tas8831
Well-Known Member
Isn't it precious when religionists try to 'drag' evolution down to their level by calling it a religion.
Find those quotes yet, or were you just bluffing?
-
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!
Evolution has been observed... right?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Find those quotes yet, or were you just bluffing?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Apparently, life evolved from strawmen in the world of the creationist.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
But you said cells grow feet. So now you are off on a tangent.
Feet come a bit further down the line.
Start here:
Evolution 101
Last edited:
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Animals have feet. Feet are made of cells. So some cells became foot cells and some became heart cells and some became brain cells. Isn't that the resulr of evolution? Maybe you can explain it better.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Yes it is VERY important. So I am trying to figure out why a cell that is a complete living thing all by itself would decide it should be a cell that was a part of a foot? And what methods might be used to cause that change?
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
So it would be very possible for rocks to evolve into living things because it cannot be proven that it did not happen.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
And what did it evo;ve from in the world of science?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Sheesh dude, several people have been trying to get you to understand a very basic point.....that's not how evolution works.
If you truly want to understand evolutionary biology, take a college course, read a layperson friendly book, or go to a good scientific website like this: Welcome to Evolution 101! (berkeley.edu)
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
OK maybe not feet. But that single cell lifeform ( I did not say animal) had to change in some way. Why would cells that are perfectly happy as complete independent living things change in any way? Maybe not feet but something else changed and there is no way to explain it.
It is not a conscious decision. The cells didn't decide.
You are looking for the conditions and selection that lead from single-celled life to life as we know it to exist now. That is the study of evolution.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
When we talk about "evolution" as it pertains to life forms, it is the entire organism that evolves with its body parts in unison with the whole. As the organism grows, genetics determines which new cells will become a hand or a foot or... It's like the electronic "brain" in your car that sends signals to various instruments as you drive.
Therefore, it's the mutations of these genes that changes what's in the gene pool, although that process is quite complicated, especially due to the fact that there is a mixture of dominant and recessive genes.
The above is about as short I can make it and still try and get the general idea across.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
So list two or three factors that might cause a cell that is a complete living thing all by itself to become a cell that is a part of a larger living thing. Maybe it did not actually decide but something caused it. Science must have some ideas. Otherwise it is just guesswork and magic.
Magic. That would do it. But no one knows what that is, what it means, or how to test it.
You have to ask yourself some questions here surely.
Do scientist claim that rocks evolved into cells? No. Hmmm.
Is there really evidence for rocks evolving into cells in the fossil record? No. Hmmm.
Does it make sense to postulate that rocks did this based on the previous answers? No.
There you go.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Because it's adaptive.
Experimental evolution of multicellularity | PNAS
Multicellularity was one of the most significant innovations in the history of life, but its initial evolution remains poorly understood. Using experimental evolution, we show that key steps in this transition could have occurred quickly. We subjected the unicellular yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to an environment in which we expected multicellularity to be adaptive. 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 show that key aspects of multicellular complexity, a subject of central importance to biology, can readily evolve from unicellular eukaryotes.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I'll let @Dan From Smithville answer this, but let me just say that there was an intermediate stage whereas individual cells "glued" themselves together whereas they could not be so easy to be eaten. A sponge sorta is similar to that even though today's sponges are much more complex.
LOL!
If I cannot answer to your satisfaction, then you win by default?
I spent years in class to learn what I know, and you want me to condense it down into a post.
Free cells do form larger structures. But E. coli, or amoebas are not sitting around and suddenly one of them decides to form a troupe and they all grow hands to come together. Right now.
You want to know the origin of multicellularity and tissue differentiation in a one sentence step on an internet forum? Really?
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Can you see my problem. The entire organism evolves with its body parts in unison. One cell organisms do not have body parts. They are ONE cell. So they would continue to reproduce as ONE cell. Yes, there could be a situation where a separation did not take place completely but that organism would not continue to produce more copies of itself not fully devided. And certainly not to the point of developing feet and eyes and other body parts that never existed before. And that is about as simple as I can explain the problem.
If living things are in an environment that is stable and supports biological fitness, they are not likely to change much at all. But the environment is not just the weather. It is the abiotic and biotic conditions, both internal and external, in which life exists.
You have one cell in an environment. If another cell comes along by whatever means, that environment has now changed by the addition.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
@lostwanderingsoul has had his question answered, yet he keeps asking it, which indicates that he simply ignored the answer he was given.
Like I said, they're not asking in good faith.
Like I said, they're not asking in good faith.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Well I know evolution depends very much on the fossil record. And the fossil record definitely shows that there was a time when there were rocks and a later time when there were living things. Since science is not concerned with proof then why not postulate that life came from rocks? Can it be proven true or false?