|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 03:01:37 [Permalink]
|
From New Scientist:
Sceptics, however, point out that many yeast strains naturally form colonies, and that their ancestors were multicellular tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. As a result, they may have retained some evolved mechanisms for cell adhesion and programmed cell death, effectively stacking the deck in favour of Ratcliff's experiment.
"I bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely," says Neil Blackstone, an evolutionary biologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. "I don't think if you took something that had never been multicellular you would get it so quickly."
Even so, much of evolution proceeds by co-opting existing traits for new uses - and that's exactly what Ratcliff's yeast do. "I wouldn't expect these things to all pop up de novo, but for the cell to have many of the elements already present for other reasons," says Kerr.
Ratcliff and his colleagues are planning to address that objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors. They are also continuing their yeast experiments to see whether further division of labour will evolve within the snowflakes. Both approaches offer an unprecedented opportunity to bring experimental rigour to the study of one of the most important leaps in our distant evolutionary past. |
So where is the deception? First off, they will try the same experiment algie that has no multicellular past. Next, the yeast in the experiment went well beyond what has been seen before in normal starvation clumping. They formed multi-celled organisms that stayed multi-cellular and reproduced as a multi cellular organism. NOT as individuals. This went well beyond starvation clumping that was already known to happen.
From PNAS paper:
We observed the rapid
evolution of clustering genotypes that display a novel multicellular
life history characterized by reproduction via multicellular propagules,
a juvenile phase, and determinate growth. 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 showthat key aspects ofmulticellular complexity,
a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from
unicellular eukaryotes. |
Something new. Not seen before in these cells. And all of the creationist objections, which really amounts to parroting actual scientists (by taking any criticisms to a place the REAL scientists never intended and by excluding what was new in the experiment that had not been seen before) and claiming deception, which none of the criticism from REAL scientists did, is beneath contempt. Plus, all of the creationists, including you, jamalrapper, are not even bothering to mention or acknowledge the experimenters intent to repeat the experiment with algae that has no multicellular past, and the experimenters intent to continue with the yeast strains to see if they evolve even more traits, never seen before, into true multicellular organisms with more fully adapted divisions of labor within the organism.
Contentions of lying, deception are just creationist lies. Nothing more. The authors hid nothing. There was no "debunking" among scientists. All claims of deception are inventions of AIG, (and no doubt other creationists), and in your rush to judgment to confirm your bias, jamalrapper. And you, like AIG, are lying. And given that everything is out in the open, and that the experimenters hid nothing, and your refusal to acknowledge the fact that both something new (never seen before this experiment) and that the experiment will be repeated using a single celled organism that has no clumping or multi cellular past, (something you don’t wish to acknowledge) the claim of deception is a bald faced lie that you should be ashamed of yourself for parroting and promoting.
One of the things that always blows our minds is about creationists is their willingness to bare false witness, whenever it suits them. As though lying suddenly becomes okay when evolution is the subject. There is also a history of Christian creationists clinging to those kinds of accusations, even when it's been pointed out to them that the accusations are demonstrably false, like your unwillingness to acknowledge what is actually being said by the experimenters, and your unwillingness to acknowledge that any scientific criticisms are being addressed. (And not because of creationist criticisms, by the way, because those are just culled from what scientists have said and are then exaggerated beyond all proportion with the use of words like "deception" which no scientist has used.) The experimenters hid nothing and everything is all out in the open, which is more than can be said about your criticisms, jamalrapper, which amounts to quote mining and then slander.
So go ahead. Attack skeptics, attack the scientists, and cherry pick and quote mine from articles, and do all the things that we now expect you to do because you have shown yourself to be that kind of creationist. It's nothing new for us to watch you guys do it, which is sad. Honest creationism coming from people like you is apparently an oxymoron.
The good news is that scientists don’t give a crap about your objections, and the science will proceed, while the pseudo-scientist creationists and their sycophant followers like you, jamalrapper, plan the next stupid unscientific attack mixed with the next pack of lies aimed at any experiment or observation that offers anything new that supports evolution.
If you guys weren't such a pain in the ass, playing on the ignorance of some politicians and school board members, you would be relegated to taking your place along side the flat earthers and other cranks who seem to only exist for our amusement. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
 Posted - 02/19/2012 : 05:30:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
From New Scientist:
Sceptics, however, point out that many yeast strains naturally form colonies, and that their ancestors were multicellular tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. As a result, they may have retained some evolved mechanisms for cell adhesion and programmed cell death, effectively stacking the deck in favour of Ratcliff's experiment.
