April 9, 2005 at 1:26 pm #683Daniel MarinerParticipant
I need to know how was the digestive system evolution since the beginning I mean since that beings with just one cell. (sorry for the bad english)
April 12, 2005 at 7:36 pm #21341protozoanParticipant
Theres too types of digestion, intra and extracelular digestion. Intracelular digestion is fylogenetically older than extra. The most intracelullar digestion appears in unicellular organisms, some of them can have specialized structures through which they intake food like cytopharynx, cytostoma, food vacuoles. In multicelular orgs theres 3 types of digestive systems.
1. Digestive cavity – in phyllum Porifera – intracelular digestion which realize through epithelium of choanocytes.
2. Digestive duffle – in orgs with diploblastic body plan – Cnidaria, Acnidaria (Coelenterata) – this has only one opening – mouth(thats why duffle), intracelular digestion changes to extracelular digestion.
3. Digestive tube – Bilaterally symetrical orgs – this has two openings – mouth and anus (thats why tube), theres extracelular digestion.
Theres a lot of exceptions. For example gastropoda has uni and extra together.
September 6, 2011 at 9:18 am #106193FransisParticipant
The evolution of body cavities within the kingdom Animalia has a very interesting history. In fact, the increasing complexity of animal form and function during the evolution of the group can be directly linked to the evolution of ever-more-sophisticated body cavities.
The most primitive animal phyla possess only a single body cavity, which typically has either digestive or circulatory functions, or both. There is no secondary body cavity, or coelom, and consequently these phyla are referred to as the acoelomates.
Most animal phyla, however, have evolved a second body cavity of one form or another. The pseudocoelomates, which include a number of worm-like phyla, are characterized by a secondary body cavity known as the pseudocoelom. The pseudocoelom has some but not all of the characteristics of true coeloms. Finally, several animal phyla, including those that possess the most complex body plans in the kingdom, are characterized by a body cavity known as a true coelom. These phyla are known as the eucoelomates.
here are some links:
Biology: Visualizing Life. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1998.
Gilbert, Scott F. Developmental Biology, 5th ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1997.
Gould, James L., and William T. Keeton. Biological Science, 6th ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996.
Hildebrand, Milton, and Viola Hildebrand. Analysis of Vertebrate Structure. New York: John Wiley, 1994.
Karp, Gerald, and N. J. Berrill. Development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981.
Larson, William J. Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997.
Moore, Janet. An Introduction to the Invertebrates. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
October 3, 2011 at 3:57 am #106597mervParticipant
Ask your sole.
October 5, 2011 at 9:43 pm #106664
Protozoan and Fransis,
i was wondering about the same: how did the digestive system develop? I was looking through your explanations and I found that all you two did was give different names for different digestive systems and explain how they work. The most towards and explanation I read was:quote Fransis:
Beyond this, i dont understand HOW the digestive system evolved. Also, how did stomach acid end up in the stomach? Commonly, the acid in stomachs is enough to kill cells. How did the cells in stomach evolve resistance to these chemicals through bile production? How did those cells then know to dump that material outside the body? I would appreciate if you could explain the process of this and what mechanics (punctuated equilibrium, divergent evolution, etc) of evolution are involved.
October 6, 2011 at 1:58 am #106670
The case of the Italian Wall Lizards offers clues about some bits of this puzzle.
One aspect is the 30 year time span it took to develop a cecal valve when placed in a different environment -something that in their kind of animal, is rare.
They developed different diet, dentition, jaws, skulls, social behaviours, and gut, in a time frame that defies conventional wisdom. It could be a different phenome without necessarily any mutations. This would be shown if they were to have changed over mostly all at once, rather than as mutations spreading through the population.
Another aspect of the lizard life is how they alter their island environment through eating fruits and spreading the plant forms and so provide themselves with more food.
October 6, 2011 at 7:18 pm #106682
I would like to look at your example of the Italian Wall Lizard a bit further before I make conclusions on that, and complete a sort of peer review of your evidence.
Although your explanation possibly lends some merit (I only say possibly because I have not reviewed it in depth), I still do not understand how it is possible through evolution to allow stomach acids to exist within the digestive system which would kill the cells which house them. Also, i do not understand how those stomach cells could have evolved resistance to something that would kill them instantly. Also, how did those cells even come to know what acid is and that it is harmful and life threatening, especially since it would kill those unadapted cells on contact. How did the system then create a means for expelling waste?
