From single cells to multicellular life: Researchers capture the emergence of multicellular life in

a reply to: guitarplayer

In the same way that setting up the conditions for fire in a lab means that fire should be called Intelligent Burning. Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.

a reply to: guitarplayer

Unless you know how much a role those scientists had and how much of it was just the natural process of evolution, you can't really make that claim.

a reply to: GetHyped

still had human help it did not evolve by itself no mater what you all say.

a reply to: Sabiduria

Here we describe an experiment in which simple cooperating lineages of bacteria were propagated under a selective regime that rewarded collective-level persistence. Collectives reproduced via life cycles that either embraced, or purged, cheating types. When embraced, the life cycle alternated between phenotypic states. Selection fostered inception of a developmental switch that underpinned the emergence of collectives whose fitness, during the course of evolution, became decoupled from the fitness of constituent cells. Such development and decoupling did not occur when groups reproduced via a cheat-purging regime. Our findings capture key events in the evolution of Darwinian individuality during the transition from single cells to multicellularity.

www.nature.com...

If we can set up the environment for this to take place, it explains what sort of environment was present when multicellular life first arose.

a reply to: guitarplayer

Well obviously, it was a human experiment, after all. "Human help" for fire would be placing flammable material near a heat source. Does that mean that this is Intelligent Burning? Creationists are REALLY reaching with their denial, here.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: guitarplayer

Well obviously, it was a human experiment, after all. "Human help" for fire would be placing flammable material near a heat source. Does that mean that this is Intelligent Burning? Creationists are REALLY reaching with their denial, here.

Fire is entirely different than life, fire can start from a lightening strike have you ever seen life start from a lightening strike? So your fire analogue is just a straw man.

a reply to: guitarplayer

Unless you were there to observe it when it happened naturally in nature, you can't say for sure that it was intelligent design or not.

originally posted by: Sabiduria
a reply to: guitarplayer

Unless you were there to observe it when it happened naturally in nature, you can't say for sure that it was intelligent design or not.

Please explain to me the Cambrian explosion. Brand new species without any prior evolution. Where did all the new information come from to create new species? It was not evolution so what was it?

a reply to: guitarplayer

As I've never heard of the Cambrian Explosion, I'll have to look it up and try to explain it to you.

The term “explosion” may be a bit of a misnomer. Cambrian life did not evolve in the blink of an eye. The Cambrian was preceded by many millions of years of evolution, and many of the animal phyla actually diverged during the Precambrian.

The animals of the Cambrian did not appear out of thin air. Animal fossils from before the Cambrian have been found. Roughly 575 million years ago, a strange group of animals known as Ediacarans lived in the oceans. Although, we don’t know much about the Ediacarans, the group may have included ancestors of the lineages that we identify from the Cambrian explosion.

Evolution 101: Cambrian Explosion

Looks like it was an evolutionary event.

Just because a species who has never previously evolved before suddenly experiences evolution, doesn't mean that is a sign of intelligent design. People generally argue that evolution happens due to the need to survive, whether it's a longer beak/snout to get at food or a change in overall body size due to lack of food being available.

a reply to: Sabiduria

The Cambrian Explosion, as well as other evolutionary explosions after various extinction events, has to do with punctuated equilibrium. Basically it's where evolution will essentially speed up to fill many niches then slow down as those niches are rounded out. Though keep in mind, we are still talking about millions of years here.

a reply to: Sabiduria

It s a bit of the reverse - rather than evolving because of a "need" it's more of a case of the creature that was unlucky enough to be the "big nosed" animal in it's herd as a result of a random mutation could actually get better access to food, so was more likely to procreate, therefore passing on the genes. That random mutation could just as likely result in a feature that was detrimental too, causing it to die off or at least be less competitive.

a reply to: stumason

Yes some of the evolutionary changes were accidental but some of it is out of need to survive. Look at species that have their climate suddenly change on them, they have to evolve to survive.

a reply to: Sabiduria

All evolutionary change is accidental. It is pure random mutations that, if they happen to offer an advantage in the given environment, lead to a successful organism. As the environment changes (be it climatic or as a result of other organisms evolving themselves) those same mutations could then be detrimental. It's a constant, ongoing process but entirely random.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you for adding more information.

I like the simplicity of the website I used, Evolution 101. Keeping it simple is what is needed with some people in order to best understand a new concept.

a reply to: stumason

Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but. Natural selection favours mutations that provide some advantage (see Evolution promotes the survival of species), and the physical world imposes very strict limits on what works and what doesn't. The result is that organisms evolve in particular directions.

Evolution myths: Evolution is random

Moreover, random mutations have been observed that do improve the adaptiveness of the organism under certain conditions. From these observations, evolutionists have (unjustifiably) extrapolated to say that random mutations and natural selection can account for the development of life.

