|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
One of the long standing, great mysteries of evolution may have recently been demystified. Quote:More than 500 million years ago, single-celled organisms on Earth's surface began forming multi-cellular clusters that ultimately became plants and animals. Just how that happened is a question that has eluded evolutionary biologists. Now scientists have replicated that key step in the laboratory using common Brewer's yeast, a single-celled organism.(PhysOrg.com) Scientists replicate key evolutionary step in life on earthWhat surprised scientists according to the article was that the tranistion to the first types of multicellular life was far simpler than they had thought. I'm thinking that is due to not suspecting multicellular life could be so simply organized.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 755
Points: 2,264
Location: United States
|
Amazing how simple everything is once understood. Occam's Razor strikes again.
A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 1/6/2010
Posts: 917
Points: 2,690
Location: United States
|
And this explains evolution how.......?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 2,370
Points: 7,185
Location: New Hampshire, United States
|
mailady wrote:And this explains evolution how.......? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that Mailady, it does not at all explain evolution, it merely demonstrates how it is possible to proceed from single cell organisms to multicellular in a single evolutionary step.
Question authority, before it questions you. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 1,004
Points: 1,909
Location: United Kingdom
|
A baby starts as a single cell and grows. Evolution is unproven...the multiplicity of theories do not hold water. All that has been done... if we are to believe it... is that under laboratory conditions a so called discovery was made.
One has only to take the interdependency of the fully formed organs of the human body to refute gradual evolution over millions, nay billions of years. Evolution is a joke.... a con.
There are so many conflicting theories as to how life supposedly developed of itself. Why some even posit the theory that life was seeded from outer space! Then others say there was this 'soup'...they do not say where it came from... that gave forth life from non-life.
All the organs of the body are in an irreducible form for them to function and perform their role.
I would hate to live a life without hope... and am glad that my studies have led me to believe in a creator who has purpose.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 1,086
Points: 3,136
Location: Canada
|
PPS ,
I thought this was a science, not religious, thread. There is a saying - 'Methinks thou dost protest too much'. However,
you are free to have your own beliefs, as far as I am concerned.
I may disagree with several of your assertions but I would NEVER call someone else's beliefs a con or a joke.
And evolution does not preclude a God.
PS
I realize the egg and sperm cease to exist individually as they unite to form a zygote. But it seems to me that at the VERY beginning, 'it takes two to tango'.
Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Bernard M. Baruch 1870-1965
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/1/2011
Posts: 1,004
Points: 1,909
Location: United Kingdom
|
You are also entitled to your view Hope. My post was not a religious thread... read it again if you will. There was one line about my belief... that is all. Like it or lump it evolution is largely an atheistic idea which is completely improvable and seeks to deny God.
There is no proof that life started as a single cell organism and 'learned' to expand on that.
The marvel of the human cell is that as it divides and multiplies to form a human, each cell contains the complete instructions for the future life and yet each is somehow differentiated to go on to form a specific part of the body. A single cell is far more complex than any computer and yet we are supposed to believe that whereas a computer cannot invent itself,or program itself, life did... now that is a joke.
One poster even suggested that all babies are born atheists... that's how far closed thinking gets you. It leads to statements of the ridiculous.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 1,086
Points: 3,136
Location: Canada
|
Quote: that's how far closed thinking gets you. It leads to statements of the ridiculous.
On this point we most definitely agree.
Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Bernard M. Baruch 1870-1965
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 1,086
Points: 3,136
Location: Canada
|
This could be an exciting discovery for medicine. Let's hope.
Quote from above website:
The next steps will be to look at the role of multi-cellularity in cancer, aging and other critical areas of biology.
"Multi-cellular yeast is a valuable resource for investigating a wide variety of medically and biologically important topics," Travisano says.
"Cancer was recently described as a fossil from the origin of multi-cellularity, which can be directly investigated with the yeast system.
"Similarly the origins of aging, development and the evolution of complex morphologies are open to direct experimental investigation that would otherwise be difficult or impossible."
Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Bernard M. Baruch 1870-1965
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 481
Points: 1,452
Location: United Kingdom
|
It's certainly an interesting experiment... but my gut feeling is that they have been too quick to draw those conclusions. It's my understanding that yeast has a multicellular ancestor, it's not clear, at least from that article, whether they have rule out simple selection of a recessive trait. That would be my guess, although it would be only a guess. Besides, Carl Sagan has emphatically confirmed the existence of an intelligent designer... so the rest must be a load of old phooey. Epiphileon wrote:mailady wrote:And this explains evolution how.......? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that Mailady, it does not at all explain evolution, it merely demonstrates how it is possible to proceed from single cell organisms to multicellular in a single evolutionary step. Actually it explains evolution rather well;as you say, either way it shows change in genetic traits, albeit in it's simplest form. Given the time scales – billions of years compared to 60 days – it still a remarkable observation. percivalpecksniff wrote:All the organs of the body are in an irreducible form for them to function and perform their role. That's a rather grand (but utterly predictable) assertion, Peter. Even creationist golden boy Michael Behe limited himself to considerably less – though equally and demonstrably wrong – but then Behe also admits: Behe wrote:"there are no peer reviewed articles by an yone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" percivalpecksniff wrote:I would hate to live a life without hope... You're welcome to your hope, Peter, but that has no bearing on the truth. percivalpecksniff wrote:Like it or lump it evolution is largely an atheistic idea which is completely improvable and seeks to deny God. Including Sagan unless you think it makes another point, right? 
Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to it's flock to claim victory.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 481
Points: 1,452
Location: United Kingdom
|
It seems the recessive gene issue has been raised and then addressed, by Ratcliff, here.…it'll be thrashed out to a decent consensus no doubt, as is the method. Thanks for the link, worth keeping an eye on.
Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to it's flock to claim victory.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/21/2009
Posts: 1,449
Points: 4,342
Location: Pakistan
|
Science is a world of possibilities. "God doesn't exist" can never be a statement from a scientific mind. So as, "evolution never happened" can never be one's creed who beleive in a CREATOR.
*It's wonderful to know that all languages are Greek if not understood.*
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/31/2011
Posts: 1,086
Points: 3,136
Location: Canada
|
Jeech wrote:Science is a world of possibilities. "God doesn't exist" can never be a statement from a scientific mind. So as, "evolution never happened" can never be one's creed who beleive in a CREATOR. Well said, Jeech. We will all find out sooner or later. Hopefully later.
Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Bernard M. Baruch 1870-1965
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/22/2011
Posts: 1,101
Points: 3,045
Location: Japan
|
Jeech wrote:Science is a world of possibilities. "God doesn't exist" can never be a statement from a scientific mind. So as, "evolution never happened" can never be one's creed who beleive in a CREATOR. Are there any scientific researches to find out God's existence as if they are expecting deus ex machina? Of course scientists also would think about God, Creator, Alien, etc. at home, when for example they are drinking.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 481
Points: 1,452
Location: United Kingdom
|
Jeech wrote:Science is a world of possibilities. "God doesn't exist" can never be a statement from a scientific mind. You're correct, the scientific mind is (at least in theory) always open to the possibility however remote of some deistic god or gods, but then the same can be said for Russell's teapots or invisible pink unicorns. And likewise, without evidence on which to base any hypothesis, it's something of a moot point. However the scientific mind can and does make statements regarding specific claims for specific gods. Gods once drew the sun across the sky in a winged chariot; science tells us those gods do not in fact exist. Reason tells every one of us, non theist and theist alike, that these gods do not exist. The same can be said for any creation myth past and present. Any scientific discipline you care to pick, from genetics to geobiology, renders creationism as ridiculous as the idea of sun chariots. Evolution as fact and theory is as proven as gravity. Jeech wrote:So as, "evolution never happened" can never be one's creed who beleive in a CREATOR. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but "evolution never happened" is a central tenet of creationism, which is why the majority of people (including most theists) reject it – apart from in a few 'special case' countries such as Turkey, USA, Cyprus and Latvia where it still persists to any degree. The problem comes from creationist wanting the credibility of science without the tiresome adherence to the empirical.
Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to it's flock to claim victory.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/21/2009
Posts: 1,449
Points: 4,342
Location: Pakistan
|
will wrote:Jeech wrote:Science is a world of possibilities. "God doesn't exist" can never be a statement from a scientific mind. You're correct, the scientific mind is (at least in theory) always open to the possibility however remote of some deistic god or gods, but then the same can be said for Russell's teapots or invisible pink unicorns. And likewise, without evidence on which to base any hypothesis, it's something of a moot point. However the scientific mind can and does make statements regarding specific claims for specific gods. Gods once drew the sun across the sky in a winged chariot; science tells us those gods do not in fact exist. Reason tells every one of us, non theist and theist alike, that these gods do not exist. The same can be said for any creation myth past and present. Any scientific discipline you care to pick, from genetics to geobiology, renders creationism as ridiculous as the idea of sun chariots. Evolution as fact and theory is as proven as gravity. Jeech wrote:So as, "evolution never happened" can never be one's creed who beleive in a CREATOR. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but "evolution never happened" is a central tenet of creationism, which is why the majority of people (including most theists) reject it – apart from in a few 'special case' countries such as Turkey, USA, Cyprus and Latvia where it still persists to any degree. The problem comes from creationist wanting the credibility of science without the tiresome adherence to the empirical. There are certain beleifs in almost all the religions; to make certain differnsiation from other religions. Athism has it's own. The creed 'possibility' may be a flexible common creed for all sort of religions. Science may a big part of Atheism but like other religions Atheists too keep their unshakable beleifs dearsome and would fear with the scientific possibilies to avoid their beleifs shaking. I have noticed of you, will, that the power of the sharp edged logical dagger of yours is more fierce for you than for those who are stabed of it. I love to inform you that the ability of yours is too loud that it mutes all the voices those ever wanted to meet you. I submit to the power of yours, and rely on your mercy. :-)
*It's wonderful to know that all languages are Greek if not understood. *
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 19,902
Points: 59,712
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Jeech,
atheism is not a religion.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/21/2009
Posts: 1,449
Points: 4,342
Location: Pakistan
|
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:Jeech,
atheism is not a religion.
Since human brain functions on a unique thinking pattern, every beleif system fall into the frame of religion. You didn't notice Atheism collapses with the beleif in the possibility of god/gods/godess. Just like Christianity collapses without the Crusification of Jesus, and Islam and Judaism collapses without oneness of God. So avoiding the scientific possibility of divine being is the main friction in Atheism. Thus, it makes it a beleif system just like other the religions. A creationist may beleive in evolution as the scientific possibility of god's plan but Atheism can't risk such possibilities. :-)
*It's wonderful to know that all languages are Greek if not understood. *
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 755
Points: 2,264
Location: United States
|
Nudge, nudge: 
A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 481
Points: 1,452
Location: United Kingdom
|
I guess my Teapot analogy was missed.
...and I never did find the time to read the details of this experiment, which is why I regretfully find myself behind a desk rather than a microscope.
Arguing with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It'll knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and fly back to it's flock to claim victory.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,111
Points: 6,340
Location: United States, FL
|
Jeech wrote:Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:Jeech,
atheism is not a religion.
Since human brain functions on a unique thinking pattern, every beleif system fall into the frame of religion. The "Philosophy and Religion" subforum is thataway -----> Within the context of the "Science and Technology" subforum, your statement isn't even wrong.  There is zero evidence to support your statement, and great deal that falsifies it.
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 2,111
Points: 6,340
Location: United States, FL
|
will wrote:I guess my Teapot analogy was missed. FSM forfend! 
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/21/2009
Posts: 1,449
Points: 4,342
Location: Pakistan
|
Nothing to confront, offend, defend or forfend.
If we really are able to create cells though simpler, it's really a big leap. One thing we the creationists are implicitly told is that man is able to create life from dead.
But is it really a catastrophic event to the 'old tribe?'
*It's wonderful to know that all languages are Greek if not understood.*
|
|
|
Guest |