October 6, 2011 at 8:25 pm #106684
short reply for now… wrt stromach acid…is it analogous to "How did cells develop the ability to not be oxidized by oxygen?"
October 6, 2011 at 9:05 pm #106685
unfortunately, the case of the Italian Wall Lizards, even if shown to have happened virtually all at once, might only show that somewhere in the past the lineage did have that feature, but it was not a success in that niche/time.
In that way, it’s not as if it’s original development happened in that 30 years time span, nor in the same manner, did it appear this time. It’s more like it was taken out of a "cold storage vault".
October 7, 2011 at 9:42 pm #106703
Crucible: I understand the analogy you are making. It makes sense, but this is not a completely sufficient explanation of how. You are proposing another question, which i do not know the answer to. I will not speculate on how. But by the way you propose the question, it seems that this is an adaptation. If this is so, now I have 2 questions for you: 1.Considering all aforementioned information, how did stomach acid end up in the stomach?
2.How did cells come to genetically adapt to not being oxidized?
By the way you ask the question, it seems like another obstacle that evolution has overcome. If it is an obstacle, I would like to know how evolution overcame that. Also, oxygen continues to exist in the world, and cells must still have that genetic adaptation in their genetic make up. If so, where is that genetic information? Also, How did the chemical slosh (from where prokaryote is formed) not manage to include dissolved oxygen in the various parts of the cell?
October 8, 2011 at 10:05 am #106712
you are asking about things which happend deep in past, so we cannot answer them with 100% certainty. However, we can propose hypothesis based on evidences we have. But it’s still better than believe in God for which you have no proof at all (besides your belief, which is sufficient for many, but yet they ask for more from others).
October 8, 2011 at 12:58 pm #106713
You are honest enough to consider your view as a hypothesis. I find that commendable and it is worthy of respect.
Now Just consider this aspect of the digestive system
Lysosomes and peroxisomes are often referred to as the garbage disposal system of a cell. Both organelles are somewhat spherical, bound by a single membrane, and rich in digestive enzymes, naturally occurring proteins that speed up biochemical processes. For example, lysosomes can contain more than three dozen enzymes for degrading proteins, nucleic acids, and certain sugars called polysaccharides. All of these enzymes work best at a low pH, reducing the risk that these enzymes will digest their own cell should they somehow escape from the lysosome. Here we can see the importance behind compartmentalization of the eukaryotic cell. The cell could not house such destructive enzymes if they were not contained in a membrane-bound system..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/prime … _cell.html
Now to the question, which came first?
The membrane OR the Lysosomes and Peroxisomes.
Evolutionary theory in whatever form, cannot explain how this “chicken and egg” situation can come about. Yet living organisms are replete with these types of systems.
Purposeful design is a perfectly valid scientific concept and only purposeful design can explain it.
I don’t see why anyone has to profess a belief in a God to recognise design.
Many people are simply agnostic.
Why does it have to be either one or the other?
October 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm #106714
obviously it was the membrane. How could you have lysosomes w/o membrane?
So, tell us, how does your creator look like? Did he create us in his own image?
October 8, 2011 at 1:47 pm #106716
Cynicism does not become you nor does it advance you argument, so it is best left alone.
Lysosomes and membranes are two entirely different macro molecules.
My question was which evolved first.
If it was "obviously the membrane" then what was the selective force that required this novelty?
Also how did the lysosome get into the membrane.
What natural selective force required this novelty?
October 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm #106717
I won’t respond until you respond to my questions
October 8, 2011 at 2:21 pm #106718
Ok throw your toys out of the pram then 🙂
October 8, 2011 at 2:49 pm #106719
I didn’t mean to poke fun. I apologise.
I will try and answer your questionsquote :
How does your creator look like?
A creationist may answer this way.
Three persons in one. Some images depict a three headed benign personage.
A member of Islam will have no image.
A member of Judaism will also have no image.
A member of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster will probably depict a — well — a monster made of spaghetti.
Did he create us in his own image?
Since this is a statement from the bible then a bible student will answer probably this way.
The image referred to is a personality image that needs to be cultivated through accurate knowledge of bible teachings.
Hope this helps.
October 8, 2011 at 3:19 pm #106721
No. You’re saying, that the life on Earth was created by designer. How does this one look like? Did this particular creator create us in his own image?
Stop avoiding answers and say us what you know.
