It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
"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.

Another abstract for a science paper that they make you PAY for to view the entire thing. No offense but that's the last website I'm trusting to give me legitimate information. Do you have a copy of the ACTUAL SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS instead of just the abstract? What about the results and full conclusion? Don't claim you responded with actual science, when you did not.

Lets also not forget that your abstract has nothing at all to do with this experiment in multicelluarity. You are essentially saying that because evolutionary theory can't explain everything and hasn't experimented with everything imaginable that it must be wrong. Plus genetic mutations ARE new genetic information, so I'm not sure where that argument even fits or why you do not consider that.


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.

Yet, when I posted the scientific evidence behind evolution you ignored it and instantly dismissed it. "I'm not reading your wall of links, instead you follow MY definition of evolution". Stop it already with the strawmans. If you want to discuss the evidence, by all means lets do it, but you need to understand the foundations before letting your worldview cloud your judgement.
edit on 24-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

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...


Seems to only show that if you play god you can create results that are spun in your favor.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Lets also not forget that your abstract has nothing at all to do with this experiment in multicelluarity. You are essentially saying that because evolutionary theory can't explain everything and hasn't experimented with everything imaginable that it must be wrong. Plus genetic mutations ARE new genetic information, so I'm not sure where that argument even fits or why you do not consider that.


Let's not forget that the post in question was an answer to the definition of biological information, contained with the first couple of lines of the abstract. I'm not saying anything like you describe. You've taken the post out of context.

And I'm the one making strawmen.


Ok, I think i understand your problem better with this statement.

"Plus genetic mutations ARE new genetic information"

Sorry, I'm not going to even bother. I suggest you read that abstract a little closer.


Yet, when I posted the scientific evidence behind evolution you ignored it and instantly dismissed it. "I'm not reading your wall of links, instead you follow MY definition of evolution". Stop it already with the strawmans. If you want to discuss the evidence, by all means lets do it,


"Follow MY definition of evolution" is another strawman, I never said any such thing.

Yes Let's discuss the evidence THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING! . I'll ask for perhaps the fith time. Cite the one you believe provides proof of naturally occuring generation of biological information, but first learn what it is. So please, Just put up or shut up. I was very specific in my original request, in return you present dozens of links none of which address the issue.

This make complete sense now because you believe any random mutation is an increase in informaton. I don't think it is even possible to discuss the evidence based on that logic.

I can tell you right now, It doesn't exist. The closest we have is a synthetic replicatng cell. This was acheived by treating dna like what it actually is. Software.

And here we are discussing some science, yet you don't seem to have anything to offer.




edit on 24-1-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Barcs
Lets also not forget that your abstract has nothing at all to do with this experiment in multicelluarity. You are essentially saying that because evolutionary theory can't explain everything and hasn't experimented with everything imaginable that it must be wrong. Plus genetic mutations ARE new genetic information, so I'm not sure where that argument even fits or why you do not consider that.


Let's not forget that the post in question was an answer to the definition of biological information, contained with the first couple of lines of the abstract. I'm not saying anything like you describe. You've taken the post out of context.

And I'm the one making strawmen.


Ok, I think i understand your problem better with this statement.

"Plus genetic mutations ARE new genetic information"

Sorry, I'm not going to even bother. I suggest you read that abstract a little closer.


Yet, when I posted the scientific evidence behind evolution you ignored it and instantly dismissed it. "I'm not reading your wall of links, instead you follow MY definition of evolution". Stop it already with the strawmans. If you want to discuss the evidence, by all means lets do it,


"Follow MY definition of evolution" is another strawman, I never said any such thing.

Yes Let's discuss the evidence THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING! . I'll ask for perhaps the fith time. Cite the one you believe provides proof of naturally occuring generation of biological information, but first learn what it is. So please, Just put up or shut up. I was very specific in my original request, in return you present dozens of links none of which address the issue.

This make complete sense now because you believe any random mutation is an increase in informaton. I don't think it is even possible to discuss the evidence based on that logic.

I can tell you right now, It doesn't exist. The closest we have is a synthetic replicatng cell. This was acheived by treating dna like what it actually is. Software.

And here we are discussing some science, yet you don't seem to have anything to offer.




edit on 24-1-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)


You are very, very dirty debater and quoter.

You say, Selection of Multicellular Traits. The evolution of multicellularity requires an increasing role for natural selection among multicellular individuals,

And than because of that quote, you tell us that based on that , whats need is "proof of naturally occuring generation of biological information"

You DID NOT FINISH THE QUOTE.

