God does exist.

"In fact, computers can function on their own if we give them the materials to sustain it (electricity). "

Do computers reproduce? No, I didn't think so.

"The first life form to evolve from earth is "cell". "

It really depends on what you call a cell and how you define "life-form". Ill elaborate later in this post.

"If any of the cell's parts is taken apart, it doesnt work, much less reproduce."

The reason is that NOW, everything is going to eat it.

"Kinda like the cell theory in the beggining where they turned into trillions of species accidentally, are u trying to tell me this is false because it has no proof? "

Huh? What? Whatever. Um, right. Well, robots that reproduce don't exist, no.... Cells don't have a motive or a purpose. Therfore "accidentally" doesn't apply to them. Cells mutated very very slowly for thousands of years to create maybe a couple different species. Only after millions of years do we get a wide variety of creatures. The high reproduction rate of a cell helps this process emensly.

"Your a liar, mitochondria DOESNT SURVIVE on their own, they exist and is only a part of a living cell"

Take biology dillweed. Mitochondria is a very early cell, perhaps the earliest living cell. Mitochondria actually reproduce by themselves inside cells, got it?

Take biology and you will learn all this stuff that you think you know. Where are you from anyway?
 
Does God Exist?

Well lakdak... etc...

That's a good example... but a bad anology. If you were to compare God to heat then that would mean everybody feels Him. But what? They don't know it's him? That would be like saying your hand is burning and the skin is melting off your hand and you don't know it's burning.

The thing with heat is that it is there, you know it, and everybody else. You don't see it, but you feel it. You know what you feel. With God, does everybody feel Him? If that is the case then they don't know that they are feeling Him, is that what you are getting at?
 
Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Do computers reproduce? No, I didn't think so.

YES IT CAN. INTELLIGENT CYBORG CAN REPLICATE ITS OWN, THIS IS NOT PROVEN YET, BUT GIVE SCIENCE TIME, LOL, GOT IT? GIVE SCIENCE TIME, NOT ONLY THEY CAN CREATE A LIVING CELL OUT OF GATHERING ATOMS, THEY CAN ALSO CREATE AN INTELLIGENT CYBORG, I PREDICT IT. (SOUNDS STUPID? LOL, THEN ASK YOURSELF WHY)


It really depends on what you call a cell and how you define "life-form". Ill elaborate later in this post.

WELL ILL WAIT FOR THAT, WITH SOMEONE LIKE YOU, MAYBE YOU WILL ARGUE THAT ROCKS ARE LIVING LIFE FORMS WITH GOOD JUDGMENT. AND IF U DO, MAYBE SO, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT I MET U, ROCK SEEMED MORE INTELLIGENT.

"If any of the cell's parts is taken apart, it doesnt work, much less reproduce."

The reason is that NOW, everything is going to eat it.

WHAT? IF ANY OF THE CELL'S PARTS IS TAKEN APART, IT WILL DIE, FOR IT IS A LIFE FORM, LIKE THE HUMAN BODY, THEREFORE IF U TAKE THE NUCLEUS OUT OF THE CELL, IT IS LIKE TAKING THE HUMAN BRAIN OUT OF U, U WILL NOT SURVIVE, AND IF U DO, MEN I WONDER WHEN YOU WILL DIE.


Cells don't have a motive or a purpose. Cells mutated very very slowly for thousands of years to create maybe a couple different species. Only after millions of years do we get a wide variety of creatures. The high reproduction rate of a cell helps this process emensly.
CELL DOES HAVE PURPOSE U SACK OF SHEEP. PLANT CELLS HAVE ITS PURPOSE, AND SO DOES ANIMAL CELLS.

PROVE IT, YOUR MAKING A CLAIM THAT CELLS MUTATE FOR 1000 YRS VERY SLOWLY, WELL PROVE IT. BESIDES HOW DID THE CELL EXIST TO BEGIN WITH? HOW? EARTHQUAKE SHOOK THE ATOMS? TORNADO SHAPED THE RIBOSOME? THEN THE RIBOSOME WAITED 1000 YRS UNTIL MOTICHONDRIA APPEARED? THEN LIGHTNING STRUCK THE CENTER AND BECAME NUCLEUS? THEN LITTLE CELLS RUNNING AROUND BUMPING EACH OTHER UNTIL THEY BECAME A FISH. EXPLAIN, DONT JUMP INTO ONE CONCLUSION TO ANOTHER, LIKE "THERE WAS CELL THEN 1000 YRS LATER DINOSAURS!!!" EXPLAIN WHATS IIN BETWEEN THAT. HOW? AMINO ACIDS GATHERED FROM NOWHERE? IN FACT SCIENTIST CANNOT EVEN BUILD A LIVING CELL OUT OF AMINO ACIDS WITH ALL THE MODERN TECHNOLOGY AROUND, WHAT MADE U THINK MR. EARTHQUAKE AND LIGHTNING DID IT? OTHERWISE CYBORGS REPLICATE AND CREATE ANOTHER CYBORG 1000 YRS FROM NOW, SAME LOGIC, BOTH CANNOT B PROVEN.


