Some things I just don't think most of you understand...

driewerf · Aug 2, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
You are framing your challenge as if evolution (advanced complexity) is true. I don't accept that. I believe organisms can maintain themselves in good condition if all their needs are met, but not become more complex.

Then you are wrong.
Sientists subjected a yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae to certain conditions in which multicellularity would be an advantage. And indeed, the yeast went from unicellular to multicellular.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595.full.pdf+html

The multicellular clusters are uniclonal, minimizing within-cluster genetic conflicts of interest. Simple among-cell division of labor rapidly evolved. Early multicellular strains were composed of physiologically similar cells, but these subsequently evolved higher rates of programmed cell death (apoptosis), an adaptation that increases propagule production. These results show that key aspects of multicellular complexity, a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from unicellular eukaryotes

This is not "speculation" or "guessing", or "opinion" or any other qualification by which creationists wave away evidence they don't like.
This has been observed, during experiments in a lab, and it shows that unicellular can evolve into multicellular organism, including cell division and controlled cell death.

Here another example, with another organism:
http://pleiotropy.fieldofscience.com/2008/11/watching-multicellularity-evolve-before.html

Very soon (about 10 days) after the introduction of the flagellate predator, Chlorella colonies started to form. These initially consisted of aggregates of tens to hundreds on Chlorella cells, adhering to each other. Their sheer size prevented the predator from eating them, and thus the multicellular Chlorella was fitter than the unicellular ones, and as a result the unicellular Chlorella all but disappeared. Multicellularity had evolved right before the lucky scientists' eyes.

When Boraas et al. removed the predator from the environment, Chlorella colonies continued to make multicellular offspring.

driewerf · Aug 2, 2015

driewerf · Aug 2, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
I'm trying to help Phred understand that some of us just don't buy it no matter how much 'proof' is presented.

So the truth doesn't matter to you.
Now, if I can't trust you in matters of truth, how can I trust you in matters of Truth?

OldWiseGuy · Aug 2, 2015

driewerf said:
Then you are wrong.
Sientists subjected a yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae to certain conditions in which multicellularity would be an advantage. And indeed, the yeast went from unicellular to multicellular.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/5/1595.full.pdf+html

This is not "speculation" or "guessing", or "opinion" or any other qualification by which creationists wave away evidence they don't like.
This has been observed, during experiments in a lab, and it shows that unicellular can evolve into multicellular organism, including cell division and controlled cell death.

Here another example, with another organism:
http://pleiotropy.fieldofscience.com/2008/11/watching-multicellularity-evolve-before.html

This from your link.....

"Recall that Chlorella is better able to utilize the nutrients in the environment when they are single cells. Thus, the colonies of tens to hundreds of cells soon disappeared, replaced by colonies of of only eight cells. This seems to be the optimal size for uptake of nutrients and defense against Ochromonas. When Boraas et al. removed the predator from the environment, Chlorella colonies continued to make multicellular offspring. However, with the selection pressure to be large gone, the unicellular Chlorella took over again."

....indicates that the 'clumping' was only a temporary defense mechanism already possessed by the Chlorella, not evolution.

OldWiseGuy · Aug 2, 2015

driewerf said:
So the truth doesn't matter to you.
Now, if I can't trust you in matters of truth, how can I trust you in matters of Truth?

The ToE isn't "truth" to me.
Don't get me wrong. I don't blame you for believing in Evolution. It's a cleverly conceived deception, perhaps even "strong delusion".

driewerf · Aug 2, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
This from your link.....

"Recall that Chlorella is better able to utilize the nutrients in the environment when they are single cells. Thus, the colonies of tens to hundreds of cells soon disappeared, replaced by colonies of of only eight cells. This seems to be the optimal size for uptake of nutrients and defense against Ochromonas. When Boraas et al. removed the predator from the environment, Chlorella colonies continued to make multicellular offspring. However, with the selection pressure to be large gone, the unicellular Chlorella took over again."

....indicates that the 'clumping' was only a temporary defense mechanism already possessed by the Chlorella, not evolution.

Nope. You're wrong. The 8-celled form was massively present when the predator was present, but some unicellular form continued to exist... barely!

While we could imagine other mechanisms of defense, size is an obvious choice. Very soon (about 10 days) after the introduction of the flagellate predator, Chlorella colonies started to form. These initially consisted of aggregates of tens to hundreds on Chlorella cells, adhering to each other. Their sheer size prevented the predator from eating them, and thus the multicellular Chlorella was fitter than the unicellular ones, and as a result the unicellular Chlorella all but disappeared. Multicellularity had evolved right before the lucky scientists' eyes.

The multicellular form continued to exist after the removal of the predator, but, because it is harder to acquire food, the unicellular form had again an advantage, and became dominant. Yet the multicellular form continued to form 8-celled colonies.