Let's take a full look




The evolution of multicellularity requires an increasing role for natural selection among multicellular individuals, relative to selection among cells within individuals (1, 3, 15, 17, 27, 28). We investigated the transition between unicellular and multicellular life by studying two emergent traits of multicellular snowflake-phenotype yeast, cluster reproduction, and settling survival.
New clusters can potentially arise by production of either unicellular or multicellular propagules. Examples of both modes of reproduction occur among extant multicellular species, including plants; propagules that develop from a single cell are common among animals (6). We determined the reproductive mode using time-lapse microscopy. Individual clusters were inoculated into 0.5-μL drops of fresh medium and grown overnight. In all cases, daughter clusters (with similar “snowflake” morphology) were produced as multicellular propagules (Fig. 3A and Movie S2). These propagules were released sequentially and not via mass dissolution of the parental cluster. In contrast to the unicellular ancestor, which divides into two daughter cells of similar size, propagules were consistently less than half the size of their parental clusters (Fig. 3B). No propagules were produced by clusters less than a minimal size, demonstrating that the snowflake phenotype exhibits juvenile/adult life stage differentiation



First, the whole statement there, it's a FINDING....

The experiment proved that FINDING, that statement is not "a requirement of Evolution" simply, it is a "a requirement of evolution that this team of scientists both observed, duplicated, discovered mode by which it happened, etc."

I am hoping somebody more studied in this type of biology can explain this better than me. But clearly, the fact that you partial quote and use that as a benchmark, is a true reflection to the lowly depths you go ...



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Confusion42

You say, Selection of Multicellular Traits. The evolution of multicellularity requires an increasing role for natural selection among multicellular individuals,

And than because of that quote, you tell us that based on that , whats need is "proof of naturally occuring generation of biological information"


I'm not sure what your point is. No, it was NOT because of the quote or anything in the article or paper. I say it because it's an integral part of any evolutionary theory.


an evolutionary model accounting for the diversity of life needs to demonstrate how novel exonic regions that code for distinctly different functions can emerge. Natural selection tends to conserve the basic functionality, sequence, and size of genes and, although beneficial and adaptive changes are possible, these serve only to improve or adjust the existing type.


Novel, as in new unique coding sequence that code for new novel proteins for new novel functions. This has been the subject of several experimental tests to find the constraints of Darwinian evolution. And it's not too promising, it's looking quite impossible.



First, the whole statement there, it's a FINDING....

The experiment proved that FINDING, that statement is not "a requirement of Evolution" simply, it is a "a requirement of evolution that this team of scientists both observed, duplicated, discovered mode by which it happened, etc."

I am hoping somebody more studied in this type of biology can explain this better than me. But clearly, the fact that you partial quote and use that as a benchmark, is a true reflection to the lowly depths you go ...


This is useless, you make an assumption which was wrong and then accuse me of dirty tactics based on your interpretation, whatever that is. Again with the strawmen.

The comment was not in relation to anything in the article but a basic tenant of evolutionary theory!

Yes it's a finding, another example of adaption through loss of function, THE RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES SAID IT!

Never did I say that random mutation and natural selection can't accomplish anything. The difficulty is that these adaptions come from mutations that break other functions, this places large limits on what random mutation and natural selection can achieve as in the diversity of life. It's only logical.

Why is that soooo hard to understand? The researchers said it themselves, "THIS IS A LOSS OF FUNCTION NOT A GAIN OF FUNCTION!

Seriously I give up, I constantly have to restate things for people who just don't get it.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

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").




I'd have to read the original source. Maybe you're full of it, or maybe you know what you're talking about.

I can understand that the media often strays from the facts and goes into the realm of sensationalizing. However, I've always seen wired as more credible then that, especially when they'd have to of been explicitly lying on some of the details.

Media spins. Also, ID-ers have a well known tendency to be full of spin too. There's someone mistaking the facts, or outright lying somewhere between you and the media coverage. So, at the least, I'll say you seem to know what you're talking about. I was fairly sure you were criticizing this specific topic, but believed in evolution overall. I got that by seeing how well you seem to know biology, better than any other Intelligent Design proponent I've seen.

You're a person of different views, who can actually discuss your views and sound educated and intelligent on the topic. That's exactly the kind of person I love coming across on sites like these.

~
A personal recommendation; If you're using a more accurate source than the media, the publications of the scientists who did it, or whatever else, you should link sources. You should have saved snippets that showed what you were saying, and ex-texted them as quotes. Instead of only asserting that the media is wrong, and lying, you'd be very convincing if you instead showed it.

Just a suggestion.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

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.


