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

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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.

Actually that's not how a multicellular organism is defined. There are many multicellular organisms where if you cut off a piece of them, that piece will survive and live on its own. Multicellularity is defined by specialization and the division of labor between cells. The yeast cells in this experiment passes that definition and is most certainly not "just clumped together cells."

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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.

Yes they are multi-cellular. And even if they weren't, their offspring most defiantly are no matter how you look at it.

SCORE ONE FOR EVOLUTION.

Current score:

Evolution 1,334,432 Creation 0

Thanks for playing!

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

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.

I think the word is gullible.

tricked u.

as for rude - huh? expressing an opinion is rude?

oh my.

in the end like I said - yeast in - yeast out - nothing new.

The video below demonstrates how improbable it is that we exist. However, we do exist so it is 100% probable. The only thing i can think of is two possibilities:

1) The universe formed because of a simple process which allows it to and can not form any other way, we just don't know what that process is yet.

2) Even if a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion universe formed by chance, eventually there would be one that supported life. We just have a little trouble believing in chance, but what we forget is that we are in the one that life formed. As universes form the time it would take would be unimaginable, but all that does not matter, because we are trying to figure it out from our relative place in time, and it only looks unimaginable.

so whats my point ?
My point is that even though it looks impossible by chance that life formed just from a statistical chance, it may have taken an unimaginable amount of tries through an unimaginable amount of time, but it did... eventually happen. We are here are we not ?

You could just say god did it, but thats the easy way out, who created the creator ?

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

 

tricked u.

Hilarious. Are you saying that you're lie was a form of joke?

I'll know not to trust a thing you say on this site without ever checking you're source and independently researching your claim. In case you decide to make a "joke" again.

P.S. Your attempt at saving face isn't working. It'd be better to admit you were trying to deceive for no justified reason. However, I can't really prove you're intentions. So, I shall not pursue that.

reply to post by edmc^2


So what you're saying is that you knowingly posted false information? Not only is that against the T&C in the past it has been a bannable offense.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So what you're saying is that you knowingly posted false information? Not only is that against the T&C in the past it has been a bannable offense.

What false info ru talking about?

care to elaborate?

here - let me post what I said again.

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. ....

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.

if you're talking about this one:

I think the word is gullible.

tricked u.

reply to post by edmc^2


You are, purposefully, trying to deceive people.

If your limited English grammar skills do not allow you to read properly, let me help you.

Note that the four paragraphs I am going to quote, appear in the Wired article in a row.

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.

Ok, this paragraph explains the results of the experiment. Please note the "Each strain had evolved to be truly multicellular." part.

“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.”

This part explains why multicellularity is important.

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.

This paragraph explains why the experiment is important / why it's an advancement. This paragraph says that true multicellularity in past experiments remained elusive. Do you get it? PAST!

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.

This paragraph explains why in PAST experiments multicellularity remained elusive. PAST, PAST, PAST

Yet another examples of the desperate lengths creationists will go to in order to fool others into believing their fabricated Overlord

Originally posted by Confusion42
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You are, purposefully, trying to deceive people.

If your limited English grammar skills do not allow you to read properly, let me help you.

Note that the four paragraphs I am going to quote, appear in the Wired article in a row.

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.

Ok, this paragraph explains the results of the experiment. Please note the "Each strain had evolved to be truly multicellular." part.

“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.”

This part explains why multicellularity is important.

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.

This paragraph explains why the experiment is important / why it's an advancement. This paragraph says that true multicellularity in past experiments remained elusive. Do you get it? PAST!

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.

This paragraph explains why in PAST experiments multicellularity remained elusive. PAST, PAST, PAST

Yet another examples of the desperate lengths creationists will go to in order to fool others into believing their fabricated Overlord

edit on 20-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

Of course I understand all of that - but the point is the TRUE multicellularity that I'm talking about is an organism that is a true multicelled organism.