"I bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely," says Neil Blackstone, an evolutionary biologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. "I don't think if you took something that had never been multicellular you would get it so quickly."
Even so, much of evolution proceeds by co-opting existing traits for new uses - and that's exactly what Ratcliff's yeast do. "I wouldn't expect these things to all pop up de novo, but for the cell to have many of the elements already present for other reasons," says Kerr.
Ratcliff and his colleagues are planning to address that objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors. They are also continuing their yeast experiments to see whether further division of labour will evolve within the snowflakes. Both approaches offer an unprecedented opportunity to bring experimental rigour to the study of one of the most important leaps in our distant evolutionary past. |
|
| Kil wrote: So where is the deception? First off, they will try the same experiment algie that has no multicellular past. Next, the yeast in the experiment went well beyond what has been seen before in normal starvation clumping. They formed multi-celled organisms that stayed multi-cellular and reproduced as a multi cellular organism. NOT as individuals. This went well beyond starvation clumping that was already known to happen. |
I really wish your reading skills were better Kil. Even given a clean link to the Ratcliff experiment you fail to grasp the material.
1. Check title of the article. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html
| Lab yeast make evolutionary leap to multicellularity |
What this is saying is the yeast is singlecellular and the lab experiment made it multicellular.
The deception here is the yeast used in the test was already multicellular so the experiment cannot be accepted for what it claimed.
2. The opening paragraph introduces the claims. Note the mention of single-celled yeast in just a few weeks evolved into a multicellular organism.
| IN JUST a few weeks single-celled yeast have evolved into a multicellular organism, complete with division of labour between cells. This suggests that the evolutionary leap to multicellularity may be a surprisingly small hurdle. |
3. AFter their experiment was criticized they decided to do the same experiment with a true single-celled organism.
| Ratcliff said they will try the same experiment to address the objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors. |
4. Read the title again and search every other publication of this experiment. The opening paragraph states.
IN JUST a few weeks single-celled yeast have evolved into a multicellular organism
Again the yeast they used was not a single-celled organism to start with.
It was already known that the yeast they used Saccharomyces cerevisiae, forms clumping under stress. The term clumping is also called budding. So what they produced were normal cell reproduction. But under stress Saccharomyces cerevisiae which is a multicellular organism reproduced as expected. No break through or transition from single to multi cell.
What is confusing to many not familiar with Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is they behave like a single-celled organism under normal conditions and will under stress (environmental stress) turn multicellular. This was known and published in 1993. Read: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC360278/pdf/molcellb00021-0447.pdf
A side note. US ranks 17th in the world in reading. And that is based on those with some formal education. http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/slj/newsletters/newsletterbucketextrahelping2/891733-477/u.s._students_rank_32_in.csp |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/19/2012 06:52:30 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 07:24:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
I really wish your reading skills were better Kil. Even given a clean link to the Ratcliff experiment you fail to grasp the material. |
And we wish you would bother to read the original article.And that's what happened, even though "singlecellular" isn't a word.| The deception here is the yeast used in the test was already multicellular... |
No, that's the creationist lie.| ...so the experiment cannot be accepted for what it claimed. |
Since your premise is false, this conclusion isn't correct.2. The opening paragraph introduces the claims. Note the mention of single-celled yeast in just a few weeks evolved into a multicellular organism.
| IN JUST a few weeks single-celled yeast have evolved into a multicellular organism, complete with division of labour between cells. This suggests that the evolutionary leap to multicellularity may be a surprisingly small hurdle. |
|
Accurate reportage, but why not read the original paper?3. AFter their experiment was criticized they decided to do the same experiment with a true single-celled organism. | Ratcliff said they will try the same experiment to address the objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors. |
|
Provide evidence that the decision was made only after their research was criticized.4. Read the title again and search every other publication of this experiment. The opening paragraph states.
IN JUST a few weeks single-celled yeast have evolved into a multicellular organism |
And that is true.Again the yeast they used was not a single-celled organism to start with.