Nice quote mining. Why don't you post the actual article rather than the abstract? Is it perhaps that the article isn't trying to prove what you think it is?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 


Evolution does not rule out God in many religions other than the Abrahamic ones...And mine too!


Cool scientists really playing God now...or how do you explain under "artificial" pressure?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by abeverage
reply to post by Confusion42
 


Evolution does not rule out God in many religions other than the Abrahamic ones...And mine too!


Cool scientists really playing God now...or how do you explain under "artificial" pressure?


Well, first, I didn't mention God, or religion at all.

Evolution has nothing to do with God. It seems the creationists fear that Evolution undermines there understanding of God (the literal Bible version I guess) or something like that. But either way, Evolution is like Gravity, it's there, it's getting better understood over time, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have no problems with the idea of a God or anything. I don't have problems with beliefers. I have problems with people that tell me that I will go to hell because I think the Earth is billions of years old....



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Confusion42

...



an evolutionary model accounting for the diversity of life needs to demonstrate how novel exonic regions that code for distinctly different functions can emerge. Natural selection tends to conserve the basic functionality, sequence, and size of genes and, although beneficial and adaptive changes are possible, these serve only to improve or adjust the existing type.


Novel, as in new unique coding sequence that code for new novel proteins for new novel functions. This has been the subject of several experimental tests to find the constraints of Darwinian evolution. And it's not too promising, it's looking quite impossible.



First, the whole statement there, it's a FINDING....

The experiment proved that FINDING, that statement is not "a requirement of Evolution" simply, it is a "a requirement of evolution that this team of scientists both observed, duplicated, discovered mode by which it happened, etc."

I am hoping somebody more studied in this type of biology can explain this better than me. But clearly, the fact that you partial quote and use that as a benchmark, is a true reflection to the lowly depths you go ...


This is useless, you make an assumption which was wrong and then accuse me of dirty tactics based on your interpretation, whatever that is. Again with the strawmen.

The comment was not in relation to anything in the article but a basic tenant of evolutionary theory!

Yes it's a finding, another example of adaption through loss of function, THE RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES SAID IT!

Never did I say that random mutation and natural selection can't accomplish anything. The difficulty is that these adaptions come from mutations that break other functions, this places large limits on what random mutation and natural selection can achieve as in the diversity of life. It's only logical.

Why is that soooo hard to understand? The researchers said it themselves, "THIS IS A LOSS OF FUNCTION NOT A GAIN OF FUNCTION!

Seriously I give up, I constantly have to restate things for people who just don't get it.



Ok, maybe I have to slow down for you. First, let me, again, point out that you where quoting half of a sentence of the study, and than using than partial quote as a requirement. Second, I will explain that this experiment proves that one celled yeast turned into multi-celled yeast, which is what the experiment proves. You provide some quote, form some un-named source, and say "Hey, that yeast experiment needs to explain this quote," YOU AREN"T ADDRESSING THE EXPERIMENT.

Furthermore, (especially sense you didn't even quote source), that quote *you provided, cannot be trusted because *you also tried to pass off the following misinformation....



You partially quoted your requirement, which you quoted from the study.

You wrote,



The evolution of multicellularity requires an increasing role for natural selection among multicellular individuals,



THIS, WHICH YOU QUOTE FROM THE STUDY, AS PROOF THAT EVOLTUION NEEDS "Natural Selection" (as you define it, in this case), IS INCOMPLETE!!!

You quoted half a sentence, which is a small %, of the full paragraph!!!!!!

First, here's the full and complete sentence.]




The evolution of multicellularity requires an increasing role for natural selection among multicellular individuals, relative to selection among cells within individuals (1, 3, 15, 17, 27, 28).


The full paragraph:



The evolution of multicellularity requires an increasing role for natural selection among multicellular individuals, relative to selection among cells within individuals (1, 3, 15, 17, 27, 28). We investigated the transition between unicellular and multicellular life by studying two emergent traits of multicellular snowflake-phenotype yeast, cluster reproduction, and settling survival. New clusters can potentially arise by production of either unicellular or multicellular propagules. Examples of both modes of reproduction occur among extant multicellular species, including plants; propagules that develop from a single cell are common among animals (6). We determined the reproductive mode using time-lapse microscopy. Individual clusters were inoculated into 0.5-μL drops of fresh medium and grown overnight. In all cases, daughter clusters (with similar “snowflake” morphology) were produced as multicellular propagules (Fig. 3A and Movie S2). These propagules were released sequentially and not via mass dissolution of the parental cluster. In contrast to the unicellular ancestor, which divides into two daughter cells of similar size, propagules were consistently less than half the size of their parental clusters (Fig. 3B). No propagules were produced by clusters less than a minimal size, demonstrating that the snowflake phenotype exhibits juvenile/adult life stage differentiation


Please, now, address...

edit on 25-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Firepac

Originally posted by squiz

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.