For instance - we know that humans as well as multicelled plants and animals start as a single cell. After that cell reaches a certain size, it divides and forms two cells. Then these two cells divide and form four cells. As the cells continue to divide, they specialize—that is, they differentiate, becoming muscle cells, nerve cells, skin cells, and so forth. As the process continues, many of the cells group together to form tissues. Muscle cells, for example, join forces and form muscle tissue. Different types of tissues form organs, such as the heart, the lungs, and the eyes. That is the TRUE multicellularity that I'm talking about.

What you have here (OP) is a "clumping ... individual yeast cells"

But if you're convinced that they actually "evolved" or "created" a new type of organism by "clumping" "individual yeast cells" - hey more power to you.


As for the yeast -

From Wiki -

Yeasts are eukaryotic micro-organisms classified in the kingdom Fungi, with 1,500 species currently described[1] estimated to be only 1% of all fungal species.[2] Most reproduce asexually by mitosis, and many do so by an asymmetric division process called budding. Yeasts are unicellular, although some species with yeast forms may become multicellular through the formation of a string of connected budding cells known as pseudohyphae, or false hyphae, as seen in most molds.[3] [4]

Reproduction The yeast cell's life cycle: 1. Budding 2. Conjugation 3. Spore See also: Mating of yeast Yeasts, like all fungi, may have asexual and sexual reproductive cycles. The most common mode of vegetative growth in yeast is asexual reproduction by budding.[30] Here, a small bud (also known as a bleb), or daughter cell, is formed on the parent cell. The nucleus of the parent cell splits into a daughter nucleus and migrates into the daughter cell. The bud continues to grow until it separates from the parent cell, forming a new cell.[31] Some yeasts, including Schizosaccharomyces pombe, reproduce by fission instead of budding.[30]

like I said - nothing new.

read more here so that I won't be accused of quote mining.

Originally posted by Confusion42

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.

Multicellular Life Evolves in Laboratory

So, what does everybody think? Doesn't this simply confirm what most of us have known?

IMO It seems like science is progressing exponentially fast.... And confirming Evolution along the way...

I can't believe I'm actually going to respond to another of these threads, but here goes.. No, it doesn't prove evolution at all. The cell was created to do what it did, even if it was not believed to be able to do so.

reply to post by edmc^2


What do you mean by "true multicellularity?"

The article clearly states that single celled yeast evolved into multicellular creatures.

Even the pic proves this;




You are assuming multi-cellular creatures MUST evolve into humans. Humans are NOT the end result of evolution; Humans are just a rung on the endless ladder that is evolution.

Furthermore;

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.

“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.”

So in 60 days, these cells developed:

*A division of labor. Just like kids go to school, parents go to work (family), these yeast also established their own labor for specialized cells.

*What we call "Morality," (dare I say!); These multicellularity individuals choose to give up sex for the sake of the group!

This experiment proves without a shadow of a doubt that, in 60 days, yeast cells can evolve into organisms that have better morality than 90% Of the Human population.

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by Confusion42

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.

Multicellular Life Evolves in Laboratory

So, what does everybody think? Doesn't this simply confirm what most of us have known?

IMO It seems like science is progressing exponentially fast.... And confirming Evolution along the way...

I can't believe I'm actually going to respond to another of these threads, but here goes.. No, it doesn't prove evolution at all. The cell was created to do what it did, even if it was not believed to be able to do so.

This is an ADDITIONAL proof to evolution; There is a mountain of evidence, and this experiment added more to the mountain.

First, it's creationists that thought "...it was not believed to be able to do so."

Evolution says that, YES IN FACT, single celled organisms turn into multi-celled organisms.

This experiment PROVES this.

That's the whole significance of this experiment!

Creationism Argument: How can single celled organisms turn into multi-celled organisms? It can't happen, it never happened, it doesn't happen.

This experiment: Yes, in fact, it can happen, did happen, and has just been proved. Furthormore, it doesn't take long, 60 days. And furthermore, within 60 days, these organisms developed MORALITY. All without the need for a fabricated Overlord...