October 8, 2011 at 11:47 pm #106725
If you have a proposed hypothesis for how the digestive system developed, it would please me to know where this hypothesis or explanation is. What evidence is it based on? If there is evidence and a hypothesis, please give me the name of that hypothesis and the coordinating evidence.
"But it’s still better than believe in God for which you have no proof at all"
There are several evidences for God, especially things which man cannot explain without a all powerful creator. I will begin with the digestive system, the brain, the immune system, the myriad of types of cells in the body, etc. etc. All of them are complex and, for just one system, evolution cannot provide the explanation for how it "developed". How did a simple eukaryote cell turn into a brain cell? How did the brain form? Evolution explains this no where in any hypothesis, especially if you take away the phrase which is simply a lack of an explanation: "It evolved."
Secondly, on evidence for God. There are multiple well known accounts of what you might call "unexplained phenomena". A sailor was in the navy and aboard a ship. The ship had a catholic chaplain. The sailor ridiculed the chaplain, saying (not exact quote) "If there is a God, then He can make me stop smoking!" Now this man had been smoking for some time, was young, had no previous trouble with smoking, and was used to being on a ship. He ritually smoked after lunch. So the next day, he went out on the deck, lit up, and took a deep breadth. He said to himself with satisfaction "There is no God." At that moment, he vomited over the side. He thought "oh, just a fluke of some sort". So the next day, he came upon the deck after lunch, and repeated the same phrase to himself, thinking that there is no God. And he vomited over the side of the ship. And the third day, the same happened again for the 3rd time in a row. He went back to the chaplain and gave his life to Christ. What is evolution’s explanation for this? Obviously, this is not the result of a mutation.
I have seen 3 accounts of God myself: phenomena which is unexplained except for God’s awesome heeling power. One woman I know, Bridget. She had a problem in her female parts, where she could not have a baby. There is a document showing a doctors report of this. She had been this way for some time. One day, while we were all in service, we had a special guest named Jay Hoskins. He laid hands on her, using the mighty name of Jesus, and she felt a warmth come over her in her female area. She went back to the doctor. The condition that had ailed her was gone. Bridget asked the doctor how this happened. He could not explain it. She went back again for another check up. The results stayed the same. She was heeled by the mighty power of God, which neither medical nor evolution has an explanation for.
The next 2 accounts are the same kind of healing, but they are physical healings which you can watch as they happen. Jay Hoskins, in the same night as Jesus healed Bridget, called out for anyone who had one leg shorter than the other. A young man came up. So that we could see the shorter leg, he sat on the stage and extended and straightened his legs. The left leg was about 4 inches shorter than the other. Jay said "In the name of Jesus Christ be healed." And in that moment, while I was watching, I watched the left leg grow right before my eyes, at about 2 or 3 feet away. And in about 6 seconds, both legs were the same length.
Another time with the same man, Jay Hoskins, called again for the same physical deformality. And a old woman stood up. He placed a single chair in the center aisle where everyone could see. He had her sit in the chair and extend her legs. There was a 3 inch difference this time. I was about 15 or 20 feet away, but a camera displayed it on the big screen. He again said "In the name of Jesus Christ be healed." And again, the leg grew before my eyes.
There was a man that came named John Smithwick. He came to our church and simply prayed over us all, that in the name of Jesus Christ, be healed. There was a girl who had gone to the dentist and was experiencing what was wither pain or numbness as a result of the anesthesia. The pain left her that night. There was someone who was a man who was experiencing pain as a result of a disk in his spine being out of place in some way. He was experiencing difficulties with going up stairs. That night, he had no pain and he walked up the stage stairs without any issues. He has continued in the healing Jesus gave him. There was a man in a wheel chair. He used to be able to walk with a cane. Now he could not and was sitting in a wheelchair. That night, we walked without a cane and received his heeling. Also, that same night, there were tens of people who came with pain, and left without it.
Also, John Smithwick goes around the world. People who had a myriad of medical problems are now free from them by the mighty name of Jesus. There are about 1000 documented healings for the summer.
There is a college for Rhema Bible Training Center. Since its founding, people have been coming in to become healed by Jesus Christ. People come in with many different diseases. Cancer is the most famous one. People come in with cancer, and with no kemo or medical treatment, they leave without it.