Take biology dillweed. Mitochondria is a very early cell, perhaps the earliest living cell. Mitochondria actually reproduce by themselves inside cells, got it?

YOU SACK OF SHEEP, MITCHONDRIA SURVIVE IN A CELL, GOT IT? AGAIN SURVIVE IN A CELL. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN...SURVIVE IN A CELL..

AGAIN, MITOCHONDRIA SURVIVE IN A CELL...NOT ON THEIR OWN YOU SACK OF SHEEP. THEY REPLICATE ON THEIR OWN INSIDE THE CELLS GOT IT? AGAIN, INSIDE THE CELLS GOT IT?

Take biology and you will learn all this stuff that you think you know. Where are you from anyway?

YOU TAKE EXORCIST CLASS AND HAVE THE LYING DEMON EXORCISE OUT OF YOU SACK OF SHEEP.[/B]
Click to expand...
 
"YOU SACK OF SHEEP, MITCHONDRIA SURVIVE IN A CELL, GOT IT? AGAIN SURVIVE IN A CELL. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN...SURVIVE IN A CELL..

AGAIN, MITOCHONDRIA SURVIVE IN A CELL...NOT ON THEIR OWN YOU SACK OF SHEEP. THEY REPLICATE ON THEIR OWN INSIDE THE CELLS GOT IT? AGAIN, INSIDE THE CELLS GOT IT? "

They weren't always inside a cell. Got it? They weren't always inside a cell. That's right, they weren't always inside a cell. Got it now? No? They weren't always inside a cell.

Again, they weren't always inside a cell. They were NOT always inside a cell. Do you get it now? They weren't always inside a cell.
 
the living motochondria doesnt survive outside the cell got it? the living motochondria doesnt survive outside the cell got it? the living motochondria doesnt survive outside the cell got it? Living mitchondria doesnt replicate outside the cell got it? Living mitchondria doesnt replicate outside the cell got it? Living mitchondria doesnt replicate outside the cell got it?
 
I know amino acids can b formed by methane, hydrogen, amonia struck by lightning, and the cells are composed of amino acids. But so does dead cells, they r also composed of amino acids till they decay.
 
the living motochondria doesnt survive outside the cell got it? the living motochondria doesnt survive outside the cell got it? the living motochondria doesnt survive outside the cell got it? Living mitchondria doesnt replicate outside the cell got it? Living mitchondria doesnt replicate outside the cell got it? Living mitchondria doesnt replicate outside the cell got it?
Click to expand...

Wow. I know so much about biology now. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by muscleman
the living motochondria doesnt survive outside the cell got it? the living motochondria doesnt survive outside the cell got it? the living motochondria doesnt survive outside the cell got it? Living mitchondria doesnt replicate outside the cell got it? Living mitchondria doesnt replicate outside the cell got it? Living mitchondria doesnt replicate outside the cell got it?

Repetition does not constitute a valid argument.

Why is it I envision musclehead chanting this with his fingers stuck in his ears?

~Raithere
 
"THIS IS NOT PROVEN YET, BUT GIVE SCIENCE TIME, LOL, GOT IT? "

you are sofa king confused. I used this exact argument for myself. You are trying to use something you think is wrong to help your argument. That doesn't work pal.

"AND IF U DO, MAYBE SO, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT I MET U, ROCK SEEMED MORE INTELLIGENT"

Your sense of humor leaves me speachless.

"THEREFORE IF U TAKE THE NUCLEUS OUT OF THE CELL, IT IS LIKE TAKING THE HUMAN BRAIN OUT OF U"

Do you have any idea what the nucleus of a cell does? Can you prove that it is EXACTLY like taking the brain out of a human?

"CELL DOES HAVE PURPOSE U SACK OF SHEEP. "

First of all, learn how to speak english. Second of all, don't repeat youself just because you want to hear yourself rave. The belief of god comes with a "purpose" to life. Science does not believe in purpose, only rules. A cell doesn't reproduce because "it wants to", idiot.

"IN FACT SCIENTIST CANNOT EVEN BUILD A LIVING CELL OUT OF AMINO ACIDS WITH ALL THE MODERN TECHNOLOGY AROUND"

Can you build a computer in your garage? No, I didn't think so. You don't have the technology. Science is that way, we don't have unlimited technology. If we did, your DNA would have been weeded out of the system.

