Evolution is a Fact #38 - The Origin of Complex Cells

by cofty 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Vidqun

    Cofty, this is sort of a free-for-all debate with various individuals taking part. I believe it to be good manners to answer those that question me and my motives. And as far as I am concerned, the principles involved here are exactly the same as with endosymbiogenesis and the like. It boils down to the same thing. You believe it happened randomly and spontaneously many aeons ago, and I believe in ID, two philosophies very far removed from each other.

    Island Man, very interesting video. This is exactly what I was referring to. There is a certain lack of logic in comparing the syringe of Yersinia pestis to the rotary motor of Escherichia coli, even though they have a molecular similarities. That's like comparing apples to pears.

    I like the illustration of the mouse trap, a very simple and basic instrument that can also be used as a tie clip. I wonder who designed the first mouse trap? A clever guy indeed. Who designed the rotary motor of E. coli? Nobody, it designed and manufactured itself: A ridiculous notion indeed! Like I said, if those pathways are discovered one day, I will reconsider my position. Until then I will follow the path of logic which do not lead me to evolution, that's for sure. However, each of you should feel free to follow your own path wherever it leads.

    You all seem to have latched on to a common theme, referring to me as a professional microbiologist (I take it you use it as a form of ridicule). I repeat, I haven't practiced Medical Microbiology since the early nineties. My registration with the HRC has lapsed. That's approximately 23 years ago. And no, I did not keep up with the latest developments, as you might have noticed. I have said this before and I say it again. So, let's not harp on this unnecessarily. It serves no purpose whatsoever.

  • cofty

    Vidqun - I will not tolerate you hijacking the thread. Start your own thread if you want to discuss the bacterial flagellum.


    Your attempts to undermine the evidence for this has been pathetic and now you are trying to change the subject. I won't allow it.

    That's approximately 23 years ago. And no, I did not keep up with the latest developments, as you might have noticed.

    That means you were a professional microbiologist up to about 1993. Endosymbiosis was proposed in the 60s and generally accepted in the field by the 80s. You used your professional qualifications when you thought it gave weight to your case. Now that it clearly doesn't you want to stop talking about it. Too bad.

  • cofty
    1) Complexity: The scientists are unable to work out some of the aspects of gene phylogeny in their labs. How could these develop randomly, spontaneously and unaided? - Vidqun

    You have linked this comment to a scientific paper that describes in astonishing detail how genes were transferred from chloroplasts - previously free-living cyanobacteria - to the nucleus of plant cells and how enzymes coded by those genes are returned to chloroplasts.

    The level of information in that paper and the detail of the very specific genetic interactions as a direct result of endosymbiosis that is described by Wm Martin and Reinhold Herrmann in that paper is astonishing. Could you possibly ask for any stronger evidence of the evolutionary history of plant cells?

    In the paragraph you refer to Martin & Herrmann have just described the phylogeny of key genes and then they comment that in the case of other nuclear genes their phylogeny cannot be stated with certainty. This sort of modesty should inspire confidence but you pick out thins sentence and try to use it to cast doubt on the entire theory of evolution. That is truly desperate.

    2) Amoebal Immunity: This is a simple immunity mechanism integral to Amoebae, similar to our more complicated immune response. This is not a random process and cannot develop spontaneously. It has been designed that way. In addition, there’s a huge chasm between Amoebal immunity and mammalian immunity, as I remarked earlier. - Vidqun

    This time you refer to the concluding sentence from a paper by Kwang Jeon describing the way that production of a specific enzyme is switched to an alternative gene in the amoebae when it is has a symbiont bacteria. The paper is not about an immune response. Did you even read the paper or did you just quote-mine from the conclusion? Did you understand the paper?

    The work of Jeon shows that endosymbiosis does occur and does lead to gene transfer. It was a case of a prokaryote invading an amoebae - a prokaryote. The event that led to eukaryotic cells involved a prokaryote and and an archaea. There were still a few million years of evolution to go before mammalian immune systems made an appearance.

    3) Human cancer cells remain human even though their nuclear material had been altered (not a new species) - Vidqun

    Again you don't provide any link to your source so I don't know the context. Regardless of that, your comment is a total red herring. A virus that causes cancer has nothing at all to do with endosymbiosis.

