the ultimate infrastructure of life's evolutionary continuity-in-"solution"??
Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum
Since: Feb 13
#1 Jun 11, 2013
Protoplasm. noun. The viscid, contractile, semi liquid, more or less granular substance that forms the principal portion of an animal or vegetable cell; sarcode.
The name was first applied in 1846 to the matter in vegetable cells, which had been observed by Corte in 1772, and by Treviranus in 1807, and which was identified later with the animal substance previously known as sarcode. The protoplasm of most cells appears under high-powers of microscope as a network (spongioplasm or reticulum) containing a more fluid substance (hyaplasm or enchhylema) in its meshes. Chemically it is a mixture of 80 to 85 percent water and 15 to 20 percent solids, chiefly proteids, as albumoses, globulins, and peptones, with small quantities of fat, carbohydrates like glycogen and inosite, and mineral salts, especially those of potassium, which cause it to yield an alkaline reaction. Protoplasm has been called by Huxley, owing to its presence in all organized bodies,“the physical basis of life,” and some have held that its phenomena show that the difference between organized and unorganized matter is simply a difference in complexity of chemical constitution. It is a highly complex substance, and is regarded as a mixture of different chemical substances, but no appreciable difference is to be perceived between protoplasm of lower forms of life and those of higher animals. Protoplasm is contractile and irritable, and reproduces by self-division.
It is a fact of great biological interest that in animals the essential constituent of all living parts is a substance similar to the protoplasm of plants. We cannot distinguish the two by any chemical or physical tests, and can only say that, taken as a whole, the protoplasm of plants differs from that of animals in its secretions. Funk and Wagnel’s New Standard Dictionary, p (look under "p")
Is this not indication, if not "proof" of the derivation from and complexification of ... substantive systematics of atom-molecule-organ-organism-e volutionary proliferation? Is not the astounding "cocktail" menu from such basal brew the more wondrous, even awe-inspiring, than a guy-image doing magic materialization of mere outlines ("kinds") for six "days"???
#2 Jun 14, 2013
Wagnel's? You sure? Clearly, you've never actually SEEN such an encyclopedia. Besides, I'm pretty sure F&W disappeared over a decade ago.
Have you ever been hospitalized against your will?
#3 Jun 14, 2013
Is it still wrong to pray for that outcome even though I don't believe in the power of prayer?
Add your comments below
|Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11)||3 min||DanFromSmithville||142,326|
|Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09)||7 min||karl44||796|
|Stephen King: Universe 'Suggests Intelligent De... (May '13)||3 hr||Kong_||455|
|"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12)||4 hr||Brian_G||14,590|
|Why natural selection can't work||4 hr||Dogen||24|
|An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view...||11 hr||ChromiuMan||941|
|Darwin on the rocks||Tue||The Dude||832|
Find what you want!
Search Evolution Debate Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC