Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long
Which game is this? Nailing jelly to a tree?
--You can proceed to offer links to refute. Shoot, we can both shoot URL's at each other until the backslash button on our keyboards fades away.--
Use copy and paste.
--backslash button --
No wonder most of your links don't work.
Your argumentative skills are basically putting words in others mouths.
Then denying it and acting like an ass.
Its typical.
Ask your friend Cottshop to show me where Darwin refuted his theories....
Yes, the best understanding that we have now says that bacteria became mitochondria (and also chloroplasts, the agents of photosynthesis. Bacteria are capable of amazing things in terms of respiration. There are bacteria that use iron as an electron acceptor; meaning, that instead of "burning" (or oxidizing) carbon compounds, they use the energy in the carbon to "rust" iron. However, the bacteria that we were before we took up mitochondrion were almost certainly anaerobic, meaning that we turned sugar into alcohol or acetate.
The first aerobic bacteria were very probably small. Membranes are required for aerobic respiration. The surface area law (smaller objects have a greater surface area proportional to volume) meant that it was beneficial to these bacteria to be small. However, that meant that they were more likely to be eaten by larger bacteria.
The evidence that mitochondria (and chloroplasts) were once free-living organisms lies in the fact that they still have remnants of genomes. That's right, mitochondria have their own DNA! It's been about a billion years since they were on their own, so much of what their genome was supposed to do has been transferred over to our own genome, but the remnants of their genome are still there.
What is really interesting about mitochondrial genomes is that they have managed to evolve something that no free living organism ever has. Every free living organism on this planet, from bacteria to plants to you, follows the same genetic code. That is not true for mitochondria, since for a billion years, they have not been subject to the same selective pressures. For example, for every free-living organism, the sequence adenosine-uracil-adenosine signifies the amino acid "isoleucine" when making a protein; however, in human mitochondria, the same adenosine-uracil-adenosine sequence signifies "methionine." This is why I love evolutionary theory! It explains so much!
lol i see you're still whining about that- GOOD!
Well said! And very informative.
It is also interesting to note that the biochemistry inside the nucleus of the cell is quite different from that going on outside of the nucleus, but still inside the cell.
Fourth Grade Class Member Bob
"[N]ew knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [... de nouvelles connaissances conduisent a reconnaitre dans la theorie de l'evolution plus qu'une hypothese.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."Pope John Paul II, 1996
The definition of naturalism.
Not whining, just pointing out your cowardace when you are confronted with a question.
It fits you quite well.
LOL
you know- if you had simply asked politely I would have gladly provided the link- but instead you couldn't resist with the insults/personal attacks- you've only yourself to blame for htis- and enough with the petty little 'coward' crap- I am not hiding anything- the info is freely available on the internet- Coward? That's funny comming from someone who won't discuss the issues and turns the thread into a personal attack to avoid answering the rebuttles and issues posed to them- You know where to find the info central- but when you decide you want to stop with the personal crap and want to discuss the issues further- in a civil manner- then do let me know- till then- I'll just sit back and waTch you and your buddies from darwin central avoid the issues altogether and launch their usual diversionary tactics in order to avoid the hard issues. If looking up Darwin's statements is too hard a task for ya- lemme know civily and perhaps I'll post it for ya.
I know what you were alluding to, and it was wrong, very wrong. When you make a statement, you have to be man enough to back it up, you wouldn't. You have to own what you say, that is how its done.
But, you went and made an ass of yourself instead.
I've read you on other threads, you need help.
nowq you're just outright lying- I told you right from the start I'd post it IF you were civil- and you refused and acted in a childish manner- heck- you STILL refuse- and no- I don't think you do know I wasn't 'alluding' to anythjing- I meant what I said, and Darwin himself DID say that.
Please go on, its fun to watch you lose your mind on this.
All these posts, and you still aren't man enough to stand behind what you stated.
tsk tsk.
Darwin: "Why is not every ge*******
1. I'm not trying to get banned. If I wanted to get banned, I'd "Opus" or egregiously violate this site's terms of service - either of which action would be incomparably easy to perform compared with trying to reason with your little clique.
On the other hand, I no longer have any inclination to make nice-nice when you and your clique misbehave. If that results in my dismissal, too bad.
2. I seriously doubt JR would ban you, Dave.
3. I threatened no legal action - I made note of your legally actionable statement. The two do not equate.
4. I note your grudging retraction of your false accusation of plagiarism.
5. I chose not to respond to your anti-scientific screed because, Dave, experience has shown me that no one can reach you on that score.
So, may I assume that the quote of your little schnitzeljagd was:
why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Amusingly, that's a typical example of quote-mining:
why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? is taken from Chapter 6 of the "Origin of species" while Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory. comes form Chapter 9 of the same book.
To built of a quote this way should be taken as a sign of dishonesty - I presume, not of your side, but of Don Patton, the manufactured that quote (Or do you claim that you distorted Darwin yourself?)
Darwin often states some questions at the beginning of a chapter, just to answer them in the very chapter...
some folks are as contentedly ignorant of the conventions of dialectic and catechism as they are of logic, grammar, syntax, and denotative definitions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.