Recall that Chlorella is better able to utilize the nutrients in the environment when they are single cells. Thus, the colonies of tens to hundreds of cells soon disappeared, replaced by colonies of of only eight cells. This seems to be the optimal size for uptake of nutrients and defense against Ochromonas. When Boraas et al. removed the predator from the environment, Chlorella colonies continued to make multicellular offspring. However, with the selection pressure to be large gone, the unicellular Chlorella took over again.

driewerf · Aug 2, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
The ToE isn't "truth" to me.
Don't get me wrong. I don't blame you for believing in Evolution. It's a cleverly conceived deception, perhaps even "strong delusion".

There is no "truth for me" or "truth for you". There is truth. And someone who writes "some of us just don't buy it no matter how much 'proof' is presented." doesn't care about truth.

Subduction Zone · Aug 2, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
We agree - if you keep blinding yourself to the fact they have incorrectly classified 90% of the fossil record as separate species, it won't matter how much science is presented to you.

Babies and adults incorrectly classified.

Humans fossils.

So when are you going to accept the science and throw out half of them from the books????

Justa, this nonsense of yours has been refuted countless times. When are you going to accept that this has gone beyond being a wrong argument of yours, it has gone beyond a foolish argument of yours, it has even gone beyond being a s... Oops, don't want to go to far.

Because they keep using false evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

"The fossil was introduced as evidence by Clarence Darrow in defense of John Scopes during the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Darrow died in 1938, fifteen years before Piltdown Man was exposed as a fraud."

Darrow was a lawyer and not a biologist. His mistake is hardly evidence that scientists used Piltdown man in any way at all.

Again you are ignoring the science by the people that have actually studied it.

Lateral Gene Transfer.

"But all agree that the exchange of genetic information across species lines — which is how we will define LGT in this primer — is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago."

But you are still living in the past.

No, this is also an argument that you have abused. This almost exclusively in single cell life. It only explains that the "based of the tree" is more complicated than it was thought to be in the past. This is not evidence against the theory of evolution in any way at all.

So do you have anything that are not PRATT's?

DogmaHunter · Aug 2, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
No. My mind is closed to the notion that a simple organism can change over time into a complex organism, no matter the environmental changes or the mysterious force called natural selection. I just don't believe you can get here from there.

First, there is nothing "mysterious" about the idea that those that are best equipped to survive, have the highest chance to survive...

Secondly, if you simply admit that your mind is closed, then what are you doing here?
If your mind is closed, then any discussion with you is an exercise in futility.

DogmaHunter · Aug 2, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Which still can not hope to explain how a mutation in an individual would ever become fixed in the population - unless that individuals descendants are the entire population?
So a mutation that occurred today in say, Bob - will never affect anyone except his descendants, which will never be the population, but only a fraction thereof. Unless you are going to kill off everyone else to ensure this happens?

If you would actually inform yourself a bit on how genetics work, you would understand how fixation would happen.

It's fairly easy.

Any genetic algorithm can illustrate it quite easily.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your preaching.

DogmaHunter · Aug 2, 2015

The Cadet said:
Which part? What in the modern synthesis is not supported by the evidence, or must be supplanted by new evidence?

Not a claim of the modern evolutionary synthesis in any meaningful way. I can't even think of any scientists who would make that claim.

Define "kind".

Have you checked out this thread? http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

I can't help but have a fun test here.

You asked very clearly from whois what exactly that it is that he is arguing for. What it exactly is in evolution that he doesn't agree with.

He gave you a reply to which you replied what I quoted here.

I just wanted to ask... do you now know exactly what it is now that whois is arguing for (or against)?
What is his point concerning evolution?
What does he agree with and what doesn't he agree with?

I'm asking because I'ld like to know myself.

OldWiseGuy · Aug 2, 2015

driewerf said:
There is no "truth for me" or "truth for you". There is truth. And someone who writes "some of us just don't buy it no matter how much 'proof' is presented." doesn't care about truth.

Are you sure you don't mean facts when you use the term truth?

DogmaHunter · Aug 2, 2015

whois said:
i really don't feel like getting into a war of semantics with you, but if you must:
a dinosaur and a bird for example.
let's see the empirical evidence of this.
science says it happened, so let's see the hard core evidence of it, namely the lab results that prove it.

Instead of trying to condense a body of work worth of many many many MANY full length posts...

Let's try something easier.

Try to come up with a definition of "bird" which includes all birds but excludes dinosaurs (without including it literally in the definition that dino's are excluded).

Go ahead, try.

Here's the point of this: you can't. Why? because birds....are dinosaurs.

Just like humans are primates..

You can't define what a "primate" is that includes all primates but excludes humans. You just can't. Just like you can't define what a "mammal" is that includes all mammals but not rats or humans. You just can't.

Birds ARE dinosaurs.

also, i firmly believe that science will go to any length to obscure a biblical correlation.

Right, right.... it's all a "satanic conspiracy", involving millions upon millions of people and this has been going on for more then 2 centuries....

Right, right....

