Circular arguments are boring. Please stop hijacking threads with the same old same old. Next time repetitive arguments come up, flag them. @moderators will agree.
4 Likes
And if you had read and processed, instead of ignoring, my response, you would know that it’s not merely possible, it’s routine, even in the active site.
So how about addressing what we actually showed and I pointed you to, Bill?
Here is a non-repetitive argument, directed specificially to @colewd:
You have turned your attention to the transition life took that led to Eurkaryotes (life forms with cellular nuclei) - - from from Prokaryotes (life without structured nuclei and which include very strange, obscure strategies of living that don’t seem to connect with any other life forms).
You do this, we presume, because you see a potential, an opportunity, to turn to God’s miraculous inclinations, since modern science knows so very little about how Eukaryote’s made this amazing transition.
But here’s the problem: there is no Biblical warrant for wondering if God made these miraculous forms of life - - literally by a miracle. If God created pre-Adamites by Evolution, and created just 2 humans by special creation … why would you conclude that God must have used special creation for things that nobody could even see?
Certainly there were prokaryotes in the oceans long before they were on land, still sizzling from volcanic activity … but we see no mention of them at all:
Genesis 1:20-21
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind…”
It would seem that microscopic life forms would have to be subsumed under the category:
“… and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly…”
But even this category is incomplete… it doesn’t deal with the “creatures” that don’t move of their own accord… like bacteria or algae or prokaryotes without flagella. Are uni-cellular plant cells “creatures”?
When God gets to the things on land, the same problem:
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind … Let us make mankind in our image… let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Does this mean humans don’t have dominion over the immobile living creatures? Over non-flagellated algae?
@Colewd, if you can find it in your mind and heart to accept this most peculiar sentence in Genesis 1:
“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth …”
…and still find Genesis 1 to be justifiably related to the more realistic and more probable evolution of birds (from dinosaurs and not from either earthly or from celestial waters!) …
then I don’t think you are being consistent in attempting to mandate that God must have made these invisible life forms himself by MIRACULOUS means … simply because they are too strange to explain in any other way.
Shall we also conclude that God made the galaxies by way of miracles… rather than by way of the Big Bang? The miracle of the Big Bang is in the first “planck time” of creation. After that … do you propose yet another long string of miracles because we have no explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy?
I think you should be more honest with yourself… rather than constantly pitching “gap ideas” where more miracles can hide… just because the Bible doesn’t discuss them.
Where did I make this claim?
Well, let’s see if we can figure that out?
If you think Evolution doesn’t apply to the transition from Prokaryote life to Eukaryote life, what do you think applies in its place?
Essentially, you have two choices. Either:
-
God guided evolutionary processes from prokaryote to Eukaryote, or
-
God chose not to use evolutionary processes, and used special creation to kick-start the new kind of life we call Eukaryotes.
Thoughts, @colewd ?
1 Like
- We don’t understand the origin of eukaryotic cells.
We don’t understand LOTS of things about the Universe. But it is with more than a little trepidation that you put your cross-hairs on grilling your correspondents about eukaryotic cells.
They answer they aren’t sure, but they are not inclined to think God performed any miracles to create those cells.
The most consensus you are likely to arrive at is:
if they are Atheists, that these cells were produced through Evolutionary processes.
or
if they are Christians, that these cells were produced through God-Guided Evolutionary processes.
Do you think these 2 positions are adequate? Or are you still holding out for someone claiming that Eukaryotic cells were created by means of Special Creation?
2 Likes
Not speaking to a transition from prokaryote to eukaryotes, but roughly analogous, I did like this:
If they are not sure that should be stated clearly. If it is a really hard problem that also should be stated clearly. The reasons for the difficulty should also be stated clearly.
You cant kid a kidder. You are throwing dust in the air because you have nothing left to argue about.
2 Likes
It is stated clearly. There’s not a science text on the planet which says the origin of Eukaryotic cells is 100% known. There are several hypotheses each with some evidence but nothing definitive.
