May 092012
 

Question by chowchillaisforlosers l: how does evolution explain the first cell with all its complexity ?
In order for a cell to work , all of its parts has to be present at once therefore , it couldn’t of evolved because if one part of the process of a cell weren’t present that cell would fail.
A cell is pretty complex.
Sure we evolve but , as far as life evolving from a single cell that’s just crazy stupid. Atheists talk like a cell is so simple.(studies show that most people are average or below(Athiests)average I.Q.)

Explain consciousness.
Science says that most of our actions are unconscious and we don’t recognize them so the unconscious part of our brain is just our brain and not our consciousness so that means not all of our brain is consciousness just a certain area but , wait , that means that consciousness is no information because , information exist in the unconscious state so the therefore since our brains are information that means consciousness is not our brain.Or senses can’t sense consciousness . I think our consciousness decides the initiated choices to fire a neoron and , consciousness is self akwardly relative to other forms of existence in a different cartisian dualistic unperceivable aspect undetectable by reductionism parallel to cognitive perception of quantum physics.

Darwin would agree with me if he lived in this day in age with our advancements which he didn’t have.

Best answer:

Answer by celticcraftz
If your mind is not too closed try looking at this…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
It may help explain to you the origins of cells.

Athiest (with a 160 IQ)

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

  9 Responses to “how does evolution explain the first cell with all its complexity ?”

  1. Oh c’mon … you’re just another fundagelical creationist that doesn’t know squat about evolution.

    Here is one thing you should learn …
    Evolution explains how life, once it was on earth, diversified it does NOT explain how the first cells came to be.

    MODERN science clearly explains how life came to be. So … go to your local PBS tv station and buy a video tape from WGBH and SEE the evidence of how live began on earth.

    OH … then you explain how prayers and miracles work to those who have lost a leg or arm and have prayed for a new one and nothing has ever happened.

    THEN, creationist … Provide your unbiased evidence for your statement that “(studies show that most people are average or below(Athiests)average I.Q.)” We’ll see who the dumb one is here.

  2. < >

    It doesn’t, and never attempted to. Evolutionary theory explains the variety of life on Earth and not its origins (if any). This is why the book was called The Origin of Species, not the origin of life.

    < >

    As you don’t appear to be familiar with his work, you’re not in a position to pass judgement on that. Falsely claiming the support of long dead researchers makes you look pathetic.

  3. I think you seem to be missing information regarding biological scaffolding – organisms develop features but then lose certain parts that were involved in the ‘early’ support of that feature, leaving the the feature without any evidence to suggest how the feature developed.

    It’s mainly through homologous anatomical studies that the origins of these features are determined, such as the development of the bacterial flagellum, developed from a system that functions as a secretion system in other bacteria.

    As for explaining consciousness, you’ve really made a pig’s ear of trying to make it seem that consciousness is independant from the brain, haven’t you? Just give it up.

  4. not true that one needs an entire cell, look up self replicating RNA molecules.
    Also look up bacterial cell, eucaryotic cell. Look up the origin of mitochondria and chloroplast. Read up on endosymbiotic theory of their origin.
    Problem is that you don’t know what you are talking about. You will need some basic education before you can understand evolutionary theory.

    Your writings on consciousness doesn’t make any sense. Please rethink and rewrite. Full of logical errors and misconceptions, it’s pretty much pure nonsense. Read up on how a neuron works before talking about it.

    si tacuisses philosophus manisses

  5. It is quite obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Once again creationist blather is used to obfuscate , distort , and otherwise denegrate science. You really ought to read scientific journal articles and be more aware of the futile attempts that ID people have put forward under the mantra of irreducible complexity to discredit evolution. If there were intelligent design the designer does not know much about physiology. The structure of the eye, the reproductive organs , etc., show obvious design flaws..much more consistent with a evolutionarily derived structure. If you would stop your ranting about origin of life and focus on development of species..as is the basis of evolution you might learn something.I am a professor and have an IQ > 150 if IQ really means anything to you. I am quite interested in where you obtained your data for your silly IQ statement.I would suspect from creationist nonsense.

  6. Evolution doesn’t have to explain the first cell … any more than the theory of gravity has to explain the origins of gravity.

    Evolution is about how life *CHANGES*, not how life began. Until you know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis (the origins of life), you don’t really understand *either* concept very well.

    >”Sure we evolve but , as far as life evolving from a single cell that’s just crazy stupid.”

    Well … I guess that argument defeats the overwhelming consensus (more than 99.85%) of the scientists in the world … hundreds of thousands of them … for over 150 years. How can they *possibly* argue with logic like “that’s just crazy stupid.”

    >”Atheists talk like a cell is so simple.”

    Well, since I’m not an atheist I can’t speak for them. But I have *never* heard any evolution supporter (atheist or not) “talk like a cell is so simple.” Can you give an example? (I bet not.)

    >”(studies show that most people are average or below(Athiests)average I.Q.)”

