If you don’t believe that all complex life on earth depends on a single, freakish accidental event …

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 8, 2014

Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

But according to Nautilus, “life on the planet Earth may owe its existence to one freakish event”:

There are many possible explanations, but one of these has recently gained a lot of ground. It tells of a prokaryote that somehow found its way inside another, and formed a lasting partnership with its host. This inner cell—a bacterium—abandoned its free-living existence and eventually transformed into the mitochondria. These internal power plants provided the host cell with a bonanza of energy, allowing it to evolve in new directions that other prokaryotes could never reach.

If this story is true, and there are still those who doubt it, then all eukaryotes—every flower and fungus, spider and sparrow, man and woman—descended from a sudden and breathtakingly improbable merger between two microbes. They were our great-great-great-great-…-great-grandparents, and by becoming one, they laid the groundwork for the life forms that seem to make our planet so special. The world as we see it (and the fact that we see it at all; eyes are a eukaryotic invention) was irrevocably changed by that fateful union—a union so unlikely that it very well might not have happened at all, leaving our world forever dominated by microbes, never to welcome sophisticated and amazing life like trees, mushrooms, caterpillars, and us. More.

This is, of course, belongs to the “just by chance” school of thought on origin of life. Of course, symbiosis probably sometimes occurred. But put in this grandiose way, the theory suffers from the same limitations that all such theorizing about human history does. (For example, if George Washington had never been born, other Americans would never have thought of the idea of a democratic republic …)

More sophisticated approaches to history, of life or humans or nations, tend to assume that things follow certain patterns, triggered at times by individuals or events—but not simply at random.

Anyway, for more on “pure chance” theories of origin of life, check out: Can all the numbers for life’s origin just happen to fall into place?

and

Origin of life: Could it all have come together in one very special place?

Anyway, this new theory sure won’t be lonely. See: Maybe if we throw enough models at the origin of life… some of them will stick? Just look at all the ones that have been thrown!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

wd400- The problem is evolutionary biologists don't have anything to offer that we can actually test pertaining to the evolution of complex protein machinery via differing accumulations of genetic accidents. And any time you would like to present the evidence that any ole collection of mutations can produce complex protein machinery we would love to see it.Joe_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

MooseDr:
However, all probabilities in the ID world involve two simultaneous events happening.
Except ID has a different definition of simultaneous than the rest of the world.Acartia_bogart_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Oh goody, now wd400 is going to help AB straighten us out on the math.,,, grab some popcorn this ought to be good entertainment,,,bornagain77_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

You guys all seem to be making A_B's point for him. If you make ultra-specific requirements you get low probabilties. Behe's math is based on the probability of two specific mutations mutations becoming fixed in a population when the first one is somewhat deleterious. Even if you accept the 10^20 number (which is not an empirical fact or the product of a calculation, just an aside in a paper), do say that it's relavent to all the ways in which complexity can rise you would have to show that complexity can only arise through such pathways and such ultra-specified outcomes. Otherwise you are playing the same game AB is making fun of.wd400_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

A_B, you play an uninformed probability game. The probability of any particular event happening -- pretty much zero. It is always easy to find a gazillion considerations that would lead to a different result. However, all probabilities in the ID world involve two simultaneous events happening. Most usually they are the probability of some particular pattern of mutations occurring paired with the ability to perform some meaningful function. You busily calculate the probability of a bunch of junk sitting in a junk-yard in the particular configuration in which it happens to sit. But when that junk proves to be the proverbial 747, a working 747 the calculation must differ radically.Moose Dr_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

Eric- I don't see why bacteria can't be derived from eukaryotes- can evolution make things less complex?- In the word of Rocky, absolutely.
Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand. Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise. “We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”
Joe_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart:
The voodoo math comes into play when he tries to extrapolate to the evolution of complex traits.
1- It's the evolution of complex traits via blind watchmaker processes such as natural selection, drift and neutral substitutions 2- Seeing that there isn't A) any evidence for it and B) no way to model it, probabilities are all we have and more than you deserve. Meaning the voodoo is on youJoe_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