OldWiseGuy · Aug 2, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
First, there is nothing "mysterious" about the idea that those that are best equipped to survive, have the highest chance to survive...

I understand the idea , but not the mechanism.

DogmaHunter said:
Secondly, if you simply admit that your mind is closed, then what are you doing here?
If your mind is closed, then any discussion with you is an exercise in futility.

All who argue against evolution have their minds closed to it, but they enjoy the technical argument. I just like to snipe from the cheap seats sometimes.

DogmaHunter · Aug 2, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
I understand the idea , but not the mechanism.

It's the same thing.

Those with immunity to desease X are more likely to live then those not immune, assuming both have the same chance of contracting X.

Herbivores that can reach just a bit higher then their peers have more and easier access to food sources and thus more chances of survival.

Lions that run just a bit faster then their peers have more chances of catching up to prey.

Antilopes just a bit faster then their peers have more chances of escaping lions.

.......

This concept is so ridiculously simple, one has to wonder how it can be misunderstood, if not done on purpose...

All who argue against evolution have their minds closed to it

That's not true.

Some people argue against things while remaining intellectually honest.

OldWiseGuy · Aug 2, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Lions that run just a bit faster then their peers have more chances of catching up to prey.

Antilopes just a bit faster then their peers have more chances of escaping lions.

It all balances out. Both may increase their speed, but the outcome is the same. Also, I doubt if each generation passes that increased speed on to the next in the general sense. Race horses are a case in point. Breeders hope for inherited speed, but don't plan on it.

DogmaHunter · Aug 2, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
It all balances out. Both may increase their speed, but the outcome is the same. Also, I doubt if each generation passes that increased speed on to the next in the general sense. Race horses are a case in point. Breeders hope for inherited speed, but don't plan on it.

I suggest you go to a race horse breeder and repeat that....

There's a reason why they don't breed horses with random other horses.
There's a reason why people fork over truckloads of money to acquire sperm samples from specific race horses.

It's not because they "hope" it will yield result.
It's because they know it will yield result.

And the exact same goes for any other breeding program.

No farmer in his right mind is going to think that using the genetic materials of this banana:

will yield this banana as off spring:

There's a reason why they engage in artificial selection (literally SELECT breeding pairs) to achieve a specific result.

No dog breeder is going to mate a st bernard with a pitbull, hoping it will produce a chiwawa...

You should really try to think this stuff through.
It's like you are completely unaware of how hereditary DNA works.

OldWiseGuy · Aug 2, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
I suggest you go to a race horse breeder and repeat that....

There's a reason why they don't breed horses with random other horses.
There's a reason why people fork over truckloads of money to acquire sperm samples from specific race horses.

It's not because they "hope" it will yield result.
It's because they know it will yield result.

And the exact same goes for any other breeding program.

No farmer in his right mind is going to think that using the genetic materials of this banana:

will yield this banana as off spring:

There's a reason why they engage in artificial selection (literally SELECT breeding pairs) to achieve a specific result.

No dog breeder is going to mate a st bernard with a pitbull, hoping it will produce a chiwawa...

You should really try to think this stuff through.
It's like you are completely unaware of how hereditary DNA works.

The best horse breeders in the world agree with me.....that it's still a crapshoot.

"You can predict, if you are on the front row of the grid in a Formula One race that you are probably going to win the grand prix. But if you have the greatest stallion in the world and the best mare in the world, there's no reason why their progeny won't be beaten by something that cost just 10% of the price."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/22/horse-breeding-genetics-thoroughbreds-racing-dna

That said I don't think we can compare modern breeding programs to evolution.

DogmaHunter · Aug 2, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
The best horse breeders in the world agree with me.....that it's still a crapshoot.

Would they also agree with you that they might just as well breed with slow horses and have the same chances of achieving the same result???

"You can predict, if you are on the front row of the grid in a Formula One race that you are probably going to win the grand prix. But if you have the greatest stallion in the world and the best mare in the world, there's no reason why their progeny won't be beaten by something that cost just 10% of the price."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/22/horse-breeding-genetics-thoroughbreds-racing-dna

But for some reason, people will still pay MORE MONEY for the faster horse's sperm.

I'll leave it to you to find out what that reason is.

That said I don't think we can compare modern breeding programs to evolution.

Yeah, you think a lot of things that are obviously incorrect.

OldWiseGuy · Aug 2, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Would they also agree with you that they might just as well breed with slow horses and have the same chances of achieving the same result???

Speed isn't the only consideration. Sometimes horses are bred for endurance. Depends on the type of race they will run.

The kind of selective breeding described in the article would never take place in nature.

Some things I just don't think most of you understand...

a day at the Zoo

a day at the Zoo

a day at the Zoo

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

a day at the Zoo

a day at the Zoo

Regular Member

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Wake me when it's soup.

Code Monkey

Wake me when it's soup.

Code Monkey

Wake me when it's soup.

Code Monkey

Wake me when it's soup.

Code Monkey

Wake me when it's soup.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency