Yup. Another sherdogger who knows nothing of science. Let me see if I can break this down.
It's just a theory
Science can't explain x so it has to be god.
Life had to start somewhere, even tbough this isn't evolution but abiogenesis
The eye is so complex it had to be designed
peanut butter argument
banana argument
Kirk Cameron
some retarded study about shells
Jesus
Did I cover them all? Please add more if I missed any arguments that have nothing to do with science and everything to do with rhetoric and fallacious reasoning.
Why do you even bring God in this discussion lol. You're obsessed man. Tell me something, are biochemists on university campuses gods because they modify living organisms? When you've answered this question, you'll realize (at least I hope you will) how poorly thought your post was.
By the way, it wasn't a theory.
Some of you are missing the point. No matter how far back you go, the first life forms had cilia, flagella, or a similar organelle. They're used to move around (swim) or to move things around (like corals use their cilia to bring in nutrients and push away waste). The published research in OP refuted a theory that these swimming/moving apparatuses developed from a symbiosis (spirochete + primitive eukaryote) as it was once thought, but implies primitive life forms always had such apparatus. From the article, because I doubt some of you have read it:
"How did such a complex system evolve? Clearly it must have been preceded by a microtubule cytoskeleton with dynein and kinesin motors. Strong arguments have been made that the driving force for the evolution of a microtubule cytoskeleton and its associated motor proteins was the ability to accurately segregate a large, nuclear membrane-enclosed genome by mitosis. Although the complicated checks and balances used to assure mitotic fidelity vary widely in extant eukaryotes,
some aspects of mitosis have been sufficiently conserved and are so central to the process that they must have been present at an early stage. Other aspects of mitosis, assumed to be ancient because of their simplicity,
reveal a minimal apparatus but may not reflect the ancestral condition."
I think a picture of cilia assembly is in order to truly appreciate its complexity, because I feel some posters trivialize these nano wonders when they suggest they've risen by chance.
First life forms couldn't have moved without a similar apparatus. And not just that, but they have to be assembled in a precise spot otherwise it won't move properly. If you take the motor of a boat and place it on its starboard, you're going to turn circles. Naturally you want it to be at the aft
Flagellan motor/rotor system (and it spins clockwise too!)
You're going to tell me that this thing above happened by chance millions of years ago? gtfo lol
Let's be real. Has nature produced planes, clocks and similarly complex machinery as the one pictured above? If I see a mountain, I will admit that nature probably made it. If I see a river, I have no hard time believing that nature is responsible for it. If I see a bunch of rocks laid down on the ground forming a pattern, I will ask myself questions. But I can see the possibility that it arose by chance. However, if I see a motor/propeller that assembles itself with so much precision and parts that you cannot imagine, you have to be the most gullible person there is to think it came by chance, nature threw ingredients together and you got something like this. Sure mang
