Evolution Message Board - Msg: 27517715

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: Brumar89	7/25/2011 8:44:04 PM
	Read Replies (1) of 69300

Early life not simple as predicted: New Scientist: Not so Simple—Bugs That Break all the Rules One of the fundamental predictions of evolution is that life must have had simple beginnings. Life is complex and ever since Darwin evolutionists have tried to explain how that complexity arose over time, for life must have had simple beginnings. An obvious problem here is that even the fundamental unit of life—the cell—is itself profoundly complex. And this problem has not been aided by evolutionist’s attempts to reconstruct what that first cell might have looked like. The results were confusing due to the wide variety of genes between and amongst life’s three lineages. No clear picture of a simple progenitor emerged. Instead, the only solution seemed to be a super progenitor that already had most of the highly complex traits found in each of the three lineages. The super progenitor would have been as complex as modern cells yet would have somehow arisen in a short time. It seems that first born cell of evolution must have been quite complex, including a vast proteome of hundreds of different proteins. This is just one of many scientific falsifications of evolution’s prediction of simple beginnings. This problem of the complexity of early life is the main topic of the current issue of New Scientist. As the magazine correctly explains: Simple cells like bacteria are supposed to be, well, simple. They might have transformed Earth because of their unimaginable numbers, but they’re little more than tiny, solitary bags of chemicals. Or so we thought. Here, New Scientist looks at the growing number of exceptions to the rules. The most recent discoveries are challenging our ideas about the nature of early life. Their examples are interesting but hardly new. The problem of early complexity could have been explored a decade ago or a century ago. It is yet another in a long list of evolutionary expectations that is contradicted by science. Religion drives science and it matters. Posted by Cornelius Hunter darwins-god.blogspot.com newscientist.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next