Evolution My ToE

[Jose Fly]

Consider this article...
How multi-celled animals developed: Evolutionary discovery to rewrite textbooks
"We've found that the first multicellular animals probably weren't like the modern-day sponge cells, but were more like a collection of convertible cells," Professor Degnan said.

"The great-great-great-grandmother of all cells in the animal kingdom, so to speak, was probably quite similar to a stem cell.

That has nothing to do with the paper I posted and how it relates to your claim that there's "No evidence of simple organism to complex".

The paper I posted describes the direct observation of the evolution of several new life history traits. If that's not an increase in complexity, then you'll have to explain precisely how you're defining and measuring "complexity", and then explain how what was observed isn't an increase of it.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly I'll get back to you later.

That's fine....I'm in no hurry.

 

[nPeace]

@Jose Fly
This Experimental evolution of multicellularity is the same as the one SZ linked which contains the video The momentous transition to multicellular life may not have been so hard after all

The experiment is demonstrating clusters of single celled organisms. I read the entire thing... almost.

Logging of for the day.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly
This Experimental evolution of multicellularity is the same as the one SZ linked which contains the video The momentous transition to multicellular life may not have been so hard after all

The experiment is demonstrating clusters of single celled organisms. I read the entire thing... almost.

Logging of for the day.

I'll repeat.....The paper describes the direct observation of the evolution of several new life history traits that weren't in the original population (reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, determinate growth, among-cell division of labor, and higher rates of programmed cell death). If that's not an increase in complexity, then you'll have to explain precisely how you're defining and measuring "complexity", and then explain how what was observed isn't an increase of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Jose Fly
This Experimental evolution of multicellularity is the same as the one SZ linked which contains the video The momentous transition to multicellular life may not have been so hard after all

The experiment is demonstrating clusters of single celled organisms. I read the entire thing... almost.

Logging of for the day.

How do you think that complex life began? It started very simple and developed more as time went on.

Remember the analogy of walking across the U.S.? Each evolutionary step is so small that the only reaction one would have is "Meh." But we have hundred of millions, in fact billions of years for all of those changes to add up. A drunken senior using a walker would seem like a cheetah compared to the evolutionary rate.

 

[Bear Wild]

First. Specifically to Wild Fox, who appears to be missing what my second post says.
Excepts of key points, and highlighted...

Spoiler: 2014 Study

2014 - The stripy stick insect that walked with dinosaurs
This is the earliest known plant-mimicking stick insect, its fragile body preserved for 126 million years in the dusty rocks of north-east China.

Cretophasmomima melanogramma is the latest discovery from the Jehol Biota, a dinosaur-era community preserved in incredible detail.

The prehistoric insect lived sometime during the early Cretaceous period and scientists say that it is one of the early descendants of modern stick insects. "This dearth in the paleontological record makes assessments on the origin and age of the group problematic and impedes investigations of evolutionary key aspects, such as wing development, sexual size dimorphism and plant mimicry."

The insect, which has been named Cretophasmomima melanogramma, may have lacked some of the more complex features found in modern stick insects but it had already evolved the necessary basic structures.

The fossilized remains were found in the Yixian Formation in China. This is an area widely known among paleontologists for producing a relatively large number of well-preserved fossils from the early Cretaceous Period.

"We know from the same locality where the stick insect was discovered that there are a bunch of predators; including tiny tree-climbing dinosaurs and mammals with insect-eating teeth, as well as birds," Béthoux said.

Spoiler: 2019 Study

2019 - Was early stick insect evolution triggered by birds and mammals?
A team of international researchers led by the University of Göttingen has now generated the first phylogenomic tree of these insects. The results have been published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution

"Previously the relationships between stick insects were inferred based on just a handful of genes. This [the current study] is the first study in which more than 2,000 genes were analysed for each species," explains Dr Sven Bradler...
38 species of stick and leaf insects from all over the world were investigated by the researchers of the 1KITE project (1,000 Insect Transcriptome Evolution). "Previous studies were unable to explain the early evolution of these insects. This has now changed with the new and much more extensive dataset that can even reconstruct the origin of the oldest lineages," adds Dr Sabrina Simon

The most surprising finding is that the relationships between the early emerging groups of stick and leaf insects largely disprove the earlier assumptions. In fact, the genealogy reflects more the geographic distribution than the anatomical similarity of the animals.

