No it hasn't. Colonization is not multi-cellularity.
And Lenski was\is hoping for anything.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"1,000 Scientists Sign Up to Dissent from Darwin"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
No it hasn't. Colonization is not multi-cellularity.
And Lenski was\is hoping for anything.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
I really wish you anti-knowledge types would get your acts together and fabricate a common 'definition' of information to use in your anti-evolution rants. It is like if you ask 10 creationists what they mean by "information" in genomes you get 10 different (and often contradictory) answers.
Because what you just presented is at odds with pretty much every other creationist definition I have seen, and indicates a rather shallow understanding of how features are produced or altered.
HINT: it does not take a whole new gene to alter phenotype.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No problem. But first you must demonstrate that you understand what the scientific method is. Otherwise it would be a waste of both of our time.
Skwim
Veteran Member
And yet creationists continue to cite it as evidence against evolution, and why? Because their old ammunition has run out of powder. Even (well, not so much "even" as "of course") Ken Ham in his AiG web site has a plethora of articles on abiogenesis, 75 in fact. See HERE.
My reckoning is it's either out of ignorance, having been mislead by people like Ken Ham, or, knowing it's a red herring, use it to dupe others.
.
Last edited:
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wrong again. Colonization was nowhere in the cards for that experiment. Instead of making obvious false claims you should be trying to learn:
E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am betting that at best he will not understand.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
So only genes are "genetic information"? Regulatory regions aren't?
And here ya' go.....an observed example of the evolution of 3 new chimeric genes that increased the fitness of a population of yeast.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/15/8/931/1048873
Don't give me that crap. You bail on pretty much every conversation I have with you, including times when, after I post something to you, you say "I'll look at it and get back to you". Of course, you never do, thereby indicating that you were just employing a diversion tactic. Or the times when you accuse me of something and bail once I ask you to back up the accusation.
Your pattern of behavior is blatantly obvious.
Last edited:
Sapiens
Polymathematician
I'd say that it does not, in and of itself, make one a scientist, but the Discovery Institute seems to think that engineers and psychologists, and dentists are.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Doesn't matter since the evolution of multicellularity was observed in a lab experiment back in 2012.
Experimental evolution of multicellularity
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Holy Galloping Goalposts Batman!
Lol. Sorry if I stated it wrong. I thought my intent was clear.
Your link simply shows the capability of certain cells to "cluster". Are they developing new features? No. Their functional development is altered somewhat, but no different than humans working together in a community. Curious, though: could these cells disband, become unicellular again?
Lol. I explained my reasons. I think whenever I said I'd get back to you, I did....maybe once (twice?) I didn't.
But many times, your reworded questions were redundant....I'd already answered. Like with that Flood thread.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Nope.
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
Yep. New reproduction strategy, a new juvenile phase, new growth patterns, and several new life strategies.
No, unless you think "humans working in a community" involves a different type of reproduction, a new life phase, and workers killing themselves early in order to increase production.
Don't know, but it's irrelevant to the question at hand. The fact is, unicellular organisms evolving into multicellular organisms is a directly observed fact.
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Oh I know you have your reasons. Every creationist has "reasons" for running away.
No, you didn't.
Funny....the flood thread was the last time you told me you'd look at something and get back to me, but never did. Also, yes I kept asking the same questions, such as for you to describe the orientation of the Himalayan strata, but you never once even acknowledged that point, let alone answered it.
Look...this is all extremely stereotypical for internet creationists. Pretty much all of you do the same thing....make assertions, dodge questions and rebuttals, and leave, only to wait a bit and come back and make the same old assertions all over again. Your participation in this thread is a good example. I'd shown you that paper on the experimental evolution of multicellularity before, but back then you thought it was about the algae population that became multicelluar after accidentally being exposed to a predator in the lab. Once I pointed your mistake out to you, you left. And now here you are again acting like you'd never seen any of it before.
So my suggestion to you is, stop furthering the creationist stereotype. Follow through on conversations, and if you get to the point where you think it's not worth continuing, say so. Don't just bail with no explanation, because all that does is lead people to conclude that you couldn't handle where the discussion was going so you ran.
Oh and btw, did you just ignore the part of my post about "genetic information" and the evolution of new genes in yeast?
Yes...your question was similar to that. I remember the question had no definitive answer. Now, you tell me: how can I honestly answer that question, when geologists themselves share no consensus on it?!
For the most part, I responded to your questions...you just didn’t like my referenced answers.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Funny....our exchange here in this thread illustrates my point extremely well. Look at all the points in my posts to you that you've ignored just in the last day!
And if you want to see how you did the same thing in the flood thread, start HERE and work your way back. Pay particular attention to how many of my rebuttals and questions you ignored.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I demand you give me an example of a thing that meets these criteria, yet I will not define specifically what counts as meeting the criteria. I do this so that no matter what you present, I can say that your examples do not support the criteria I asked for!
We Never Know
No Slack
Yep yadda maybe nadda