Alternative to evolution and creationism

[EarthAlive]

Fortunately I DO know, and as I am well educated on the topic itself.

You do know do you? Then please share this information to this thread and explain the answers, to how and why eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotes, how multicellular creatures evolved from a single-celled eukaryote and the origin of life itself.

 

[Photonic]

You do know do you? Then please share this information to this thread and explain the answers, to how and why eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotes, how multicellular creatures evolved from a single-celled eukaryote and the origin of life itself.

Thankfully you appear to not be referring to evolution, so I'll just ignore you until you are.

Here's some information on multicellular, which literally means they are made up of single cells. Imagine that.

Multicellular organism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

Instead of spamming pseudoscience

try real work, from real scientist that are doing valid work

Mutation may have led to humans' rise - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

 

[indomitable snowman]

I think it's quite possible that we are the combination of star dust , photons ,dark matter and electrical happenings together with the presence of water molecules and chemicals we do not yet fully understand. The unknown factors that elude us like how did consciousness originate in any living thing. I think all the elements came together in a unique way just as the formation of the planets and stars where brought together to form entirely different stages for the spontaneous appearance of life that itself developed the quality of reproducing itself after rebounding several million years so that life is a kind of perpetual happening fueled only by the life sustaining properties of star matter,electricity, etc... and all living things gained reproducing abilities instead of having to recreate itself all over again . The different life forms are a result of life spontaneously occurring in the many different habitats of our planet simultaneously and at various time events occurring through the history of life as we have come to verify it's appearance through scientific measures. I think some plants remained fixed in one position in order to survive being eaten so developed thorns and the like as they became less likely of needing a consciousness to survive as the living things we see still today. The "Venus Fly Trap" is just one good example of a consciousness starting to develop in the plant kingdom.

 

[outhouse]

The unknown factors that elude us like how did consciousness originate in any living thing.

that doesnt elude "us"

the life sustaining properties of star matter

its called matter and it has no life sustaining properties

 

[indomitable snowman]

You are right. I should have edited the sentence about the origin of consciousness eluding us. I could give an explanation of it's origins myself. I will take more time in the future to edit properly those ideas I am trying to convey.

 

[painted wolf]

You do know do you? Then please share this information to this thread and explain the answers, to how and why eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotes,

Wait... you keep talking about Lynn Margulis and you don't know this one? :thud:

how multicellular creatures evolved from a single-celled eukaryote

The study of critters that are technically single celled and yet act multicelled like Slime Molds provide a great example of how this transition happened. Not to mention the most simple of the truly multicelled critters the placozoans which are only marginally more organized than a slime mold is.

and the origin of life itself.

This is the subject of abiogenesis... shall we stick with evolution? Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

wa:do

 

[EarthAlive]

The conventional theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed, according to three publications by scientists working for Genome International that appeared today in Nature Precedings. All life did not evolve from a simple, single-cell organism – a foundation of Darwinian Theory. Research now shows that a parallel development of genomes during earth’s Cambrian Period led to numerous complex life forms originating en masse.

Senapathy has three publications which have been printed in Nature Precedings:

Origin of biological information: Inherent occurrence of intron-rich split genes, coding for complex extant proteins, within pre-biotic random genetic sequences : Nature Precedings

The inherent occurrence of complex intron-rich spliceosomal split genes, including regulatory and splicing elements, within pre-biotic random genetic sequences : Nature Precedings

Parallel genome assembly from pre-biotic split-genes: A solution for the mosaic genome conundrum : Nature Precedings

As you can see from the above, the Darwinists are stumped, they won't even look at this evidence.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/theory/genome/prweb4896744.htm

According to Senapathy comparative genomics research over the past 10-15 years has shown the following which debunks Darwin's theory of evolution:

1. The tree of life concept cannot account for the genomic data
2. The assumption that a primitive microbe containing a small root stock set of proteins is now shown to be false. Numerous complex proteins are found at the base of the presumed evolutionary tree (this base under ROSG/PGA is the pre-biotic gene pool)
3. None of the mechanisms of mutation, individually or collectively, including gene duplication, is capable of evolving an entirely new gene for an entirely unique protein
4. Adaptive natural selection or neutral genetic drift does not account for the modern genome data
5. Numerous entirely unique genes and proteins are found across biota without any trace of precursors in expected ancestors
6. A mosaic distribution of genes in distinct genomes is found across biota
7. Based on the findings 1-6 above, there are no genetic mechanism or organismal mechanism to explain linear branching evolution
8. Therefore, a new concept for explaining the origin and diversity of life is required
9. Isolated cases of lateral gene transfer in eukaryotes cannot explain the origin of entirely new genes and the random mosaic genomic scenario; it could not have contributed to large-scale evolution, especially in eukaryotes

 

[outhouse]

:spam:SPAM its not just for breakfast folks!!!







:troll:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As you can see from the above, the Darwinists are stumped, they won't even look at this evidence.

Why don't you give people some credit here. Not only has his work been read here and understood but I must say that he does not have a testable hypothesis in order for what he proposes to become a theory. We've gone over this already. His hypothesis does not work at all without ("Evolution").....but Evolution works just fine without his hypothesis. A large portion of his work is based on modeling but no real lab testing.

 

[painted wolf]

I love the "Darwinists wont even look at the evidence" while at the same time providing links to publications in one of the leading "Darwinist" publications. LOL

It must be nice to live in a world where you can have it both ways.

wa:do



wa:do

 

[EarthAlive]

Lynn Margulis and you don't know this one

I have read into Lynn Margulis's symbiogenesis theory, which according to her shows that natural selection and neodarwinism is wrong I would happen to agree with her. and people on this forum won't even talk about her work becuase she is notable.