So we can stat the evolution process again, now, with yeast type cells and wait thousands of years,,,,,wait, who stated the process with us? Must have been God. Hes coming soon. So get ready. He loves You.

reply to post by Confusion42


Interesting article.

I read the paper Experimental evolution of multicellularity on which the article was based.

I found this interesting.

We used gravity to select for primitive multicellularity in the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Clusters of cells settle through liquid more quickly than do single cells, allowing us to easily select for clustering genotypes

So if I understand this correctly the whole purpose of this experiment is to induce these yeast clusters to sink faster.

What does this have to do with Natural Selection?

Settling selection was chosen not because it is widespread in nature, but rather because it is an experimentally tractable method to select for larger size.

Interesting, the researchers selected this benchmark, not because it has much relevance to the natural world, but because it was easy.

Here is what they used to show "natural selection"

After the first week, we modified the settling step to be more time efficient by using 100 × g, 10-s centrifugations of 1.5-mL subsamples from the shaken 10-mL

A centrifuge, used by nature?

A representative genotype (drawn from replicate population 1, day 30, of our first evolution experiment) was grown overnight in yeast peptone dextrose (YPD) media

YPD?

YEPD or Yeast Extract Peptone Dextrose, also often abbreviated as YPD, is a complete medium for yeast growth. It contains yeast extract, peptone, bidest. water, and glucose or dextrose. It can be used as solid medium by including agar. The yeast extract will typically contain all the amino acids necessary for growth. By being a complete medium, YEPD cannot be used as a selection medium to test for auxotrophs. Instead, YEPD is used as a growth medium to grow yeast cultures.

Link

So yeast can only grow in YPD, it literally cannot do anything but grow in this substance.

YPD cannot be used as a selection medium to test for auxotrophs.

It is important to remember that many living things, including humans, are auxotrophic for large classes of compounds required for growth and must obtain these compounds through diet (see vitamin, essential amino acid, essential fatty acid).

How is this in any way "Natural Selection"?

Also yeast has no correlation with auxotrophic organisms like humans.




Did the experiment truly show, that the yeast evolved into multicellular "creatures" in just 60 days?

Although known transitions to complex multicellularity, with clearly differentiated cell types, occurred over millions of years

So their experiment did not show differentiated cell types. This was not done in 60 days.

Multicelled snowflakephenotype yeast evolved in all 15 replicate populations, in two separate experiments, within 60 d of settling selection.

Multicelled snowflakephenotype.

Try and say that 5 times really fast!

Is that like a Sanitation Engineer?

So we have cells clumped together, so they will sink fast, and they are a "snow flake" phenotype

the term phenotype includes traits or characteristics that can be made visible by some technical procedure

The yeast now look different.

Yeast cosmetic surgery!!

We could make hundreds!!!!

we have shown that the first crucial steps in the transition from unicellularity to multicellularity can evolve remarkably quickly under appropriate selective conditions.

They certainly showed that with a guiding intelligence, yeast can be coaxed to clump together and sink really, really fast.


Experimental evolution of multicellularity

I found this which is discussing some of the criticism and assumptions regarding the experiment.
It does give a little more info and answers some of the basic objections.

I found this the most interesting, it pretty much sums up what's happened. Like all other examples of experimental evolution in action it is adaption through degredation. Adaption via loss of function.

This is from the researchers;

Our yeast are not utilizing ‘latent’ multicellular genes and reverting back to their wild state. The initial evolution of snowflake yeast is the result of mutations that break the normal mitotic reproductive process, preventing daughter cells from being released as they normally would when division is complete. Again, we know from knockout libraries that this phenotype can be a consequence of many different mutations. This is a loss of function, not a gain of function. You could probably evolve a similar phenotype in nearly any microbe (other than bacteria, binary fission is a fundamentally different process). We find that it is actually much harder to go back to unicellularity once snowflake yeast have evolved, because there are many more ways to break something via mutation than fix it.

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

So i think that answers it. And it's not good for Darwinism.
I've said it before, ALL examples of experimental evolution are a result of switching off functions to adapt, even beneficial mutatons are in fact result in a net loss of function. This is exactly what the experiments show us, this only adds to the growing evidence.