But God works by faith, by belief. The bible sais "By his (Jesus’) stripes, we were healed." It sais "All things are possible to them that believe." The opposite is also true: if you dont believe, its not possible. Jesus will not overcome you and do something you do not want him to do. A woman had cancer, but did not want to get healed. The people from Rhema came and prayed, and nothing was happening. Then they asked her she believed in Christ, and if she knew Jesus was her healer. She knew, but she responded (not exact) "Im ready to go to heaven." They understood at that point. Then they prayed to God and told Him of the situation, which being the God He is, He already knew what was going on. They prayed her over into Heaven, and in the next few minutes, she passed on without a sign. She passed on without a seizure or twitches or anything that shows that she was dying. Just simply passed. She could not be healed by God’s power because she did not want to be healed. She did not want to believe for that healing.
Also, you may look to the complexity of ALL life, especially the brain, and the complex systems, and the cycles that maintain life on earth, and the atom structure. I assume you know that carbon is the basis of all life. Everything that is alive has carbon. Carbon has 6 protons. Protons, in the natural world, do not bind to each other. They repel each other. Also, the speed needed for nuclear fusion do not occur naturally, by itself, in the natural world. Yet protons are held together in an atom by nuclear forces, forces that cause protons to stick together when they get extremely close together. Yet any farther apart, and they split. How did carbon form? How is it even possible for carbon to form? The answer is that it is not possible for carbon, iron, mercury, aluminum, fluorine, chlorine, magnesium, calcium, anything with an atomic number of 2 or above, to form. Life and the very world as we know it cannot exist by evolution and the big bang.
JackBean & scottie: Ask yourself this: where are you going when you die? There is indeed an afterlife. There is a heaven and a hell, and we must all go to either one, and we must all face the judgement seat of God. There was a survey given to people who had been clinically dead and had arisen from death. 4000 people said that they had either seen heaven, hell, or both as described in the Bible. One case in particular was a pastor in Africa. He was in a car accident and dies, right then and there. He was dead for 4 hours. During that time, his church was praying over his body that he should come back to life. He arose after 4 hours. He told the people what he saw when he came back to life. He saw heaven, where it was so pleasant. The flowers and everything there praised God. the air was filled with a peaceful tune. Then the angel that was guiding him around took him to hell. There was a man in hell who was a cannibal. The Bible sais that "whatever a man soeth (sows), so shall he reap." The cannibal was eating his own flesh. and in between bites, his flesh renewed itself so that he could eat into eternity.
Hell is a scary place, but you can escape only through Jesus. The Bible sais "No man come unto the Father (God) expect by the son", who is Jesus Christ. The bible sais "He who calls on his name (Jesus) shall be saved." Call on him.
October 8, 2011 at 11:59 pm #106726
scottie: Why does it have to be on or the other?
God want our heart. He wants our devotion, our time, and the dedication, to Him, of our lives and our moral conduct. But God DOESNT WANT TO TAKE THIS FROM ANY MAN! God is all powerful. He holds the universe in His hands, and the Earth id His footstool. If He wanted to, he could just do what he wanted and be draconian and tyrannical. But that is not in His nature. God wants to show you His glory and His power, and his love, peace, joy, mercy, and compassion.
It has to be one way or the other between evolution and God because evolution is something that tries to falsely explain how the world came to be. The universe and everything we say is the product of God’s creation, and when we try to diminish His power and His power and His incredibly complex creation by saying that it arrived by itself from nothing and that it is the result of a random, impossible process. No. God created this universe and everything we see (there are artificial products, which were created from God’s supply of basic materials, which He created).
Allow me to tell you about the origins of evolution. A man named Charles Darwin was a Christian. He believed in God. He knew he created the universe. He knew the good things of God. But his children developed incredibly serious illnesses: tuberculous and some others that I dont remember the exact ones. His wife got a serious disease. His children and wife dies eventually. Charles Darwin, being mad at God and wanting to get back at God, made the theory of evolution. Think: if you’re a Christian scientist, and your children and wife get serious illnesses and die, and God is supposed to be good, and they die. How would you feel toward God? How could you get back at Him?
October 9, 2011 at 8:42 pm #106744quote JackBean:
Well, for one, God is a trinity of three parts: God the Father, Jesus the Son, and The Holy Spirit. We men have 3 parts: spirit, mind/soul, and body. The spirit is where you are housed when you leave this earth. The spirit is shown to be existent by the many people who died and were still able to see in their after life. They were not seeing with their natural eyes. They saw with the eyes of their spirit as they walked the afterlife.
