|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
 Posted - 02/20/2012 : 03:13:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
|
What I am saying is Radcliff's experiment proves Darwin and neo-darwinism wrong because it did not take millions/billions of years to evolve from unicellular organism to multicellular organism. The experiment demonstrated it only took 60 days applying basic centrifuge(spinning) to brewers yeast and starving it to trigger evolutionary transition in the lab.
Accepting the experiment as valid also proves Darwin and evolutionary theories wrong. It proves the window was much smaller for organisms to evolve and not as long as Darwin and evolutionary theorist believed( evolutionary process spanning millions/billions of years).
If the experiment is a fact. It supports creationist beliefs life did not take billions of years to evolve. Proving Darwin and evolutionary theories wrong using scientific methods. This is the new direction Christian biologist/scientist are taking, which is very threatening to neo-darwinism evolutionist.
My position is still the same. The yeast used in the test had multicellular capabilities which is triggered by stress. Stress was applied to the yeast by centrifuge and starvation.
The AIG only reported the experiment and mentioned a scientist who cautioned the experiment was questionable. There are other independent reports by other scientist also cautioning and expressing doubt about true multicellular results.
It benefits creationist when it can be proven evolution took a shorter time than the billions/millions of years believed by Darwin and evolutionist. This experiment actually supports the position they held as dictated by the scriptures. Now they have scientific proof Darwin and evolutionary theorist were wrong.
As you all can see both positions are very acceptable to me. If the experiment is false I was being objective in my analysis. If the experiment is proven right then Darwin/evolutionary theorist were wrong.
I already mentioned Darwin did not have the benefit of modern science so much of his understanding predates molecular biology, genetics and the genome breakthroughs. Time to replace old folklore with some real science. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/20/2012 07:19:27 |
 |
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2012 : 07:03:46 [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," 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. |
|
Great stuff Halfmooner. I was using clumping not clustering in the context of budding. But now that you have put out a lot more information we can sort out our differences.
1. Another characteristic of most yeast, including S. cerevisiae, is that they divide by budding, rather than by binary fission (Byers 1981)
2. S. cerevisiae are eukaryotic. The binary fission you refer to (correct me if I am wrong) applies mainly to Prokaryotic fission. Prokaryotic, which is binary fission, is a form of asexual reproduction and cell division used by all prokaryotes, (bacteria and archaebacteria). So how does it apply to S. cerevisiae which are eukaryotic. Please explain.
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. |
(1) All relevant mutations they would find are in genes related to pseudohyphal growth (see Fig5. http://tinyurl.com/7b4znf6)
(2) Take a yeast that does not pseudohyphal and you won't see the said snowflakes, even after 100 years.
Why do you think I am a creationist? I am approaching your OP with all the scientific material available on the subject from several different sources so as not to appear biased.
You don't need a reason or excuse to pontificate as if knowledgeably about something you are just now struggling to learn. That type of honesty and candor is rare here. Thanks. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/20/2012 07:16:40 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2012 : 08:41:39 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
It proves the window was much smaller for organisms to evolve and not as long as Darwin and evolutionary theorist believed( evolutionary process spanning millions/billions of years). |
Find me any resource at all that supports your assertion that any evolutionary change from single cell to multicellular must take "millions/billions of years." Show me the resource that states that this process couldn't have occurred in the span of 350 generations. Darwin was a gradualist, but even so he had no way of knowing that under the right set of circumstances, multicellular organisms didn't arise quickly. And he wouldn't have argued against such a proposition, because he didn't have the data.
jamalrapper:
If the experiment is a fact. It supports creationist beliefs life did not take billions of years to evolve. |
Life itself is abiogenesis. That could have happened in a moment. We don't know. But if it did, that wouldn't falsify evolution. Even speciation can occur over a few generations, by way of reproductive isolation and small changes to adapt to a niche. Genetic drift. It's' well known.
