The Idea of Existence

[Deagonx]

Rob, I have no idea who you are. But you are one smart son-of-a-gun.

[ArtDrake]

Okay. There is to be a rational conclusion here; I don't know enough about bacterial-to-eukaryotic evolution to adequately defend evolution. You manage to have been educated to an extent where you can. Good for you.

Christians have faith in Christianity and Christ.

I support the theory of evolution, and know that evolution has gone scientifically unchallenged. If your arguments held sway, they would have been thoroughly discussed in the scientific literature by now, and evolution might have been questioned by a large portion of the scientific community. They have not, and it has not. Thus, I must conclude that your arguments are unsound, and are based in false premises or lack of knowledge, as were mine.

[Deagonx]

Translation: "I have no idea what you are saying, but since someone smarter than me hasn't questioned it yet, it's probably wrong"



Really, Duckling?

[bugfartboy]

I was thinking the same thing. My question is, has it ever occured to you that maybe they havn't questioned it because they know it might harm evolution?

[Deagonx]

No, they couldn't have questioned it. Unless Duckling missed one of those big science discussion meetings that he always goes to. You know, to find out what they talk about.

[ArtDrake]

Scientists in the relevant fields to this debate are constantly reviewing the evidence for evolution. I sincerely doubt that they would have such an affinity for a particular theory so as to ignore the principles of science and refuse to thoroughly examine new evidence brought to light.

And no, Deagon-X, that is not the meaning of my statement. It is closer to,

"I understand what you say, and acknowledge it as a valid point. However, seeing as those more qualified to argue this topic than either of us have had precisely this debate and revealed no conclusive points that are destructive to evolution, I think that your point must have a counterargument which I have yet to find. The current limits of my knowledge prevent me from generating this counterargument myself."

That said, I'll be examining the scientific literature to find said counterargument.

[Deagonx]

And no, Deagon-X, that is not the meaning of my statement. It is closer to,

"I understand what you say, and acknowledge it as a valid point. However, seeing as those more qualified to argue this topic than either of us have had precisely this debate and revealed no conclusive points that are destructive to evolution, I think that your point must have a counterargument which I have yet to find. The current limits of my knowledge prevent me from generating this counterargument myself."

Using bigger words does not make the point any different.

"I dont understand your points. But since someone that would understand your points hasn't addressed them yet, they are probably wrong."

[ArtDrake]

Labeling what I say as "just ... bigger words" doesn't mean you can change what they mean. Here's simple.

I understand you.

(That sentence directly opposes your summation, and is the first two words of my first summation. Really!)

But people that could counter your points haven't found a need to, they are most probably irrelevant in attempting to prove that evolution is false.

Rob, I have no doubt that your questions need answering; I'm not that person, and I am less informed on the topic than you, but your question is most likely answerable within the theory of evolution. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I can't give you an adequate answer. Don't ask me.

That said, I tried to answer the question using my knowledge (or lack thereof) of the topic, and failed.

Deagonx, now I ask you: do you understand his points?

[Deagonx]

Deagonx, now I ask you: do you understand his points?

Yes, I do understand his points. Is it such a shocker than I am learned about Eukaryotas, chromosomes, DNA and the like?

I hope it isn't, my first 3 books in science class were about that whole bit.

[Rob]

Well, I've been digging around, and while it appears scientist have published a lot of research on mutations or evolution of genes, they haven't published to much about chromosomes. Go the the evolution wiki, look up chromosomes, and you'll see my point. Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you know that my point has been argued somewhere else, and that someone has come up with a counter argument or counter point?

[ArtDrake]

Sorry for not having been up on my facts. The bacteria-to-eukaryote evolution is explained by a few hypotheses.

One is that fusion of bacterial cells occurred (usually this is the result of one trying to, unsuccessfully, eat another), and the resulting organism was a eubacterium -- the nuclear structure as it is today was devuloped from the fusion of such a eubacterium and a virus, an archaeon, or another DNA-holding organic structure. This makes quite a bit of sense, and doesn't require large amount of mutation -- just a chance fusion.

Rob, have you heard of the grain Triticale, featured in a Star Trek episode, "The Trouble with Tribbles"?

[Deagonx]

So now you have given us the hypotheses of evolution.


Reason being?

[ArtDrake]

Well, now, you must not have been paying attention.

These hypotheses give Rob the answers that he's/she's looking for: how life got from bacteria to eukaryote, and how chromosomes increased in number. I'll tell him/her about the latter when he/she responds.

[Deagonx]

And what does evolution have to do with the base idea of existence?

[ArtDrake]

Little. But that's where the conversation went. Then, you criticized me, implying that I sounded stupid my admitting my non-knowledge.

I was simply defending a position.