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

Of course organisms evolve, every living organism already has the ability to evolve/adapt to its environment through selection ,crossing over, survival of the fittests, etc (Duh)

But what about creating an organism? Why can't they create an orgamism from organic molecules in the lab??

Originally posted by Firepac
Since you seem to know it all care to give us an example of what an "increase of genetic information" would be like? I love how creationists always talk about genetic information like they know what it means but never actually bother to define it (sort of like how they refuse to define "kind")

Like I said, I'm all about the science. Experimental that is.
Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity?

reply to post by Confusion42



Oh, brother, gimme a break.

Science CAN BE BOUGHT. 'Nuff said.

Originally posted by alilonthecheekyside
reply to post by Confusion42

 

Oh, brother, gimme a break.

Science CAN BE BOUGHT. 'Nuff said.

Oh man, someone paid off science to come up with gravity. It's not real, Science can be bought!

Germs get us sick? Please. Jesus refused to wash his hands and said sin was what made us unclean. They paid science to lie and say jesus was wrong.

~
Seriously. There's no reason to promote evolution if it isn't fact. There's no reason anyone would have an ulterior motive for experimenting about it with results.

Unlike creationism/intelligent design. Where they decide what they want to be true, for non-scientific reasons, then scramble to make it sound like a scientific belief. It's all ulterior motives.

i actually did mention DNA being copied twice. from my post:

the number left (it's too small to accurately quantify) is the amount of beneficial mutations that result from genetic information being added to an organism's genetic code. this can happen from viruses and (i believe) an error in copying genetic information can cause some of the information to copy twice.

at any rate, it is incredibly rare compared to mutations that arise from the deletion of genetic material. the numbers do not support us evolving.

In a previous post you claimed that you've studied evolution a decent amount and I actually believed you. However your above statement proves otherwise and shows that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

i added in the bit about muck to make the point that evolution doesn't address how life began. evolution doesn't get credit for not addressing how life actually began and i needed to show you how even if life did begin from nothing, it couldn't go anywhere due to the amount of deleterious mutations.

Most scientists would agree with you and that is exactly why "lighting strikes some muck" is not an accepted model for the origins of life.

it had to start somehow, and failing to address such an important point doesn't lend credence to the theory of evolution.

i'd like to you read the article i posted about mutation rates. for us to have evolved from apes, every human female would have to have over 40 children to produce one without any new harmful mutations, then all the others would have to die, and that one baseline child would have to reproduce with another just like it. do that a few hundred times and you'll finally wind up with ONE beneficial mutation. that is what would be necessary for us to have come from apes.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

Seriously. There's no reason to promote evolution if it isn't fact. There's no reason anyone would have an ulterior motive for experimenting about it with results.

actually there are equal motives on both sides for wanting to be right. evolutionists want a world where they aren't accountable for their actions. without god, all things are permissible.

for most people, when they believe something, it becomes part of them, so defending their particular brand of ideology is akin to defending themselves.

Admit OP - you're on a shaky ground if you keep on insisting that this is evolution.

Based on the many intelligent posts here - I think you're in an uphill battle because the facts based on your op - does not support your belief.

cheers.

reply to post by edmc^2


You've gotten proved wrong several times now. You are nothing but a giant contradiction. Everything you try to claim is completely false, backed by no evidence whatsoever. Do you understand the concept of mutli cellular offspring? Can you even read what people have clearly shown you. You take one line out of an entire article, referring to something different and claim it proves your case. You have only shown to be dishonest.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Barcs

 

How is it that when I say no experiment is shown to increase genetic information, all I get is bitching and moaning? creationist this creationist that, scriptures bla bla bla.
When all you have to do is cite the conclusive empirical experiment that demonstartes it?

More moaning to come....

edit on 23-1-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)

How is it that when we ask creationists to define what "genetic information" is, all we get is bitching and moaning?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i actually did mention DNA being copied twice. from my post:

the number left (it's too small to accurately quantify) is the amount of beneficial mutations that result from genetic information being added to an organism's genetic code. this can happen from viruses and (i believe) an error in copying genetic information can cause some of the information to copy twice.

This has absolutely nothing to do with gene duplication and point mutation. Why can't you stop acting like creationist for a second and just give an honest answer?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i added in the bit about muck to make the point that evolution doesn't address how life began. evolution doesn't get credit for not addressing how life actually began and i needed to show you how even if life did begin from nothing, it couldn't go anywhere due to the amount of deleterious mutations.

That's because the theory of evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of life. Ever heard of abiogenesis? Again you have further prove my point: you have done ZERO studying in regards to the subject.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
it had to start somehow, and failing to address such an important point doesn't lend credence to the theory of evolution.

Yeah by that logic we should also dismiss the theory of gravity as it doesn't explain where gravity comes from. Hey man, gravity had to start somehow, and failing to address such an important point doesn't lend credence to the theory of gravity.

Originally posted by Barcs
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You've gotten proved wrong several times now. You are nothing but a giant contradiction. Everything you try to claim is completely false, backed by no evidence whatsoever. Do you understand the concept of mutli cellular offspring? Can you even read what people have clearly shown you. You take one line out of an entire article, referring to something different and claim it proves your case. You have only shown to be dishonest.

