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
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12795 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  13:29:09   [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 jamalrapper

Sorry Kil about omitting the links and citations. I just assumed I was dealing with a knowledgeable group of people who based their skepticism on what was being said and not who was saying it. That might explain why your biases are so transparent. You must have a recommended list of reading material such as (Carl Sagan).
You know what? I'm getting a little tired of this crap. I have been promoting critical thinking for almost 30 years now. It's a given that if you quote you must cite. Other people need to be able to access the material, see the whole article and make a determinations about how it's being used, if the material is valid, or simply to educate themselves on the subject. That should not be a foreign concept to you unless you don't understand that there are rules that make critical thinking the default for attempting to eliminate bias. This is basic stuff that I shouldn't have to explain to another "critical thinker."

Since you have been caught more than once outright quote mining and using other logical fallacies, you are on pretty shaky ground to be judging who is thinking critically and who isn't.

And yeah. We are pretty knowledgeable but no one is expert on everything. I am not a biologist. Are you?


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  13:35:31   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil




Bill:
With an intelligent designer guiding the process this is nothing special and rather unimpressive. Remove the intelligent designer from starting up and guiding the processes and then it becomes impressive.

As it turned out the experiment was incredibly easy. That's to say that under natural circumstances, it's not so envolved as to require a designer.

But yet the experiment required an intelligent designer. With no intelligent designer we have no experiment and no multicellular creatures in 60 days. I love how neo-Darwinian evolutionists claim that no intelligent designer is needed and then point to an experiment that was started up and guided along by an intelligent designer as proof for their claim.





It could be happening over and over again.

As I said in my previous post, could, might and maybe are by far the most used words in the neo-Darwinian evolutionist's vocabulary. Thank you for making my point.





But outside of a lab, how would we recognize it? The problem with your criticism is there is no way to set up such an experiment without, well... setting it up.

Right. To prove that no intelligent designer is needed you point to an experiment that was completely set up and guided along by an intelligent designer. That is irrational.




So the bar you set is impossibly high. You can choose to ignore the ease at which these single cells formed a functional multi celled organism.

I ignored nothing. I simply pointed out that all we see here is an intelligent designer altering something that already exists. I then went on to say that if one could start with nothing and then create yeast from that nothing that then I would be impressed.



That's your choice. What you can't do is declare it impossible to have occurred in nature, without any intervention required, given the ease at which it was done and the results of the experiment.

It was easy because it was guided along by intelect and design. Remove that and you remove the ease as well. You even admit this when you say that it is imposiable to set up the experiment without intelect and design. And all I said was that the experiment failed to prove that it did or could have happened in nature and to prove that it could have happened in nature it would take an experiment that "sets up" itself and guides itself to the results completely void of any intelligence or design meddling in the processes. Yes, to the rational mind that sounds like an impossibly high standard to hold your experiment to, but this is what you are trying to convince me of, that this could and most likely happened in nature with out any intelligence involved. An experiment set up and guided by intelligence does not demonstrate that no intelligence is required, in fact it demonstrates the opposite.

You deny the hard evidence that wasn't created in a lab and you deny the experimental evidence. So what's left? You're a lost cause.

Dude you are trying to convince me that this can happen in nature with no intelligence required by pointing to an experiment that never would have taken place without an intelligent designer starting it up and guiding the processes. You next claim that I am holding you to unfair standards by requesting that your experiment to prove that intelligence or design is not required be void of any intelligence and/or design. You rational is convoluted.

Kil: Bill, this experiment proves intelligence and design are not required.

Bill: But the results would have never been achieved without intelligence or design.

Kil: Bill, it would be impossible to achieve the results in the experiment without intelligence and design kicking off and then guiding the processes, which seek to prove that intelligence and design are not required.

Bill: But that is my whole point.

Kil: Bill, why must you set impossibly high standards? Everyone knows that it takes design and intelligence to prove that design and intelligence are not required. Boy are you dumb.

Bill: *sigh*

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 02/15/2012 13:45:12
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12795 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  13:50:36   [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
No Bill. My rational isn't convoluted. Experimental evidence was necessary to see of the thing is even possible. As it turns out, it is. The idea of a single cell evolving to a multi celled organism has been demonstrated. If you don't get the significance of that, I can't help it. I could beat you over the head with a transitional fossil and you would still deny that it's transitional. We have been through all of this before. You have an unreasonable standard that will make it impossible for you to ever get that evolution happens at all, (outside of what creationists call "micro"), let alone happens with a designer.

