What was the nature of the “energy crisis” that developed during the earliest period of cellular evolution?
Shae asked:
What was the nature of the “energy crisis” that developed during the earliest period of cellular evolution, and how was it solved?
- Related Posts
- Define Good Customer Service
When you are asked to define good customer service what are the first thoughts that come to mind? The ability to supply your customers'...
- Learn More About Knitting Looms
Also referred to as French knitting, reel knitting, spool knitting, box knitting, rake knitting, ring knitting, bung knitting, frame...
- Choosing Engagement Rings And Wedding Rings
The topic of engagement rings and wedding rings can be as varied as the number of people who are discussing and or purchasing them. With...
- Astonishing Abs Formula Seminar Begins This day
Special Event Notice - You are Invited - FREE! "The Amazing Abs Formula" Teleseminar…" NOTE: If you're in a hurry,...
August 10th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I assume the crisis was oxygen poisoning and the result was the evolution of aerobic respiration.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Are you guys making up scenarios about made up stories again?
What “earliest period of cellular evolution” do they have even the slightest evidence for? The truth is that they have not clue one about cellular evolution. It is a religious idea that comes from the fundamental belief in Naturalism. They assume that since there is no God, mistake #1, that everything must have evolved by way of natural forces.
For the entire history of science we have seen that life never formed from non life through natural means. They have made up some stories of how they thought that it might have or could have but these stories are just unsatisfying conjecture with no real world evidence to support them.
We have never observed, “proto life”. There is no evidence for how proteins could have formed without the transcription/translation process but the transcription/translation process could not occur with out lots of complex proteins. Dean Kenyon literally wrote the book on chemical evolution, but has since dismissed all these theories as unsatisfactory in the face of the actual evidence.
So, I just write this to warn you that although they will be teaching you all about their beliefs concerning the origin of life, you must realize that they are only teaching you exactly what they want you to believe. They are only showing you the made up information that will lend you to believe what they want you to believe. This is the indoctrination through propaganda that all students receive. It is up to the individual student to look up as much information as they can concerning the alterative information. There are plenty of Ph.D. scientists who completely disregard chemical evolution and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. It is up to you to find their material and read it because you school will certainly not present it to you. All you will be presented with is questions like, “what was the nature of the “energy crisis” that developed during the earliest period of cellular evolution?” It is funny to me that the scientists can’t even figure out the actual crisises that plague us today, but they somehow think that they know enough about crisises that occured during some make believe time billions of years ago? And that they know it good enough to present it as though it is a fact! That question should read, “What have some people presented as a hypothesis concerning an energy crisis that could have occured during cellular evolution, if cellular evolution is indeed a fact?”
I mean, what would all the transpemia folks (people who think that life was seeded here by aliens) think about this question. There is as much evidence for that as there is for cellular evolution. Actually, knowing the complexities of the problems concerning cellular evolution theory, that seeding idea is a bit more plausible on the surface. The only problem is that it pushes back the problems of evolution to a different time and area. It does not really overcome them, it just avoids them – and there is no evidence for it anyway.