    4) Natural selection: Interestingly, the xD amoebae have not been improved. Their chances of survival have been considerably reduced. No super or improved organism with the proses of endosymbiosis, I’m afraid. - Vidqun

    You seem to keep mixing up an event that took place millions of years ago involving a prokaryote and an archaea with one that happened in Jeon's lab in the 60s when a bacteria invaded a eukaryote.

    The evidence for the fact that mitochondria were once free-living bacteria is beyond sensible dispute. If you look at the OP you will see a summary of some of it. Jeon's work is an interesting bit of evidence. It proves that endosymbiosis happens. Whether or not Jeon's amoebae were "improved" is irrelevant. Earlier you accepted the fact of endosymbiosis. Have you changed your mind?

    5) Theoretically then, super or improved organisms should result from the following processes, even in the lab. We see, this is not the case. - Vidqun

    Now you refer to the abstract of an article entitled "Endosymbiotic gene transfer: organelle genomes forge eukaryotic chromosomes".

    Access to the full paper is by payment so I assume you haven't read it. From the abstract it provides evidence that...

    "DNA is transferred from organelles to the nucleus at frequencies that were previously unimaginable. ...This relentless influx of organelle DNA has abolished organelle autonomy and increased nuclear complexity."

    Could there be any better evidence for endosymbiosis?

    Organelles swapping genes with host cells to their mutual benefit is "ubiquitous". I have not got a clue what you mean "super or improved organisms" and I am sure you don't either.

    You are building the case for the symbiotic origin of mitochondria but you don't seem to notice. Strange.

    6) The sentence reads: "Members of the recA/RAD51 family have functions that have differentiated during evolution." The next sentence reads: "However, the evolutionary history and relationships of these members remains unclear." Isn't that accepting things at face value without evidence? - Vidqun

    It just keeps getting better and better.

    Now you cite another abstract (no link of course) called "Origins and evolution of the recA/RAD51 gene family: evidence for ancient gene duplication and endosymbiotic gene transfer."

    If you read the article you would have seen that it presents pages of evidence comparing homologs of a specific gene in prokaryotes, archaea and eukaryotes. The authors unpick a very complex history involving differentiated during evolution.

    Why you think a paper presenting detailed evidence for endosymbiosis is somehow evidence to the contrary is a mystery.

    7) Mitochondria and Chloroplasts: If things took place randomly and spontaneously, Why did chloroplasts not find their way into the animal and human genome? - Vidqun

    This actually qualifies as a dumb question. It is exactly like asking why zebras don't have wings. Plants stay still and use chloroplasts to absorb energy from the sun to produce hydrocarbons. Animals move and consume these hydrocarbons turning them into ATP via mitochondria. Different economies.


    8) Again, the fossil record is full of gaps and do not support symbiogenesis as the principal mechanism of developing life forms. - Vidqun

    Now you cite an article called "Gene transfer to the nucleus and the evolution of chloroplasts".

    The abstract begins by pointing out that the fossil record is not the place to look for evidence for the phylogeny of chloroplast genes. Why should that surprise you? Why are you pretending that supports your case?

    A typical eukaryote is about a tenth of a millimeter across and it is a poor candidate for fossilisation. The paper is specifically about the DNA evidence for the evolution of chloroplasts.

    Coming from a professional scientist this is just bizarre.

    9) Unnatural Gene Manipulation by Researchers: If it was an open, random, spontaneous process to begin with, why is it now a closed process that can only be manipulated with the help o the genetic engineers? - Vidqun

    Finally you refer to another paper by Wm Martin called "Gene transfer from organelles to the nucleus:Frequent and in big chunks"

    The paper describes the study of plant genomes to calculate the percentage of nuclear genomes that originated in organelles. Experiments described in the paper are for the purpose of studying the mechanism of gene transfer. You have totally drawn the wrong conclusion as if you didn't actually read the paper.

    Every one of you so-called objections are based on a total misreading of the papers you misuse to support them.

    You are either being dishonest or you actually don't understand what you are reading. Perhaps it's a combination of both. Copy-pasting chunks from scientific papers in an attempt to impress the casual reader is intellectually dishonest.

    Normally I would simply disregard this sort of tactic but you started by boasting about your professional qualifications so I decided to invest the time to respond.

    I will explain more about the process of and evidence for endosymbiosis in part two.