"AGAIN SURVIVE IN A CELL. "

Thats right, they do. And they can survive outside of the cell too if something didn't come along and eat it. Your SO FUCKING DUMB.

Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology Take biology

Stupid people CAN learn, just not fast. What education do you have anyway.

"Your such a raving whore": quote directed at you for today.
 
Stupid people CAN learn, just not fast. What education do you have anyway.

I'll have you know that muscleman went to Yell University.... okay that was a cheap and stupid joke.:D
 
Originally posted by Frencheneesz

Do you have any idea what the nucleus of a cell does? Can you prove that it is EXACTLY like taking the brain out of a human?

LISTEN, THE POINT IS THAT A CELL NEED THE ENTIRE PARTS TO SURVIVE WHETHER THE NUCLEUS IS THE BRAIN OF THE CELL OR NOT, FACT IS IT WONT SURVIVE WITHOUT IT FOR ITS A LIVING FORM LIKE U AND ME, ITS LIKE A HUMAN BODY, IF THE BRAIN IS TAKEN OUT NO HUMANS IN THIS UNIVERSE CAN SURVIVE. PERIOD. GOT IT?



Science does not believe in purpose, only rules. A cell doesn't reproduce because "it wants to", idiot.

SCIENCE INDEED BELIEVE IN RULES, THATS GOOD. THE PURPOSE OF OMNIVORS IS TO BE THE CARNIVORS DIET. THE PURPOSE OF THE FISH'S FIN IS TO SWIM, THE PURPOSE OF MY LEG IS SO I CAN WALK, SO SCIENCE ALSO BELIEVES IN PURPOSE, HMMM...I WONDER WHOS THE IDIOT? AND WHOEVER MENTIONED THE CELL HAVING JUDGMENT? LOL, I NEVER SAID A CELL HAVE JUDGMENT, IT HAS PURPOSE..GOT IT?


Can you build a computer in your garage? No, I didn't think so. You don't have the technology. Science is that way, we don't have unlimited technology. If we did, your DNA would have been weeded out of the system.

LISTEN, WHATEVER IS YOUR OPINION, THE FACT HERE IS...U GOT THAT? I SAID THE FACT HERE IS...LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN, THE FACT HERE IS...OK ONE MORE TIME, THE FACT HERE IS THAT THE PROOF OF YOUR "CHANCE" RELIES ON PSYCHIC PHENOMENON, IN SAYING "I PREDICT SCIENCE CAN BRING A DEAD PERSON BACK TO LIFE EVEN THOUGH THEY CANT EVEN FIND A CURE FOR BREAST CANCER" LOL, WHOS SUPERSTITIOUS HERE? FOR THE 1,000,000,000,000 (F.O.S.) CREATING A CELL WHICH CONTAINS THOUSANDS OF PARTS IS JUST LIKE CREATING A HUMAN BODY, TO ASSEMBLE RIBOSOME OUT OF GATHERING ATOMS TOGETHER, AND MITOCHONDRIA, NUCLEUS, ETC. AND BRING A CELL OUT OF DOING SUCH IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT THAN GATHERING THE HUMAN HEART, LUNGS, LIVER, ETC. AND BRING A HUMAN BEING TO LIFE (LIKE FRANKENSTEIN). YOU ARE PROPHESYING AN IMPOSSIBLE ACT, ITS NOT POSSIBLE NOW, THATS A FACT...AGAIN, ITS IMPOSSIBLE NOW. AGAIN, ITS IMPOSSIBLE NOW. ONE MORE TIME, ITS IMPOSSIBLE NOW, THATS A FACT, AGAIN, THATS A FACT.. A FACT. AGAIN, GOOD LUCK WITH YUR PSYCHIC PREDICTION IN SCIENCE CREATING A LIFE FORM...AND U KNOW WHAT, FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, LETS SAY SCIENCE DID CREATE A LIVING CELL OUT OF GATHERING ATOMS, I WOULD STILL BELIEVE IN AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER BECAUSE THE FACT IS, AGAIN, THE FACT IS...THE FACT IS...THE FACT IS SCIENCE CREATED THE CELL, NOT SERIES OF LIGHTNING AND EARTHQUAKE OR HURRICANE, SCIENCE ITSELF IS INTELLIGENCE, SO EVEN THEN GOD IS STILL PROVEN(SCIENTIST) GOT IT? SCIENCE ITSELF IS INTELLIGENCE.


"AGAIN SURVIVE IN A CELL. "

Thats right, they do. And they can survive outside of the cell too if something didn't come along and eat it. Your SO FUCKING DUMB.