    That sentence makes no sense. That’s like claiming that “studies show that most people are average or below (Presbyterians) average height.” What “studies” are you talking about? Can you give an example? (I bet not.)

    Your “explain consciousness” question is a non sequitur … it has nothing to do with evolution … much less cells. It’s not an argument against evolution … it’s actually an argument against consciousness!

    >”Darwin would agree with me if he lived in this day in age with our advancements which he didn’t have.”

    Sorry, no. Since it is clear you have not actually *read* Darwin (since you think that evolution is about the origins of life) … you don’t have a leg to stand on in claiming to read the mind of his corpse.

  7. Maybe the complexity of the cell is why life remained as bacteria for most of it’s history and the predominant bio mass is bacteria.

    The bacteria, prokaryotic, cell is simpler than the eukaryotes (of which you’re one) so it would support the theory that we evolved from them. A simpler form still is the virus, but that is parasitical and needs a host cell, but it is also possible that a simple replicating molecule existed without a host cell (RNA, DNA) and that the expression of proteins then lead to the creation of the cell.

    Consciousness is an evolutionary development that allows you to anticipate the action of others. In man the use of tools, especially in hunting would have made this an advantage as we hunt at a distance. Some of the brain function is unconscious, but other function is conscious. A simple experiment with a baseball bat and your brain would demonstrate that the physical aspect of your brain and your consciousness are a common entity. The fallacy of duality has been shown by the change in personality and self in people with traumatic brain injuries, changes that do not occur when other parts of the body are damaged.

    Darwin would have seen the evidence of DNA and modern science and known that he was right

  8. > “how does evolution explain the first cell with all its complexity ?”

    It doesn’t.
    Evolution explains how life changes with time – not how it began. That is Abiogenesis – a different field of science altogether.

    > “In order for a cell to work , all of its parts has to be present at once therefore , it couldn’t of evolved because if one part of the process of a cell weren’t present that cell would fail.
    A cell is pretty complex.”

    This is true for the types of cells we see now.
    But for “life” to begin, all you’d need is a collection of self-replicating molecules.

    > “Sure we evolve but , as far as life evolving from a single cell that’s just crazy stupid.”

    Is it? Given that your understanding of Abiogenesis and Evolution is limited (since you seem to think they are the same thing), I’d challenge you to explain why you think this is so.
    Also – it is not neccessarily the case that all life evolved from *one* single cell. All life on earth evolved from a single ancestor “species” – not from an individual.
    Can you provide an explanation for the universal genetic code otherwise?

    > “Atheists talk like a cell is so simple.”

    I suppose it is possible that some people – atheist or otherwise – might think this. No biologist would ever claim this was the case.

    > “(studies show that most people are average or below(Athiests)average I.Q.)”

    I don’t understand this sentence. Are you saying that atheists are on average more intelligent than other people?
    It is certainly the case that many studies have found an inverse correlation between belief in God and degree of education: in other words, the more educated someone is, the less likely they are to believe in a god or gods.
    http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/jesus/intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

    > “Explain consciousness.”

    An emergent phenomenon, arising from a complex central nervous system.

    > “Science says that most of our actions are unconscious and we don’t recognize them so the unconscious part of our brain is just our brain and not our consciousness so that means not all of our brain is consciousness just a certain area”

    Much of our brain is devoted to “unconscious” activities like regulating our temperature, controlling our heart rate and digestive system, etc. This is true.

    > “but , wait , that means that consciousness is no information because , information exist in the unconscious state so the therefore since our brains are information that means consciousness is not our brain.”

    Whoever said that “consciousness” and “information” were the same thing? Atoms have information (their charge state, the number of neutrons and protons in their nucleus, their momentum, etc.) but they are not conscious.

    > “Or senses can’t sense consciousness.”

    Do you mean we cannot tell if we are conscious or if someone (or something) else is? I’d argue that you can determine the state-of-consciousness of other objects just fine.
    For ourselves, if we are not “conscious”, then there is nothing for our senses to provide input to. No “central processor” correlating and interpreting the information from the senses.

    > “I think our consciousness decides the initiated choices to fire a neoron and , consciousness is self akwardly relative to other forms of existence in a different cartisian dualistic unperceivable aspect undetectable by reductionism parallel to cognitive perception of quantum physics.”

    So you are arguing that “consciousness” equals the “soul” in that it is a non-physical, and therefore not measurable?
    You might find work in the area of neurology interesting – like “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat” (1985) by Oliver Sachs. He has charted how *physical* (measurable and classifiable) damage to specific portions of the brain can cause measurable, classifiable changes to patients’ behaviour, perception, decision-making abilities, memories, and more. So physically changing the brain can indeed cause changes to “consciousness”.

    > “Darwin would agree with me if he lived in this day in age with our advancements which he didn’t have.”

    I seriously doubt it.
    Advances in biology have continually provided more and more support for Darwin’s theory (albeit modified to the “neo-Darwinian synthesis”).

  9. irreducable complexity has been proven a fallacy over and over again.. get with the times

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Powered by Yahoo! Answers