It is extremely strange that Darwinists feel expertly qualified to lecture ID proponents on the math of Darwinism when the fact of the matter is that there is no rigid mathematical foundation to Darwinism in the first place.
Here’s That Monumental Evolution Blunder About Probability Again - March 2012 Excerpt: Laplace didn’t rebuke this argument two centuries ago for no good reason—the fallacy has been around forever and evolutionists continue to employ it.,,, It is truly incredible to see evolutionists work their chicanery so they can uphold complete nonsense as the truth. So the evolutionists would credulously accept all manner of bizarre events. If all their roulette wheel bets turned out winners, if their poker hands always gave a royal flush, if random Scrabble letters spelled out CONSTANTINOPLE, it all would be just another small probability event from which nothing can be concluded. This monumental blunder leads them into all kinds of ridiculous conclusions: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/heres-that-monumental-evolution-blunder.html Bernard d'Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist - October 5, 2011 Excerpt: For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/in_this_excerpt_from_the051571.html Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012 Excerpt: "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of 'natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'" Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/nobel_prize-win056771.html “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.” Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109. Darwin and the Mathematicians - David Berlinski “The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.” Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Theist! http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/11/darwin_and_the_mathematicians.html Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDYr_fgcP8 quote from preceding video: “John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!,,,There is a consistent group of people, among mathematicians, among physicists, among some very good speculative biologists, who simply don’t accept it (Darwin’s theory). (They) don’t even regard it as a scientific theory in any reasonable sense.” Dr. David Berlinski "On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin's theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?" (Berlinski, D., "A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics," Commentary, July 8, 2003) "For many years I thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works." Gregory Chaitin - Proving Darwin 2012 - Highly Respected Mathematician Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013 Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.4/BIO-C.2013.4
Of related note: Researchers have finally developed a mathematical model for molecular biology that has actual predictive power by ignoring the Darwinian ‘historical accidents’ presupposition and using a ‘top down’ physiological perspective instead:
Simple Math Sheds New Light On a Long-Studied Biological Process - Aug. 7, 2013 Excerpt: Hwa and his team arrived at their surprising finding by employing a new approach called "quantitative biology," in which scientists quantify biological data and discover mathematical patterns, which in turn guide them to develop predictive models of the underlying processes. "This mode of research, an iterative dialogue between data quantitation and model building, has driven the progress of physics for the past several centuries, starting with Kepler's discovery of the law of planetary motion," explains Hwa. "However, it was long thought that biology is so laden with historical accidents which render the application of quantitative deduction intractable.",,, "When we plotted our results, our jaws dropped," recalls Hwa. "The levels of the sugar uptake and utilization enzymes lined up remarkably into two crossing lines when plotted with the corresponding growth rates, with the enzyme level increasing upon carbon limitation and decreasing upon nitrogen and sulfur limitation. The enzyme levels followed the simple mathematical rules like a machine." ,, Hwa points out that the physiological insights derived from simple mathematical relations guided them to figuring out both the strategy and molecular mechanisms their bacteria employ to coordinate carbon metabolism with those of other elements.,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130807155154.htm Of related note as to getting biology out of the Darwinian mire,,, How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design - David Snoke - 2014 http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.3
bornagain77_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Joe:
Acartia_bogart- Dr Behe got his “10^20? from a peer-reviewed article. And it appears that other evolutionists have confirmed it.
Nobody is contesting this. And I am even on record that I commended Behe on much of what he did with this. The voodoo math comes into play when he tries to extrapolate to the evolution of complex traits.Acartia_bogart_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

The idea that a bacterium got ingested and turned into a mitochondrion is pretty funny. At least if we assume this occurred as a result of the typical RM+NS, bumbling, trial-and-error process that supposedly drives evolution. Could it happen via a carefully-orchestrated, highly-specific, tightly-controlled, forward-looking process? Perhaps. But not by Darwinian evolution.Eric Anderson_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