The mind/soul is not the physical mind, but it is your free will and emotions.
But essentially, God is in three parts joined in one, and we are three parts joined in one.
October 9, 2011 at 8:57 pm #106747
Sorry, but I asked scottie for the creator, since be believes there is a creator, but doesn’t want to tell us more about him.
October 9, 2011 at 9:39 pm #106748
I believe there is a creator. I am a christian, and regardless of whether it came from me or him, it is a valid answer on the same God.
Also, take into consideration the complexity of our body. The several systems that have, for each, a different type of cell. The brain. The digestive system and the question of lysosome and the enzymes within, as well as the conundrum of how stomach acid ended up in the stomach, and how the t-cell came to be, and how each type of cell arrived on this earth. Then take into account how the body is organized in such a way, that all systems are stacked together in a way that allows them all to function. Now take into account the complexity of all life, the simplest single-celled organisms (which are complex, but are yet the simplest) and up to multicellular organism, and the fact that they are even more complex that unicellular. Then take into the account the earth’s position and its life support systems, where if only one were out of place, all or most of life would cease to exist.
This cannot have happened simply by chance. The big bang claims that something, which is complex in design, cam make itself out of nothing. The theory of evolution sais that life began in the chemical slosh, where chemicals arranged themselves randomly so that the plasma membrane was on the outside, and the organelles were on the inside, and that the organelles would function, and that the cell as a a whole would be alive. Evolution shoots itself in foot when it sais "life comes from life", and yet a prokaryote, which is alive, can develop from a randomly accomplished organization of chemicals, which are not alive. It is so close to impossible, that mass amounts of phosphorus, adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine would amass together and somehow form DNA, or other chemicals to form a simple plasma membrane. Much less the organelles which are more complex in chemical structure and would develop after the plasma membrane, and would somehow end up inside the plasma membrane. How did organelles get inside the plasma membrane?
The answer to this is simply this: its impossible for life to come from things that are not alive, and it is impossible for life to randomly form on its own and have such perfect design. For life to be so complex and have the life support to accompany it, there has to be a creator, a God, an intelligent designer.
October 9, 2011 at 11:00 pm #106751
Because evolutionary theory claims to be science. This is a science forum.
Your religion is your business, but it cannot be taught as science.
There are many religions around and yours is just one of the many.
With respect, the digestive system which this thread is about has nothing to do with your religion
Recall the question that started this thread.quote :
If you wish to start another thread on your religion then by all means please do so.
I personally will choose not to post to that thread.
You and Jackbean seem to wish to discuss your respective religions.
That is up to you two.
He has found a comforting bolt hole to evade the science he is being examined on and you appear to want to persuade me to give my heart to your mysterious Trinity.
I can however answer one question you asked me because it can be answered by science.quote :
When I die I go to the grave. The same place as anyone else including, sadly my dead dog. My body will decompose and it will return to all the constituent elemental parts. In other words I will cease to exist.
October 9, 2011 at 11:28 pm #106752
You have a soul. Both my body and yours is naught but shadows and dust. But we have a soul. Where will your soul end up? There is a afterlife.
Consider the survey taken of people who died and came back. 4000 of them said they say heaven, hell, or both, as described in the Bible. Their bodies dead and inactive. They are not dreaming. They are not seeing things. Something else on the inside of them saw heaven/hell/both. And that is their soul. You can argue what you will, but you have a soul just as those who died and came back, and your soul is going somewhere:either heaven or hell. Choose this day who, you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Call on him.
October 10, 2011 at 3:23 am #106759quote Tomn:
October 10, 2011 at 3:50 am #106763
Scottie, whether the membrane or the lysosome evolved first is not a difficult question to answer. Lysosomes are just membrane-enclosed vescicles with special degradative enzymes that bud off from the Golgi apparatus. The only thing that evolved here is the enzymes within the lysosomes.
This is NOT a chicken-or-egg scenario.
October 10, 2011 at 10:28 am #106776quote :
Lysosomes can contain more than three dozen enzymes for degrading the proteins, nucleic acids, etc.
Enzymes are proteins. Ribosomes which in themselves are proteins, make the enzymes, which are also proteins. The enzymes didn’t evolve they are made by the ribosome. A conundrum is it not?