It was already known that the yeast they used Saccharomyces cerevisiae, forms clumping under stress. The term clumping is also called budding. |
That's another lie. All yeast bud to reproduce. The formation of pseusohyphae is their reaction to stress, such as starvation, and it is objectively different.| So what they produced were normal cell reproduction. But under stress Saccharomyces cerevisiae which is a multicellular organism reproduced as expected. No break through or transition from single to multi cell. |
You can keep telling yourself this lie, but it won't make it true.Yes, we all know this. It's even discussed in the original paper. Why do you continue to suggest that the researchers were lying about it?| A side note. US ranks 17th in the world in reading. |
And you rank dead last is comprehending the original research, instead relying on the popular press and known liars. With people like you around, it's no wonder we rank low in science, too.Actually, if you'd bothered to read the original paper, you'd have learned that the comparison is based on tests given to kids around 14/15 years old:NAEP tests were taken in 2007 when the Class of 2011 was in 8th grade and PISA tested 15-year-olds in 2009, most of whom are members of the Class of 2011. The take-home message of the report seems to be that the US would do a lot better if we quit short-changing the eduction of brown students. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 07:40:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
They didn't use a "multi-cellular yeast." That's another lie from you. They used a yeast which, under conditions of starvation, changes form so that the individual cells clump together. The researchers didn't starve the yeast, and the evidence they found shows that it was not the pseudohyphal process which caused multi-cellularity during this experiment. To say otherwise is to call the researchers liars, and if you won't come right out and say it again like you said it before, you're nothing but a coward. |
From what halfmoon printed from your link does say they starved the yeast.
Halfmooner posted 2 quotes from your article. The second one he refers to as the above quote me thinks points to your PNAS papers.
| To determine if pseudohyphae can be induced in the unicellular ancestor and snowflake yeast from replicate population 1, 14 transfers, we starved yeast by culturing them on solid YPD media for 5 d. Pseudohyphae were readily observed in both strains (C and D). We conclude that the snowflake phenotype is not the result of a mutation that made previously inducible pseudohyphal cell morphology constitutive. |
So who is a liar here. DaveW busted for blatantly lying. His character needs more improvement than his reading skills. Now take the matter up with Halfmooner over his quote mentioning starved. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 08:00:10 [Permalink]
|
I suspect, jamalrapper, that your denialism is so intense on this subject because for so long it has been possible for Creationists of all stripes to smugly exclaim that no evolutionary laboratory work has ever been done. (You can't have real science without the paraphernalia -- beakers, Bunsen burners, Tesla coils and retorts -- according to this argumentum ad von Frankenstein.) Of course several fields of science, due to the nature of their subjects, have difficulty doing laboratory work -- astronomy, and geology are other such examples. That evolutionary biologists are now doing replicable laboratory work must be scary to anyone on the other side of the science-mythology fence.
No, jamalrapper, clumping alone is not in itself multicellularity, as I (who am not a microbiologist) understand it. Also, I believe that cell differentiation, or "division of labor" seen here in this yeast culture is a rather advanced quality that goes beyond the usual defensive pseudohypha seen in stressed yeast cells, and maybe even beyond many linear multicelled algae.
Also a nit: I believe your comment "The term clumping is also called budding" is incorrect, though those clumps are made up of "budded" haploid cells.
Now that gives me a slim excuse to pontificate as if knowledgeably about something I'm just now struggling to learn:
Budding is one of the ways that yeast cells reproduce. The other is by by fission. Budding occurs when a small haploid daughter cell is budded off from a mother diploid yeast cell. This is done asexually, and the haploid daughter gets only 16 chromosomes, half the number of its mother.
Diploid cells also have another mode of reproduction, where two equal new cells are created by the splitting of a mother cell into two diploid cells by meiosis. There is no sexual aspect to fission. Each new cell is a clone of the other. Diploid cells have 32 chromosomes, a pair each of yeast's 16 chromosomes.
Interestingly, haploid cells have only 16 chromosomes, and they don't perform meiosis. And they have only one mode of reproduction. Haploids reproduce after the "sexual" act of conjugation by two haploid cells of opposite "mating types," an arrangement that may be the predecessor of gender. Their opposing pheromones bring them together, and they fuse. (No data yet on gay yeast cells, though some of the cheeky little bastards can "go either way".) And here's the kicker: The two now-fused haploids are now in effect a single, brand-new diploid cell, and can reproduce asexually, either via budding (creating a haploid) or by fission (creating a new diploid).