So barcs which one is a true definition of mutlicellularity

here's what I said:

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.

Then there's your individual yeast clumping together.

Try harder.

Originally posted by Firepac
How is it that when we ask creationists to define what "genetic information" is, all we get is bitching and moaning?

Oh yes, this is bitching and moaning-

"Like I said, I'm all about the science. Experimental that is.
Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity?"

The answer to your question is contained within the abstract of the peer reviewed material.
Rather than answer with words that get twisted, I answered with actual science.

All life depends on the biological information encoded in DNA with which to synthesize and regulate various peptide sequences required by an organism's cells. Hence, an evolutionary model accounting for the diversity of life needs to demonstrate how novel exonic regions that code for distinctly different functions can emerge.

Seems like common sense to me.

I never mentioned god, I've only adressed the science with science, and stated some scientific facts. Like the no new information line. In return I get labelled and condescended. It's a typical response so I'm not surprised. That's what I refer to as bitching and moaning. I always try to answer with science.

I'm not religious.

Clearly Darwinism and Darwinist are driven by an anti religious agenda and not by actual science. I agree with what is in the paper above.

"an evolutionary model accounting for the diversity of life needs to demonstrate how novel exonic regions that code for distinctly different functions can emerge"

Seems like that would be obvious however Darwinism has not demonstrated this.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

 

Seriously. There's no reason to promote evolution if it isn't fact. There's no reason anyone would have an ulterior motive for experimenting about it with results.

actually there are equal motives on both sides for wanting to be right. evolutionists want a world where they aren't accountable for their actions. without god, all things are permissible.

for most people, when they believe something, it becomes part of them, so defending their particular brand of ideology is akin to defending themselves.

Judging by american statistics. Between 40 and 60 percent of people believe in evolution. 10 to 20 percent don't believe in any deities. That means, there's a 20 to 50 percent of the population that accepts evolution by believes in Gods. That's far more than the amount of atheists that do, even if you forget to account for the numbers of atheists that don't accept evolution.

The math is so simple, Most evolutionists belief in one or more Gods. So, a motive to promote a Godless world is out the window right there.

Now, most who don't believe in deities, still feel accountable for their actions anyways. Why? Because, if you do something bad to someone, your responsibility is to the person you affected. Very few people want a world where morals are completely out of the window, and of those, I'd imagine the numbers are relatively equal across all forms of faith.

And the idea that anything is more permissible without a sky daddy watching that can burn you(or whatever else), is so wrong, I can't even approach it. Just look at slavery. Perfectly ok with the christian god, he even gave rules on how to beat slaves and said that they should be killed if they "Know the will of their masters and don't do it." This is horrible by modern standards. Since god doesn't condemn it, the condemnation obvious comes from ourselves, who can distinguish things as wrong no matter what any god says.

You're speaking to both an Atheist, and an "Evolutionist", you're not gonna trick me but taking the beliefs that maybe .002% of either group holds, and claim that it's the intentions of the majority of them. That's horribly false. I can tell you, that I'm all for morality and accountability, and so is every other non-religious person I've ever met.

Back on subject.

This is what they did.

1) grow single celled yeast and centrifuged it.
2) Selected by hand the fasted that sedimented.
3) Cultured those and repeated, after a few generations they were sedimenting faster than the originals.

The results without all the hooha.

1) A significant loss in fitness of 10%.
2) The loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division.
3) The loss of control of apoptosis.

No increase of genetic information only losses resulting in clumpy cells with a greatly reduced rate of reproduction. There is also no indication that it is even beneficial and would not ultimately be a target for elimination by natural selection.

Multicellular? You got to be kidding.

Originally posted by squiz
2) The loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division.

Maybe, just maybe, you have some superior understanding on the topic(no mocking).

Given that, explain this. Multicellular offspring. It wasn't just a growing clump that couldn't seperate, it was "clumps" that gave birth to "clumps". Also, specialization of cells.

Both mentioned in the article. I'm genuinely interested in how you'd explain these within a model of "The cells just can't fully separate anymore".

reply to post by Firepac

This has absolutely nothing to do with gene duplication and point mutation.

orly?

Gene duplication (or chromosomal duplication or gene amplification) is any duplication of a region of DNA that contains a gene; it may occur as an error in homologous recombination, a retrotransposition event, or duplication of an entire chromosome.

hmm...sounds eerily like what i said. maybe you got confused??? point mutation has a multitude of causes both environmental and copying errors. pretty much exactly what i said.

That's because the theory of evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the origins of life.

really? you don't think the amount of genetic information in the first cell has anything to do with mutation rates, or what variations are possible? please...evolution doesn't have an answer, so evolutionists say "evolution isn't about how life began", but if you had an answer you'd give it. how that first cell arose, if it even could arise from non-life, is paramount to evolution even if you won't admit it.

