Encoded information is evidence of Intelligent Design

originally posted by: Venkuish1

And while bacteria never form anything more complex than chains or colonies of identical cells....

You realize that statement defies evolution right? What you just said is actually exactly my point. Look up "LUCA" The theorized last universal common ancestor of life on earth. The theory involves a primordial bacteria being able to mutate into the diversity of life exhibited today... Yet you say this isn't possible

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cooperton

from one of the articles I linked to...

"Here, we have unambiguously demonstrated peptide bond formation at the air–water interface using small, water-soluble amino acid esters. Condensation reactions that must eliminate water are thermodynamically unfavorable in aqueous bulk, and yet are ubiquitous and essential to life. In addition, peptide bond formation will not occur between two amino acids in their zwitterionic form, the predominate state in a bulk aqueous environment. Water–air interfaces, characteristic of the surface of oceans, lakes, and atmospheric aerosols, provide an auspicious environment for this condensation chemistry through their provision of a water-restricting environment, alteration of the ionization state of surface species, and ability to concentrate and align monomers. Through in situ spectroscopic measurements, we have identified that the peptide bond forms through the coordination of the amine group of leucine ethyl ester to Cu2+ ions at the surface, inducing an orientational change at the surface observed using IRRAS. Then, peptide bond formation occurs spontaneously at the surface of water, facilitated by the formation of the copper complex at the interface. This work gives insight into oligomeric peptide formation en route to the emergence of more complex biomolecules on early Earth, and reinforces the importance of orientation, alignment, and proximity in the functioning of modern ribosomal peptide bond synthesis"

They use a synthetic compound "Copper–Leucine Ethyl Ester" To emulate an anhydrous environment at the surface so that the presence of water doesn't prevent polymerization. The formation of this ester is no joke, and you can see all that is involved in its creation in the methods and materials section.

Also, being at the surface of water presents other problems, such as UV radiation that would also degrade polymers and also denature any resultant protein strain. This method was only found for leucine, and the type of chemical raft that they use to prevent it from being disrupted by water likely would not work for the other amino acids necessary for life.

If you read their methods and materials you will see it reads very much like an intricate organic chemistry experiment that requires precise lab-grade materials and equipment. Even with intelligent input and the implementation of organic chemistry, they are still far from being able to polymerize coherent polymer chains using natural compounds that would be expected on early earth. Given that these experiments are the best we have and they still come remarkably short, I highly doubt the proposed plausibility of abiogenesis without intelligent input.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

And while bacteria never form anything more complex than chains or colonies of identical cells....

You realize that statement defies evolution right? What you just said is actually exactly my point. Look up "LUCA" The theorized last universal common ancestor of life on earth. The theory involves a primordial bacteria being able to mutate into the diversity of life exhibited today... Yet you say this isn't possible

No it doesn't because you have taken the sentences out of context as usual and you misunderstand what bacterial evolution is which doesn't involve the 'transformation' of one bacterium to another. That's basic evolutionary biology which you seem to ignore completely. And it's only you who has made this ridiculous claim.

I noted that you completely ignored all the links I have provided in favour of your dogma and used two sentences from one link to misrepresent what the authors have said.

www.newscientist.com...

Title: How did complex life evolve?

And while bacteria never form anything more complex than chains or colonies of identical cells, eukaryotic cells aggregate and cooperate to make everything from seaweed to sequoias, aardvarks to zebras. All complex multicellular life forms – that is to say, pretty much every living thing you can see around you, and more besides – are eukaryotes.

All eukaryotes evolved from the same ancestor. Without that one-off event, life would still be stuck in its microbial rut. Bacteria and archaea cells just don’t have what it takes to evolve into more complex forms.

To include the other bits I have linked

Adaptive Evolution of Bacteria

Title: Microbial Adaptive Evolution

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Bacterial species can adapt to significant changes in their environment by mutation followed by selection, a phenomenon known as “adaptive evolution.”