The membrane that encloses these proteins is a completely different molecule, which as far as I am aware also contains embedded proteins.!!
So did the membrane evolve first to protect the cell from these enzmmes that would destroy it, or did the enzymes evolve first to digest the cells waste products.
Now jackbean states that the membrane “obviously” evolved first.
So my simple question was
What is the force that would have selected for a situation (ie presence of enzymes) that had not yet come into existence?
That is how evolution is supposed to work is it not?
It certainly could not be natural selection because natural selection cannot select for something that does not exist.
Surely this is self evident.
Now you appear to be saying that the Golgi apparatus evolved first.
But yours is yet another example of this self same conundrum.
What need is there for the Golgi apparatus to package and transport products to the various cellular locations if those systems didn’t already exist.
Can you not see why the cell as a complete unit is the basic form of life.
Nothing is alive unless the cell exists. All these individual systems within the cell are in themselves inert.
October 10, 2011 at 10:43 am #106777
First of all, ribosomes are mainly nucleic acid. Especially the catalytic center is nucleic acid, the proteins are just some package.
You wrotequote :
That’s like saying – we didn’t evolve, we are made by sex.
I assume the membrane was first because the cell is enveloped by membrane even in prokaryotes, which lack Golgi or lysosomes.
October 10, 2011 at 1:29 pm #106782
It was pretty "obvious" before but now you only assume.
Well at least you are rowing back somewhat.
Prokaryotes contain ribosomes that make proteins. Or didn’t you know that?
So you are now arguing that the membrane appeared before the cell are you?
But the membrane contains proteins that are made by the cell.
How does that work then.
You are digging an even bigger hole for yourself
My advice is stop digging.
October 10, 2011 at 3:57 pm #106783
man, you’re so stupid, you cannot even imagine, that something is able to evolve from simple (only ribosyme, only lipid bilayer) into something complicated (ribosome, nowaday membrane).
There is nothing to discuss with you.
I’m able to assume that because it’s quite obvious.
I’m not arguing, that proteins are not made by ribosomes, but that this is not argument against evolution :-/ Are you really that stupid or just trying to make me look stupid, because you have no better arguments?
October 10, 2011 at 7:09 pm #106785
Your insults have no place in the scientific discussion. I am with scottie in this: we are simply questioning the very far-stretched (to the point of impossibility) conjecture which sais that enzymes could have evolved with the membrane.
We are questioning whether the membrane could have even formed considering that it contains proteins made by the cell.
And we are questioning whether the golgi apparatus would have involved in the time frame suggested by evolution. This is considering that when it evolved, there would have been no use for it as there were no cellular locations for it to transport things to.
We have gone in this circle of question and answer, and you have not provided a viable, possible answer that is not far stretched or close to impossible. Or even if it is possible, it is self contradictory in the sequence of development and the fact that the enzymes would not be able to get inside the membrane, or the membrane within the cell wall.
I would assume scottie is not trying to make you look stupid, because neither am I. We are simply pointing out that evolution is quite impossible because it cannot provide a viable means of cell development.
If evolution cannot provide a sufficient, viable answer (which evolution cannot provide an answer), then the simple answer to this is that evolution is impossible. If the cell cannot develop under evolution, how can life develop? The answer is that it cannot develop under evolution.
October 10, 2011 at 7:56 pm #106787
The thing about evolution is that for it to be possible, all of these things must line up in a proper orientation and must be viable and somewhat reasonable and possible. The point is, that you may be able to argue one point, but the other points which you say are possible do not line up and are simply impossible and very far stretched.
When multiple events, far stretched in possibility, need to coordinate in their order and time of occurrence, then it makes the overall goal of all of these events lining up impossible.
October 11, 2011 at 5:46 am #106800
Wow, you creationist guys really need to crack open a biology texbook.
October 11, 2011 at 9:28 am #106806
I take that as a NO.
You cannot tell me what selective force was operating on the membrane for it to have evolved.
However I have to give you credit for having such a fertile imagination
And you are quite right of course. I am too stupid to imagine. 🙂
I have leave that to the believers, you are much better at it than me.
So with your kind permission I will stick with science
October 11, 2011 at 12:23 pm #106807quote Tomn:
That’s wrong, actually the evolution is working by fixing previous mistakes. An outstanding example is the eye of mammals, where the light must pass through the nerves before it reaches retina. That’s not much intelligent design 😉
But you know what. I understand, why so many engineers are for ID, because only engineer can design the waste disposal system so close to the fun park 😀
October 11, 2011 at 1:34 pm #106809
a focused discussion on membranes might be productive. it’s fascinating stuff.