Yeah by that logic we should also dismiss the theory of gravity as it doesn't explain where gravity comes from. Hey man, gravity had to start somehow, and failing to address such an important point doesn't lend credence to the theory of gravity.

i'm currently in college pursuing a physics major. there are several theories of gravity, and they all address the origin. in fact, often the origin of gravity IS the whole theory, whether it arises from gravitons, a bend in space/time as a property of mass, or a property of the strings that make up atoms.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
hmm...sounds eerily like what i said. maybe you got confused??? point mutation has a multitude of causes both environmental and copying errors. pretty much exactly what i said.

And yet you still haven't explain how gene duplication and point mutations don't create new information.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
really? you don't think the amount of genetic information in the first cell has anything to do with mutation rates, or what variations are possible? please...evolution doesn't have an answer, so evolutionists say "evolution isn't about how life began", but if you had an answer you'd give it. how that first cell arose, if it even could arise from non-life, is paramount to evolution even if you won't admit it.

Okay god placed the first cell on earth. Now how does that disprove evolution? How life arose is completely irrelevant to how it evolves. The fact that creationists continue to equate abiogenesis with evolution is a strawman setup to make the subject seem more complicated then it actually is. Is this really the best you've got?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i'm currently in college pursuing a physics major.

ROFLMAO you honestly expect anyone to believe that? Do creationists keep forgetting that lying is a sin?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
there are several theories of gravity, and they all address the origin.

Actually there's only 2 theories on gravity and neither of them addresses the origins of gravity. Then again I'm not expecting someone who lacks even the most basic understanding of science to get it.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
in fact, often the origin of gravity IS the whole theory, whether it arises from gravitons, a bend in space/time as a property of mass, or a property of the strings that make up atoms.

Neither the theory of gravity nor general relativity addresses the origin of gravity. The Big Bang Theory addresses the origin of gravity. You must be purchasing...I mean persuing your physics major from the same university that Kent Hovind got his degree from right?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Confusion42

 

sorry, but that is a strawman argument. i've never said anything of the kind. see my last post for the requirements to prove that evolution has happened.

if you prove it, i would gladly accept evolution. i have no moral or philosophical qualms against believing that we evolved, however i don't because the evidence isn't there. it evokes an almost religious zeal from believers, and i find it sad that people can't follow wherever the evidence leads.

If you are preferring to this as *your* requirements to prove that evolution has happened...

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.

Than I bring up a quote that I already used earlier (this is a quote from the wired article)

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.”

Remember, this is just a single factoid onto the mountain of evidence for proof of evolution.

Don't get me wrong, personally, as an "Agnostic", I think it's possible that God creating everything.

As it is also possible that aliens came here awhile ago, genetically modified apes and out we popped..

Just as it's possible that (insert any theory or belief) ....

Also, I was wondering something. Your Bible, it says something like "God created the Heavens and the Earth."

Sooo, than, who created all the other planets in the Universe.

If your going to include all the other planets in your definition of "the Heavens", that I would ask, so does that mean
God's first planet he created was Earth? If not, than why does your Bible mention only one planet?

Also

When was the Universe made, and how?

When where Galaxies formed, and how?

When where stars, "dark matter", "dark energy", etc. made?

What causes Supernova's and etc.?

When where the first solar system's made? How long after the Universe was made?

When was our solar system made? How long after the first solar system's appeared was ours made?

How was the moon made, and when?

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Maybe, just maybe, you have some superior understanding on the topic(no mocking).

Given that, explain this. Multicellular offspring. It wasn't just a growing clump that couldn't seperate, it was "clumps" that gave birth to "clumps". Also, specialization of cells.

Both mentioned in the article. I'm genuinely interested in how you'd explain these within a model of "The cells just can't fully separate anymore".

The reason the clumps would "give birth" is because of increased apoptosis (death). weakening the cluster and allowing chunks to break off.

I don't see any specialized behaviour amongst the cells, as in separate functions. I haven't heard the reseachers make this claim, only the media. The areas along the break grow more propagules I believe. I don't think this can be classed as specialized.

They may also be reffering to the apparent "division of labour" amongst the cluster through the cells dying.

I believe this is interpreted as a means for the cluster to adjust the size and number of the propagules that give rise to new cells, once again this is because of the increased apoptosis.

The article portrays it like the yeast are working together but they didn't really have much choice in suicide since apoptosis was disrupted. They also have no choice but to clump because cell division regulation was knocked out.

To put it simply.

"Giving birth" is actually cells dying ("committing suicide") the cluster being weakened and peices falling off which in turn regulates the production of propagules along the break. ("division of labour").

Originally posted by edmc^2
So barcs which one is a true definition of mutlicellularity

here's what I said:

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.

So basically what you're saying it you won't believe it until it evolves into its own creature, which supposedly almost took a billion years to happen naturally. But yeah, you ignore the parts of the article that go against your case. The article said multiple times that it had become a TRUE multicellular organism. This was quoted to you from the article several times already. The one line you quoted was referring to everything that had been studied UP UNTIL THAT POINT. Listen, you aren't a scientist, stop acting like you understand anything they are experimenting with. You do not. You rely on buzz words and non scientific means to try to disprove science, and quite frankly its not working.