MITOCHONDRIA DOESNT SURVIVE OUTSIDE ANY LIFE FORMS, IT EITHER LIVES IN A CELL OR IF NOT, IT LIVES IN ANY LIFE FORM, BUT DOES NOT LIVE OUTSIDE LIFE FORMS. THE FIRST LIFE FORM TO EXIST ON EARTH IS CELL, THEREFORE BEFORE THEN THERE IS NO OTHER LIFE FORM OTHER THAN CELL, SO MITOCHONDRIA FIRST EXISTED WITHIN THE CELL, GOT IT?


[/B]
Click to expand...
:)
 
MITOCHONDRIA DOESNT SURVIVE OUTSIDE ANY LIFE FORMS, IT EITHER LIVES IN A CELL OR IF NOT, IT LIVES IN ANY LIFE FORM, BUT DOES NOT LIVE OUTSIDE LIFE FORMS.
Click to expand...

Mitochondria do not now survive outside any cells, we assume for two reasons:

1) They are too primitive to make it in the race for life now, but competition may have been less fierce early in the history of life (with maybe only a few other single-celled species around).

2) Mitochondria in their present form have adapted to a symbiotic life, so they have probably lost some characteristics that originally made them more suited for intependent life.

THE FIRST LIFE FORM TO EXIST ON EARTH IS CELL, THEREFORE BEFORE THEN THERE IS NO OTHER LIFE FORM OTHER THAN CELL, SO MITOCHONDRIA FIRST EXISTED WITHIN THE CELL, GOT IT?
Click to expand...

So you agree that the first life forms on Earth was single celled? And a mitochondria is a single celled life form, got it?

However, this is a matter of definition. We usually define a single cell as the simplest form of life, but thats just for convinience, actually simpler forms exist that might also be defined as life forms, e.g. vira and prions.

Hans
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans

So you agree that the first life forms on Earth was single celled? And a mitochondria is a single celled life form, got it?
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that the earliest lifeforms on Earth were thought to be simply strands of RNA.
 
Adam:

Yeah, if we define that as life forms. I have to confess that I dont know exactly whats the current limit before something is a life form. The crux of the matter is that cells didnt just "happen"; amino acids were formed, clumped together, formed more complex compounds, and at some stage evolved to a level that we now define as a life form.

How do we know? Can we prove it? We dont KNOW, but it is likely. We cannot prove that it did happen that way, but we CAN prove that it COULD happen that way.

Hans
 
Originally posted by Adam
I was under the impression that the earliest lifeforms on Earth were thought to be simply strands of RNA.

I don't believe that free floating RNA would be considered "life". But it is a fairly loose term. Viruses are not generally considered to be "alive". The definition of life generally includes growth and self-reproduction. There are also prions (such as that which causes spongioform encephalopathy (Creutzefeldt-Jakob's disease in humans or "Mad Cow" disease in cattle), which are self-replicating proteins containing no nucleic acids but are, obviously, capable of "reproduction"... these are not classified as "alive" to the best of my knowledge.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Mitochondria do not now survive outside any cells, we assume for two reasons:

1) They are too primitive to make it in the race for life now, but competition may have been less fierce early in the history of life (with maybe only a few other single-celled species around).

2) Mitochondria in their present form have adapted to a symbiotic life, so they have probably lost some characteristics that originally made them more suited for intependent life.

In addition:

3) Mitochondria contain their own DNA which is particularly suggestive of being separate organisms.

4) Mitochondria share some similarities (such as DNA configuration and a lipid cellular membrane) that are particular to bacteria... suggesting a relationship between bacteria as independent or symbiotic organisms.

5) There are living examples of eucaryotic cells that have no mitochondria... instead they live in symbiosis with aerobic bacteria.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by muscleman
I know amino acids can b formed by methane, hydrogen, amonia struck by lightning, and the cells are composed of amino acids. But so does dead cells, they r also composed of amino acids till they decay.
Click to expand...

wow muscleman u r very smert! :)
 
Muscleman:

You are the epiphany of stupid.

But scientifically, does anyone know what the actual difference between the dead skin cell and the "live" skin cell is?

I don't know so im asking. Muscleman doesn't know either, he needs you help.
 
The difference between a dead cell and a live cell are life processes. In a live cell, a number of chemichal processes take place, keeping the cell maintained and, depending on the type of cell, producing various substances for the organism.

The live cell absorbs chemical substances, using some of them as energy source, others as raw materials. Finally, of course, most cells procreate from time to time, by dividing and growing.

All these processes stop when the cell dies and, depending on circumstance, various passive decay processes set in instead.

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top