by cofty 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The OP is a description of a small sample of the evidence for endosymbiosis.
Your response is as follows..
1 - Copy-paste two copies of the same creationist waffle in the same post.
2 - Lie about it and deny that it was copy-paste
3 - Refuse to provide a link to the source so I can consider the context.
4 - Resort to personal attacks and insults.
And yet you claim to be a professional microbiologist?
Give me links to your source and I will refute it.
Cantleave, is that the best you can do?
Your post didn't deserve anything better.
See the number. See the quote. Unfortunately, the fonts of the quotes (which I made smaller) reverted back to a single size. That which was quoted comes from the following sources. The abstracts are available on the web. For the full article you must pay:
1. Abstract: “A novel strong promoter of the groEx operon of symbiotic bacteria in Amoeba proteus.” Abstract: Dr K.W. Jeon, Department of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0810, USA.
2. Abstract: “Phylogenetic characterization of Legionella-like endosymbiotic X-bacteria in Amoeba proteus: a proposal for ‘Candidatus Legionella jeonii’ sp. nov.”
3. Abstract: “The Genome of the Amoeba Symbiont “Candidatus Amoebophilus asiaticus” Reveals Common Mechanisms for Host Cell Interaction among Amoeba-Associated Bacteria.”
4. Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation: Speciation and Morphogenesis, by Lynn Margulis and René Fester, p. 125.
5. Molecular Phylogeny of Microorganisms, by Aharon Oren and R. Thane Papke, p. 198.
6. “Information Processing Differences Between Archaea and Eukarya—Implications for Homologs and the Myth of Eukaryogenesis,” by C. L. Tan and J. P. Tomkins.
7. Linear mitochondrial genomes: 30 years down the line. Josef Nosek, L’Ubomir Tomaska, Hiroshi Fukuhara, and Ladislav Kovac.
I want to links to your first post in this thread that starts...
"Perhaps now is a good time to clarify some of the terminology: "
The one that you pasted the same text twice and didn't even notice. You didn't paste from the original scientific papers you copy-pasted a secondary source. Provide a link to this.
Or are you using just the free abstract of papers as evidence for your objection without even reading the papers?
Vidqun
Making up numbers and then using those numbers as a reason why something is not and something else is is not scientific; it's not relevant to anything.
When you read these books by creationists you need to understand that those numbers are placed there only for the credulous. They have no bearing on reality and do not add to our understanding of the likelihood of something occurring in nature. Why? Because they do not take into account that certain things in biology happen automatically (even if there is a myriad of other possible combinations the overwhelming majority of those possibilities will never occur because the energy transfer that occurs when things join up or separate is not compatible for that overwhelming majority) or that events take place in numerous places simultaneously, continuously 24/7 for millennia.
As usual, creationists are not adding to our knowledge by producing science based evidence, instead they make up nonsense numbers and then assert that these numbers prove evolution cannot happen. It's utter nonsense and useful only for those people who want to hold on to preconceptions they have about how things, in their world, should work...
Perhaps now is a good time to clarify some of the terminology: Symbiogenesis [[Symbiogenesis, or endosymbiotic theory, is an evolutionary theory that explains the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotes – Wiki-article]] cannot be replicated in a lab (and not endosymbiosis as previously stated [[previous post on Wiki-article in previous thread]]). There is a difference. I cannot dispute the process of endosymbiosis which can be demonstrated [[as proved by the Wiki-article on Endosymbiotic theory]]. However the complete process of symbiogenesis (the evolutionary theory that explains the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic cells by symbiosis [[Dr. Lynn Margulis]] cannot as yet be replicated [my very own words].
The rest I quoted from the authors of the articles, whether from the Abstracts or in book form as the list indicates. Feel free to look them up.
What a total car crash of an attempt to explain your objections.
Feel free to look them up.
I have started to do so and I have not the slightest clue what your point is. All of the links you provided are articles and papers providing support for endosymbiosis as a mechanism for the origin of eukaryotic cells.
The Bold words are my words:
Perhaps now is a good time to clarify some of the terminology: Symbiogenesis cannot be replicated in a lab (and not endosymbiosis as previously stated). There is a difference. I cannot dispute the process of endosymbiosis which can be demonstrated. However the complete process of symbiogenesis (the evolutionary theory that explains the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic cells by symbiosis) cannot as yet be demonstrated.
What should also be kept in mind, is the process of adaptation at work, which is confirmed by Dr. K. W. Jeon.
It is suggested that the presence of a potent P2 in the X-bacterial gene is an adaptation for the endosymbiotic bacteria to survive within a potentially hostile intracellular environment. 1
The following discusses the organisms or possible organisms involved in Dr. Jeon’s experiment. Important to note that these organisms remain individual and identifiable as specific species.
The X-bacteria which initiated organismic association with the D strain of Amoeba proteus in 1966 as parasites have changed to obligate endosymbionts on which the host depends for survival. Owing to the difficulty in cultivating the bacteria in vitro, the identity of X-bacteria has not been determined. The life cycle of X-bacteria is similar to that of Legionella spp. in soil amoebae. 2
Not sure why this oversight has occurred, but what is described here is the typical (or atypical) immune response of the Amoeba organism, which is not unusual at all. Our immune system has similar response mechanisms to counter invading bacteria and viruses.
This indicates that phylogenetically and ecologically diverse bacteria which thrive inside amoebae exploit common mechanisms for interaction with their hosts, and it provides further evidence for the role of amoebae as training grounds for bacterial pathogens of humans. 3
Again, one should not accept as fact that these organisms are a new species. The warning is sounded by two renowned biologists:
On the basis of the structural and physiological changes brought about by the endosymbionts of xD amoebae as described above, one could consider the the symbiont-bearing xD strain a new species of Amoeba. However, until evidence for genetic differences between D and xD amoebae is obtained, it would be more prudent to treat xD amoebae as belonging to a variant strain. 4
There are huge barriers to overcome in the proposed process of symbiogenesis. I believe the barriers are insurmountable:
So who wrote...
Perhaps now is a good time to clarify some of the terminology: Symbiogenesis cannot be replicated in a lab (and not endosymbiosis as previously stated). There is a difference. I cannot dispute the process of endosymbiosis which can be demonstrated. However the complete process of symbiogenesis (the evolutionary theory that explains the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic cells by symbiosis)
I wrote it. I gave you my sources.
