Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2012 :  08:45:51  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
From Wired:
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.

“This is actually simple. It doesn’t need mystical complexity or a lot of the things that people have hypothesized — special genes, a huge genome, very unnatural conditions,” said evolutionary biologist Michael Travisano of the University of Minnesota, co-author of a study Jan. 17 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
. . .

(I can now imagine Answers in Leviticus Genesis getting set to shriek, "But it's still just yeast!")

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.

Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/18/2012 08:46:28

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2012 :  08:57:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Because it happened in a lab, with scientists, it is proof that complex life requires a guiding intelligence.

Okay, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13458 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2012 :  09:47:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Because it happened in a lab, with scientists, it is proof that complex life requires a guiding intelligence.

Okay, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
Yeah. They can say that. I read another article in New Science about this and posted it on facebook. One important point was that this grouping of single cells to form a more complex system of cells turned out to be much easier than the scientists anticipated. So easy that it probably occurred many times in nature.

Oh, it was in Physorg:

Scientists replicate key evolutionary step in life on earth

And yeah. There isn't a thing you can show the creationist crowd with this type of experiment that they won't claim a designer was present. So screw them and hurray for science!

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 01/18/2012 :  17:54:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

(I can now imagine Answers in Leviticus Genesis getting set to shriek, "But it's still just yeast!")
Gee, I spoke too soon -- or too late. AiG published their de- re-bunking (scroll to second item) in July last year:
But let’s take a closer look. Like many fungi, brewer’s yeast is known to engage in “dimorphic switching.” Programmed into its genome is the ability to change forms depending on conditions. Brewer’s yeast is considered unicellular because it usually is. However, under certain conditions—nitrogen starvation, for instance—it becomes a multicellular filament. A study7 in 1993 identified three genes responsible for this branching growth. Thus, genetic information to become multicellular did not evolve in Ratcliff’s laboratory; the information was in the genome all along.

Due to this dimorphic nature, some evolutionists are skeptical about Ratcliff’s interpretation. They believe this yeast has a multicellular evolutionary history with “a vestigial ability to become multicelllular, rather than evolving into something entirely new.”

. . .

Selective breeding is selective breeding, not evolution.
MY reading of AiG: "That yeast was already multicellular. (Stupid scientists!)"

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2012 :  06:02:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well they do make a valid, well-worded point, however the irony that vestigial features are a key evidence of the evolutionary process is lost on them.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 01/19/2012 :  07:26:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally quoted by HalfMooner

Selective breeding is selective breeding, not evolution.
Good to see creationists agreeing that Nazi eugenics weren't inspired by Darwin.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2012 :  10:40:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
When even our basic understanding of single-celled and multicellular organisms are flawed and skeptics too eager and biased to support every evolutionary bias in favor of evolution. We need to set lower expectations on the two disciplines so they are viewed judiciously and not declared short of functional idiots.
Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/13/2012 18:35:58
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2012 :  11:30:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

When even our basic understanding of single-celled and multicellular organisms are flawed and skeptics too eager and biased to support every evolutionary bias in favor of evolution. We need to set lower expectations on the two disciplines short of functional idiots.
And you know more about this than the scientists who study it? I doubt that.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2012 :  17:31:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Originally posted by jamalrapper

When even our basic understanding of single-celled and multicellular organisms are flawed and skeptics too eager and biased to support every evolutionary bias in favor of evolution. We need to set lower expectations on the two disciplines short of functional idiots.
And you know more about this than the scientists who study it? I doubt that.

You should respond to the post rather than express your emotional sentiments especially when the position expressed needs no further interpretation.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/12/2012 :  18:56:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

Originally posted by HalfMooner

Originally posted by jamalrapper

When even our basic understanding of single-celled and multicellular organisms are flawed and skeptics too eager and biased to support every evolutionary bias in favor of evolution. We need to set lower expectations on the two disciplines short of functional idiots.
And you know more about this than the scientists who study it? I doubt that.

You should respond to the post rather than express your emotional sentiments especially when the position expressed needs no further interpretation.
True, and my apologies.

However, you should respond by answering questions in the other forum here. Since you haven't been doing so there, I made an unfounded leap in assuming you would never do so here. After all, there might be some long odds that you would suddenly begin backing up your religion-motivated, anti-science assertions with actual citations, not just more quote-mining and Creationist links.

