this comment, this comment and this comment

Hey, at least they're not presented as predictions like some parts of the chromosome #2 fusion storyline and (sufficiently proven*) erronuous postdiction, at least not yet AFAIK. *: for me as I learned when studying the section of DNA that was supposedly fused at some time in the past; which btw gives no indication that it was fused as is claimed in this storyline, and quite a bit of clear and proper evidence or indication that it wasn't fused, which in turn is conveniently left out of presentations that promote this storyline, completely ignored, or heavily twisted in responses to refutations of the storyline or simply people pointing out this evidence, usually twisted into straw man versions of the points being made and evidence&facts presented.

Btw, just noticed Barcs called it "science" instead of a factoid. Another good marketing term for selling myths as "science", knowledge (a familiarity with facts) or facts, or myths being "scientific" or factual. Seems like a good time for another quotation of 2 Timothy 4:3,4:

3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the beneficial* teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.* [Greek: mythos, KJV: "myths"]

1st *: Or “healthful; wholesome.”
2nd *: Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”

Philosophy: Reasoning

Philosophy

Definition: The word philosophy is derived from Greek roots that mean “love of wisdom.” As used here, philosophy is not built on acceptance of belief in God, but it tries to give people a unified view of the universe and endeavors to make them critical thinkers. It employs chiefly speculative means rather than observation in a search for truth.
...
What is the origin of human philosophies?

They come from people who have limitations: The Bible informs us: “It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jer. 10:23) History testifies that trying to ignore that limitation has not produced good results. On one occasion, “Jehovah proceeded to answer Job out of the windstorm and say: ‘Who is this that is obscuring counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man, and let me question you, and you inform me. Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you do know understanding.’” (Job 38:1-4) (Humans by nature have limitations. Additionally, their experience in life is relatively brief and is usually confined to one culture or one environment. The knowledge they possess is thus restricted, and everything is interconnected to such an extent that they constantly find aspects that they had not adequately considered. Any philosophy that they originate will reflect these limitations.)
...
Why is it an evidence of clear thinking to study the teachings of Jesus Christ instead of human philosophy?

Col. 1:15-17: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth . . . All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exist.” (His intimate relationship with God enables him to help us to learn the truth about God. Furthermore, as the one through whom all other things were made, Jesus has a full knowledge of the entire created universe. No human philosopher can offer any of this.)
...
Col. 2:8: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.” (What a sad mistake it would be to choose such deceptive human philosophy in preference to acquiring true wisdom as a disciple of Jesus Christ, the second-greatest person in the universe, next to God himself!)

How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy?

1 Cor. 1:19-25: “It is written: ‘I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.’ Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness [as it appears to the world] of what is preached to save those believing. . . . Because a foolish thing of God [as the world views it] is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God [as the world may see it] is stronger than men.” (Such a viewpoint on God’s part is certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable. He has provided in the Bible, the most widely circulated book in the world, a clear statement of his purpose. He has sent his witnesses to discuss it with all who will listen. How foolish for any creature to think that he has wisdom greater than that of God!)

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: edmc^2

I don't disagree with you that endosymbiosis is as yet a hypothetical scenario and doesn't meet the criteria currently to be considered a Scientific Theory. ... Certainly happy to entertain a rational hypothesis if you can provide one that isn't based on incredulousness and confirmation bias.

Talking about bias, what does your impression (first sentence) say about the honesty and bias of these websites that call it a "theory" (or what's going in the minds of those who have upped it up to "factoid" or what has affected their way of thinking about this particular unverified evolutionary 'maybe-so' and 'just-so'* storyline and in what manner)? *: depending on how its presented as either a hypothesis, theory or factoid (as being factual/true, sometimes either implied with the word "theory" in a particular context and setting or spelled out with the word "factoid"; other times presented as a "theory" but using a form of the expression "may have" to step back from making any definitive/factual statements again with no regard for the definitions given for both a scientific theory or a hypothesis further below; yet possibly still hoping that the use of the word "theory" will have its intended effect of making people think it's a scientific theory, especially the already heavily biased reader or listener).

The Endosymbiosis Theory: Evolution of Cells (Study.com)

Symbiogenesis - Wikipedia

Symbiogenesis, or endosymbiotic theory, is an evolutionary theory of the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic organisms,...

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

Source: see earlier linked comment in my previous comment here (real source is already given anyway), 1st comment that is linked there

Now let's talk about size, how big are mitochondria in eukaryotic organisms? How big do you want to make* these mythological prokaryotic organisms that eukaryotic organisms evolved from according to the storyline (*: in your version, interpretation or more thoughtful and less vague consideration of the storyline to determin its merit in thinking about reality, or in determining that which is factual/true, not mythology and pure imagination)? Just a reminder:

...Differences in cellular structure of prokaryotes and eukaryotes include the presence of mitochondria and chloroplasts, the cell wall, and the structure of chromosomal DNA.

Source: Eukaryotic Cell vs Prokaryotic Cell - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

There's another big difference between prokaryotic bacteria and eukaryotic organisms...size. Which provides an interesting subject to consider in relation to the endosymbiont storyline in the part about mitochondria (you wanna see some real brilliant thinking? This toddler knows how to think about size in certain situations, the writers of the article above who don't seem to want to emphasize that particular major difference much in relation to and in their promotion of evolutionary storylines in the rest of the text* could learn something from this honest toddler with his practical solution at 0:08) *:it's just one line but that's enough in the field of marketing, possibly analogous to the technique of product placement (haven't thought that one through yet, just what comes to mind)

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...

Mitochondria are commonly between 0.75 and 3 μm in diameter[5] but vary considerably in size and structure.

Source: wikipedia

The earlier link about the difference between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells has prokaryotic cells listed as:

1-10um

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 he 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.).