If it weren’t speculative then it would have textbooks and online MIT courses of the explanations of the appearance of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. For example. There are other things missing too.
Every day scientific discoveries in biology research are shedding more light on the studied biological systems and much more is known about them.
But the explanation for the appearance of the prokaryotes and the eukaryotes seems farther away from being found.
So? You’re talking about an event which happened over 2.7 billion years ago and which left virtually zero evidence. We have a plausible hypothesis but the real specifics may never be known.
Why do you think that somehow invalidates the millions of things about the evolution of life over deep time we do conclusively know?
Did you know we have evolved de novo organelles within the laboratory? This mirrors the process by which mitochondria and chloroplasts likely arose.
What is known is mainly in the category of micro evolution, not macro evolution. And even that not accurately.
Let me remind you the purpose of this forum:
That’s far from a coherent and comprehensive explanation of the appearance of prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The same could be said about the vertebrates, etc.
I did not present it as a comprehensive explanation, but as a partial explanation, one that you had no curiosity to learn about. This lack of curiosity reveals a great deal about you and your motivations here.
That’s a brutally inaccurate and demonstrably false bit of Creationist nonsense.
Do you have anything to add besides the usual Creationist PRATTs?
You should be much more careful when typing your sentences. This is why you are frequently misunderstood.
I’m supposing that he’s another stealth creationist. How about you?
That sounds like an idiosyncratic and confusing general definition for a rotory motor would fit well under that:
//A rotary motor is an assembly of parts for turning energy into rotary motion on a single axis, regardless of scale, materials and energy source.//
Where did you find that definition? Link please.
Believing in creation is not a problem. I affirm creation too. I don’t think he is a stealth either, as he seems to be pretty clear about his position.
He made it up himself. Idiosyncratic.
Individuals write dictionaries (they right them, too ). Just a dismissive hand wave calling it idiosyncratic says nothing about its validity.
Doesn’t seem very intellectually honest to make up your own non-standard definition then use the made up one as a basis for your argument, don’t you agree?
Address the definition, don’t just cast aspersions.
Dale, he’s just calling a spade a shovel. Oh, wait, that’s right --it IS!
Wow, Tim --you’ve got the wrong end of a donkey in mind to make that claim! You should study biology!