However, on both theoretical and experimental grounds, the broad sweep of evolution cannot be based on random mutations. On theoretical grounds, the probability is just too small for random mutations, even with the filtering of natural selections, to lead to a new species.

On experimental grounds, there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. This may seem surprising at first, but a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists shows that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it.

One of the examples where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

Clearly, if random mutations could account for the evolution of life, then those mutations must have added a vast amount of information to the genetic code. From the time of the first simple organism until the present profusion of life, billions of genetic changes would have to be built up by a long series of accumulated mutations and natural selection. It follows that each of these many billions of mutations must have added information. Yet in spite of all the molecular studies that have been done on mutations, not a single one has been found that adds any genetic information! They all lose information!

Not By Chance - Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

In the new study, the researchers looked at all of the DNA sequences under positive selection (or those that help an organism adapt to its environment), to see whether they were near a repeated sequence. They found that 97 percent of the sites were.

To find out if other DNA sequences that don't undergo positive selection also mutate in this way, Garvin identified all of the repeated sequences in the DNA of the species studied. He found that 60 percent of all mutating sites were next to a repeat.

"So in the end, most mutation is not random, at least for the DNA sequences we analyzed here," Garvin said. Rather, it is a combination of two opposing forces — the mis-pairing during DNA replication and the need to preserve a protein's function, Garvin said.

The findings could explain why evolution occurs much faster than if mutations were, in fact, totally random, the researchers said. The repeated sequences may also be necessary for evolution, they said.

For example, genetic diversity at these DNA sites could help species adapt to changes in the availability of food and other resources that can result from climate change, Garvin said. So these repeat sequences could be used as a predictor for how a population will respond to environmental changes

Evolution Is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally)

a reply to: Sabiduria

I think I'll stick to what biologists say (not a Jewish Physicist who is a self confessed creationist, inspired by the Talmud) - And I thought you were on the side of science and reason, not the Bible...

Genetic mutations are random events. If that mutation confers an advantage, then the organism is more likely to survive and breed. If not, it will be less likely to survive and pass on it's genes.

a reply to: stumason

I pulled articles from google. I don't spend time reading articles on evolution because it is something I have always known exists and can see the evidence for it in real life. Therefore I would also know nothing about any of the authors on any side of the debate. ((Well minus Bill Nye))

I'm guessing when you are referring to the creationist, you are referring to the first article and not the second one. Care to tell me what is wrong with the second article?

How about this article from Berkley?

At the opposite end of the scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!

Misconceptions about natural selection

originally posted by: guitarplayer

originally posted by: Sabiduria
a reply to: guitarplayer

Unless you were there to observe it when it happened naturally in nature, you can't say for sure that it was intelligent design or not.

Please explain to me the Cambrian explosion. Brand new species without any prior evolution. Where did all the new information come from to create new species? It was not evolution so what was it?

To state that there was no prior evolution regarding the CE is rather disingenuous at best. Your final statement that it was in fact NOT evolution is just dishonest and plain ignorant to biology in general and paleo biology and geology in particular.

Its certAnly true that we don't have all the answers fit now bt multiple disciplines are currently engaged in solving the problem and filling in the blanks and the 'god of the gaps' argument is just plain lazy for those who insist on or even propose it seriously.

There are certain things we do know for certain however, such as the CE wasn't really an explosion in human terms, geologically...perhaps. It did take place over a period of roughly 30 million years though so it certainly wasnt an overnight changing of the guard. Something I believe is a major factor takes into account what is called "The Great Unconformity". What this is, is a big chunk of the geological record that is unaccounted for. While this aspect of the hypothesis needs further testing, it makes far more sense than some magical sky deity wishing everything into existence. Of that there is no argument amongst scientists, and some of those are religious people but I digress... Essentially, this missing geologic strata would have been heavily eroded allowing minerals from that strata to enter and mix with the waters of the worlds ocean. One of the major results of this new mineralization of the waters is that it led to the multitude of simple organisms to cross the threshold to bio-mineralization. this is why we see more complex structures and the incorporation of these mineralized elements into hard parts, bones, exoskeletons, teeth, sea shells which provided additional support and larger body sizes... You get the idea. This compounded with an influx of O2 made more complex life sustainable in the long term.

Des this help you with the acquisition of "new information" as you call it? Believe it or to, its your choice but this is indeed evolution.

a reply to: Sabiduria

Ah, I see, you've totally misunderstood what I said. I thought I was clear as this new article says exactly what I said.

Perhaps it would help if you did read those articles 😉

a reply to: guitarplayer

It's exactly the same. You're claiming that because humans set up the initial laboratory conditions that this is "intelligent design". I guess that's because you creationists really have no valid argument against it so you have to clasp at straws.