But I suggest you write up your thesis, submit it to a scientific journal, because you noticed something ALL of the scientists missed, and you should ready yourself for a Noble Prize in biology. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2012 : 09:20:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
What I am saying is Radcliff's experiment proves Darwin and neo-darwinism wrong because it did not take millions/billions of years to evolve from unicellular organism to multicellular organism. The experiment demonstrated it only took 60 days applying basic centrifuge(spinning) to brewers yeast and starving it to trigger evolutionary transition in the lab. |
So you're saying that bacteria in the wild were subjected to centrifuging?!| Accepting the experiment as valid also proves Darwin and evolutionary theories wrong. It proves the window was much smaller for organisms to evolve and not as long as Darwin and evolutionary theorist believed( evolutionary process spanning millions/billions of years). |
This is backwards. Evolution didn't require billions of years, it had billions of years available. The fact that humans can artificially speed up the process isn't a strike against what happened historically. Using your "logic," one could falsely conclude that because Esperanto was developed in only ten years, our Modern English didn't take thousands of years to evolve naturally.| If the experiment is a fact. |
So you're still holding out hope that the experimenters are deliberate frauds or simply mistaken.| It supports creationist beliefs life did not take billions of years to evolve. |
Then why are creationists so set on "debunking" it?| Proving Darwin and evolutionary theories wrong using scientific methods. |
Except it doesn't.| This is the new direction Christian biologist/scientist are taking, which is very threatening to neo-darwinism evolutionist. |
Then why are evolution-accepting scientists so happy about this experiment? You've got everything backwards.| My position is still the same. The yeast used in the test had multicellular capabilities which is triggered by stress. Stress was applied to the yeast by centrifuge and starvation. |
That last sentence is false. Centrifuging the yeast did not stress them, and they were not starved during the selection process.| The AIG only reported the experiment and mentioned a scientist who cautioned the experiment was questionable. |
So when you earlier claimed that AiG had "debunked" the experiment, you were either lying or mistaken. Which was it?| There are other independent reports by other scientist also cautioning and expressing doubt about true multicellular results. |
Link to one.| It benefits creationist when it can be proven evolution took a shorter time than the billions/millions of years believed by Darwin and evolutionist. |
Not when a centrifuge is used, it doesn't.| This experiment actually supports the position they held as dictated by the scriptures. Now they have scientific proof Darwin and evolutionary theorist were wrong. |
Then why are "evolutionists" happy, and creationists upset, at the results?| As you all can see both positions are very acceptable to me. If the experiment is false I was being objective in my analysis. |
Bwhahahahahahaha! No, if the experiment is false, it won't magically turn your lies into an objective analysis.| If the experiment is proven right then Darwin/evolutionary theorist were wrong. |
Only if we can also disprove English history.| I already mentioned Darwin did not have the benefit of modern science so much of his understanding predates molecular biology, genetics and the genome breakthroughs. Time to replace old folklore with some real science. |
Except that your "real science" is a pathetic misunderstanding of the theories in question. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2012 : 12:08:20 [Permalink]
|
What's funny is there are many examples of evolution occurring in the wild, over a short period of time. Consider Nylon-eating bacteria. How long has nylon been around? The idea that any evolutionary change must take "millions/billions" of years is ridiculous and just demonstrates jamalrapper's ignorance about evolution. Hell. The fight to stay ahead of new strains of bacteria and viruses is a whole area of medicine. And they couldn't even fight that war if it weren't for their knowledge of evolutionary adaptations and how to deal with them.
Repaired Nylon eating bacteria link.
Kil |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2012 : 14:47:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
What's funny is there are many examples of evolution occurring in the wild, over a short period of time. Consider Nylon-eating bacteria. How long has nylon been around? The idea that any evolutionary change must take "millions/billions" of years is ridiculous and just demonstrates jamalrapper's ignorance about evolution. Hell. The fight to stay ahead of new strains of bacteria and viruses is a whole area of medicine. And they couldn't even fight that war if it weren't for their knowledge of evolutionary adaptations and how to deal with them.
|
Now that is an interesting point you raised because it does have the appearance and meets pre-requisites to demonstrate the finding as evolutionary adaption in progress. The ability of bacteria to digest man made nylon a modern synthetic material that did not exist before. This is called nylonase adaption.
But it has been demonstrated the nylon eating bacteria does not show any evolutionary change. Bacteria are very adaptive. It has been proven in the lab that within 9 days the same bacteria which did not possess enzymes to degrade nylon develop the enzymes within just 9 days without any evolutionary change.
Evolutionary adaption does not happen so rapidly in nature and is a very slow gradual process. Here we see it can be switched on and off in the lab at a fraction of time theorized by evolutionist.
Nylonase adaption actually works against evolutionary theories.
Sometimes I wonder whose side are you on Kil. But thanks for the help. 
Repaired Nylon eating bacteria link.