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution of E.Coli

The genetic bases of adaptation are being investigated in 12 populations of Escherichia coli, founded from a common ancestor and serially propagated for 20,000 generations, during which time they achieved substantial fitness gains. Each day, populations alternated between active growth and nutrient exhaustion

It's very clear bacteriums and viruses evolve but not the way you think by 'transforming' themselves into other bacteriums and viruses.

Do you think the scientists who author these papers don't understand what evolution is? Do you think the books have made a terrible mistake and haven't included the version of evolution you have in mind?

Has anyone made a claim similar to yours?
Can you find me an evolutionary biologist or any other scientist in the related fields who says that bacteriums and viruses don't evolve?

originally posted by: Venkuish1

No it doesn't because you have taken the sentences out of context as usual and you misunderstand what bacterial evolution is which doesn't involve the 'transformation' of one bacterium to another. That's basic evolutionary biology which you seem to ignore completely. And it's only you who has made this ridiculous claim.

You're right I have no idea what your point is, can bacteria evolve into other organisms or not?

All eukaryotes evolved from the same ancestor.

Yeah that's what I said in the prior post. But you were saying bacterial populations can't become other organisms over time?

Adaptive Evolution of Bacteria

Title: Microbial Adaptive Evolution

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I don't see any examples of bacteria evolving into any other bacteria besides what it already is.

Do you think the scientists who author these papers don't understand what evolution is? Do you think the books have made a terrible mistake and haven't included the version of evolution you have in mind?

No I think you don't understand what evolution is. You keep changing your mind and back-tracking. You said bacterial populations can't evolve into anything else, which I agree with entirely, but that's the opposite of what evolution posits.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

No it doesn't because you have taken the sentences out of context as usual and you misunderstand what bacterial evolution is which doesn't involve the 'transformation' of one bacterium to another. That's basic evolutionary biology which you seem to ignore completely. And it's only you who has made this ridiculous claim.

You're right I have no idea what your point is, can bacteria evolve into other organisms or not?

All eukaryotes evolved from the same ancestor.

Yeah that's what I said in the prior post. But you were saying bacterial populations can't become other organisms over time?

Adaptive Evolution of Bacteria

Title: Microbial Adaptive Evolution

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I don't see any examples of bacteria evolving into any other bacteria besides what it already is.

Do you think the scientists who author these papers don't understand what evolution is? Do you think the books have made a terrible mistake and haven't included the version of evolution you have in mind?

No I think you don't understand what evolution is. You keep changing your mind and back-tracking. You said bacterial populations can't evolve into anything else, which I agree with entirely, but that's the opposite of what evolution posits.

It's clear that you are oblivious to the facts or you pretend you don't understand what is happening. The links and basic school knowledge clearly answer this question and refute your arguments. Bacteria and viruses evolve (see links and read basic evolutionary biology) but that doesn't imply they can become different bacteria and viruses.

I provided the links to show how baseless your arguments are and devoid of science. You keep trying to recycle these debunked arguments but it doesn't work. The links show clearly what bacteria and virus evolution means.

It's not what I say. Science has shown that bacteriums and viruses don't become different bacteriums and viruses but they do evolve. You really need to start reading on how eucaryotes have been formed in the first place.

I am pretty sure the problem is not with the scientists and authors of these papers I linked or the school books. They understand what evolution is but it's you who is completely confused.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

And while bacteria never form anything more complex than chains or colonies of identical cells....

You realize that statement defies evolution right? What you just said is actually exactly my point. Look up "LUCA" The theorized last universal common ancestor of life on earth. The theory involves a primordial bacteria being able to mutate into the diversity of life exhibited today... Yet you say this isn't possible

I really don't think it's that mysterious.

I think it's a massive false dilemma that other factors aren't involved in the first multicellular organisms evolving. You seem to skip over the step where bacteria and unicelluar organisms became unicelluar Eukaryotes first.

