What is the Evidence for a Common Ancestor for Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells?

by Sea Breeze 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Sea Breeze

  
  

  	Prokaryotes	Eukaryotes
  Type of Cell	Always unicellular	Unicellular and multi-cellular
  Cell size	Ranges in size from 0.2 μm – 2.0 μm in diameter	Size ranges from 10 μm – 100 μm in diameter
  Cell wall	Usually present; chemically complex in nature	When present, chemically simple in nature
  Nucleus	Absent. Instead, they have a nucleoid region in the cell	Present
  Ribosomes	Present. Smaller in size and spherical in shape	Present. Comparatively larger in size and linear in shape
  DNA arrangement	Circular	Linear
  Mitochondria	Absent	Present
  Cytoplasm	Present, but cell organelles absent	Present, cell organelles present
  Endoplasmic reticulum	Absent	Present
  Plasmids	Present	Very rarely found in eukaryotes
  Ribosome	Small ribosomes	Large ribosomes
  Lysosome	Lysosomes and centrosomes are absent	Lysosomes and centrosomes are present
  Cell division	Through binary fission	Through mitosis
  Flagella	The flagella are smaller in size	The flagella are larger in size
  Reproduction	Asexual	Both asexual and sexual
  Example	Bacteria and Archaea	Plant and Animal cell
• 

  Jeffro

  Why are you asking that here? Ask on a biology forum.

  Once again, this is an appeal to ignorance. Just another ‘God of the gaps’ fallacy.
• 

  Jeffro

  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/
  
• 

  Jeffro

  What is the Evidence for Creation of Life by an Incorporeal 'Spirit Creature'?

  Remember, you need to be just as precise as you would expect for answers to your question.
  
• 

  Vidiot

  I’ve seen human beings that looked that different from each other. 😏
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Jeffro,

  Both of these cells types are self-contained units and need all of the various components to survive. How could one compete cell factory change into a completely different cell factory if any of the intermediate changes would cause the cell to immediately die? There are zillions of chicken and egg "problems" like this in biology.

  Vastly complicating this problem for atheists are the many molecular machines and enzymes that produce specific multi-step functions... like Topoisomerases.

  Topoisomerases are nuclear enzymes that play essential roles in DNA replication, transcription, chromosome segregation, and recombination. This 4 minute video explains:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ5oPL0PqYE&t=270s
  
• 

  Jeffro

  As usual, you’ve missed the point. I’m not a biologist, and I’m not interested in going down a rabbit hole on your pet topic. But I graciously provided a link in the general direction anyway. Conceptually, prokaryotes are more analogous to the nuclei of eukaryote cells rather than entirely different in the manner you claim, though it is more complex than that. There’s no reason why I or anyone on this forum should be expected to know the answers to the questions you raise about complex biology, and it remains an argument from ignorance. At the end of it, you’re still no closer to any evidence for even a starting point for belief in a magical deity (also a false dichotomy).

  Vastly complicating this problem for atheists

  If you imagine any of this is a ‘problem for atheists’, you are very confused about what ‘atheist’ means. If you have questions about biology, ask a biologist.
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Jeffro, I know you are not a biologist. But do you know of any evolutionary biologists that has a theory how the unentanglement function of certain enzymes, like for instance Topoisomerases II could have evolved? Here's a very short and super simple explanation on how the problem of entangled DNA strands is solved.

  

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWyl86jQ_Rs
  
• 

  Jeffro

  Sea Breeze:

  But do you know of any evolutionary biologists that has a theory how the unentanglement function of certain enzymes

  Why would I? Why would I care? What makes you think that not being able to answer your questions about biology lends any weight to baseless supernatural claims? It’s all just an argument from ignorance. If you have questions about biology, ask a biologist.

  Still waiting for you to provide any evidence for a deity, employing the same precision and academic rigour that you expect for your misplaced questions about biology.
• 

  Anony Mous

  So you post a picture of extension cords that were recently mathematically proven will entangle themselves through random interactions and then claim the same cannot be done in nature.

  Anyone knows complexity arises from simple rules, play any game in history, with as few simple rules like Go and the possibilities are literally endless.

  That being said, what is the evidence: all the simpler single and multi-cell organism you ignored. This is like textbook evolutionary science, high school or first year college textbooks should cover this topic. There are plenty of evidence of simpler life forms both modern and fossilized at the geological scales.