Kil |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2012 : 16:07:45 [Permalink]
|
DaveW I would like to respond to your usual 12 (plus) step of protracted point by point request for clarity. But I have to ask myself what purpose will answering you serve. It is an exercise in redundant mindless banter when taken in context of what you are qualified for.
I checked your website and found your area of interest is in skin allergies Proraisis and wondered if your remedial solution was nitpicking as a preventive solution. Why don't you try holistic medicine for a change and take more frequent herbal baths.
Being a skeptic is not that hard. But when you use the wet finger you stick to the wind to gauge its direction and the general temperature and compare it to what was registered when you had the same finger up your arse. Then using the same set of fingers to type your response. Something gets lost in translation.
My criticism is not in the loss of dexterity in your fingers. They appear to be well exercised considering the extreme fluctuation in weather we are all experiencing. But it is your loss of nimbleness of the mind which appears protracted and robotic every time you roll out your 12 step must ask exercises. I don't know if there is any way you can transfer the knowledge from your arse to what you use before your answer. Because your responses appear direct and hollow.
Can you sum up in one question what is the area under contention that is troubling you while you resist the temptation to scratch, because your Proraisis is what makes you irritable.
I am sympathetic to your shortcomings and would rather deal with them than try to challenge great discoveries knowing you are struggling with some silly itch.
Sometimes we just have to step back to take a pause. We may never know all the answers to the world of Irreducible Complexity. But we can be patient and comfort a fellow being suffering from something as simple as an itch.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2012 : 16:16:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Originally posted by Kil
What's funny is there are many examples of evolution occurring in the wild, over a short period of time. Consider Nylon-eating bacteria. How long has nylon been around? The idea that any evolutionary change must take "millions/billions" of years is ridiculous and just demonstrates jamalrapper's ignorance about evolution. Hell. The fight to stay ahead of new strains of bacteria and viruses is a whole area of medicine. And they couldn't even fight that war if it weren't for their knowledge of evolutionary adaptations and how to deal with them.
|
Now that is an interesting point you raised because it does have the appearance and meets pre-requisites to demonstrate the finding as evolutionary adaption in progress. The ability of bacteria to digest man made nylon a modern synthetic material that did not exist before. This is called nylonase adaption.
But it has been demonstrated the nylon eating bacteria does not show any evolutionary change. Bacteria are very adaptive. It has been proven in the lab that within 9 days the same bacteria which did not possess enzymes to degrade nylon develop the enzymes within just 9 days without any evolutionary change.
Evolutionary adaption does not happen so rapidly in nature and is a very slow gradual process. Here we see it can be switched on and off in the lab at a fraction of time theorized by evolutionist.
Nylonase adaption actually works against evolutionary theories.
Sometimes I wonder whose side are you on Kil. But thanks for the help.
Repaired Nylon eating bacteria link.
Kil
|
Here. Go crazy.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2012 : 16:43:59 [Permalink]
|
Jamal, repeatedly trying to change the subject isn't making you look any smarter.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2012 : 17:01:48 [Permalink]
|
What you are pointing to is of grave concern to Christians who are over indulging in science. More and more Christian sites are engaging in scientific proof to refute evolutionary theories and Darwinism. What they are forgetting is the true message of human fallibility, after all even Darwin and evolutionist are human.
Christianity is about forgiveness, reconciliation and the spread of gods message. It should not be the energy that drives refutation of evolution to become a wedge between people of different beliefs.
If Christianity saw evolution as less of a rival religion and more as a misguided tribe of Adam attracted to monkeys and apes. The zoos would be filled with gods creation and not our ancestors. Christianity is about humanity and that all creatures great and small are, we should love them all.
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2012 : 20:01:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Great stuff Halfmooner. I was using clumping not clustering in the context of budding. But now that you have put out a lot more information we can sort out our differences. |
Thanks. I shared that stuff almost entirely because I found it so fascinating. And I have no idea personally if there's any difference between "clumping" and "clustering," nor whether either is better described as "agglutination."
1. Another characteristic of most yeast, including S. cerevisiae, is that they divide by budding, rather than by binary fission (Byers 1981) 2. S. cerevisiae are eukaryotic. The binary fission you refer to (correct me if I am wrong) applies mainly to Prokaryotic fission. Prokaryotic, which is binary fission, is a form of asexual reproduction and cell division used by all prokaryotes, (bacteria and archaebacteria). So how does it apply to S. cerevisiae which are eukaryotic. Please explain.
|
From my reading, with this brewers yeast, it's not either/or. Some yeasts reproduce only by budding, some only by fission. Saccharomyces cerevisiae can reproduce either or both ways.