Got something new to disagree with for you.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The hypothesis that eukaryotic cells evolved from a symbiotic association of prokaryotes—endosymbiosis—is particularly well supported by studies of mitochondria and chloroplasts, which are thought to have evolved from bacteria living in large cells. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts are similar to bacteria in size, and like bacteria, they reproduce by dividing in two. Most important, both mitochondria and chloroplasts contain their own DNA, which encodes some of their components. The mitochondrial and chloroplast DNAs are replicated each time the organelle divides, and the genes they encode are transcribed within the organelle and translated on organelle ribosomes. Mitochondria and chloroplasts thus contain their own genetic systems, which are distinct from the nuclear genome of the cell. Furthermore, the ribosomes and ribosomal RNAs of these organelles are more closely related to those of bacteria than to those encoded by the nuclear genomes of eukaryotes.

An endosymbiotic origin for these organelles is now generally accepted, with mitochondria thought to have evolved from aerobic bacteria and chloroplasts from photosynthetic bacteria, such as the cyanobacteria. The acquisition of aerobic bacteria would have provided an anaerobic cell with the ability to carry out oxidative metabolism. The acquisition of photosynthetic bacteria would have provided the nutritional independence afforded by the ability to perform photosynthesis. Thus, these endosymbiotic associations were highly advantageous to their partners and were selected for in the course of evolution. Through time, most of the genes originally present in these bacteria apparently became incorporated into the nuclear genome of the cell, so only a few components of mitochondria and chloroplasts are still encoded by the organelle genomes.

Many eukaryotes are unicellular organisms that, like bacteria, consist of only single cells capable of self-replication. The simplest eukaryotes are the yeasts. Yeasts are more complex than bacteria, but much smaller and simpler than the cells of animals or plants. For example, the commonly studied yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is about 6 μm in diameter and contains 12 million base pairs of DNA (Figure 1.9). Other unicellular eukaryotes, however, are far more complex cells, some containing as much DNA as human cells have (Table 1.2). They include organisms specialized to perform a variety of tasks, including photosynthesis, movement, and the capture and ingestion of other organisms as food. Amoeba proteus, for example, is a large, complex cell. Its volume is more than 100,000 times that of E. coli, and its length can exceed 1 mm when the cell is fully extended (Figure 1.10). Amoebas are highly mobile organisms that use cytoplasmic extensions, called pseudopodia, to move and to engulf other organisms, including bacteria and yeasts, as food. Other unicellular eukaryotes (the green algae) contain chloroplasts and are able to carry out photosynthesis.

Multicellular organisms evolved from unicellular eukaryotes at least 1.7 billion years ago. Some unicellular eukaryotes form multicellular aggregates that appear to represent an evolutionary transition from single cells to multicellular organisms. For instance, the cells of many algae (e.g., the green alga Volvox) associate with each other to form multicellular colonies (Figure 1.11), which are thought to have been the evolutionary precursors of present-day plants. Increasing cell specialization then led to the transition from colonial aggregates to truly multicellular organisms. Continuing cell specialization and division of labor among the cells of an organism have led to the complexity and diversity observed in the many types of cells that make up present-day plants and animals, including human beings.

originally posted by: Degradation33

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

And while bacteria never form anything more complex than chains or colonies of identical cells....

You realize that statement defies evolution right? What you just said is actually exactly my point. Look up "LUCA" The theorized last universal common ancestor of life on earth. The theory involves a primordial bacteria being able to mutate into the diversity of life exhibited today... Yet you say this isn't possible

I really don't think it's that's mysterious.

I think it's a massive false dilemma that other factors aren't involved in the first multicellular organisms evolving. You seem to skip over the step where bacteria and unicelluar organisms because unicelluar Eukaryotes first as well.

Got something new to disagree with for you.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The hypothesis that eukaryotic cells evolved from a symbiotic association of prokaryotes—endosymbiosis—is particularly well supported by studies of mitochondria and chloroplasts, which are thought to have evolved from bacteria living in large cells. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts are similar to bacteria in size, and like bacteria, they reproduce by dividing in two. Most important, both mitochondria and chloroplasts contain their own DNA, which encodes some of their components. The mitochondrial and chloroplast DNAs are replicated each time the organelle divides, and the genes they encode are transcribed within the organelle and translated on organelle ribosomes. Mitochondria and chloroplasts thus contain their own genetic systems, which are distinct from the nuclear genome of the cell. Furthermore, the ribosomes and ribosomal RNAs of these organelles are more closely related to those of bacteria than to those encoded by the nuclear genomes of eukaryotes.

An endosymbiotic origin for these organelles is now generally accepted, with mitochondria thought to have evolved from aerobic bacteria and chloroplasts from photosynthetic bacteria, such as the cyanobacteria. The acquisition of aerobic bacteria would have provided an anaerobic cell with the ability to carry out oxidative metabolism. The acquisition of photosynthetic bacteria would have provided the nutritional independence afforded by the ability to perform photosynthesis. Thus, these endosymbiotic associations were highly advantageous to their partners and were selected for in the course of evolution. Through time, most of the genes originally present in these bacteria apparently became incorporated into the nuclear genome of the cell, so only a few components of mitochondria and chloroplasts are still encoded by the organelle genomes.

Multicellular organisms evolved from unicellular eukaryotes at least 1.7 billion years ago. Some unicellular eukaryotes form multicellular aggregates that appear to represent an evolutionary transition from single cells to multicellular organisms. For instance, the cells of many algae (e.g., the green alga Volvox) associate with each other to form multicellular colonies (Figure 1.11), which are thought to have been the evolutionary precursors of present-day plants. Increasing cell specialization then led to the transition from colonial aggregates to truly multicellular organisms. Continuing cell specialization and division of labor among the cells of an organism have led to the complexity and diversity observed in the many types of cells that make up present-day plants and animals, including human beings.

It looks like he missed the big evolutionary step but we can assume he has heard how eukaryotes emerged from prokaryotes but he chooses to present debunked arguments as to why prokaryotes don't evolve to become other types of prokaryotes. For example an E.Coli bacterium becoming Chlamydia trachomatis.

He believes he has a point...

originally posted by: Degradation33

I really don't think it's that mysterious.

I think it's a massive false dilemma that other factors aren't involved in the first multicellular organisms evolving. You seem to skip over the step where bacteria and unicelluar organisms became unicelluar Eukaryotes first.

Got something new to disagree with for you.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The hypothesis that eukaryotic cells evolved from a symbiotic association of prokaryotes—endosymbiosis—is particularly well supported by studies of mitochondria and chloroplasts, which are thought to have evolved from bacteria living in large cells. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts are similar to bacteria in size, and like bacteria, they reproduce by dividing in two. Most important, both mitochondria and chloroplasts contain their own DNA, which encodes some of their components. The mitochondrial and chloroplast DNAs are replicated each time the organelle divides, and the genes they encode are transcribed within the organelle and translated on organelle ribosomes. Mitochondria and chloroplasts thus contain their own genetic systems, which are distinct from the nuclear genome of the cell. Furthermore, the ribosomes and ribosomal RNAs of these organelles are more closely related to those of bacteria than to those encoded by the nuclear genomes of eukaryotes.

An endosymbiotic origin for these organelles is now generally accepted, with mitochondria thought to have evolved from aerobic bacteria and chloroplasts from photosynthetic bacteria, such as the cyanobacteria. The acquisition of aerobic bacteria would have provided an anaerobic cell with the ability to carry out oxidative metabolism. The acquisition of photosynthetic bacteria would have provided the nutritional independence afforded by the ability to perform photosynthesis. Thus, these endosymbiotic associations were highly advantageous to their partners and were selected for in the course of evolution. Through time, most of the genes originally present in these bacteria apparently became incorporated into the nuclear genome of the cell, so only a few components of mitochondria and chloroplasts are still encoded by the organelle genomes.

Many eukaryotes are unicellular organisms that, like bacteria, consist of only single cells capable of self-replication. The simplest eukaryotes are the yeasts. Yeasts are more complex than bacteria, but much smaller and simpler than the cells of animals or plants. For example, the commonly studied yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is about 6 μm in diameter and contains 12 million base pairs of DNA (Figure 1.9). Other unicellular eukaryotes, however, are far more complex cells, some containing as much DNA as human cells have (Table 1.2). They include organisms specialized to perform a variety of tasks, including photosynthesis, movement, and the capture and ingestion of other organisms as food. Amoeba proteus, for example, is a large, complex cell. Its volume is more than 100,000 times that of E. coli, and its length can exceed 1 mm when the cell is fully extended (Figure 1.10). Amoebas are highly mobile organisms that use cytoplasmic extensions, called pseudopodia, to move and to engulf other organisms, including bacteria and yeasts, as food. Other unicellular eukaryotes (the green algae) contain chloroplasts and are able to carry out photosynthesis.

Multicellular organisms evolved from unicellular eukaryotes at least 1.7 billion years ago. Some unicellular eukaryotes form multicellular aggregates that appear to represent an evolutionary transition from single cells to multicellular organisms. For instance, the cells of many algae (e.g., the green alga Volvox) associate with each other to form multicellular colonies (Figure 1.11), which are thought to have been the evolutionary precursors of present-day plants. Increasing cell specialization then led to the transition from colonial aggregates to truly multicellular organisms. Continuing cell specialization and division of labor among the cells of an organism have led to the complexity and diversity observed in the many types of cells that make up present-day plants and animals, including human beings.

I have degrees in this area I know about the endosymbiosis theory. It's laughable though in light of empirical data:

"A surprising result of phylogenetic analyses is the relatively small proportion (10-20%) of the mitochondrial proteome displaying a clear α-proteobacterial ancestry."
link

This means that mitochondrial DNA only shares 10-20% similarity with prokaryotic organisms. Clearly indicating it did not evolve from engulfing a prokaryote.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
It looks like he missed the big evolutionary step but we can assume he has heard how eukaryotes emerged from prokaryotes but he chooses to present debunked arguments as to why prokaryotes don't evolve to become other types of prokaryotes. For example an E.Coli bacterium becoming Chlamydia trachomatis.

He believes he has a point...

Nah even if endosymbiosis theory is true, which the data shows it clearly is not, then that first endosymbiont is theorized to be the origin of life from there forward. That eukaryotic bacterial line would need to evolve into the diversity of life exhibited today. So I am not sure why you keep saying that bacteria can't evolve, while also saying that evolution is true. That is a contradictory statement.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
It looks like he missed the big evolutionary step but we can assume he has heard how eukaryotes emerged from prokaryotes but he chooses to present debunked arguments as to why prokaryotes don't evolve to become other types of prokaryotes. For example an E.Coli bacterium becoming Chlamydia trachomatis.

He believes he has a point...

Nah even if endosymbiosis theory is true, which the data shows it clearly is not, then that first endosymbiont is theorized to be the origin of life from there forward. That eukaryotic bacterial line would need to evolve into the diversity of life exhibited today. So I am not sure why you keep saying that bacteria can't evolve, while also saying that evolution is true. That is a contradictory statement.

The data clearly shows the opposite of what you are saying and we know how prokaryotes have evolved into eukaryotes. But prokaryotes don't evolve to become other prokaryotes. Something you seem not to be able to comprehend or deliberately ignore. That's why E.Coli never becomes Chlamydia trachomatis.

Bacteria evolve. It's you who says they don't. But prokaryotes don't become other prokaryotes. All the links we have used in this thread and other show clearly how bacteria evolve.

You have said above

So I am not sure why you keep saying that bacteria can't evolve, while also saying that evolution is true. That is a contradictory statement.

No I ve never said that. It's you who says it. Bacteria evolve as shown but not becoming other bacteria (that should be clear).

Your argument has been refuted several times but you keep pushing it. But I don't mind refuting it again and again.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Degradation33

I really don't think it's that mysterious.

I think it's a massive false dilemma that other factors aren't involved in the first multicellular organisms evolving. You seem to skip over the step where bacteria and unicelluar organisms became unicelluar Eukaryotes first.