Nice quote mining. Why don't you post the actual article rather than the abstract? Is it perhaps that the article isn't trying to prove what you think it is?


Thank you, Firepac, for making the same amount I was trying to regarding his "Quote Mining"



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
And yet you still haven't explain how gene duplication and point mutations don't create new information.

they don't actually create new information, just duplication of what is already there. btw, gene duplication is incredibly rare as are beneficial mutations. too rare to allow humans to evolve. current mutation rates would require every female to have 40 kids before one of them (statistically) will be born without any deleterious mutations. evolution does not have an answer for this.


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?

cells don't have an unlimited amount of genetic information. therefore, how that information began, and how much of it was created, is paramount to evolution. at any rate, evolutionists failing to address how abiogenesis occurred hurts the credibility of evolution. it would be like a physicist explaining the expansion of the universe without addressing what caused the expansion to happen in the first place. if you had a valid answer as to how abiogenesis can occur, you'd give it.


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

err...yes. why wouldn't you believe it? the two things that make me happiest in life are music and physics. most humans are shallow, stupid, and lack the ability to form their own ideas. personally i fail to understand why anyone would want to be popular and social.


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.

there's general relativity (primarily a theory of gravity), a theory that involves a small particle called a "graviton", some believe gravity originates from a certain frequency of strings in super-string theory, the higgs boson, and newtonian physics addresses gravity. GR addresses where gravity comes from, the graviton theory does, string theory does, the higgs boson does, and newton believes it is an inherent property of mass.
general relativity holds that mass bends spacetime (it does), and this curvature is what causes gravitational effects. those who believe the graviton exists believe that the graviton causes the force of gravity. some string theorists think that specific frequencies vibrating the filaments of energy are responsible for gravity. the higgs boson theory holds that gravity isn't an attractive force between masses, but a sort of pressure.
but lets not get sidetracked.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Firepac
 

here are two great papers explaining why evolution cannot occur because the mutation rates are too high. they both come to the same conclusion.


The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U [detrimental mutation rate] would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction [like humans and apes etc.] . . . The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e -U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size.

www.detectingdesign.com...


Widely recognized geneticist James Crow in an article in the same Nature issue agrees that the deleterious rate is more likely twice the rate cited by Eyre-Walker and Keightley8. So if we use Crow's revised rate of U=3, we get: B = 2e^3 = 40 births before we get one offspring that escapes a new defect!

evolutionfairytale.com...

it's over for evolution. human females do not produce 40 children (and 39 would have to die off). there is no way around that.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 



Actually so we are clear here. I believe in God and in Evolution. It is a natural process, and anyone who cannot see this elgance is blind. When I first learned that with the chaotic nature of a fractal, existed order...I started to understand God and how only a creator would be so clever, and how most humans are too stupd to see this. The Universe is complex, chaotic but with order and Billions of years old, all one has to do is look up to understand this.

So when they say "spontaneous" but with an outside force this just confirms my belief.
edit on 26-1-2012 by abeverage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
2 great papers? Those are biased creationist websites clearly using deception to connect dots which shouldn't be connected. I'll get more in depth later, but seriously, look at what you are quoting. Read the actual studies. None of them dispute evolution at all.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



2 great papers? Those are biased creationist websites clearly using deception to connect dots which shouldn't be connected. I'll get more in depth later, but seriously, look at what you are quoting. Read the actual studies.

i read them both, and i read the papers they cited (the numbers given in the papers come from research done by evolutionists). there is evidence of bias being exhibited by the evolutionist papers, but i guess you don't consider it bias if it supports your faith.

i'm holding you to this. cite some scholarly sources that debunk the rate of mutations and the 1/40 odds of a child being born without new harmful mutations or admit evolution is a farce.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz

they don't actually create new information, just duplication of what is already there.


Yeah and when point mutation occurs on that "duplicated information" you now have new information. I wonder why you conveniently left that out.



Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
btw, gene duplication is incredibly rare as are beneficial mutations. too rare to allow humans to evolve.


First you say that beneficial mutations are impossible now it's too rare to allow humans to evolve? The talking snake cultists can't even get their lies straight.


Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
cells don't have an unlimited amount of genetic information. therefore, how that information began, and how much of it was created, is paramount to evolution. at any rate, evolutionists failing to address how abiogenesis occurred hurts the credibility of evolution. it would be like a physicist explaining the expansion of the universe without addressing what caused the expansion to happen in the first place. if you had a valid answer as to how abiogenesis can occur, you'd give it.


That doesn't answer my question at all, not even a little bit. You obviously have a reading comprehesion problem so let me requote my question again:

"God placed the first cell on earth. How does that disprove evolution?"


Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
there's general relativity (primarily a theory of gravity), a theory that involves a small particle called a "graviton",


Graviton???? WTF!?!?!?!?!? Can you please show me where in general relativity does it mention gravitons? Your lack of understanding of physics is pretty astounding. A 5 year old would've known this.


Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
err...yes. why wouldn't you believe it?


Because you think gravitons are a prediction of general relativity lol. Anymore jokes you want to tell us Einstein?


Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
most humans are shallow, stupid, and lack the ability to form their own ideas.


The existence of creationists confirms that statement. You actually got something right for once. Good job!
edit on 26-1-2012 by Firepac because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Yeah and when point mutation occurs on that "duplicated information" you now have new information. I wonder why you conveniently left that out.

lets say you have a 1500 word research paper. it is a very well worded paper. now, i come along and change a few letters around randomly. what are the odds it will make the paper better? very remote. if you did this on every paper you would fail school. i've already given evidence on deleterious mutation rates that no one has been able to counter.


First you say that beneficial mutations are impossible now it's too rare to allow humans to evolve? The talking snake cultists can't even get their lies straight.

i never said beneficial mutations are impossible, though beneficial mutations that result from information being added are even more rare. it is the fabled mechanism behind evolution, but it doesn't occur often enough compared to deleterious mutations.


"God placed the first cell on earth. How does that disprove evolution?"

you claimed life arose from abiogenesis without any evidence to support this at all. however, no, god placing the first cell doesn't necessarily disprove evolution, but mutation rates do a fine job. you claimed that how life began has no bearing on what that life does. that is incorrect.


Graviton???? WTF!?!?!?!?!? Can you please show me where in general relativity does it mention gravitons? Your lack of understanding of physics is pretty astounding. A 5 year old would've known this.

it doesn't. the graviton is a separate theory. i was listing them out and separating them by commas "general relativity, graviton, etc..." sorry if that wasn't more clear, on reading through it again i see how you could have made that mistake.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i read them both, and i read the papers they cited (the numbers given in the papers come from research done by evolutionists). there is evidence of bias being exhibited by the evolutionist papers, but i guess you don't consider it bias if it supports your faith.

What faith? Everything I'm talking about is backed by evidence, much like this experiment. None of the actual studies mentions anything about being contradictory to evolution. This was ONLY said on the biased sites you sourced. It is a silly opinion based on a poor interpretation of a science experiment. The formula lacks verification.


i'm holding you to this. cite some scholarly sources that debunk the rate of mutations and the 1/40 odds of a child being born without new harmful mutations or admit evolution is a farce.

Ha. Even if I couldn't cite sources that debunk the mutation rate, it has nothing to do with evolution or the multicellularity experiment. Give me a couple hours and I'll give you numerous faulty examples from your websites. In the mean time could you please demonstrate how this proves evolution wrong? Humans have a higher mutation rate than chimps. Ok, that proves.... what?



edit on 26-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
lets say you have a 1500 word research paper. it is a very well worded paper. now, i come along and change a few letters around randomly. what are the odds it will make the paper better? very remote.


If you first duplicated (gene duplication) the words then changed the duplicated words randomly (point mutation) AND if there was some kind of selective pressure (natural/artificial selection) that eliminated the words that were bad then yes over a long period of time it would make the paper better. You forgot about that part didn't you?

Here's an example:

Consider the gene sequence gactactt. Let's say the last part of the sequence actt gets duplicated and now you have gactacttactt. Now let's say 2 point mutations occur and now you have gactacttagtg. The "agtg" is NEW information.


Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
you claimed life arose from abiogenesis without any evidence to support this at all. however, no, god placing the first cell doesn't necessarily disprove evolution, but mutation rates do a fine job. you claimed that how life began has no bearing on what that life does. that is incorrect.


I never claimed anything about abiogenesis. It's simply the current scientific hypothesis that explains the origin of life. Note the word hypothesis. Is abiogensis the correct explanation for the origin of life? I don't know. Did god place the first living cell on earth? I don't know. Did space aliens or the flying spaghetti monster from the 10th dimension palce the first living cell on earth? I don't know. All I know is that once the first cell got here it evolved. How life got here has no bearing on how it evolved.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join