AB writes . . .
(it) cannot be extrapolated to argue that this did not occur with eukaryotes, or that Behe’s 10^20 chloroquine resistance cannot be extrapolated to conclude that complexity can’t evolve.
I disagree. Although in a sense you are absolutely correct, the endosymbionts previously mentioned are unlike eukaryotes and thus a strict, numerical extrapolation is unwarranted. However, inferences to the best explanation can be drawn using "Behe's" math. (Why is it called "Behe's 10^20" now that it is peer-reviewed? Let's just call it the data.) On the other hand, following Behe, why can't we draw the scientific inference that for chloroquine resistance, a more complex "answer" has not been, and will not be, found in p falciparum as evidence that complexity doesn't evolve. In the absence of any other scientific example of complexity forming, why the resistance to drawing a conclusion? I find the evidence presented in Edge of Evolution to be scientifically compelling, don't you, AB? I am not asking you to "conclude". Just to "get started".Tim_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart- Dr Behe got his "10^20" from a peer-reviewed article. And it appears that other evolutionists have confirmed it.Joe_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Tim:
No good? So, now in hoping for those lucky eukaryotes, you insist that since nothing happening now because of such long odds is absurd, it is necessary that everything happens by chance?
That is not what I am saying. I used that absurd example that the probability of BA77 existing is effectively zero (it is actually 1 because he exists) to show that the low rarity of endosymbionts (which really are not all that rare) cannot be extrapolated to argue that this did not occur with eukaryotes, or that Behe's 10^20 chloroquine resistance cannot be extrapolated to conclude that complexity can't evolve. And just to keep Querius happy, 1) Probability of BA77's parents hooking up 1/3,000,000,000 x 1/3,000,000,000 ~10^19. But, obviously, the odds of them hooking up are not random events. Not all of the female population is available to all of the male population. 2) So let's make it more reasonable. Let's assume that he comes from a city of one million. The the probability would be 1/500000 x 1/500000 ~10^12. It would actually be significantly less than this because the circle of acquaintances that each parent would have would not be 499,999, unless they were each the most popular kids in class. 3) So, to make the math simpler, and to give BA77 a better chance of existence, let's assume that the probability of his parents hooking up is actually 1. After all, weren't they destined to meet and fall in love? So, let's limit it to the probability of the specific sperm and the specific ovum that resulted in our favourite link-blaster. Human female is born with approximately 400000 follicles, each with the potential to produce a viable ovum. But since it takes four follicles to produce a single ovum, let's call it 1/100,000. Now, the human male produces approximately 1500 sperm cells per second. To keep the numbers, let's assume that BA77's father's prime reproductive years lasted 20 years. If I did my math right, that is ~10^12. So the probability of both getting together is ~10^17. 4) And that is just for the current generation. Keep going back generations and the numbers become staggering. Here is another calculation, just looking at the fathers' line. His assumptions are as equally absurd as mine, but it gives you the idea. http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/chances_of_you_existing.htm Of course, these are all absurd examples. But that was the point that I was trying to make.Acartia_bogart_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: "Yes, if you extracted 3458 again, it was one in 10000 – but I think only because it didn’t match a pre-determined pattern, right?" Yes, right. The outcome of extracting any number with the same general properties of 3458, that is one of the set: “any generic number from 1 to 10000 whose individual probability of being randomly extracted would be 1:10000? has probability 1 in one single extraction (it must necessarily happen). It's the same as saying that if you shuffle your cards, one deck of cards will come out. The probability of that specific deck of cards is extremely low, but the probability of a generic deck of cards with individual low probability is 1. That's why the infamous deck of cards argument is nonsense. On the contrary, of you specify in advance a specific deck of cards, you will never obtain it in a random attempt. In that case, you have specified a target space which is too small to be empirically found. "If you wanted 3458 to be extracted in two consecutive events, the probability would be different." The probability of a de novo extraction of that pre-specified number twice in two attempts would be 1e-08. "If you had a pool of 100 numbers, each of these would be 1 in 100: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89 But the odds of that sequence would be 1 in 10^11." The probability of a specific series of 11 values out of 100, like the one you suggest, would correspond to 1 : the number of dispositions with repetition (n^k), that is, if I am not wrong, 1e-22.gpuccio_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

gpuccio Side topic for more understanding on basic probabilities ...
So, if I have already extracted 3458, the probability of extracting it again is still one in 10000, and the simple fact that it has been extracted does not change that fact.
I find this one of the more non-intuitive concepts in probability - thus the gambler's fallacy. Yes, if you extracted 3458 again, it was one in 10000 - but I think only because it didn't match a pre-determined pattern, right? If you wanted 3458 to be extracted in two consecutive events, the probability would be different. If you had a pool of 100 numbers, each of these would be 1 in 100: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89 But the odds of that sequence would be 1 in 10^11.Silver Asiatic_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart- The math that Behe used is the same math that population genetics uses. Are you saying that population genetics is vodoo? And exactly what type of math does evolutionism use?Joe_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

The ONLY evidence that chloroplasts were once free-living prokaryotes is that they "look like" they coulda been prokaryotes if you look at them just right. Unfortunately that ain't science.Joe_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

Acartia_bogart at #17: Here you are practically rephrasing the infamous "deck of cards" argument. Frankly, I expected more from your intelligence. Do you still believe in what you are saying? Because that argument is one of the most stupid reasonings I ever witnessed. I suppose you should understand the difference between different definitions of partitions in a set, and the computation of the relative probabilities. So, do you think there is no difference, if I extract a number out of 10000, between the following definitions? a) The probability of extracting an even number b) The probability of extracting 3458 c) The probability of extracting a number which is part of the Fibonacci sequence The idea is, according to how we define the partition, the probability of a positive result is completely different. If you define a partition after the event, simply by describing the result, the event has obviously already taken place. The probability has meaning only as the probability of getting that same result again. So, if I have already extracted 3458, the probability of extracting it again is still one in 10000, and the simple fact that it has been extracted does not change that fact. On the other hand, the probability of extracting "any undefined number whose individual probability would be 1:10000" in one attempt is exactly 1. So, there is nothing strange in extracting 3458 or 25 or 1862 or any other number from 1 to 10000. But if I extract the exact sequence of Fibonacci numbers, I would think there is something strange happening. Let's say I extract 20 successive numbers, and they are: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765 Now, the probability of getting the exact Fibonacci sequence in 20 extractions is about 1e-80. I would seriously consider some non random explanation if I observed that result. I hope that's clear.gpuccio_{September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