You cannot keep switching functions off to produce new genetic information, it's quite the opposite. You cannot keep losing functions to produce new functional biological innovation.

Darwinian evolution not confirmed (once again), they broke functions to make this happen. This is not going forward it's going backwards. This is not true multicellular advancement.

reply to post by squiz

wow. that shut up the evolutionists pretty quick. personally i could care less if evolution was true. i'd live differently, sure, but evolution=bad science.

in short, the multicellular yeast resulted from a loss of function, not a beneficial mutation (i.e. evolution).

swing and a miss.

Wow everyone has a different point of view. Does that make them "wrong" because you are so sure you are "right", because you "know" something they do not? As humans we generally understand that multiple humans believing in something(s) has more power than just believing it yourself. we want the other human to see it our way, to understand our belief(s), and if we are open minded, want to see it their way, and understand their belief(s).
To give up or radically change a belief, or belief system, can in my experience be very challenging, and hard, and requires a significant change in personal life circumstances, or an overwhelming body of what the person changing would consider "evidence".

I would like to present some of my beliefs with respect for your presented beliefs, understanding that you genuinely believe what you believe, and with respect for that fact.

Evolution happens all the time, the evolution of an idea, the evolution of this thread, the evolution of a painting, and many other things you may think of. HOWEVER I have not yet found nor been presented with any evidence of what I consider to be the basis/requirement for "the evolution of the species"

Xcalibur254 you said at the end of your well worded post

Of course now the hardcore Creationists are once again moving the goal posts because they don't like what the science actually shows.

I respectfully disagree that the "hardcore" or fundamentalist creationists have moved their goal posts at all. I believe from my experience, that the absolute goal posts, from a true creationist perspective, the one thing that would make them all wrong wrong wrong about their beliefs and "win the match once and for all" is this: The addition of beneficial, non-pre-existing information to the DNA/rna/other coding, of any organism. In other words, information that has never existed ever in the organisms past, (or the information to write that information), must come into existence.

Bob Sholtz said it briefly in his words:

same DNA? check same species? check

Barcs you said these words in your post:

Evolution is already proven.. Anyone that disagrees is pretty much ignorant of the facts.

Barcs I disagree that the evolution of the species is proven. I don't consider myself to have all the facts, however nor would I label myself, or many who disbelieve in evolutionary-species theory as "pretty much ignorant or the facts"

xxsomexpersonxx you said

As far as the topic. People get overly worked up over the word "artificial". Anything that can happen in a lab, can happen in nature. It's just a matter of likelihood.

I agree people get all worked up over all sorts of words. However, how likely is it that nature would be able to turn uranium 232(or whatever its number) into 235(or fissionable material) and then assemble it to critical mass and then initiate a controlled nuclear reaction? You can do this in a lab, but how likely is it in nature? Humans can also build a microscope in a lab, how likely do you think it is that mother nature could/would create a working microscope?


In conclusion
I would be MOST interested in any test or observation where the additional-new(not ever existing)-beneficial information happens. Evolutionists would throw a big party and say "see, the fact, we right all along!". Creationists would be like "darn, we wrong about that, but... doesn't change the fact the bible still right!" And Intelligent Design Theorists would be like "Well that was interesting, but intelligence was there, and the fact is well.. we are right!."

Anyway, like Jesus said, -Peace be with you-.
Or if you prefer, like the Jedi said -May the force be with you-.

reply to post by Inkrinhuminge

I agree people get all worked up over all sorts of words. However, how likely is it that nature would be able to turn uranium 232(or whatever its number) into 235(or fissionable material) and then assemble it to critical mass and then initiate a controlled nuclear reaction? You can do this in a lab, but how likely is it in nature?