  • cofty
    You all seem to have latched on to a common theme, referring to me as a professional microbiologist ... let's not harp on this unnecessarily. It serves no purpose whatsoever. - Vidqun
    Anyway, you have a short memory. You may not remember, but I am a qualified Medical Microbiologist with Anatomy, Physiology and Microbiology as majors. Yes, I have a lot of books dealing with those subjects. I had to work through all of them to pass those subjects... - Vidqun
    No, according to my knowledge of the facts of Anatomy: Cytology, Embryology, Histology, Osteology, Arthrology, Myology, Angiology, Neurology, Splanchnology, also Physiology and Microbiology, I cannot support the notion of modern evolution. - Vidqun

  • Vidqun

    Cofty, it's like I am talking to a brick wall. I did my degree approximately 36 years ago, and I haven't work in my field for the last 24 years, so that's why I am somewhat rusty. But that's not important. We are talking in circles, so I have decided to put up a video to explain my stance. I know it's not in my own words, but what the hell, I cannot say it better. It's called "How DNA killed evolutionism," and discusses the laws of information. I am especially fond of the linguistics part. This has been my study field for nearly three decades. Bullshit you might say, but follow the laws of information and work from there. The following paragraphs sum up the main points:

    The existence of DNA has proven evolution false and proven both Intelligent Design and Special Creation to be true. It is impossible for evolution to happen or be true because of what genetics has revealed. The reason evolutionists do not give up defending evolutionism despite modern scientific knowledge is because they are dedicated to the materialist idea that they have no creator God to answer to and are not guilty of sin. The evolution theory became prominent in science because certain men of the early 19th century performed a coup in the scientific community by publicly ridiculing men of science who believed in creation, who were the majority at the time, and covertly appointing believers in evolution to key seats in universities and science associations. Among these men were Charles Lyell and others who formed the X-Club for the purpose of displacing creation believers with evolution believers in science circles. This clandestine protection of evolutionism has continued to this day, and it is very difficult and often impossible, depending upon the university, for anyone who does not believe in the fallacy of evolution to become hired as a professor. The opinion of the world public has never fully accepted evolutionism, and the number of it's believers is dwindling because of what science has revealed since the days of Charles Darwin. Eventually, evolutionism will be relegated to history as the greatest and most fervently protected hoax of all time.

    Evolution is an ancient religious concept, originating in Dagon and other "gods" who supposedly created man from fish, and picked up again by humanists in the 18th century seeking a logical reason to deny the existence of God in rebellion to His moral law. The basic tenants of evolution such as Natural Selection as a mechanism for evolution were put forth by Greek philosophers in a day when man had little scientific knowledge and before the idea of scientific investigation by observation and testing was conceived. Thales of Miletus put forth the idea that water itself brought forth life, just as the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians did. Anaximander put forth the idea that all things consisted of fire and water, and this brought forth the universe from nothing - an idea that is known now to be impossible without a supernatural cause. He also said animals came out of the sea and diversified - a claim still held today by evolutionists with their idea that fish evolved into land animals.Democritus claimed the universe was occulting - exploded and imploded continuously - an idea known false by modern astronomy but clung to by evolutionists until Hubble disproved it in the early 20th century. The classification scheme evolutionists apply to life originated with Aristotle, who believed life evolved into various forms from some original form. Humanist god denialist philosophers of the 18th century, picked up the ideas of the ancients thinking they would provide an excuse for denying God, and other humanist attempted to claim that science supported these ancient, false ideas. Evolutionism has never been science or scientific. It is a package of ancient ideas to which modern humanists have attempted to force science to conform. Darwinism in any form is a nonscientific idea which science has destroyed.


  • Witness My Fury
  • Caedes


    That was hilarious.

  • shepherdless

    Sorry, vidqun, you have lost me now.


  • cofty

    Vidqun - wow!

    Evolution is an ancient religious concept, originating in Dagon - Vidqun

    That has potential to become a meme.

    I see you have given up all pretence of speaking from a position of scientific knowledge in favour of extreme religious superstition and paranoia.

    May I remind you for the fourth time that the topic is the origin of complex cells via endosymbiosis.

    We are talking in circles, - Vidqun

    No "we" are doing no such thing. You are frantically trying to chang the subject, I am responding to your so-called objections with facts and evidence.

    I will respond in more detail later.

  • cantleave

    I had to read the "microbiologist's" post twice to ensure I wasn't dreaming. Vidqun you may have done your degree 36 years ago, but that is no excuse for posting such drivel.

Share this