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. |
(1) All relevant mutations they would find are in genes related to pseudohyphal growth (see Fig5. http://tinyurl.com/7b4znf6)
|
Evolution almost always works by giving a new use to an existing feature that does something else.
(2) Take a yeast that does not pseudohyphal and you won't see the said snowflakes, even after 100 years.
|
I don't see how that follows. And just what did you pull the "100 years" out of?
Why do you think I am a creationist? I am approaching your OP with all the scientific material available on the subject from several different sources so as not to appear biased.
|
Because you need to hone up on how you come across. Throwing in theology and using YEC and ID talking points and links does tend to expose your actual motives. In essence, ID is the branch of Creationism that tries hardest to disguise itself as science, while remaining actually a branch of apologetics. But that's a lost cause, since ID advocates cannot do science to prove ID, since they would need to to prove an unfalsifiable claim of an Intelligent Designer. Instead, what they really do is try to find fault with evolutionary science. That all fits squarely with your tactics here, jamalrapper.| You don't need a reason or excuse to pontificate as if knowledgeably about something you are just now struggling to learn. That type of honesty and candor is rare here. Thanks. |
Thanks again. It's either come clean with my ignorance, or try to misrepresent myself as a scientist. I discovered the main reason not to make lying a habit when I was about 5: You get caught in your lies and then have to make up more lies to cover yourself. It becomes a recursive nightmare. Pretty soon, the fabric of lies gets unmanageably complex. |
“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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2012 : 23:12:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
DaveW I would like to respond to your usual 12 (plus) step of protracted point by point request for clarity. But I have to ask myself what purpose will answering you serve. It is an exercise in redundant mindless banter when taken in context of what you are qualified for... |
So, you're once again going to refuse to even acknowledge a single criticism of your arguments, and instead make an extended personal attack to distract away from your lies and failures?
Whatever...
Where is your evidence that the researchers either "hid" or were mistaken about the fact that the yeast they used could develop pseudohyphae?
Where is your evidence that there exists a brewer's yeast which does not ever develop pseudohyphae?
Where is your evidence that the researchers only decided to repeat the experiment with algae after they received criticism?
Where is your evidence that other scientists have criticized this research on the basis that the yeast used can develop pseudohyphae?
Where is your evidence that centrifuging introduces "stress" which would cause this common yeast to develop pseudohyphae?
Where is your evidence that during the selection process for multicellularity the researchers starved the yeast?
Where is your evidence that the researchers either lied or were mistaken about their determination that their "snowflake" yeast were not becoming multicellular due to any pseudohypal process?
The above are all claims that you've made without any supporting evidence from any independent source.
Also, provide your own personal definition of "evolution" so that we can see what you mean when you claim that the mutation responsible for nylonase is not an evolutionary adaptation. |
- 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 - 02/21/2012 : 01:30:02 [Permalink]
|
I'll help with the last one! "No True Bacterium would resort to evolution."  |
“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 02/21/2012 01:41:50 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 02:10:45 [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.
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. |
There is no deception, but your failing to grasp that New Scientist isn't a peer-reviwed journal. It's a popular science-rag which "dumbs down" research papers so that a lay-person can understand. Simplifications like the quote above is unfortunately standard journalistic practice, and is made for brevity and smashing headlines, not to convey a deeper philosofical or scientific truth.
We could of course discuss the usefulness of such practice, but not in this thread. It belongs in Media or Social Issues section.
2. The opening paragraph introduces the claims. Note the mention of single-celled yeast in just a few weeks evolved into a multicellular organism. |
Quote the original research instead. You're arguing against a straw-man.
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. |
This is wrong, and has already been addressed by Dave.
Edited spelling.
|
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/21/2012 05:28:11 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 03:17:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
This experiment actually supports the position they held as dictated by the scriptures. Now they have scientific proof Darwin and evolutionary theorist were wrong.
|
Scripture dictated that multicellular live was created the same day life was created on planet earth. Not 60 days. The yeast definitly took more than the week it took for God to finish his work, as recorded by Genesis chapter 1.
|
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. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/21/2012 05:30:21 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days