Maybe we'll get lucky some day and find it occurring in nature and recognize it for what it is. And if that happens, you will find a way around that one too. Just like the way you deny that a whale with legs is transitional. Physical evidence will never penetrate your bias against evolution. That's why I stopped arguing with you about it. It's pointless.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  14:08:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I am going to save you some time here, Kil. Your going to have to point to examples in nature only as evidence for your "no designer or intelligence required" theory. Any experiment which requires design and intelligence in even the smallest increments is counterproductive to the theory that no design and intelligence is required. You can only claim that it was easy to get muticellular organisms from the experiment that completely was started and guided by design and intelligence. You will quickly find that it is not so easy to produce an experiment that demonstrates this which is completely void of design and intelligence, which is what we expect to see in nature, multicellular organisms come about void of any intelligence and design. You even acknowledge this and contradict yourself at the same time when you declare that is highly imposable for anyone to produce the multicellular organisms minus intelligence and design or "start up" as you like to call it.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  14:21:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil




No Bill. My rational isn't convoluted. Experimental evidence was necessary to see of the thing is even possible. As it turns out, it is.
Your experiment demonstrated that apart from design and intelligence you have nothing. No experiment and no evidence.



The idea of a single cell evolving to a multi celled organism has been demonstrated.

It was demonstrated using intelligence and design.

If you don't get the significance of that, I can't help it. I could beat you over the head with a transitional fossil and you would still deny that it's transitional. We have been through all of this before. You have an unreasonable standard that will make it impossible for you to ever get that evolution happens at all, (outside of what creationists call "micro"), let alone happens with a designer.

Dude, you are using experiments and evidence that was completely dependent on design and intelligence as evidence for no design and intelligence. You, my fine feathered friend, are being unreasonable.

Maybe we'll get lucky some day and find it occurring in nature and recognize it for what it is.

Again with your could, might and maybe's? Your whole theory is based around could, might and maybe.



And if that happens, you will find a way around that one too. Just like the way you deny that a whale with legs is transitional. Physical evidence will never penetrate your bias against evolution. That's why I stopped arguing with you about it. It's pointless.

This from the man who uses design and intelligence to argue against design and intelligence.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12795 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  14:41:27   [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
Bill:
This from the man who uses design and intelligence to argue against design and intelligence.

Okay Bill. Here's your chance to prove me wrong about your denial of evolution. Physical evidence not created in a lab. Do you consider dinosaurs with feathers or birds with teeth and tails and other features found in theropod dinosaurs examples of transitional fossils? Because we do have both. And they are but a very few of the overall number of transitional fossils we have between large groups.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  17:32:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hi Bill. I would'nt take the experiment too seriously. It has already been proven deception was involved. The authors hid the fact they used common brewer's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), which normally grows as individual cells but is also known to grow as "multicellular" structures in a clumped manner forming "pseudohyphae" when grown under adverse conditions.

Or to be generous to them. Authors of the study were so blinded by their belief in macroevolution that they failed to consider the most obvious explanation for the results they observed. Wildtype Saccharomyces cerevisiae already have the ability to grow in a clumped manner by forming pseudohyphae.

They want us to believe that multicellularity, which took billions of years to appear on earth, can evolve in a few days under simple laboratory selection. Instead of using modern techniques of genetic sequencing and gene array expression analysis, these scientists merely observed clumps of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to conclude that they had "differentiated" into "adult" and "juvenile" populations.

The goals behind scientist perpetuating such fraud and deception is to bring credibility to evolution as a science by demonstrating evolutionary transition theories are scientifically provable. They realize the public are tired of hearing evolution is a slow process which takes millions and billions of years, which conveniently helps to hide the lack of supportable transitional forms and the scarcity of fossil evidence( things do get lost after millions of years) so does memory, accountability. Instead such large gaps are filled with conceptual assumptions in an aura of scientific curiosity.

The absence of intelligent design in their experiment was easy to detect so was the lack of intelligence in their deception. It almost seems incumbent upon evolutionary scientist to be atheist, morality aside the random chance and odds against getting caught are calculated to proportionally match how much random, chance drift to incorporate in their theories. Judging by this expose....exposing this fraud was a no-brainer.

I see Kil is on about transitional fossils. Darwins theory of slow, gradual evolution is not well supported in the fossil records(too many gaps). To explain the scarcity of transitional fossils scientist have an alternate theory called punctuated equilibrium where evolutionary changes are so rapid and occurs in such small numbers of transitional animals that they are unlikely to fossilize and be included as fossil records. Which seems like a more honest answer than constructing an entire fossils forms from a few scrap bits of bones. We are gullible....scientific miracles and science fiction often overlap. It is not a monopoly held by those at the other end of the spectrum.