In effect there are two quite different populations of one species of yeast cells in a culture, the haploids and the diploids. And they interact and transform.
Haploid (budded-off) cells are more likely to die under great stress, whereas diploid (fissioned-off) cells are able to become hardy spores.
The cell "clumps" making up the pseudohyphae of non-lab-evolved mentioned above are unspecialized, undifferentiated (aside, presumably, from mating types) haploid cells. The cells making up the "snowflake" clusters are specialized, differentiated (presumably haploid?) cells. The study says of the snowflakes: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 snowflakephenotype
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. |
|
“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 02/19/2012 08:55:51 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 08:08:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
From what halfmoon printed from your link does say they starved the yeast. |
Yes, but not during the experiment which led to multicellularity. You failed to comprehend what you read (and you still haven't actually read the whole original paper, have you?). They starved their yeast afterwards, to look for phenotypical differences between pseudohyphal yeast and snowflake yeast, which they clearly found.Halfmooner posted 2 quotes from your article. The second one he refers to as the above quote me thinks points to your PNAS papers.| To determine if pseudohyphae can be induced in the unicellular ancestor and snowflake yeast from replicate population 1, 14 transfers, we starved yeast by culturing them on solid YPD media for 5 d. Pseudohyphae were readily observed in both strains (C and D). We conclude that the snowflake phenotype is not the result of a mutation that made previously inducible pseudohyphal cell morphology constitutive. |
|
Yup. Do you see the word "not" in that last sentence. You are asserting that the researchers are wrong about that one little word. What evidence do have for that?You are, for repeatedly asserting that the researchers "hid" the fact that their yeast could develop pseudohyphae, and for asserting that there exists a form of brewer's yeast that does not develop pseudohyphae, and for asserting that the researchers decided to try their experiment on algae only after their paper was criticized.| DaveW busted for blatantly lying. |
Not when my words are placed in the proper context, no. The researchers did not starve their yeast during the portion of the experiment in which they selected for multicellularity.| His character needs more improvement than his reading skills. Now take the matter up with Halfmooner over his quote mentioning starved. |
Reading comprehension fail. Poor little hypocrite. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 08:21:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I suspect, jamalrapper, that your denialism is so intense on this subject because for so long it has been possible for Creationists of all stripes to smugly exclaim that no evolutionary laboratory work has ever been done. (You can't have real science without the paraphernalia -- beakers, Bunsen burners, Tesla coils and retorts -- according to this argumentum ad von Frankenstein.) Of course several fields of science, due to the nature of their subjects, have difficulty doing laboratory work -- astronomy, and geology are other such examples. That evolutionary biologists are now doing replicable laboratory work must be scary to anyone on the other side of the science-mythology fence.
No, jamalrapper, clumping alone is not in itself multicellularity, as I (who am not a microbiologist) understand it. Also, I believe that cell differentiation, or "division of labor" seen here in this yeast culture is a rather advanced quality that goes beyond the usual defensive pseudohypha seen in stressed yeast cells, and maybe even beyond many linear multicelled algae.
Also a nit: I believe your comment "The term clumping is also called budding" is incorrect, though those clumps are made up of "budded" haploid cells.
Now that gives me a slim excuse to pontificate as if knowledgeably about something I'm just now struggling to learn:
Budding is one of the ways that yeast cells reproduce. The other is by by fission. Budding occurs when a small haploid daughter cell is budded off from a mother diploid yeast cell. This is done asexually, and the haploid daughter gets only 16 chromosomes, half the number of its mother.
Diploid cells also have another mode of reproduction, where two equal new cells are created by the splitting of a mother cell into two diploid cells by meiosis. There is no sexual aspect to fission. Each new cell is a clone of the other. Diploid cells have 32 chromosomes, a pair each of yeast's 16 chromosomes.
Interestingly, haploid cells have only 16 chromosomes, and they don't perform meiosis. And they have only one mode of reproduction. Haploids reproduce after the "sexual" act of conjugation by two haploid cells of opposite "mating types" (a and #945;), an arrangement that may be the predecessor of gender. Their opposing pheromones bring them together, and they fuse. (No data yet on gay yeast cells, though some of the cheeky little bastards can "go either way".) And here's the kicker: The two now-fused haploids are now in effect a single, brand-new diploid cell, and can reproduce asexually, either via budding (creating a haploid) or by fission (creating a new diploid).