Off-topic, but check out the natural nuclear reactor at Oklo in Gabon, Africa. This exact thing happened and is believed to have sustained a reaction for thousands of years.

reply to post by Inkrinhuminge

The addition of beneficial, non-pre-existing information to the DNA/rna/other coding, of any organism. In other words, information that has never existed ever in the organisms past, (or the information to write that information), must come into existence.

quite right, though i would refine it a bit further. the beneficial mutation must be of a great enough magnitude that the organism in question has a much higher chance of surviving than average so that it could pass on its dna, then prove that this has happened and it resulted in a new organism that cannot breed with it's predecessors.

the above is what evolutionists claim happened, so i don't think it is unreasonable to ask for proof of this happening. after all, evolutionary science has been fraught with fakes, frauds, pre-humans that turned out to be apes (an entire new species of human was declared over one tooth...it turned out to be from a pig, and sadly it wasn't even a fraud, everyone believed it), and generally shoddy science.

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by Confusion42

 

Interesting article.

I read the paper Experimental evolution of multicellularity on which the article was based.

I found this interesting.

We used gravity to select for primitive multicellularity in the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Clusters of cells settle through liquid more quickly than do single cells, allowing us to easily select for clustering genotypes

So if I understand this correctly the whole purpose of this experiment is to induce these yeast clusters to sink faster.

What does this have to do with Natural Selection?

Settling selection was chosen not because it is widespread in nature, but rather because it is an experimentally tractable method to select for larger size.

Interesting, the researchers selected this benchmark, not because it has much relevance to the natural world, but because it was easy.

Here is what they used to show "natural selection"

After the first week, we modified the settling step to be more time efficient by using 100 × g, 10-s centrifugations of 1.5-mL subsamples from the shaken 10-mL

A centrifuge, used by nature?

A representative genotype (drawn from replicate population 1, day 30, of our first evolution experiment) was grown overnight in yeast peptone dextrose (YPD) media

YPD?

YEPD or Yeast Extract Peptone Dextrose, also often abbreviated as YPD, is a complete medium for yeast growth. It contains yeast extract, peptone, bidest. water, and glucose or dextrose. It can be used as solid medium by including agar. The yeast extract will typically contain all the amino acids necessary for growth. By being a complete medium, YEPD cannot be used as a selection medium to test for auxotrophs. Instead, YEPD is used as a growth medium to grow yeast cultures.

Link

So yeast can only grow in YPD, it literally cannot do anything but grow in this substance.

YPD cannot be used as a selection medium to test for auxotrophs.

It is important to remember that many living things, including humans, are auxotrophic for large classes of compounds required for growth and must obtain these compounds through diet (see vitamin, essential amino acid, essential fatty acid).

How is this in any way "Natural Selection"?

Also yeast has no correlation with auxotrophic organisms like humans.




Did the experiment truly show, that the yeast evolved into multicellular "creatures" in just 60 days?

Although known transitions to complex multicellularity, with clearly differentiated cell types, occurred over millions of years

So their experiment did not show differentiated cell types. This was not done in 60 days.

Multicelled snowflakephenotype yeast evolved in all 15 replicate populations, in two separate experiments, within 60 d of settling selection.

Multicelled snowflakephenotype.

Try and say that 5 times really fast!

Is that like a Sanitation Engineer?

So we have cells clumped together, so they will sink fast, and they are a "snow flake" phenotype

the term phenotype includes traits or characteristics that can be made visible by some technical procedure

The yeast now look different.

Yeast cosmetic surgery!!

We could make hundreds!!!!

we have shown that the first crucial steps in the transition from unicellularity to multicellularity can evolve remarkably quickly under appropriate selective conditions.

They certainly showed that with a guiding intelligence, yeast can be coaxed to clump together and sink really, really fast.


Experimental evolution of multicellularity

edit on 21-1-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)

You switching goal posts.


Your ridiculing the work of these scientists without fully understanding what they are even doing.

Maybe you should read the abstract of there paper.

Multicellularity was one of the most significant innovations in the history of life, but its initial evolution remains poorly understood. Using experimental evolution, we show that key steps in this transition could have occurred quickly. We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. We observed the rapid evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of inter