Posted on 09/08/2004 4:50:10 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
troll-bait placemarker
This has been the big deal in evolution, how we stayed monocellular for 4 billion years and then "Ta da" muticellular real quick
"how we stayed monocellular for 4 billion years and then "Ta da" muticellular real quick"
Explain, please.
More evidence for endosymbiosis. Not surprising, as it already made a lot of sense.
____
A scientific journal has published a paper that argues in favour of intelligent design — the first time such material has appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, according to biologists who track the issue. The paper appeared in a low-impact journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. But critics say that it could still be used by advocates of intelligent design to get the subject on to US school curricula (see Nature 416, 250; 2002).
The article comes from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, a leading promoter of the theory. In the article, senior fellow Stephen Meyer uses information theory and other techniques to argue that the complexity of living organisms cannot be explained by darwinian evolution (S. C. Meyer Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 117, 213–239; 2004).
_____
I thought people who participate in these threads would appreciate that bit on info.
As far as the Ring of Life study, as usual it won't be discussed in any coherent manner here.
take look at the record... the Cambrian explosion was a multicellular explosion
Always learning new stuff.
IOW, theory didn't hold up.
Don't be scared.
If anything I did ever earned criticism like that I'd have to enter the witness protection program.
In my mind he has a definite flaw in his reasoning. The early bacteria evolved (or were created) in METHANE atmosphere on Earth. Later after plants arose with photosynthesis, oxygen appeared in the atmosphere. The author wants us to believe that one or two methane utilizing bacteria combined to produce a eukaryotic cell that is oxygen based. I don't think so.
In the interest of proper scientific nomenclature, should these be referred to as:
glowing green fatty prokaryote bubbles (GGFPB)
bubbly glowing green prokaryotic fatties (BGGPF)
fat bubbling prokaryotes glowing green (FBPGG)
green Archaea genome microbus-extremus (GAGME)
ring of fused life (ROFL)
Other:
This research does not address nonocellular vs multicelular.
Your understanding of this research is utterly incomplete.
What are the criticisms of the paper? (or perhaps, first, what is the paper about?).
I thought these guys were rather gentle in their review.
Mitochondria.
Aye, there's the rub. To argue that something "cannot be explained" by blah, blah, blah. This is a purely subjective judgment, (substitute 'opinion.')
The criticism referenced by VR in post #10 goes into some detail on this point but how many times do we have to revisit the same invalid arguments?
One cannot "Prove a Negative" (i.e., "cannot be explained") and even if one could - that wouldn't prove a "Designer" since another explanation not yet considered may be the actual answer.
Therefore, proving evolution wrong does not prove anything other than evolution is wrong. This has not been done and cannot be done. Evolution can be abandoned for lack of evidence, but not 'proven' wrong.
Proving the existence of a "Designer" apriori to the experience of the "designed," which is the prerequisite of proof that life is "designed" is logically impossible.
Thus the question shifts from - is there any evidence for the theory of evolution - to - is there any evidence for anything else? And this, so far, is what has never been done.
Too lazy to follow the links?
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.