The cell is the smallest unit of living things. There are two different, non-interchangable types of cells, plant and animal. One cannot become the other. For evolution to be true, the first living cells had to be plant life because an animal cell, having nothing to eat, would die immediately. Since that cell could not become an animal cell, a SEPARATE abiogenesis would have to occur. That is now TWO impossibilities, or impossible squared.
35 comments
All is well through the third sentence, then he veers off into stupid. While the first three sentences may be true now , they weren't true back at the origin of life. At some point, life split into two types: sessile, nonmobile organisms (who are the ancestors of today's plants), and mobile organisms (now animals). Go read a (scientific) book about evolution, and get a clue.
I guess that's the kind of conclusion you come to when your biology has not been updated since you graduated High School in the 1960's.
Shell: actually, he's right. In probability, you multiply the possibilities. Of course, assigning abiogenesis a probility of impossible is wrong, but yes, the probability of two separate occurances of abiogenesis on the same planet is indeed (probability of abiogenesis) squared.
"There are two different, non-interchangable types of cells, plant and animal."This is untrue. What about fungi and slime-molds? Also, this statement implies that any plant cell is interchangable with any other plant cell, and any animals cell interchangable with any animal cell. That is patently ridiculous.
"Since that cell could not become an animal cell, a SEPARATE abiogenesis would have to occur."
Says you. Please explain why a primitive plant organism could not evolve into a primitive animal organism. Go ahead, I'll wait.
"That is now TWO impossibilities, or impossible squared."
Uh, no, it isn't. One squared is not two.
You are an idiot, of course.
Euglena.not to be some sort of life somewhere in the universe.
"There are two different, non-interchangable types of cells, plant
There are three Superkingdoms Of Living Organisms:
I thought the highest taxonomic level was called "Domains", not Superkingdoms.
NonHomogenized #65423 8/5/2006 3:30:10 AM So... let me guess, nutty. Bacteria are animals, according to you. And fungi are plants.
They are neither plant cells nor animal cells, which is why they were not discussed. We are talking about units of LIVING organisms. I notice none of you have the integrity nor the balls to address me directly. Like the ignorant cowards you are, you gigle cowardly in your own circle jerk.
Hadanelith #65455 8/5/2006 4:07:48 AM
Shell: actually, he's right. In probability, you multiply the possibilities. Of course, assigning abiogenesis a probility of impossible is wrong, but yes, the probability of two separate occurances of abiogenesis on the same planet is indeed (probability of abiogenesis) squared.
Add to this, the following:
Napoleon the Clown #65463 8/5/2006 4:18:06 AM
One times one is one. Idiot.
Change your name to Napleon the Fool. A quantitative value of impossible would not be one. One would be a certainty. Impossible would be greater than a google. A google squared is a googleplex, which still does not equal impossible, let alone impossible squared. You, sir, are just plain stupid!
Papabear #65484 8/5/2006 4:44:38 AM
Says you. Please explain why a primitive plant organism could not evolve into a primitive animal organism. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Explain for me the scientific foundation of your wild assed conjecture and I might consider it. Conjecture which does nothing but offer a possible unscientific explantation of events, is NOT a valid theory.
h2whoa #65577 8/5/2006 10:32:05 AM
Napolean: actually viruses are generally not considered to be alive.
I'm inpressed, An EVO who PASSED Biology 101. I hate to say it, but you're surrounded by fools.
Nazi Rob #67862 8/10/2006 4:20:26 PM
Lots of animals eat nothing but plants. Some plants (venus fly trap, etc.) eat animals.
Ignorant fool, plants are living things. I said living things eat living things. You children are mind-numbingly stupid, endlessly drooling science jargon you can't understand. With a few possible exceptions, not a damn one of you demonstrate even high school, level education. Your forum sucks, and you people are beneath contempt.
<<< They are neither plant cells nor animal cells, which is why they were not discussed. We are talking about units of LIVING organisms. >>>
<<< They are neither plant cells nor animal cells, which is why they were not discussed. We are talking about units of LIVING organisms. >>>
Some bacteria eat inorganic materials. They would be available to feed other organisms. So that theory can't be used to prove separate abiogenesis for plants and animals. Plants and animals are thought to have evolved way later than bacteria."Impossible would be greater than a google. A google squared is a googleplex, which still does not equal impossible, let alone impossible squared. You, sir, are just plain stupid!"
"Impossible" has a probability of zero. So the probability of two impossible things both happening is the same as the probability of one impossible thing: it's still zero. If anyone has a legitimate proof that the probability of abiogenesis is zero, I've yet to see it.
A googol is 1 with 100 zeros after it. A googolplex is 1 with a googol of zeros after it. I'm not sure what this has to do with abiogenesis, though.
"I'm inpressed, An EVO who PASSED Biology 101"
am, you do know pretty much everyone who passed biology 101 advocates evolution?
"There are two different, non-interchangable types of cells, plant and animal"
Ever hear of bacteria?
1. All evidence suggests that the first things on the planets that we would call cells were likely prokaryotic, or much like modern bacteria, having no internal membranes and circular chromosomes. How these came into being 3.5-3.9 billion years ago is disputed.
2. The cells that you are talking about are eukaryotic meaning that they have an internal membrane containing linear chromosomes and membrane-bound organelles. These cells likely arose due to an endosymbiotic event (or multiple endosymbiotic events) in which one bacterium consumed others (~1.5 billion years ago). There is ample evidence that this is how the chloroplast (of photosynthetic eukaryotes) and mitochondria (of all eukaryotes) arose. These organelles have two membranes, consistent with a phagocytotic origin, have ribosomes similar in structure to modern prokaryotes, have circular chromosomes of their own with bacteria-like expression motifs, and reproduce by binary fission rather than mitosis. This explanation is called endosymbiotic theory and scientific literature supporting this theory is abundant.
None of the events that I have mentioned explain the origin of the first cell, which would be the initial abiogenic event, but the existence both plants and animals only requires a single abiogenic event (not two). While you (Nutrider99) may consider the probability of an abiogenetic event to be zero, it is difficult to imagine how you may have arrived at such a precise estimate. I judge it to be highly improbable, perhaps something that happens once every billion years in solar system of 8 (or 9) planets. My estimate of high improbability fits well with the existence of life on earth as early as 3.5 billion years ago, and so I consider it a good explanation. However, in my estimation the existence of a supernatural being who cannot be seen or touched, but who can create a planet and a cell, who is merciful, and yet willing to damn his subjects into an eternity of torment, who is all wise but cannot avoid contradicting himself in his own holy book to be vastly less probable than the abiogenic event that resulted in the first cell.
Wow, I'm glad that the fucktard graced us with his presence enough to suggest that he doesn't believe that fungi and bacteria are living organisms. Must mistakenly believe that both are forms of viruses, already mentioned on this thread to not be living organisms. And then he has the gall to say that those who support evolution don't know basic biology. The irony gives me a strange burning sensation....almost pleasurable...but not quite...
You forgot bacteria and fungi cells, silly. And sure, one can not become the other. But, their future offspring can be something new that doesn't exist yet.
The first living cells were bacteria cells, I think. Their offspring mutated into all life we now have.
Plants eat too, stupid. They eat nutrition from the soil, and sunshine.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