Got something new to disagree with for you.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The hypothesis that eukaryotic cells evolved from a symbiotic association of prokaryotes—endosymbiosis—is particularly well supported by studies of mitochondria and chloroplasts, which are thought to have evolved from bacteria living in large cells. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts are similar to bacteria in size, and like bacteria, they reproduce by dividing in two. Most important, both mitochondria and chloroplasts contain their own DNA, which encodes some of their components. The mitochondrial and chloroplast DNAs are replicated each time the organelle divides, and the genes they encode are transcribed within the organelle and translated on organelle ribosomes. Mitochondria and chloroplasts thus contain their own genetic systems, which are distinct from the nuclear genome of the cell. Furthermore, the ribosomes and ribosomal RNAs of these organelles are more closely related to those of bacteria than to those encoded by the nuclear genomes of eukaryotes.

An endosymbiotic origin for these organelles is now generally accepted, with mitochondria thought to have evolved from aerobic bacteria and chloroplasts from photosynthetic bacteria, such as the cyanobacteria. The acquisition of aerobic bacteria would have provided an anaerobic cell with the ability to carry out oxidative metabolism. The acquisition of photosynthetic bacteria would have provided the nutritional independence afforded by the ability to perform photosynthesis. Thus, these endosymbiotic associations were highly advantageous to their partners and were selected for in the course of evolution. Through time, most of the genes originally present in these bacteria apparently became incorporated into the nuclear genome of the cell, so only a few components of mitochondria and chloroplasts are still encoded by the organelle genomes.

Many eukaryotes are unicellular organisms that, like bacteria, consist of only single cells capable of self-replication. The simplest eukaryotes are the yeasts. Yeasts are more complex than bacteria, but much smaller and simpler than the cells of animals or plants. For example, the commonly studied yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is about 6 μm in diameter and contains 12 million base pairs of DNA (Figure 1.9). Other unicellular eukaryotes, however, are far more complex cells, some containing as much DNA as human cells have (Table 1.2). They include organisms specialized to perform a variety of tasks, including photosynthesis, movement, and the capture and ingestion of other organisms as food. Amoeba proteus, for example, is a large, complex cell. Its volume is more than 100,000 times that of E. coli, and its length can exceed 1 mm when the cell is fully extended (Figure 1.10). Amoebas are highly mobile organisms that use cytoplasmic extensions, called pseudopodia, to move and to engulf other organisms, including bacteria and yeasts, as food. Other unicellular eukaryotes (the green algae) contain chloroplasts and are able to carry out photosynthesis.

Multicellular organisms evolved from unicellular eukaryotes at least 1.7 billion years ago. Some unicellular eukaryotes form multicellular aggregates that appear to represent an evolutionary transition from single cells to multicellular organisms. For instance, the cells of many algae (e.g., the green alga Volvox) associate with each other to form multicellular colonies (Figure 1.11), which are thought to have been the evolutionary precursors of present-day plants. Increasing cell specialization then led to the transition from colonial aggregates to truly multicellular organisms. Continuing cell specialization and division of labor among the cells of an organism have led to the complexity and diversity observed in the many types of cells that make up present-day plants and animals, including human beings.

I have degrees in this area I know about the endosymbiosis theory. It's laughable though in light of empirical data:

"A surprising result of phylogenetic analyses is the relatively small proportion (10-20%) of the mitochondrial proteome displaying a clear α-proteobacterial ancestry."
link

This means that mitochondrial DNA only shares 10-20% similarity with prokaryotic organisms. Clearly indicating it did not evolve from engulfing a prokaryote.

You haven't demonstrated you have academic knowledge in any subject but exactly the opposite. You lack even the most basic academic knowledge and you try to push the debunked ideas of creationism which is devoid of science.

You say the endosymbiosis theory is laughable. What is laughable are the desperate attempts by creationists to prove to the world their ridiculous claims.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
The data clearly shows the opposite of what you are saying and we know how prokaryotes have evolved into eukaryotes. But prokaryotes don't evolve to become other prokaryotes. Something you seem not to be able to comprehend or deliberately ignore. That's why E.Coli never becomes Chlamydia trachomatis.