So, okay, so riddle me this: If evolutionary scientists have discovered so little about the details of microscopic life, who has? What research had ID done with yeast? What new things have they learned? Hmmm?

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2012 :  10:33:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

When even our basic understanding of single-celled and multicellular organisms are flawed and skeptics too eager and biased to support every evolutionary bias in favor of evolution.
Where is your evidence for this alleged bias?
We need to set lower expectations on the two disciplines...
Lower expectations? You're saying that the scientists and skeptics are already wrong and horribly biased, and you want us to aim for less than that?!
...short of functional idiots.
What does that even mean?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2012 :  17:04:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Originally posted by jamalrapper

Originally posted by HalfMooner

Originally posted by jamalrapper

When even our basic understanding of single-celled and multicellular organisms are flawed and skeptics too eager and biased to support every evolutionary bias in favor of evolution. We need to set lower expectations on the two disciplines so they are viewed judiciously and not declared short of functional idiots.
And you know more about this than the scientists who study it? I doubt that.

You should respond to the post rather than express your emotional sentiments especially when the position expressed needs no further interpretation.
True, and my apologies.

However, you should respond by answering questions in the other forum here. Since you haven't been doing so there, I made an unfounded leap in assuming you would never do so here. After all, there might be some long odds that you would suddenly begin backing up your religion-motivated, anti-science assertions with actual citations, not just more quote-mining and Creationist links.

So, okay, so riddle me this: If evolutionary scientists have discovered so little about the details of microscopic life, who has? What research had ID done with yeast? What new things have they learned? Hmmm?

ID campers are also made up of biologist and scientist who are involved in research in the same scientific community. What differentiates them is the willingness to challenge evolution/darwinism based on their observation in the field and the tenets of Darwinism. As I posted.

" If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species


Dr. Behe responded "Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures


http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

Evolution/Darwinism is well ingrained as a cult in our consciousness, a religion of sorts. ID is a 90's development banking on independent thinkers who have realized the depth and disappointment in theories of random chance and chaos(Darwinism/evolution) that arbitrarily connects otherwise logical explanations based on Irreducible Complexity.
Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/13/2012 18:36:47
Go to Top of Page

Randy
SFN Regular

USA
1988 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2012 :  19:26:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Randy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Randy

[quote]Originally posted by jamalrapperEvolution/Darwinism is well ingrained as a cult in our consciousness, a religion of sorts.



jamalrapper, read here a bit from Talk Origins Index to Creation Claims and the Evolution is a Religion claim.


"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."

"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/13/2012 :  19:55:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Okay, jamalrapper, you only proved my point. You seem to have no ideas of your own. You continue to post links to already-discredited Creationist sources, while misrepresenting via quote-mine editing the work of real scientists.

People at SFN have been at least as polite as your robotic inanity deserves. You let other Creationists do all your thinking on this subject. And it shows, like a red badge of deliberate stupidity. (Are your posts here an assignment from a Creation Science instructor? I understand that Professor Bill Dembski makes such assignments.)

Real scientists don't turn to former scientists who are ideologues like Behe for actual information, because they do no research other than through scripture.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25976 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2012 :  05:36:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

ID is a 90's development...
Only the name of it is a '90s development. The concepts all pre-date the name. The concept of Irreducible Complexity was published by creationist Henry Morris eighteen years before Behe wrote his book, for example.
...banking on independent thinkers...
Literalist Christians are anything but independent thinkers.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/14/2012 :  07:43:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Randy

Originally posted by Randy

[quote]Originally posted by jamalrapperEvolution/Darwinism is well ingrained as a cult in our consciousness, a religion of sorts.



jamalrapper, read here a bit from Talk Origins Index to Creation Claims and the Evolution is a Religion claim.



I though you would take comfort in the fact many many famous scientist/evolutionist were Christians studying the handiwork of their creator in all its blessed wonder.

But modern day evolutionist have turned evolution into a crusade against an Intelligent creator/designer.

Evolution as a religion? In fact it is the other way around. Dawkins and others disillusioned scientist are using evolution as a platform to promote anti-religion, secular atheism and dangerously drowning any intelligent theories with their repetitive revisions to defend an untenable position established by the primordial soup believer Darwin.

Awed by this explanation (primordial soup) for the origin of life and not to he outdone Darwin in his you haven't seen anything yet authored the origin of species.

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 3.33 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000