October 11, 2011 at 7:41 pm #106820
atitude: simply opening a biology textbook and learning about evolution is not going to convince me of it. Although, the more I read about the complexity of the simplest cells, and how from then on everything else is more complicated, it would cause me to question evolution rather than simple conjecture in favor in evolution without direct evidence.
scottie: we may differ on religion, but we can at least be together on this one: there are to many very far fetched possibilities that have to line up in order for evolution to be possible. And with reference to lysosome, this is only ONE example. There is complexity and conundrum for evolutionist in all of life. And for all of these impossibilities to have happened by chance, without orchestration, all at the same time? No. It simply is not possible.
JackBean: You see, this is the thing about arguing evolution in its own realm: you guys simply conjecture around what we say instead of using facts and observed examples.
Again with the Lysosome. It would digest the cell it is in. Low pH conditions are not created by water, and cell fluid is only produced by the cell. Therefor, the enzyme evolving outside of the membrane would dissolve the membrane, or the enzyme inside of the membrane which would not contain cell fluid, and thus the enzyme is consumed form the inside out. Or how the lysosome got into the cell? Did the lysosome develop inside our outside the cell? Evolution still has not answers for this. You debated, but you never answered the question. The simple answer is that is is impossible.
Also, there is one more argument that I forgot to mention. A regular cell, if it has an encounter with bacteria, would die. Evolution sais that more complex organisms come after the simpler organisms. Bacteria would have developed before the cell. How can the cell develop in a environment with bacteria?
October 12, 2011 at 7:02 am #106835
An animal which has a brain, is considered more complex than one that has not.
A creature that has a brain in early life, when it’s mobile, then loses it after fixing itself down…when it doesn’t really need a brain any more – what degree of complexity does THAT hold ?
One might even consider it more complex evolution, to have the development of brain disposal .
Humans might survive longer as a species if the brain could be ruined a bit. Getting rid of ability to use alphabet would probably be just the thing.
October 12, 2011 at 7:37 pm #106847
Do you realize that you just turned the human into a vegetable by removing its brain?
This mutation of a lack of a brain or the the lack of half of a brain has occurred recently in history, and these people with half a brain have an island of massive intellectual ability (intellectual ability in only one area), if any ability at all. Commonly, these individuals cannot be self directive in any way and, if left to the wonder and live for themselves, would die. When the brain is taken away, the individual may not have to learn the alphabet (which is unnecessary to surviving in the wild) but the individual will also loose their center for THINKING and ACTING and CONTROLLING THEIR BODY. Brain disposal is clearly not a adaptation.
When has brain disposal been observed to be a beneficial adaptation in the environment?
October 12, 2011 at 9:19 pm #106851quote Tomn:
For a creature that has a split lifestyle…first with mobility, then later settling in a spot and essentially filter feeding.
The brain is a waste of resources if it’s not being used.
October 12, 2011 at 9:22 pm #106852
Plus it’s not correct to think that everything you see in survivors, is an adaptation.
October 12, 2011 at 10:40 pm #106854
Is there an example anywhere in nature of brain disposal?
Has it been observed in nature or replicated in the lab?
Since when does someone who settles in one area stop using their brain? They may plateau in their amount of brain usage, but they do not decrease in brain function and begin to dispose of unused functions.
I am currently in an AP Psychology class. My teacher is an evolutionist, and he has clearly stated that once something is in long-term memory, it doesnt go away. If i were to move away from civilization, and stop writing for 20 years, I could come back and relearn it because the brain never loses what was goes into long-term memory.
Also, even if I didnt learn writing as a child, I could mold into civilization as a 30 year old, even a 60 year old who was thrown into the woods as a child and never knew writing. This is because of adult neurogenesis: the brain, throughout individuals life span, continuously creates new neurons. I could learn it later in life after not needing it from birth. Learning it would come with some difficulty because I’ve been in the wild all of my life, but I would still be able to learn it.
The brain does begin to deteriorate when you dont use it, but the extreme case that you are referring to is most similar to cases of Alzheimer’s. Obviously, people with Alzheimer’s cannot be self directive and are always, for the rest of their life, will be guided by the hand by other people.