Evolutionary theory insists that prokaryotes are able to evolve into other prokaryotes. That's why there are taxonomic trees that show the theorized divergence of various prokaryotes maintaining the heritage with other prokaryotes:



As we see here, the theory insists that prokaryotes can indeed involve into other prokaryotes. It's odd you're so condescending and wrong about your own theory at the same time.

Bacteria evolve. It's you who says they don't.

Prokaryotes are bacteria, yet you literally just said prokaryotes don't evolve earlier in your post:

But prokaryotes don't evolve to become other prokaryotes.

These are your own words, clearly showing your misunderstanding. Stop being condescending and pretending to know more than you do. Just humble yourself and have a conversation, it's anonymous internet conversation there's no need to be some infallible know-it-all.. Especially when you don't know that prokaryotes are bacteria.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

You haven't demonstrated you have academic knowledge in any subject but exactly the opposite. You lack even the most basic academic knowledge

What a perfect example of psychological projection

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
The data clearly shows the opposite of what you are saying and we know how prokaryotes have evolved into eukaryotes. But prokaryotes don't evolve to become other prokaryotes. Something you seem not to be able to comprehend or deliberately ignore. That's why E.Coli never becomes Chlamydia trachomatis.

Evolutionary theory insists that prokaryotes are able to evolve into other prokaryotes. That's why there are taxonomic trees that show the theorized divergence of various prokaryotes maintaining the heritage with other prokaryotes:

As we see here, the theory insists that prokaryotes can indeed involve into other prokaryotes. It's odd you're so condescending and wrong about your own theory at the same time.

Bacteria evolve. It's you who says they don't.

Prokaryotes are bacteria, yet you literally just said prokaryotes don't evolve earlier in your post:

But prokaryotes don't evolve to become other prokaryotes.

These are your own words, clearly showing your misunderstanding. Stop being condescending and pretending to know more than you do. Just humble yourself and have a conversation, it's anonymous internet conversation there's no need to be some infallible know-it-all

Your argument has been refuted several times but you keep pushing it. But I don't mind refuting it again and again.

You didn't even know prokaryotes are bacteria, so I don't think you are capable of refuting anything in this realm.

What I said is correct.
Prokaryotes evolve and eukaryotes have emerged from prokaryotes. But E.Coli doesn't become Chlamydia trachomatis (that's very simple).

And neither any bacterium will magically 'transform' itself to another bacterium.

I have already linked a number of articles. Do you think myself and other posters don't know that bacteria are prokaryotes? Are we so 'uninformed'?

If prokaryotes evolved the way you have described it then you would see all sorts of bacteriums transforming themselves magically and the E.Coli becoming something else. But it doesn't-simply because bacteria evolution is something you haven't understood.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
And neither any bacterium will magically 'transform' itself to another bacterium.

The taxonomic tree says the opposite, it shows that prokaryotes are theorized to have evolved from other prokaryotes:

. Do you think myself and other posters don't know that bacteria are prokaryotes? Are we so 'uninformed'?

No I'm sure they all know that prokaryotes are bacteria. You're the only one who doesn't know that. Or rather, you know that now, now that I have told you. Look, here is your quote demonstrating you did not know that bacteria are prokaryotes:

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Bacteria evolve. It's you who says they don't. But prokaryotes don't become other prokaryotes.

If prokaryotes evolved the way you have described it then you would see all sorts of bacteriums transforming themselves magically and the E.Coli becoming something else. But it doesn't-simply because bacteria evolution is something you haven't understood.

If prokaryotes can't evolve into other prokaryotes, where do you think the diversity of prokaryotes came from, according to evolutionary theory? Also, it's not "bacteriums", 'bacteria' is the proper term for plural bacterium. The irony is rich when you say I don't understand the theory of bacterial evolution, while calling them "bacteriums" in the same paragraph lol.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
And neither any bacterium will magically 'transform' itself to another bacterium.