wd400
Evidently there are so many examples WP decided to multiply my post 4x..
true enough! add kappa particles in paramecium.franklin_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

AB at 17, you borrowed it and brought it up. Furthermore, you have the background in statistics. You explain it. Right now, though, those of us with even a rudimentary understanding of probability, understand your story telling to be what it is -- a red herring. Really, that specific ovum and that specific sperm, spare us your borrowings if you insist on borrowing such tripe. Or shall we extend it? Ok, here we go. By your reckoning, it is impossible for anything here today to happen. No meetings, marriages, babies, etc . . . all events count on so much in the past that none of them could have happened just by chance. Is that your position? That nothing can happen? Certainly your proof of the non-existence of poor ol' BA77 (sorry, BA) extends to us all. No good? So, now in hoping for those lucky eukaryotes, you insist that since nothing happening now because of such long odds is absurd, it is necessary that everything happens by chance? ((By the way, here I am using the idea of chance in its broadest form including physical laws in all their perceived uniformity.)) But if everything happens by chance, why argue about it? Folks, if ever there was a larger example of the fallacy of the excluded middle, I can't think of it. In claiming chance only, AB has overlooked the fact that "making a claim", such a peculiarly human endeavor, has little to do with chance at all. Finally, I will allow that AB has not actually come out and made the argument that chance answers all. But that really is the problem, isn't it? AB doesn't clearly state what was voodoo in Behe's math, he just tells other stories . . . I'm with Q at 24. I expect to hear nothing from AB on either account.Tim_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT}

Evidently there are so many examples WP decided to multiply my post 4x..wd400_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

Moose Dr, There are thousands of examples. Coral animals (and afew molluscs and sponges) live with zooxanthellae algae, Mixotricha actually lack mitochondria and instead have bacteria do the same job, legumes fix nitrogen with Rhizobium, aphids are just full up of bacteria and the termite example is also an endosymbiont.wd400_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

Moose Dr, There are thousands of examples. Coral animals (and afew molluscs and sponges) live with zooxanthellae algae, Mixotricha actually lack mitochondria and instead have bacteria do the same job, legumes fix nitrogen with Rhizobium, aphids are just full up of bacteria and the termite example is also an endosymbiont.wd400_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

bornagain77, Don't forget that A-B claims his credentials are in in biology and statistics! So, here's A-B's chance. A_B, what's a reasonable estimate for the odds that bornagain77 exists, given your parameters in 17? Oh, and show your work. "Typos" are no excuse. Betcha A_B refuses to answer the question! LOL -QQuerius_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

BA77, what does a programming language have to do with god?Acartia_bogart_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

moose dr
You are correct that symbiosis exists all over the living world. However, please give me evidence of an example of intra-cellular symbiosis other than the proposed event being discussed.
There are numerous examples of intra-cellular symbiosis and have been recognized from at least 1944 onward. For example intracellular yeast and insect cells where the yeast symbiont provides essential vitamins for the insect. Here's another one: Metabolic Interdependence of Obligate Intracellular Bacteria and Their Insect Hosts† Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. December 2004 vol. 68 no. 4 745-770franklin_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT}

You are already playing poker AB, you are constantly bluffing! :) and bluffing is all you will ever have! Too bad the stakes are far higher than you can imagine,,, That's what makes sad! The Argument from Pascal's Wager Excerpt: Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Pensées, he wrote, "This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it." That is the only time Pascal ever wrote a sentence like that, for he was one of the most skeptical philosophers who ever wrote. Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new "miracle drug" that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free—wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to? http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm Blaise Pascal was a devout Christian and very influential French mathematician and philosopher who contributed to many areas of mathematics. He worked on conic sections and projective geometry and in correspondence with Fermat he laid the foundations for the theory of probability as well as laid the foundation for the science of hydraulics.bornagain77_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

MD: "You are correct that symbiosis exists all over the living world. However, please give me evidence of an example of intra-cellular symbiosis other than the proposed event being discussed." I already did. Chloroplasts.Acartia_bogart_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply