Evolution of multicellularity observed.

[xianghua]

Whatever experiment of evolution observed in the lab does not happen in the nature. The connection is a hoax.

its not evolution since the algea didnt evolvle any complex new system. even the paper admit it:

""The ability of wild-type C. reinhardtii to form palmelloids suggests that the founding population in our experiment already possessed a toolkit for producing multicellular structures"

also remember that even animals can form a group if they want. but we agree that this isnt evolution.

 

[xianghua]

It doesn't matter. Evolution happened.

and the evidence for that is?...

 

[Romans 8]

I didn't mention life being "created out of nothing". I asked a question. Can you answer it?
----------------------------
Here's a thought experiment - I'll list three origins for life on earth. You tell me how, if at all, they would effect evolution.
1. abiogenesis
2. panspermia
3. creation by God

My knowledge of biology does not weaken my case. I don't need to be a mechanic to know that a car requires gasoline to run.
If life was able to create spontaneously from inorganic matter then we would see evidence of it today. This is impossible in science and has brought many to God.

 

[tas8831]

its not evolution since the algea didnt evolvle any complex new system. even the paper admit it:

""The ability of wild-type C. reinhardtii to form palmelloids suggests that the founding population in our experiment already possessed a toolkit for producing multicellular structures"

also remember that even animals can form a group if they want. but we agree that this isnt evolution.

Very next sentence:

"However, while the palmelloid condition is expressed facultatively in wild-type C. reinhardtii, the strains that evolved in our experiment are obligately multicellular. Like palmelloids, our evolved multicellular isolates lack motility, suggesting that the ability to express both unicellular and multicellular phenotypes may be optimal when predation pressure varies over time31."​

Hooray for yet another example of the failure of creationist argument-via-out-of-conext-quote.

 

[tas8831]

and the evidence for that is?...

Robot penguin's comparison of cars.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I think it should not happen as observed.

Since you have decided what the answer should be, you are not in a good position to impartially examine the evidence.

That is what I said, if one said it happened, he is lying.

It is easier for you to dismiss someone as a liar than to accept an observation. This is sad.

The real situation has not been confirmed YET. That is good enough to conclude that it did not happen and will not happen.

If another scientific team carried out a replication of this experiment, and it succeeded, you would just accuse them of lying as well.

We, as each individual, can not wait for thousand years to make up our mind.

No, but we have the benefit of learning from the hundreds of years of others who have already worked hard to answer these questions. The answer has been clear for more than a century. The theory of evolution is the best explanation for many facts of biology.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You better ask me some linguistic questions. So I still can learn some.

It's refreshing that you recognise one area in which you lack expertise.

Science and religion are not your thing.

And yet I am better versed in both than you. Perhaps you should stick to what you know something about. Macrame, perhaps?

 

[USincognito]

My knowledge of biology does not weaken my case. I don't need to be a mechanic to know that a car requires gasoline to run.
If life was able to create spontaneously from inorganic matter then we would see evidence of it today. This is impossible in science and has brought many to God.

You're still not answering my question.

Here's a thought experiment - I'll list three origins for life on earth. You tell me how, if at all, they would effect evolution.
1. abiogenesis
2. panspermia
3. creation by God

 

[Speedwell]

My knowledge of biology does not weaken my case. I don't need to be a mechanic to know that a car requires gasoline to run.
If life was able to create spontaneously from inorganic matter then we would see evidence of it today. This is impossible in science and has brought many to God.

What would that evidence look like? How would you rule out the possibility that God used spontaneous creation from inorganic matter to bring about life?

 

[Romans 8]

What would that evidence look like? How would you rule out the possibility that God used spontaneous creation from inorganic matter to bring about life?

Spontaneous creation? That's simply the best term I've ever heard to argue evolution's biggest dilemma

I could use some of that "spontaneous creation" you're talking about so I can attempt to build the perfect woman

 

[Speedwell]

Spontaneous creation? That's simply the best term I've ever heard to argue evolution's biggest dilemma

I could use some of that "spontaneous creation" you're talking about so I can attempt to build the perfect woman

You were the one who brought the term into the discussion:

"If life was able to create spontaneously from inorganic matter then we would see evidence of it today."

And I noticed that you avoided my question as well.

 

[Romans 8]

You were the one who brought the term into the discussion:

"If life was able to create spontaneously from inorganic matter then we would see evidence of it today."

And I noticed that you avoided my question as well.

I used the words same words in my sentence but you inferred an actual term. There's a difference.

My brain is starting to hurt from reading these posts, I fear I'm losing IQ points from exposure to this thread. I'll just leave it to the "experts".

 

[HitchSlap]

I used the words same words in my sentence but you inferred an actual term. There's a difference.

My brain is starting to hurt from reading these posts, I fear I'm losing IQ points from exposure to this thread. I'll just leave it to the "experts".

You might consider bumping your IQ by boning up on Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[xianghua]

Very next sentence:

"However, while the palmelloid condition is expressed facultatively in wild-type C. reinhardtii, the strains that evolved in our experiment are obligately multicellular. Like palmelloids, our evolved multicellular isolates lack motility, suggesting that the ability to express both unicellular and multicellular phenotypes may be optimal when predation pressure varies over time31."​

Hooray for yet another example of the failure of creationist argument-via-out-of-conext-quote.

if they already had the genes for this conversion then what is new here?

 

[Astrophile]

Even today we cannot simply make dna from nothing.

Obviously we can't make DNA, or anything else, from nothing. However, chemists can make DNA from simpler organic compounds, and simple organic compounds are very common; for example, they have been found in interstellar clouds, comets and meteorites.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The lab set up will not be observed in nature.

It's as close best as it can get.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you were the judge, that would be way more than enough.

Not at all. I would rather to have the truth from you than loads of little bits of evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

its not evolution since the algea didnt evolvle any complex new system. even the paper admit it:

""The ability of wild-type C. reinhardtii to form palmelloids suggests that the founding population in our experiment already possessed a toolkit for producing multicellular structures"

also remember that even animals can form a group if they want. but we agree that this isnt evolution.

Thank. I know nothing about algae.

 

[juvenissun]

If another scientific team carried out a replication of this experiment, and it succeeded, you would just accuse them of lying as well.

No, but we have the benefit of learning from the hundreds of years of others who have already worked hard to answer these questions. The answer has been clear for more than a century. The theory of evolution is the best explanation for many facts of biology.

Evolution does not give the best explanation. It only gives the closest scientific explanation. You should tell this important differences. Since it is sort of scientific, so laboratory repetition is a must have quality, and should not be surprised. I am not a biologist, but I know nearly ALL biology lab simulations probably won't work in natural condition (I know geology, and it is in the same situation). Just one lab test in one article, Hmm... negligible.

 

[juvenissun]

Not at all. I would rather to have the truth from you than loads of little bits of evidence.

Ha ha, then you have to listen to the reading of Bible. There is no option.