The taxonomic tree says the opposite, it shows that prokaryotes are theorized to have evolved from other prokaryotes:

. Do you think myself and other posters don't know that bacteria are prokaryotes? Are we so 'uninformed'?

No I'm sure they all know that prokaryotes are bacteria. You're the only one who doesn't know that. Or rather, you know that now, now that I have told you. Look, here is your quote demonstrating you did not know that bacteria are prokaryotes:

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Bacteria evolve. It's you who says they don't. But prokaryotes don't become other prokaryotes.

If prokaryotes evolved the way you have described it then you would see all sorts of bacteriums transforming themselves magically and the E.Coli becoming something else. But it doesn't-simply because bacteria evolution is something you haven't understood.

If prokaryotes can't evolve into other prokaryotes, where do you think the diversity of prokaryotes came from, according to evolutionary theory? Also, it's not "bacteriums", 'bacteria' is the proper term for plural bacterium

You are making the same argument just like other creationists make when they talk about monkeys and humans. If humans have descended from monkeys why don't monkeys become evolve to become humans? Accordingly why does the E.Coli doesn't 'evolve' to become Chlamydia trachomatis? I wonder whether you are able to understand the taxonomic trees...

originally posted by: Venkuish1 I wonder whether you are able to understand the taxonomic trees...

You literally just said prokaryotes don't evolve into other prokaryotes, Don't try to lecture me about taxonomic trees lol. Just face it, you have no idea what you're talking about. You calling them "Bacteriums" is a classic, thank you for that. Typical fanboi atheist who relies on blind faith and doesn't know science.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1 I wonder whether you are able to understand the taxonomic trees...

You literally just said prokaryotes don't evolve into other prokaryotes, Don't try to lecture me about taxonomic trees lol. Just face it, you have no idea what you're talking about. You calling them "Bacteriums" is a classic, thank you for that. Typical fanboi atheist who relies on blind faith and doesn't know science.

It's clear you don't understand evolution and taxonomic trees. You even think that evolution implies the transformation of E.Coli to Chlamydia Trachomatis so to be true and that dinosaurs walked along humans in the recent past. That's what creationism is after all.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1 I wonder whether you are able to understand the taxonomic trees...

You literally just said prokaryotes don't evolve into other prokaryotes, Don't try to lecture me about taxonomic trees lol. Just face it, you have no idea what you're talking about. You calling them "Bacteriums" is a classic, thank you for that. Typical fanboi atheist who relies on blind faith and doesn't know science.

See link above.

And while bacteria never form anything more complex than chains or colonies of identical cells, eukaryotic cells aggregate and cooperate to make everything from seaweed to sequoias, aardvarks to zebras. All complex multicellular life forms – that is to say, pretty much every living thing you can see around you, and more besides – are eukaryotes.

All eukaryotes evolved from the same ancestor. Without that one-off event, life would still be stuck in its microbial rut. Bacteria and archaea cells just don’t have what it takes to evolve into more complex forms

It seems I am in agreement with the scientific literature and I understand why E.Coli hasn't become another type of bacterium. Just like most of us understand why monkeys don't evolve to become humans.

a reply to: cooperton

If you read their methods and materials you will see it reads very much like an intricate organic chemistry experiment that requires precise lab-grade materials and equipment. Even with intelligent input and the implementation of organic chemistry, they are still far from being able to polymerize coherent polymer chains using natural compounds that would be expected on early earth. Given that these experiments are the best we have and they still come remarkably short, I highly doubt the proposed plausibility of abiogenesis without intelligent input.

Yes, I did read it and yes it was a chemistry experiment. was else were you expecting from a scientific paper? The methods and materials section was mainly about instrumentation used in measuring the actual experiment.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

See link above.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying prokaryotes don't evolve but eukaryotes do evolve?

originally posted by: Kurokage

Yes, I did read it and yes it was a chemistry experiment. was else were you expecting from a scientific paper? The methods and materials section was mainly about instrumentation used in measuring the actual experiment.

My point was that laboratory settings often do not emulate natural conditions on earth