Evolution, why us?

[Alchemist]

...

yeah, you win buddy.

go celebrate.

After all you defeated a ph.d student of biology even. Heck, you should get a ph.d your self.

[Alchemist]

Invertebrate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This invertebrate, Drosophila melanogaster, has been the subject of much research.


An invertebrate is an animal without a backbone. The group includes 95% of all animal species[1] – all animals except those in the chordate subphylum Vertebrata (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals).
Invertebrates form a paraphyletic group. Given a common multicellular, eukaryotic ancestor, all contained phyla are invertebrates along with two of the three subphyla in Phylum Chordata: Urochordata and Cephalochordata. These two, plus all the other known invertebrates, have only one cluster of Hox genes, while the vertebrates have duplicated their original cluster more than once.
Within palaeozoology and palaeobiology, invertebrates are often studied within the fossil discipline called invertebrate palaeontology.


Click on each blue link...and see for your self...where does it say unicellular?


have some shame...

you deluded fool.

[طالب]

*sigh* how can I make you understand?

Listen Alchemist I'm going to try to explain using your own words:

Don't you understand that animals with a backbone (vertebrates) didn't exist before the Cambrian explosion? But unicellular organisms existed before the Cambrian explosion?

Don't you understand that unicellular organisms do not have a backbone and are therefore different from vertebrates?

Don't you agree that unicellular organisms are different from vertebrates?

That's all. It's really that simple. Vertebrates didn't exist before Cambrian explosion, unicellular organisms existed billions of years before Cambrian explosion.

You must understand my point, it is so simple. I cannot believe you don't understand it. Why can't you be honest? Just say that you refuse to believe in the precambrian fossils because of your religious beliefs.

[Alchemist]

Sure buddy,

Why don't you go and correct wikipedia.

Let them know you just discovered that unicellular organisms like bacteria are also animals.


idiot.

[Alchemist]

"definition of a retard is someone who does the same thing over and over again and expects different results each time"

here goat ... come ram your head here.

[طالب]

Hahaha, what difference does it make to our discussion? I can use the term unicellular organism instead of invertebrate if you want.

Then if you tell him eukaryotes and prokaryotes have co-existed and present evidence of it, simply doesn't understand it.

I agree that eukaryotes and prokaryotes have and do coexist.

But not 1-3 billion years ago.

[Alchemist]

You show how ill informed you are on the subject.


Do you know how many genes are involved in the act of Nitrogen fixation?


dancing around like a monkey...butt headings with me? come on .. who do you think you are? you just copy pasted some articles here and there and feel confident in other people's claims ...you are a failure at even copy pasting ... seriously... have some shame brother. humble your self. Seeking knowledge for the sake of showing off? Astaghfirallah.

[طالب]

The amount of genes involved in the act of Nitrogen fixation are irrelevant to the case for the FoE.

We already know unicellular organisms (see, I used your word there! Happy?) existed billions of years ago because of the fossils of which I've posted numerous examples of in previous posts and which you refuse to reply to.

The amount of genes involved in nitrogen fixation is another discussion.

We know they existed. We have the fossils to prove it.

We know that vertebrates only came into existance during the Cambrian explosion.

So where did the vertebrates come from?

[Alchemist]

yeah everything is irrelevant as long as it is beyound your comprehension. And your comprehension ends at grade 8 science class.
And yet here you are trying to argue with me on a university level subject?
What are you trying to prove with those fossils? that is still complex life ...oh god
Piss off..kid

[طالب]

What are you trying to prove with those fossils?

That unicellular organisms existed billions of years ago, which you disagree with.

that is still complex life

But where are the vertebrates? Why are no 1-3 billion year old vertebrate fossils found?

They have only been found after the Cambrian explosion. Where did they come from?

The only scientific explanation is that they came from the unicellular organisms. Because we know living organisms come from living organisms and have never observed anything else.

Do you have another scientific explanation? No, I thought not.

[Alchemist]

what a dumb ass...keeps saying the same thing over and over

i know your idea of winning a debate is just to have the last word..

but no...

you can't have it ..

I can play your game

to reiterate for the nth time. First invertebrate - 600 million years ago. First vertebrate 570 million years ago. According to you, invertebrates are complex forms of life. Don't try to change the definition after saying it 50 times now.

And according to you stromatolites have abiogenic origins. Still no "cell" can survive over billions of years. It is PHYISCALLY IMPOSSIBLE. What is physically impossible? It is physics, second law of thermodynamics! Entropy increases. Thus life cannot form spontaneously. Hence, no direct evidence of fossils dating far back to billions of years.

Secondly, define simple organisms? You can't. Because even evolutionary scientists admit that bacteria is a form of complex life. Hence, the number of genes necessary for life have been numbered 250. Thus there are no "fossil" or whatever proofs of life being simple enough to have only 1 gene. Rather, there are no transmutational forms of organisms, meaning half prokaryotes half eukaryotes. Only distinct forms of organisms.

"where did the come from" Irrelevant. This is not in the realm of science.

Rather science is concerned with "how did the come"...but you flip it and say that the how doesn't matter, the process doesn't matter.