In effect there are two quite different populations of one species of yeast cells in a culture, the haploids and the diploids. And they interact and transform,
Haploid (budded-off) cells are more likely to die under great stress, whereas diploid (fissioned-off) cells are able to become hardy spores.
The cell "clumps" making up the pseudopodia of non-lab-evolved mentioned above are unspecialized, undifferentiated (aside, presumably, from mating types) haploid cells. The cells making up the "snowflake" clusters are specialized, differentiated (presumably haploid?} cells. The study says of the snowflakes: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 snowflakephenotype
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. |
|
The only think that needs clarification is you pointing to the same link DaveW posted where it mentions they starved...which according to DaveW they did not.
As for the actual debunking. It did start with your original post and the debunking that followed. You posted both.
There are many studies done on the yeast used in the original experiment. And many have cautioned the experiment does not demonstrate unicellular to multicellular transition. That is the general consensus. Several explanations are offered to challenge the true multicellular results because Saccharomyces cerevisiae is one of the most studied brewers yeast.
To respond to their critics.
| Ratcliff and his colleagues are planning to address that objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors. |
Now ask your self why would they need to do that if their experiment was iron clad and matched their claims. Strange how skeptic's are very selective about applying their trade when challenged.
Ever heard of "fusion in a test tube". Scientist gave all the theoretical reasons the lab experiment was proof of it.
| A Tempest in a Test Tube, 10 Years Later |
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/032399sci-cold-fusion.html
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/19/2012 08:47:24 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 08:54:54 [Permalink]
|
I think that "conditions of nutrient stress" under which the yeast cells in the study evolved multicellularity is a lesser degree of deprivation than the "starving" that causes the formation of pseudohyphae in normal yeast cells. The researchers wanted the yeast to survive, but under stress to evolve. The "nutrient stress" was applied in an attempt to cause the yeast to adapt to less food, and it worked. Note also that the "snowflake" multicellular structure, along with differentiation/specialization among cells became a permanent feature of this yeast culture, not disappearing after normal feeding was resumed.
Looks like real evolution in a lab to me!
And no, no experimental evidence is "iron clad." It's always best to go on collecting evidence, while others attempt to falsify or replicate one's results. That's all just good science. As scientists, that's what they are doing. These researchers are neither neither the frauds nor the tricksters that you imagine, jamalrapper. They are not motivated by immaterial imaginings, so they are more likely than ideologues to learn about reality. They are scientists. Their final results will be even stronger evidence, wherever it leads. |
“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 02/19/2012 09:08:33 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 10:34:08 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
And many have cautioned the experiment does not demonstrate unicellular to multicellular transition. That is the general consensus. |
Actually, it does. But it's only a step. And who are those "many?" The only criticism I saw is that because the yeast has ancestors that were multicellular, there might be a vestigial gene left in the yeast that the experiment activated. A fair observation that the experimenters will address. Note that those concerns by other scientists (again, who are the many?) weren't accusing them of deception, as you are. And how do you know they weren't planning on doing the experiment with algae, anyhow? But that doesn't really matter. They certainly aren't shying away from the criticism. That's how science works. Only creationists are accusing them of deception, and not the many (your word) or even any of the scientists.
Creationist hyperbole. That seems to be the best you can do. Maybe you can sell it to other creationists, and even some ignorant Christians politicians and school board members. But really, it's a lie that no scientist is listening to.
Nice that you finally mentioned the upcoming algae experiments at all. Up until now, you avoided that because, you know, it made the scientists look honest. (“We’ll have none of that, said one creationist to the other!” Claiming scientists are liars is as common among creationists as creationist lies are.) Of course, another lie is to claim that the yeast weren’t a single cellular organism to begin with. It’s only speculated that there is a vestigial gene that might have been activated, left over from a time when they were multicellular.
And then, of course, more quote mining. This time you used the title of an article, which happened to be correct, to make your case. Not the article itself. Duh!
And Dave is right. Why not read the actual paper? Not that it will matter.
Out of ignorance or stupidity, to paraphrase Stephan Gould, you will find a way to make a claim that evolutionary science is a deception. That’s what creationists do, after all. Lacking a science of your own, I guess you have to do something, eh?
