chinasaekpere:
Evolution is not a topic that aims to explain how the first specie came to be.
That's like creating another topic entirely. This topic is meant to discuss evolution of specie and not the origin of life

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Just present facts man!, just present FACTS!
Don't attack the man.
The thread is about evolution. I have presented here more about evolution and Darwin than any of you.

sagenaija:

Is this what Darwin said?

chinasaekpere:
Evolution is not a topic that aims to explain how the first specie came to be.
That's like creating another topic entirely. This topic is meant to discuss evolution of specie and not the origin of life

Workch:
But asking how species came into existence is not a topic in evolution.

That’s like another topic entirely and science doesn’t have that answer. What we are sure about is that evolution happened and it’s still happened.
We don’t know for sure how the first species came and evolution is not the topic to discusss that and this thread doesn’t aim at discussing that either.

TenQ:

Its not especially because the OP related it to creation.
its only right to ask about the first specie!

Workch:
You are making argument from irreducible complexity of intelligent design.
It’s false that if you remove one part of a bacteria organelle that it must stop functioning.
If one part of an organelle is removed naturally, it either stop functioning, acts as a vestigial organelle or served another function.

This argument you are using was put forward by a controversial Colleuge of mine called Michael Behe and he use the flagellum of a bacteria to make his points. He has been disproven by with evidence that a bacteria flagellum is not irreducibly complex, if the motor of a flagellum is removed, it could still serve as an organelle for insemination of toxins and other proteins as seen in many bacteria.

The matter of irreducible complexity is also false in terms of vestigial organs.
If I remove your appendix, you will still function properly.
If I remove your tonsils, you will still function properly.
If u remove Your coccyx, you will function properly. So what’s the irreducible complexity in this?

So the equivalence with a car part is false and doesn’t work like that in nature. Cars do not adapt to changing environment conditions like living cells. It’s a false equivalence fallacy

Workch:
You are making argument from irreducible complexity of intelligent design.
It’s false that if you remove one part of a bacteria organelle that it must stop functioning.
If one part of an organelle is removed naturally, it either stop functioning, acts as a vestigial organelle or served another function.

This argument you are using was put forward by a controversial Colleuge of mine called Michael Behe and he use the flagellum of a bacteria to make his points. He has been disproven by with evidence that a bacteria flagellum is not irreducibly complex, if the motor of a flagellum is removed, it could still serve as an organelle for insemination of toxins and other proteins as seen many bacteria.

The matter of irreducible complexity is also false in terms of vestigial organs.
If I remove your appendix, you will still function properly.
If I remove your tonsils, you will still function properly.
If u remove Your coccyx, you will function properly. So what’s the irreducible complexity in this?

So the equivalence with a car part is false and doesn’t work like that in nature. Cars do not adapt to changing environment conditions like living cells. It’s a false equivalence fallacy

TenQ:

Then it could be the same designer using same templates for creation of every living being. (I believe you know a little of Object Oriented programming)
Since you don't know, you don't have an answer!

TenQ:

So lame an argument:
If you remove your hair you'll still live
If you remove your nails, you'll stive live..

Naa...
How about removing your Brain, kidney, Stomach, Lungs! Will you still live?
Didn't I give your examples that are common to all living things?

One can remove several things from a car and it will still function as a vehicle. eg. Windscreen, Wheel cover, Trafficator, Brake-light etc. It doesn't mean they have no use, but it doesn't stop them being a vehicle

Workch:
Irreducible complexity has been debunked by that already.
You can remove some parts of a system and it’s still functions, however some parts are very vital to the function of that system.

We have evidence that if nature removes a part of the brain, it will function in another way. If you remove a part of the heart naturally it will function in another way which makes your comparison with a car ridiculous.

Reptiles have just two chambers of heart compared to humans with 4 and it still functions. If nature removes two chambers of the heart over time, it will function like a reptilian heart.

If nature removes the brain overtime, it will function like seen in invertebrates. Everything will be reduced and still function. If nature removes the neocortex part of the brain that is responsible for higher function and consciousness then you will hav a function similar to Lowe vertebrates.

