Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
I'll say this straight up, without regards to if it'll sound rude. You are a liar, and a very poor one at that. You're attempting to quote
mine from an article we all have right here to read. It's painfully dishonest. If you would have posted the full sentence, it was that a few other
flawed experiments on the topic, failed to cause the multicellularity. It remained elusive until now. This experiment did cause true
OK - here u go: and let me bold the texts that got you twisted.
get it xxsomexpersonxx? emphasis on the words true multicellularity.
So care to show me where I lied?
Typical reply from evolutionists - when cornered, they always fall back to false accusations.
But if you really believe that this is T R U E multicellularity - please explain why they admitted that it's not:
here it is again:
Since the late 1990s, experimental evolution studies have attempted to induce multicellularity in laboratory settings. While some fascinating
entities have evolved — Richard Lenski’s kaleidoscopically adapting E. coli, Paul Rainey’s visible-to-the-naked-eye bacterial biofilms —
true multicellularity remained elusive.
I think you have no idea of what is the difference between true multicellular organism from a colonial organism.
What they have her my friend is a colonial organism - that is if you separate a single yeast from the rest - it will still survive on its own.
Like I said - they started with a yeast and ended up with a yeast clumping together - a colony of yeasts.
Within just a few weeks, individual yeast cells still retained their singular identities, but clumped together easily. At the end of two months,
the clumps were a permanent arrangement. Each strain had evolved to be truly multicellular, displaying all the tendencies associated with “higher”
forms of life: a division of labor between specialized cells, juvenile and adult life stages, and multicellular offspring.
Each strain had evolved to be truly multicellular.
You are taking a quote from the article, that refers to the history of these studies, showing how they differ, and blatantly been lying that that was
being said about the experiment at hand.
While some fascinating entities have evolved [In previous experiments going back 2 decades], true multicellularity remained elusive.[In those
You sir, are the one backed into a corner. Maybe you could have passed it off as a mistake, and made up some excuse like you misread the article. But
instead, you went with the route of trying to insist your lie is true.
And, the colonial organism claim is equally false.
the clumps were a permanent arrangement. Each strain had evolved to be truly multicellular, displaying all the tendencies associated with
“higher” forms of life: a division of labor between specialized cells, juvenile and adult life stages, and multicellular offspring.
It's multicellular, not colonial. It doesn't even say anything that could be interpreted as saying it was just colonial. No where does it say
colonial. Everywhere it says multicellular. The aim of the experiment was to watch the evolution of multicellular life, and the experiment succeeded.
Had it only been colonial, it would have, well still giving information, failed.
Lying about science, and quote-mining. People with belief systems like yours always resort to those two thing whenever trying to make their beliefs
sound scientific and logical.
You're only hurting you're cause. A simple rule of thumb, if you have to lie to prove something, what you're proving is also generally a lie. Most
readers here know that. You're making it more apparent that what you're aiming for, "Mostly "Evolution is wrong" and "God dun it", here" is likely
You want to lie to yourself to keep your delusion. You have the right to do that. Just don't post those lies towards everyone else. You're right to
lie to yourself doesn't extend as a right to lie to everyone else.
I always post on ATS either right when I wake up, or right before I go to bed. I'm much less mild-tempered during either of those times. Applying less
effort to make my posts sound as peaceful as possible.
For that I apologize. Though you are being the most rude one here of all, it's an insult to all of us for you to think we're so dumb that we can be
tricked that easily.
edit on 20-1-2012 by xxsomexpersonxx because: typo