Sorry about the irreducibly complex stratospheric view. I got a little help from data mining.
Go to Top of Page

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  17:37:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott
Any experiment which requires design and intelligence in even the smallest increments is counterproductive to the theory that no design and intelligence is required.

So, if one were to drop two objects of different mass (let's say a feather and a hammer) in an environment with virtually no atmosphere and show that both fall at the same speed, one would not have shown Galileo right and Aristotle wrong, but rather demonstrated intelligent falling?

You've got to love science according to ignoramuses.

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12795 Posts

Posted - 02/15/2012 :  19:31:23   [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
jamalrapper:
I would'nt take the experiment too seriously. It has already been proven deception was involved. The authors hid the fact they used common brewer's yeast...

You had better find a source that shows that there was any deception or I'm calling you a liar, flat out. Even in the OP article posted at the top of this thread they say brewers yeast was used.

I don't have time right now for the rest of what you wrote. I will though. But for now I expect to see something that shows that there was a deception or you need to admit that you made that up.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
12795 Posts

Posted - 02/16/2012 :  00:52:48   [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
jamalrapper:
The goals behind scientist perpetuating such fraud and deception is to bring credibility to evolution as a science by demonstrating evolutionary transition theories are scientifically provable.

That's freaking nonsense. The goal was to find out how a single cells can develop into multicellurar life. Natural selection is already well established as the main mechanism of evolutionary change.

Yeast suggests speedy start for multicellular life

jamalrapper:
To explain the scarcity of transitional fossils scientist have an alternate theory called punctuated equilibrium where evolutionary changes are so rapid and occurs in such small numbers of transitional animals that they are unlikely to fossilize and be included as fossil records.
That's only at the species level. There are plenty of great transitionals at the class and family levels. You are right about fossilization, but at the species level fossils are particularly problematic (although they do exist in more numbers than you probably think) because of the speed of speciation. In other words, it took a lot longer to get from a fish to a reptile to a mammal than it takes to get from one species of feline to another. There was more time between classes for transitional animales to fossilize. So there would naturally be more of them. Add to that long periods of stasis and then pretty sudden changes (punctuated equilibrium) and we're just less likely to get as many transitionals at the species level as we would like to have. Even if punctuated equilibrium were found to be incorrect, changes (speciation) at the species level would still be faster than between orders and therefor less likely to produce transitional fossils.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." - Stephen Jay Gould

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Now go get the source I asked for.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Free The West Memphis Three
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/16/2012 :  07:16:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

jamalrapper:
I would'nt take the experiment too seriously. It has already been proven deception was involved. The authors hid the fact they used common brewer's yeast...

You had better find a source that shows that there was any deception or I'm calling you a liar, flat out. Even in the OP article posted at the top of this thread they say brewers yeast was used.

I don't have time right now for the rest of what you wrote. I will though. But for now I expect to see something that shows that there was a deception or you need to admit that you made that up.


Originally posted by Kil

jamalrapper:
I would'nt take the experiment too seriously. It has already been proven deception was involved. The authors hid the fact they used common brewer's yeast...

You had better find a source that shows that there was any deception or I'm calling you a liar, flat out. Even in the OP article posted at the top of this thread they say brewers yeast was used.

I don't have time right now for the rest of what you wrote. I will though. But for now I expect to see something that shows that there was a deception or you need to admit that you made that up.

All you had to do was read Halfmooner's post at the beginning of page 1 where this experiment was debunked.

I repeated his post here. Click on "re-bunking" for the deception exposed.

Originally posted by HalfMooner


I can now imagine Answers in Leviticus Genesis getting set to shriek, "But it's still just yeast!")
[b]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.
[b]MY reading of AiG: "That yeast was already multicellular. (Stupid scientists!)"


It is becoming more apparent you and your pack of skeptics do not follow the topic, don't understand what is under discussion, skip critical links and information when it does not support your biases. It is obvious Halfmooners updated post correcting his previous wettish excitement over brewers yeast which I reposted here was overlooked by you or not fully understood or we would not be rehashing the controversial experiment here.

There might be terms that are confusing to you because of the technical nature of the post which might limit your comprehension of the material and cause you to doubt the voracity of scientific conjectures.

But as a skeptic it is your responsibility to understand the issues and not just react. This subject may well be beyond the scope of this forum and any reasonable request to switch to more simpler topics that match your pay grades can surely be accommodated.