 

[outhouse]

I have read into Lynn Margulis's symbiogenesis theory, which according to her shows that natural selection and neodarwinism is wrong I would happen to agree with her. and people on this forum won't even talk about her work becuase she is notable.

we dont talk about her becaUse its PSEUDOSCIENCE

 

[painted wolf]

we dont talk about her becaUse its PSEUDOSCIENCE

Actually, her work on endosymbiosis was pretty brilliant.
And symbiotic relationships can drive natural selection.

You shouldn't malign people without knowing all the facts.

Having said that, she isn't infallible and has put forth several false and questionable ideas as well. Which is why you never take someones word as gospel, you evaluate each statement as it is given as objectively as possible.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I have read into Lynn Margulis's symbiogenesis theory, which according to her shows that natural selection and neodarwinism is wrong I would happen to agree with her. and people on this forum won't even talk about her work becuase she is notable.

I suggest you read more about her... she explains how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryote ancestors via endosymbiosis... and thrived due to natural selection.

If you bothered to actually investigate her work, you wouldn't have asked about Eukaryote origins.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

Actually, her work on endosymbiosis was pretty brilliant.
And symbiotic relationships can drive natural selection.

You shouldn't malign people without knowing all the facts.

Having said that, she isn't infallible and has put forth several false and questionable ideas as well. Which is why you never take someones word as gospel, you evaluate each statement as it is given as objectively as possible.

wa:do

I based my reply on this statement

according to her shows that natural selection and neodarwinism is wrong

that is pseudoscience

I never claimed all her work was

 

[painted wolf]

not all of her symbiogenisis work is pseudoscience, nor is it anti natural selection or anti Darwinian.

Her real issue with neo-Darwinism is that it's too focused on competition as the main force and hasn't paid enough attention to cooperative behavior and things like viral insertions as a driver.. something that has changed thanks to the criticism. This is a rather old quote they used after all.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

not all of her symbiogenisis work is pseudoscience, nor is it anti natural selection or anti Darwinian.

Her real issue with neo-Darwinism is that it's too focused on competition as the main force and hasn't paid enough attention to cooperative behavior and things like viral insertions as a driver.. something that has changed thanks to the criticism. This is a rather old quote they used after all.

wa:do

And I should have understood my source for the criticism was latching on to sound bites without understanding the whole picture

thanks for catching me

 

[EarthAlive]

Lynn Margulis is known for three things:

1. Work on the Gaia hypothesis
2. Symbiogenesis
3. Theory on the origin of eukaryotic organelles

I have never read into her third theory, becuase this kind of thing would never be able to be proven. There is alot of evidence for the first two.

And symbiotic relationships can drive natural selection.

This is not true, symbiotic relationships especially mutualism do not support the the neodarwinist interpretation of natural selection. The most recent book of Lynn Margulis written in 2002 Acquiring Genomes A Theory of the Origins of Species attacks neo-Darwinism in every chapter. Margulis is an evolutionist but rejects mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for creating new species. Instead symbiosis creates new species, not natural selection or random mutations like neoDarwinism says. - Painted wolf you have done over 50 posts from what I have seen of you defending neoDarwinism like a holy script on here in the last few days rejecting any other evolution mechanism. The work of symbiotic relationships of Lynn Margulis does not fit into anything you have been saying in your other posts.

 

[painted wolf]

Lynn Margulis is known for three things:

1. Work on the Gaia hypothesis
2. Symbiogenesis
3. Theory on the origin of eukaryotic organelles

I have never read into her third theory, becuase this kind of thing would never be able to be proven 100%. There is alot of evidence for the first two.

:biglaugh:

This is not true, symbiotic relationships especially mutualism do not support the the neodarwinist interpretation of natural selection.

Mutualism By Natural Selection: Imitation Is Not Just Flattery For Amazon Butterfly Species
http://stevefrank.org/reprints-pdf/94JTB-mutualism.pdf

The most recent book of Lynn Margulis written in 2002 Acquiring Genomes A Theory of the Origins of Species attacks neo-Darwinism in every chapter. Margulis is an evolutionist but rejects mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for creating new species. Instead symbiosis creates new species, not natural selection or random mutations like neoDarwinism says. - Painted wolf you have done over 50 posts from what I have seen of you defending neoDarwinism like a holy script on here in the last few days rejecting any other evolution mechanism. The work of symbiotic relationships of Lynn Margulis does not fit into anything you have been saying in your other posts.

I don't believe in holy scripture... of any kind. Not in my religion and certainly not in my science.

You seem to be using "NeoDarwinism" as a strawman to knock down rather than actually learning about the state of evolutionary biology in the year 2011.
Not to mention your odd ideas about natural selection actually is.

I also doubt you have actually read Margulis's work... she actually argues that mutation as a sole cause is "overemphasized" not impossible. But that her personal ideas are more likely to be the major factor. (not surprising for a pop-sci book about a beloved hypothesis)

And in the world of microbes, she may well be right... but multicellular critters are not microbes and are not as prone to her mechanisms. You don't see dogs and fish swapping genes by conjunction for example.
Furthermore, symbiotic relationships are less likely to generate new genes than mutations have been observed to.

It is also important to note that she is strictly anti-creationism and anti-Intelligent Design. She fully supports evolution.

wa:do