In any case, there is nothing in your rebuttal to my post that holds water. It was just more of the same. I stand by every word. Including comparing you to flat earthers, and other cranks. You guys waste everyones time. But in a political and educational sense, you guys are also waste taxpayer money.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 11:48:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by jamalrapper
I am skeptical..
|
I am skeptical about your ability to make a rational argument. You're mostly just moaning.
|
I looked at your profile. It says you are from Canada, in Canada.
You are right why do people read it as do it when it is not written on your forehead. They don't, because it is written on your wife's forehead. Just saying........
|
I suppose we could pretend that this post of yours was also an argument and even that it made sense... |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 17:41:44 [Permalink]
|
I don't know why you thought it necessary that I mention Ratcliff and his colleagues are planning to address that objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors. It was already mentioned in the link Halfmooner provided which was in the debunking 2nd post of his which you must have skipped.
As for the experiment. I don't expect to get any further with this bunch because none of you demonstrated you actually understood the implications of the announcement " IN JUST a few weeks single-celled yeast have evolved into a multicellular organism." and what was actually done in the experiment to bring this about "An evolutionary transition that took several billion years to occur in nature has happened in a laboratory, and it needed just 60 days.
Read the article again. It says the experiment was conducted applying centrifuge to the yeast culture of brewers yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. So what they are saying is they spun the yeast culture using centrifuge and starved it to get the multicullar transition. The same process which would take millions of years to occur in nature was achieved by simply spinning the culture around in a lab using just a centrifuge equipment.
This experiment draws attention to Darwins and classic evolutionary theory which taught evolutionary transitions took million/billions of years which is disproven by Ratcliffs experiment because evolution transition are actually not very complex and did not take millions/billions of years for unicellular organism to evolve into multicellular organism as believed by Darwin and evolutionist. But is as demonstrated the process is a lot simpler. In fact the process was created in a lab in just 60 days using just centrifuge on a yeast culture.
SO we all agree it could not have taken millions of years as believed by Darwin and evolutionist for unicellular organism to transition into multicellur organism and proof of that is the experiment conducted by Ratcliff. Original article posted by DaveW. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/10/1115323109.full.pdf%20html
Thanks guys.
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 21:23:56 [Permalink]
|
Let's see, now . . .
Ad hom attacks, by attacking the publishing scientists as frauds and liars, and pro-evolution people here the same way. Both attacks repeated many times. [Check]
Weaving and dodging pointed questions, then claiming you'd answered them. [Check.]
Quote-mining, repeated. [Check]
Argumentum ad nauseam. Repetition of an unevidenced claim may work fine from the pulpit, but rarely in a scientific debate. [Check]
Projection: Accusing your opponents of dishonesty, faith, blind adherence to doctrine, ignorance, etc. [Check.]
... and the list goes on and on.
Any time you want another honest exchange of opinion and examination of evidence, jamalrapper, feel free to return. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 21:31:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
SO we all agree it could not have taken millions of years as believed by Darwin and evolutionist for unicellular organism to transition into multicellur organism and proof of that is the experiment conducted by Ratcliff. |
So now you disagree with the AiG objection, that artificial selection is not evolution. Go figure.Sounds like good-bye. I can only hope. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2012 : 23:28:05 [Permalink]
|
Just a (I hope, final) thought:
If the research results cited above showing that brewers yeast has evolved multicellularity in a lab environment turns out to be wrong (though I doubt it, they could prove to be wrong), I wonder who will have falsified the conclusions?
1. The original researchers doing further scientific work?
2. Other evolutionary biologists doing well-designed experiments?
3. ID Creationist researchers doing proper lab work?
I'd bet good money on either 1. or 2. The third option is vanishingly unlikely.
|
“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 02/19/2012 23:30:05 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2012 : 00:23:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Just a (I hope, final) thought:
If the research results cited above showing that brewers yeast has evolved multicellularity in a lab environment turns out to be wrong (though I doubt it, they could prove to be wrong), I wonder who will have falsified the conclusions?
1. The original researchers doing further scientific work?
2. Other evolutionary biologists doing well-designed experiments?
3. ID Creationist researchers doing proper lab work?
I'd bet good money on either 1. or 2. The third option is vanishingly unlikely.
|
Yup. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days