October 13, 2011 at 6:49 am #106864
I forget the name of it. It’s a small sea creature.
October 13, 2011 at 9:13 am #106867quote Tomn:
Wrong again, new neurons are not made after birth.
October 23, 2011 at 2:10 am #107131
It is not me that is saying that adult neurogenesis is true, its my TEXTBOOK and LEGITIMATE OBSERVATIONS. Put adult neurogenesis or neurogenesis in google. You will see the overwhelming evidence everywhere.
These are just the first 3 links for a google search of "adult neurogenesis". You dont have to read that far to find that the conception of the brain not producing new neurons after birth is an urban myth and misconception.
October 29, 2011 at 1:32 pm #107423wpseofriendlyParticipantquote merv:
November 6, 2011 at 2:13 am #107673
Everyone has a sole. Your sole.
If you dont believe it, thats fine with me. I cant tell you how to think.
So you respond to sole but not adult neurogenesis? So you’re ignoring the facts and discussion? A religious conversation as a cop out?
Let me bring it back to you. We were talking about brain disposal. There was an argument that brain disposal is an evolutionary advantage because unnecessary parts of the brain are "disposed of" because their functions are no longer used.
However, I brought up adult neurogenesis and the facts that anyone can re-fold into society by relearning after being an outcast for some time. You can reread the arguments above. Obviously, this disproved their argument but the people I was debating never bothered to respond back and admit it. They just stayed quite and didnt come back.
So are you going to ignore facts and continue this conversation?
Either way its fine with me because I like to explain the truths of Christianity.
November 6, 2011 at 2:18 am #107676quote Tomn:
I have two. One on the bottom of each foot. I rest my case (for now).
November 6, 2011 at 3:35 am #107683
You ignore facts and you are here to insult rather than debate. You have presented no facts, and you do not talk in facts. You are purely political and emotional in insulting me.
You dont belong here because you dont debate, and you dont talk facts. Therefore, I assume you know none. You just want to laugh at creationists all day.
Hey, while you’re at it, jiggle your head around and here your brain bounce around like a bolt inside a jar.
Go bash your head against a rock.
November 6, 2011 at 3:51 am #107688
I would appreciate if debate could return to this thread. Does ANYONE want to debate facts here?
November 6, 2011 at 3:53 am #107693
As I and others have said, debate with ignorant people is futile and not worth our time.
November 6, 2011 at 4:04 am #107701
Go eat pie.
Why are you even here then? If its pointless to debate, you should just get out.
You dont belong in a forum designed for debate.
November 6, 2011 at 4:06 am #107704quote Tomn:
My functions are to help people who seek answers to questions about evolution and to be an antibiotic against infections.
November 6, 2011 at 4:08 am #107708
I gotta go to bed bro.
Go eat pie and think about that rock you talked about.
Oh, did you find that evolving microbe in your bum? I doubt it.
Is the child ready to start debating now, or am I still a waste of your time?
Debate or leave.
November 6, 2011 at 4:10 am #107711quote Tomn:
November 6, 2011 at 4:12 am #107712quote Tomn:
14. "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse."
21. "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
November 6, 2011 at 4:13 am #107713
Then I will ignore you from now on.
Sorry for calling you stupid. I feel the holy spirit telling me to stop. The bible actually sais not to do that.
I forgive you for attempting to intimidate me, insulting me, and diminishing my intelligence. I forgive you in the name of Jesus for any wrong you have done against me, and I release you, and will never bring it up against you ever again.
I’ll acknowledge you when you want to debate again.
November 6, 2011 at 4:17 am #107715
Praise the Lord! Salvation at last! Go to bed.
November 6, 2011 at 7:25 am #107718quote :
I ate the last of them last night – with chips. They were light and flaky. Cap’n Highliner delivered them unto me.
November 7, 2011 at 9:05 pm #107788
Thanks aptitude for quoting scripture, which bring me back, although I never read it until just now. And I thank you anyway, even though I think that you posted that in order to make me out a hypocrite or something like that.
I believe the previous discussion was about brain disposal as a part of the evolutionary process. To which I responded that this does not even occur, because anyone who is left out of society can re-learn what they have not practiced. Also, long term memory never disposes of anything that you put into it. It is simply a matter of retrieval. Also, there is the case of adult neurogenesis where new neurons are made throughout the human lifetime, which is the complete opposite of brain disposal.
Does ANYONE want to get back to science.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.