So irreducible complexity is nonsense and the comparison with a car is a product of low IQ. The removal of any part of a system in nature will either cause it to lose its function or make it function in another way depending on natural selection.
And that’s basically what evolution teaches. Arguing with irreducible complexity is lame, it has been discarded in science since it was invented by Behe

TenQ:

You are the one who brought out the phrase " irreducible complexity" I didn't.
I only gave you characteristics common to living things such as

2. All living things have organs that
i. Take in Energy
ii. Digest and store the energy
iii. Excretes wastes as a result of digestion of energy source
iv. Possess means of replicating themselves
It doesn't matter if they were Amoeba, bacteria, plant or animals

So, stop using google without your common sense behind it

TenQ:

You are the one who brought out the phrase " irreducible complexity" I didn't.
I only gave you characteristics common to living things such as

2. All living things have organs that
i. Take in Energy
ii. Digest and store the energy
iii. Excretes wastes as a result of digestion of energy source
iv. Possess means of replicating themselves
It doesn't matter if they were Amoeba, bacteria, plant or animals

So, stop using google without your common sense behind it

Workch:
You don’t need critical thinking to know that evolution is fact, you only need proper education and lack of religious indoctrination.
A large number of Christians who are not literalists accept the theory so it’s not impossible that you can be a Christian and still accept scientific facts.
People will lie IQ like yours accept those that do not contradict your faith and reject others.

The major reason why your reject evolution is not because it doesn’t have evidence, it’s because it reveals the lies in Genesis story. You believed the Genesis stories without evidence, so evidence doesn’t matter to you

chinasaekpere:
We don’t know where the common ancestor came from and that’s not what evolution entails, it’s another topic entirely but people like you who hardly know that. Evolution only explains the diversity of species and not the origin of life. Abiogenesis and panspermia are the topic in biology that explains that, you don’t know because you have poor background in science or you are a religious fundamentalist.

There is nothing wrong is saying you don’t know, what it’s wrong is making stuffs up. But we are sure that we all have common ancestors, it’s what the information in DNA and fossil record says.

Workch:
Have you accepted that you don’t know what a scientific theory is?
Say yes and I will teach you theory of evolution. Be humble and let’s teach you

chinasaekpere:
That's what it is.
Abiogenesis and panspermia are two major topics in science that discusses origin of life on earth and not evolution.

Are you this uninformed!

sagenaija:

How am I wrong about what a scientific theory is?
You haven't said it.
You're only deflecting issues.
Show us where I went wrong.
You're the one who should prove your claim, not me.

sagenaija:

I asked about Darwin.

Workch:
Is a scientific theory explanation of fact or not?

Workch:
Darwin didn’t talk about origin of life

sagenaija:

This thread is about evolution, isn't it?

sagenaija:

Theories can be proven or REJECTED. Yes or No?

jmoore:


You ended up saying nothing. All these dumb atheists roaming around religious section.

Workch:
I am not atheist because I accept evolution. Majority of Christians including the Church of England and Catholic Church accept evolution.
Only I’ll-informed people, majorly literalists and ill-educated christian in developing countries in Africa don’t see evolution as fact.

You are part of the latter

Workch:
nope, hypothesis can be proven or rejected.
Theories are modified when better evidence suffice.
You are illiterate of science

sagenaija:

See the HIGHLIGHTED. Don't be too quick to always immediately oppose the other person's statements.

Modification means changes. In other words, basic or FUNDAMENTAL changes made, which can alter the position.
Workch, what this means is that any area in a theory that is not proven is modified. Modification means that the original position held in that area is no longer held as valid. Therefore it is in effect REJECTED!

Workch:
I am an expert in this field dude.
I have background in biochemistry, so this is literally my field.
I have sequenced several proteins and mapped many genes in my course of study. If you want to have discussion with me in molecular biology or biochemistry then you can be my guest because you will be lost. You barely can differentiate organs from organelles.

There’s literally nothing you want to tell me about metabolism in organisms either prokaryotes or eukaryotes that I don’t know and I don’t see the point you are trying to make with this post.

All living things are the same at the molecular level, it’s evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor.

TenQ:

That wasn't your argument. Don't microbes excrete?
If they excrete, do they not have specialised cells that do that?

You are thrashing too wildly apart.

Workch:
Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Microbes have specialized cells for excreting, do you know anything at all?

Microbes are unicellular organisms themselves, I have always told you to stop talking science.
Microbes excrete by passively or actively transporting waste proceducr via vacuoles between the extracellular fluid and the cytoplasm.

How can you say microbes have specialized cells to do excretions?
Guy why can’t you just simply ask for basic explanation for things?

How can a unicellular organisms have specialized cells for excretion?

It is still this same you that doesn’t know what an organ is

Someone that doesn’t know basic cellular biology now wants to talk about evolution

TenQ:

See how you contradict yourself.

Microbes excrete by passively or actively transporting waste proceducts via vacuoles between the extracellular fluid and the cytoplasm.

I beg, what are vacuoles made up of? Cement and Gravels?