What we don’t do is claim “Science doesn’t know for sure therefore DESIGN!” like some scientifically illiterate knobs want.
1 Like
There is a problem here you don’t see. Thats fine for now.
Rote repetition of the same tired old ID-Creationist PRATTs is all he’s done for the last two years. That isn’t going to change.
Imaginary problems which exist only in Bill Cole’s mind don’t concern science even a little. 
It is stated clearly without exception. In any paper on the origin of eukaryotes.
Nobody claims to be sure(it’s not even clear what that means, but nothing in science is absolutely certain).
Lots of space is dedicated to explaining areas of lesser and greater uncertainty, how the evidence has guided the current picture, how previous ideas turned out to be wrong, how new evidence can still alter the current picture, and so on so forth. The reasons for difficulties are also stated clearly and unambigously: Lack of data, lack of sampled biodiversity, multiple competing pictures being compatible with the data, etc.
As usual your problem is that you take the fact that there are areas of uncertainty to be equivalent to there being NO certainty whatsoever, and you take the fact that some areas have ambigous or poor data to mean there is NO data and that nothing is known. But that’s just false.
Let’s pick some recent paper dealing with some aspect of Eukaryogenesis:
Brunk CF, Martin WF. Archaeal Histone Contributions to the Origin of Eukaryotes. Trends Microbiol. 2019 May 7. pii: S0966-842X(19)30095-2. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2019.04.002
Literally the very first sentence in the introduction reads:
The origin of eukaryotes remains one of evolution’s more pressing unresolved questions; however, it is beginning to yield some of its secrets.
Lots of interesting discussion follows. You wont’t like it however, because some of it actually provides good, evidence-based answers to longstanding questions about the origin of eukaryotes. To understand all of it, you’d have to at least read the additional >100 papers cited in the text.
For reasons you can’t explain, searches for genes coding for supposedly unique-to-eukaryote features and organelles keep yielding homomologous genes in the alphaproteobacterial lineage (the cousins of the mitochondrial ancestor), and in the archaeal clade long having been implicated as the ancestor of the endosymbiotic host by phylogenetics.
Every new gene found in this way could conflict with this picture, yet they just keep being consistent with it instead. So the discoveries just keep being consistent with the predictions of evolution, where they could have failed every time. But it’s not good enough for you, you’re not satisfied with a predictive theory (predicting actual data patterns before they are discovered) when it’s one you don’t like. You want million-year historical events played out before your eyes.
1 Like
Bill, I think it would be very helpful to try to clarify this.
@gbrooks9 gave 3 common options (god-free evolution, God-guided evolution, and special creation) to account for prokaryote to eukaryote transition. I think it’s reasonable for you to say “we don’t know, so I’m open to options” or to suggest another option that George didn’t include, but given how much you’ve critiqued evolutionary biologists, I think it could come off as disingenuous if you just walk away now.
So I’m curious as to your point, other than scientists don’t know how exactly how the transition might have occured.
4 Likes
The problem you aren’t seeing is that you can’t build an Eden on a foundation of one-celled life that the Bible doesn’t even mention.
The problem is that the Bible doesn’t even mention microscopic life… and the places where it might include such life, it doesn’t mention “immobile” kinds of life.
Jordan
I am out of town and have very limited time right now but the issue I have is scientific claims that extend beyond the evidence based on materialist assumptions. The origin of the eukaryotic cell is one of these claims.
Is it?
As best I can tell, most scientists will readily admit that we lack knowledge of the origin of eukaryotes. The idea that it is due to endosymbiosis is a tentative working hypothesis that helps us understand the world. It is just a mistake for you to see that as a truth claim.
1 Like
Depends on what you mean by “origin of eukaryotes”. I think most scientists would agree that we know where mitochondria came from and approximately how they got into big cells. The same for plastids. There are many other things about eukaryotes we don’t know, but we do know that.