What purpose does it serve when the bind is leading the absurd.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9463 Posts

Posted - 02/16/2012 :  08:08:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

Sorry Kil about omitting the links and citations. I just assumed I was dealing with a knowledgeable group of people who based their skepticism on what was being said and not who was saying it.
You have been caught red handed quoting scientists out of context - basically lying by omission about what they actually meant to say - and attributing quotes to the wrong people.

Links and citations serve several purposes: it speeds up the research and double-checking of the argument you present. In classical argumentation and logic, it rests upon the person presenting the argument to also present the evidence for that argument. In a syllogism, he must provide evidence that the premises are true and valid. It's considered lazy and thus very bad form forcing your opponents have to do the research for you.
It keeps you honest. Everyone can make shit up. Or mis-represent people. With a citation, the rest of us can examine the context in which the quote or piece of fact is given: it enables us to "replicate" your argument to see if its reasoning is sound.



That might explain why your biases are so transparent. You must have a recommended list of reading material such as (Carl Sagan). With the billions of stars and galaxies out there one has to be skeptical when told no other life exist except on earth. Or that a monkey jumping randomly on a typewriter will not eventually produce a work of Shakespeare.
How many times have people told you you are an arrogant twat?

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25011 Posts

Posted - 02/16/2012 :  08:14:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Bill scott

But yet the experiment required an intelligent designer.
Thus demonstrating that no experiment could ever possibly falsify ID, which proves that ID is not scientific.

- 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

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25011 Posts

Posted - 02/16/2012 :  08:47:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

The authors hid the fact they used common brewer's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae)...
This is an idiotic lie, since anyone with Google can read the original article and find that the researchers use the word "cerevisiae" seven times in the paper, and the word "yeast" another 38 times.
...which normally grows as individual cells but is also known to grow as "multicellular" structures in a clumped manner forming "pseudohyphae" when grown under adverse conditions.
So you're saying that the researchers were lying when they wrote,
The snowflake clusters are distinct from S. cerevisiae pseudohyphal phenotypes, which have filamentous elongate cells and arise under conditions of nutrient stress (26). Clustering in snowflake phenotype yeast is independent of pseudohyphal growth, as the snowflake phenotype is stable under both high- and low-nutrient conditions. Individual cells within clusters retain the ancestral ability to form pseudohyphae when starved, but remain oval (not elongate) during standard culture conditions (Fig. S3).
Do you have any evidence that this passage is a deliberate fraud?
Or to be generous to them. Authors of the study were so blinded by their belief in macroevolution that they failed to consider the most obvious explanation for the results they observed. Wildtype Saccharomyces cerevisiae already have the ability to grow in a clumped manner by forming pseudohyphae.
Do you have any evidence that the researchers were just mistaken in the above-quoted paragraph?
Instead of using modern techniques of genetic sequencing and gene array expression analysis...
How would those techniques have made this particular experiment better, or shown different results?
...these scientists merely observed clumps of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to conclude that they had "differentiated" into "adult" and "juvenile" populations.
No, they labeled certain stages of growth as "juvenile" or "adult" based on their empirical finding that clusters below a certain size would not reproduce. Genetic sequencing and gene array analysis would not have changed this observation.
The goals behind scientist perpetuating such fraud and deception is to bring credibility to evolution as a science by demonstrating evolutionary transition theories are scientifically provable.
Where is your evidence for this claim?
They realize the public are tired of hearing evolution is a slow process which takes millions and billions of years...
Where is your polling data to support this claim about "the public?"
The absence of intelligent design in their experiment was easy to detect so was the lack of intelligence in their deception.
There is no evidence of any deception.
...exposing this fraud was a no-brainer.
Yes, someone without a brain is calling it a fraud.

- 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 - 02/16/2012 :  09:26:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dave, Please read the first post by Halfmooner. The claim that scientist were able to transition single-celled yeast to multicellular yeast in a lab in 60 days. It was later exposed that the specific type of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae they used was in fact capable of multicellular dimorphism. This was known over a decade ago.

Ratcliff plans to try his experiment on “Chlamydomonas, [a] single-celled organism with no multicellular ancestry.(quite a reversal.

Originally posted by HalfMooner

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!")


The experiment was debunked in the second article of the link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/07/02/news-to-note-07022011

If you don't know something then just ask. You don't have attack ever poster if help/clarification/explanation is what you are looking for. Just ASK!!!!!.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | 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 1.72 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000