Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution Confirmed (Again); Single Celled Organism Evolves Into Multicellular

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I made no mention of God in my post. Nor did I say that I supported Intelligent Design. If you saw those things in my post, you are reading your own preconceptions and bias into it.

I was pointing out that this observation neither proves Evolution or disproves Intelligent Design. It is entirely beside the point of either of them, interesting biologically, but that's as far as it goes.




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Well, this thread isn't the place to talk about it. ATS has had quite a few threads on Lamarkian Evolution.

There's reasons why it's not an accepted science anymore while Darwinian Evolution is.

And this experiment fits with Darwinian Evolution better than Lamarkian anyways. The heavier, clumpier cells fell faster, and reproduced. Any mutations increases those traits, were far more likely to survive until all of them had those traits.

For it to be Lamarkian, the cells would of had to of grown on their own under pressure(which they didn't), and passed on that growth to their offspring. That's not what happened.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
And this experiment fits with Darwinian Evolution better than Lamarkian anyways. The heavier, clumpier cells fell faster, and reproduced. Any mutations increases those traits, were far more likely to survive until all of them had those traits.


That's Darwinism? The mutatiion if any in the genome would be a simple one or two point mutation. Since it's highly likely the genetic trait already existed as many yeast species have a multicellular anscestor. As well as being demonstrated in other experiments like the one I posted.

Adaption has also been shown above the level of the genome and passed on through heredity experimentally, clearly non Darwinian. A genetic comparison of the yeast would be interesting.

A Similiar trait also appeared in other experiments quite readily. So it's not by random mutation. There are other methods of adaption beyond the genome in the structure and arrangements of proteins and enzymes. It could also just be a simple one point mutation.

As well there was no natural selection. The adaption is beneficial to enviromental pressures. It's most likely that when returned to more natural constraints they would revert back to a unicellular behaviour.

Epigenetics is conceptualy the same as Lamarck's principle. Epigenics is confirmed. The idea has had a big comeback, haven't you heard?

I don't think Lamarck has all the answer either, And neither addresses the origin of the prescriptive biological code that's far more complex and efficient than any system of code the human mind can even conceive of.

No random mutation, no natural selection but it still supports Darwinism? OK, if you like. I don't want to tread on anyones beliefs.
edit on 19-1-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


Wrong!
The researchers mearly manipulated the environment until the selective pressures caused one of the organisms to evolve into a multicellular organism. Early earth experiencd a rapidly changing environment. These researchers simply simulated the necessary environment to urge multicellularism.
These organisms could have very easily experienced this same environment naturally on the young earth without any human intervention. No higher intelligence necessary. All they did was simulate an environment,
.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 




this doesn't confirm evolution, it confirms that a power greater than that of the creature is required for it's creation.




Nothing was CREATED in this test. Whether the environmental pressure was artificially induced or not is entirely IRRELEVANT to the validity of the experiment and even more irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Had the pressure been applied naturally in the wild evolution still would have occurred, doing it in a lab simply removes variables that make evolution difficult to study outside the lab.

This is more directed at everyone in this thread:

People dismissing this because the pressure is "artificial" really need a basic grasp on how science works. Do they honestly think that a GOD is going around applying artificial pressure to make us EVOLVE? Because if that's the case it would still CONFIRM EVOLUTION, just a version of evolution that can be directed by a deity. Things that happen in nature, changes in the environment, etc, can still affect evolution. Whether the pressure is directed or un-directed is of NO consequence.

If you want to believe in a God who shows up every now and then just to "stir the petri dish", perhaps toss a few asteroids or a plague at the Earth to see what evolves and survives, that's fine, but don't dismiss the results out of hand based on the word "artificial"



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Confusion42This also brings a death blow to the morality argument used by religion folks...


You are suffering from some pretty huge delusions


Ha! Your funny. Have you ever even looked up the word "delusion"?




A delusion is a false belief held with absolute conviction despite superior evidence.

Source

It's you, believer of a fabricated Overlord, who is, BY DEFINITION, delusional.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by strafgod
Reply to post by Confusion42
 


"i am the Original Poster. The Original Post does not mention God. The title does not mention God"

Thats why I asked the question you replied to. I see the discussion of god as off topic to your OP.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Um, again, I didn't mention God. Evolution has nothing to do with God. ...?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
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 multicellularity.


OK - here u go: and let me bold the texts that got you twisted.


An evolutionary transition that took several billion years to occur in nature has happened in a laboratory, and it needed just 60 days.

Under artificial pressure to become larger, single-celled yeast became multicellular creatures. That crucial step is responsible for life’s progression beyond algae and bacteria, and while the latest work doesn’t duplicate prehistoric transitions, it could help reveal the principles guiding them.
....

In the new study, researchers led by Travisano and William Ratcliff grew brewer’s yeast, a common single-celled organism, in flasks of nutrient-rich broth.
Once per day they shook the flasks, removed yeast that most rapidly settled to the bottom, and used it to start new cultures. Free-floating yeast were left behind, while yeast that gathered in heavy, fast-falling clumps survived to reproduce.

