|
Biochemistry chart of a single human cell (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Saka
So you're saying that at no time in evolution there pinned something happening on chance?
A chance that a certain chemical was produced at a certain time to mean something progressed.
No being can determine the next stage of itself on such a complex biomechanical level simply by selection.
Any cell that evolved is by far more complex than a watch, so I dare any TA here to grab all the components of a watch, put them in a bag and shake them for millions of years til a working watch forms.
Or even better, a watch that can then better itself to be more accurate
Especially a watch that is more complex to the point of life. |
 |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Saka
Ok. |
What "ok"? Read the damn book lol! |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Saka
So you're saying that at no time in evolution there pinned something happening on chance?
A chance that a certain chemical was produced at a certain time to mean something progressed.
No being can determine the next stage of itself on such a complex biomechanical level simply by selection.
Any cell that evolved is by far more complex than a watch, so I dare any TA here to grab all the components of a watch, put them in a bag and shake them for millions of years til a working watch forms.
Or even better, a watch that can then better itself to be more accurate
Especially a watch that is more complex to the point of life. |
That argument is self defeating, as organized complexity is what we are trying to explain. By definition, any god (assuming you posit a god) would be far more complex than a single cell, so therefore your argument can be turned against you.
As for this 'random chance' argument you evolution deniers like to bring up, you need to realise that the Universe is vast beyond measure, and there are an estimated 100 billion billion planets in the universe. When you multiply that with the amount of time available, the chances of the conditions being just right to allow simple life to form start to improve...we know it has happenned at least once, because we are here. That's abiogenesis anyway, but seriously, you need to read more about evolution, because the arguments you are presenting have been debunked years ago. |
|
|
| RickyM |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
What "ok"? Read the damn book lol! |
Awesome book, I have it beside me :cool: . Chapter 6 in particular is brilliant, 'Of Origins and miracles'. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| There is no "forethought" in evolution. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. Over a long enough time, "chance" is able to give you the incredible variation and complexity you see today. Life has been around for about 3.8 billion years. Humans have only been around for the last 200,000 of those, or 1/19000 of the time since life has existed. Small, random changes that gave added fitness over 3.8 billion years is why we're so complex. Or else the super being that made us sure as hell took his time. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Saka
So you're saying that at no time in evolution there pinned something happening on chance? |
Not at all. Mutations are largely due to chance factors. But the selection for or against them is not "random."
It would be sort of like composing a poem by picking random combinations of letters and only keeping the ones that spelled meaningful words. Would take a long time, but it could be done...
| quote: | | Any cell that evolved is by far more complex than a watch, so I dare any TA here to grab all the components of a watch, put them in a bag and shake them for millions of years til a working watch forms. |
You're assuming that cells have always been the same, and that there weren't even simpler types of "cells" that were eventually outcompeted by the ancestors of the ones we see today. Those are not valid assumptions. No evolutionary biologist would say that life began with today's prokaryotes jumping straight out of the ooze. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
evolution is a fact its not a theory..
actually let me repharse. The theory of evoultion is similar to the theory of gravity.
do some reading before you make some ignorant comments like this Saka.
Evolution can be demonstrated on bacteria. genes have been mapped. Mutations have been forced. Now throw the environment and nature into play and you just have added a randomness to it. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Yeah, but most of our genes evolved long before that, especially the ones involved in all the chemical processes outlined on that page. We share 90% of our genes with mice, and about 96% with chimps.
;) |
:p |
|
|
| Ted Promo |
Endoplasmic Reticulum are the microscopic swirly slid vaginas. But for RNA cawks.
Endoplasmic Reticulum own face. |
|
|
| Cpt.Cocaine |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
actually let me repharse. The theory of evoultion is similar to the theory of gravity. |
That's a load of bull.
Gravity is far too complex to 'just exist' by coincidence. There must be an intelligent being pushing things downward. |
|
|
|
|