This is because you are an idiot!

A drop out!


let's go kid ... i can do this all day. compare your monotone, repititous and drone like regurgitation to my logically constructed arguments. See the difference? Who are you compared to me? You are a goat. I am a lion. I eat chumps like you for break fast.

[طالب]

Round 2...

i know your idea of winning a debate is just to have the last word..

I actually take issue with this which is why I'm responding to it. I'm not responding just to have the last word, I'm responding to the objections you make to the case for the FoE.

I want to make sure I can defend 100% the fact that the FoE is science. This is why I'm responding to your objections.

Of course I also want to make other people realise that evolution is indeed scientific.

I haven't responded to most of your insults and prejudices exactly because of this reason. Insults and accusations about my character is not something which can be rationally responded to. I can throw back insults but so what? They are useless.

You have won the debate if you can point out where my reasoning or evidence is lacking. Thus far I don't believe you have.

I can play your game

I'm honestly happy about that. Just chill a bit and cut down on the insults. Here is a good tip: Once you're done writing your post, remove all the swear words and baseless accusations.

Seriously you'll come off as a much better poster.

Anyway...

to reiterate for the nth time. First invertebrate - 600 million years ago. First vertebrate 570 million years ago. According to you, invertebrates are complex forms of life. Don't try to change the definition after saying it 50 times now.

Okay, listen you were the one who just a few posts ago took issue with the word invertebrate to describe unicellular organisms.

So I started to use the word unicellular organisms. What is the problem exactly? How do you expect me to argue when I'm not even allowed, by you, to use the same words you do?

Can I use the word unicellular organism?

And according to you stromatolites have abiogenic origins.

No, this is false, I've never said this. I agree that stromatolite can have abiogenic origins, but not that all stromatolites have abiogenic origins.

Alchemist I have a degree of respect for you because you're apparently a PhD student. I know how much work a PhD is and I respect you for that.

I just don't understand why you, as a PhD student, don't take a more honest approach to this debate? It's obvious that you sometimes put words into my mouth and then proceed to attack those words as if that was my position?

Let's tone this debate down a notch, cut out the insults and talk about the information and articles we have. I'm saying this in a hope that you won't respond with a "boo hoo" and go on and on in the same way you've been doing the last 10 pages.

Sure, I made fun of you when you made the remarks about dialectical materialism. I'll admit that, and take it back if that's what is needed.

Still no "cell" can survive over billions of years. It is PHYISCALLY IMPOSSIBLE. What is physically impossible? It is physics, second law of thermodynamics! Entropy increases. Thus life cannot form spontaneously. Hence, no direct evidence of fossils dating far back to billions of years.

Okay, I finally understand what you mean by "direct evidence". Direct evidence is a billion year old living unicellular organism?

No, we don't have that. But we have fossils of those unicellular organisms. But so what? I mean we don't have any living dinosaurs walking around today, but we still know they existed millions of years ago because we have fossils of them. Now you're not going to argue that dinosaurs didn't exist simply because they're not alive and walking around today, are you?

Secondly, define simple organisms? You can't.

You're right, if we get down to crux of the matter defining complexity is no simple matter.

If you don't agree that a trillion cell vertebrate is more complex than a uniceullular organism then we cannot reach an agreement on a definition for complexity.

This does not disprove the case for the FoE though! If you recall, the FoE is simply "the development of forms of animal and plant life (organisms, if you will) out of forms significantly different from them.

Now you must agree, that the unicellular life that existed during the precambrian era, is significantly different from the vertebrates that exist today, right? For example, unicellular life doesn't have a backbone, but vertebrates do. Now the earliest vertebrate fossil is dated to around 560 million years (according to this article: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20...ertebrate.html, if you have an earlier fossil please provide it).

So my contention is simply this; if vertebrates did not appear before 560 million years ago, but we know that unicellular organisms existed billions of years ago, then the vertebrates must have come from the unicellular organisms (because living things come from living things).

Now in this whole explanation, I didn't use complexity, because you don't like the word. But my case is still the same.

I don't agree with your definition of complexity. I think a trillion cell organisms is much more complicated than a unicellular organism. But if you don't agree then fine, let's not use that word.

Rather, there are no transmutational forms of organisms, meaning half prokaryotes half eukaryotes. Only distinct forms of organisms.

This again is irrelevant because we simply know that unicellular organisms did in fact exist during the precambrian era. It doesn't matter if we haven't found half prokaryotes or whatever, we know that unicellular organisms existed back then, however they came to be.

"where did the come from" Irrelevant. This is not in the realm of science.

When I say irrelevant I mean that it isn't related to the case for the FoE. It doesn't matter. For example you said that "we don't know how the process occurred" but we don't need to know the process to argue the case for the FoE.

I tried to illustrate this to you using an example: "If we're not exactly sure how salmon find their way back to their spawning grounds, does that mean they don't go there?"

Or: "if you don't know how your bike was moved from the garage to your front door, does that mean it wasn't moved?"

Rather science is concerned with "how did the come"...but you flip it and say that the how doesn't matter, the process doesn't matter.

We're not talking about all of science here, we're talking about the FoE and the case for it. The FoE is a small, but integral, part of science! The process is explained in the ToE, but the ToE is not required to argue the case for the FoE!

[Alchemist]

what the heck is fof?
this term is not even used in one scientific journal!
go quote mine it son..

this is just part of your psychotic delusions.

psychotic people develope their own language. Kind of like how babies use different nonsense babbles to mean simple things like "kaka, popo, dada,wowo"...and then cry like a baby "it doesn't matter that I can't explain and elaborate on the technical details but just believe it..."

you panzy..you just live for the insults...its what gives your weak ego energy to fight...otherwise, you have nothing else to go by here. Just keep mugging the same mantra over and over like a deaf, dumb and mute person....you are pathetic.

A shrimp has 254 chromosomes...does that mean it is more complex than a human which has 46 chromosoemes?

foe...this ...foe that...what a moron. just because you call it fact it doesn't become fact. When in fact, I have shown you that there is nothing factual about the premises of your conclusion...

still why don't you try to define what a species is?

then also explain to me where did bacteria come from? where did the unicellular organisms come from? from rocks?

bicycle this..salmon that ..stfu

[Alchemist]

Rather, what is even more bizzarre is that you are actually throwing away natural selection, as a process and mechanism all together. What you are defending is not evolution but Mountain-Goat's Theory of origin of life...we ll call it now MGTOOL. Because your basic argument is that first unicellular, then human being, therefore human being come from unicellular. LOL

[طالب]

what the heck is fof?
this term is not even used in one scientific journal!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact

A shrimp has 254 chromosomes...does that mean it is more complex than a human which has 46 chromosoemes?

Irrelevant to the case for the FoE. If a shrimp is more or less complex than a human being has no relation to whether or not the development of animals and plant species out of species not at all like them is science.

foe...this ...foe that...what a moron. just because you call it fact it doesn't become fact.

Correct. What makes it fact is that it is substantiated by such a large amount of evidence as to make it fact in the scientific sense. Of course everything is a theory in science, but some things have so much evidence that scientists refer to them as fact.

That's why the FoE is called FoE. It's also a useful term to distinguish it from the ToE which explains the process with which the FoE occurs.

When in fact, I have shown you that there is nothing factual about the premises of your conclusion...

Not really. You've tried, but failed.

still why don't you try to define what a species is?

lol, because I don't need to in order to defend the case for the FoE? The definition of "species" is irrelevant. I mean I've never even mentioned it so why do you bring it up?

then also explain to me where did bacteria come from? where did the unicellular organisms come from? from rocks?

The origin of life is irrelevant to the case for the FoE. As quoted before:

The most common objection to the case made for evolution is the question, "But what about the origin of life?" What about it, indeed? As the article itself makes clear, questions about the origin of life, though addressing a related issue, are red herrings, since evolution concerns itself with the diversity of species once life is established on earth, not with how life first began. So such a question is rather like raising doubts about how steel is made in any argument about how a car engine works. Naturally, the origin of life on earth is a fascinating issue, one which scientists continue to explore. They have come up with a number of hypothetical possibilities, but as yet there is no favourite theory, nothing which has yielded a wealth of predictions which one can easily test to confirm or reject the hypothesis.
Some correspondents seem to think there is a contradiction in claiming that living things must have a living parent and the fact that we don't yet have a scientific theory which explains fully how life on earth began and that until that question can be answered, all scientific thinking about the development of species is invalid. But that is nonsense. We don't know many things about the most basic cell operations of, say, many viruses and bacteria, and in most cases we don't know (and certainly don't need to know) the scientific origin of a particular agent of infection (its first appearance on earth), but we can still understand the way infectious organisms develop and change to affect people for the worse, and, on the basis of this knowledge, we can treat many diseases successfully. Would those who reject evolution on the basis of this faulty objection make the same claim about modern medicine and refuse to see a doctor when they need help to recover from an infection because there is an important "contradiction" in his understanding of the disease if he doesn't know when and how it first appeared?

Rather, what is even more bizzarre is that you are actually throwing away natural selection, as a process and mechanism all together.

Nope, just telling you that they are irrelevant to the case for the FoE. I'm not trying to defend the ToE, just the FoE.

Seeing as how you disagree with the simple FoE, why should I start talking about the ToE?

What you are defending is not evolution but Mountain-Goat's Theory of origin of life...we ll call it now MGTOOL.

You can call it that if you want to, but why complicate matters? Is this the best you can do? Rename the FoE? Is this supposed to disprove it somehow? Hahaha, man you are desperate.

Because your basic argument is that first unicellular, then human being, therefore human being come from unicellular. LOL

Nope, my basic argument is that (notice how I don't talk about invertebrates or complexity because you don't like those words):

1. Living things come from living things.
2. Living things are different from each other (e.g. unicellular organisms are different from vertebrates)
3. Some kinds of living things existed on Earth before other kinds (e.g. unicellular organisms existed on Earth billions of years before vertebrates)

Thus the "other kinds of living things" (e.g. vertebrates) must have come from the "former kinds living things" (e.g. unicellular organisms).

If not, where did the vertebrates come from?