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.

Multicellular yeast reproduces itself; the offspring will not reproduce until it has grown.

“Multicellularity is the ultimate in cooperation,” said Travisano, who wants to understand how cooperation emerges in selfishly competing organisms. “Multiple cells make make up an individual that cooperates for the benefit of the whole. Sometimes cells give up their ability to reproduce for the benefit of close kin.”

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.

According to Travisano, too much emphasis was placed on identifying some genetic essence of complexity. The new study suggests that environmental conditions are paramount: Give single-celled organisms reason to go multicellular, and they will.

Apart from insights into complexity’s origins, the findings could have implications for researchers in other fields. While multicellularity would have a hard time emerging now in nature, where existing animals have a competitive advantage, the underlying lesson of rapid, radical evolution is universal.
“That idea of easy transformability changes your perspective,” said Travisano. “I’m certain that rapid evolution occurs. We just don’t know to look for it.”

Targeted breeding of single-celled organisms into complex, multicellular forms could also become a biotechnological production technique.

“If you want to have some organism that makes ethanol or a novel compound, then — apart from using genetic engineering — you could do selection experiments” to shape their evolution, Travisano said. “What we’re doing right here, engineering via artificial selection, is something we’ve done for centuries with animals and agriculture.”



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.


edit on 20-1-2012 by edmc^2 because: of



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
... meanwhile, the walking and talking dirt reasons to itself about it's origins and the order of living things, but is content to ignore the living order...



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 

so basically what the study found was that if they already started with living, fully functional cells, that they could artificially make those cells cooperate by picking out the ones that clump together.

same DNA? check
same species? check


“If you want to have some organism that makes ethanol or a novel compound, then — apart from using genetic engineering — you could do selection experiments” to shape their evolution, Travisano said. “What we’re doing right here, engineering via artificial selection, is something we’ve done for centuries with animals and agriculture.”

this is rather pathetic. the reason we have so many species of domestic dogs is because they've been selectively bread for hundreds of years. yes, breeding two large dogs increases the likely hood that their offspring will be large. they're still dogs. this isn't evolution.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 


You are just expressing more delusions



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


And once again someone is arguing against something they have no grasp of.

That someone is you.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Obviously you DON'T support evolution if you are claiming this is only adaptation. Did you miss the part about multicellular offspring? If it can happen in a lab, then it could have happened in the real world. That's why we do these experiments in the first place.
edit on 19-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Ah it seems i missed the part with ".. and Multicelluler Offspring", i wish i could read more information on it's offspring, like can 2nd generation offspring still produce multicelluler offspring, and whether it can be moved to its natural environmental condition and still maintain it's multiplicity.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
key word "artificial" pressure. meaning an outside source created this multicellular yeast infection.

it didn't happen spontaneously, or by accident.

this doesn't confirm evolution, it confirms that a power greater than that of the creature is required for it's creation.

i call that power God.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bargoose

Originally posted by randomname
key word "artificial" pressure. meaning an outside source created this multicellular yeast infection.

it didn't happen spontaneously, or by accident.

this doesn't confirm evolution, it confirms that a power greater than that of the creature is required for it's creation.

i call that power God.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Lab replicates a hazardous environment, for example, if a bacteria is known to be water resistant, so a scientist take this bacteria and place it in a controlled room with mist spraying apparatus, which makes the bacteria produces some sort of water resistant coat on its outer membrane.

Cant you say that if this bacteria was thrown into the world where there is a lot of water or rainy climate that it would not do the same thing?

------------------------

At this rate, Anti-Evolutionist would even say if something actually happened in the natural environment they would say it probably has some sort of human intervention, anything to believe in a man with a beard that lives in the clouds
.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   

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 multicellularity.


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.



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 previous experiments]


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 false.

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.

~
P.S.

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



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


ahh you explained this much more eloquently than me!


but I still beat you to the punch
haha

Star though for the excellent post, now I can explain this better when it comes up in conversation XD



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Thing is, if life is merely the sum of it's parts, without spirit or life force, what was the point of evolving in the first place into complex "machines"? Surely it would have just stayed in it's constituent parts.(and by reductionist logic, those constituent parts shouldn't even exist. Nothing should.)

To me it seems far mor plausible that conciousness is seperate and superior to matter,and in order for it to experience matter, it had to "evolve" a material body to do so.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by bargoose
 




Thing is, if life is merely the sum of it's parts, without spirit or life force, what was the point of evolving in the first place into complex "machines"?



Yes what is the point of this life without the spirit? I dont know what kind of person I would be without this vague concept.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 

sorry, but the biggest issue is that these yeast cells haven't become truly multi-cellular. if i cut off your hand, it will wither and die, if you break up these clumps of cells, they'll live on their own. it's like labeling a herd of sheep as one organism.

these cells have not mutated, they aren't a new species, they're just clumped together cells.






top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join