The age estimation of the phylogenetic tree suggests that most of the old lineages emerged after the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago. Thus, the remarkable camouflage of stick and leaf insects most probably evolved afterwards as adaptation against predatory mammals and birds.

So finding fossils buried in a layer with other fossils dated to before 66 million years, was not enough to verify that stick insects 'evolved' before the Paleogene period (66–23.03 million years ago), but geographic distribution, and not one of the strongest forms of evidence - comparative anatomy, was used to determine that the stick insect 'evolved' after the dinosaur era, about 47 million years ago.

On the video - #2
Continuing from this point, one of the strongest forms of evidence is subjective opinion.
Organisms with similar anatomical features are assumed to be relatively closely related evolutionarily, and they are assumed to share a common ancestor.

Spoiler

This is another one of the evidences provided in the video. Pure assumption.
All vehicles have the same basic structure. Therefore all vehicles had the same maker. Come on, give me a medal nuh.

On the video - #3
Subjective opinion based on presumptions.
All cars carry various level of fuel. Therefore all cars must be related by manufacturer. The more similar. the closer. Do I get a medal? Come on, don't be closed fisted.

So many assumptions go into genome comparisons.

@Wild Fox, I don't want to pull up numerous examples, but the surprises are countless. This shrew only weighs an ounce but it's more like an elephant than a mouse

Gorillas More Related to People Than Thought, Genome Says
...instead of gorillas being most similar to chimps and then humans in that portion of the DNA, the branches flip to humans being most similar to gorillas and then chimps.

So, you want to know how the fossil record supports creation. Actually it's not only the fossil record, it everything else.
Here is what we expect, as the various kinds of life-forms were created, with reproductive powers, and allowed to spread their genes... as stated in the Bible.

.

You keep proving you do not understand science and with the same examples that support science.
1. The 2014 finding of a fossil of a insect that shows body mimicking vegetation was geological evidence. The 2019 genetic study was using genetics to predict when these patterns developed. So why the discrepancy? They are two different forms of information. It is interesting that the 2019 study did not identify the 2014 fossil but we do not know if they were aware of that geologic evidence or whether the just wanted to use there genetic testing to predict. The beauty in science is that someone else can use the fossil record to adjust the genetic prediction to improve our understanding.
What you see as a discrepancy representing a flaw is actually what makes science the best way we can understand our world. With each new piece of evidence we slowly but clearly learn more and these types of discrepancies continue to challenge us to improve our techniques and learn more.

2. Fossils are objective information with observable structures to show that the whales flipper has the same basic bone structure as human or dog despite its outward appearance and altered function and even bird wings show very similar bone structure despite its outward appearance. This is clear observable evidence of similarity or cant you see that? Excellent evidence for common ancestry. From your comparison to cars you apparently do not understand that cars do not have genetic material to determine how they look and function or are completely ignorant of how the comparison is meaningless and really do not comprehend science at all.

3. The elephant shrew only show how amazing the genetic material is to create such variation in phenotype - also supportive of evolution.

4. Gorillas, chimpanzees and humans - If you actually read what you linked to and had a grasp of biology you would think that 98 shared dna between organism is clear evidence of shared ancestry and the patterns show we are not descended from each other but from a common ancestor. Again you site evidence in support of evolution.

Challenge what is said in the bible or its discrepancies and you get the same scriptures recited over and over or new and imaginative ways of rethinking what the same words mean. No advancement in understanding only the same misunderstanding. Thanks for the supportive examples.

 

[blü 2]

There you go again. This would have made it the fourth time you want to go in circles, not listen to what is said to you, but just say what you want to say.
Well I already told you, feel free to say whatever you want, regardless it be false.

Let me rephrase this point so that it directly addresses your question.

The most credible explanation of the origin of species is evolution as expounded by the theory of evolution.

This is the case, not least because there's no other credible theory on the table.

You can refute the point by naming an alternative that's more credible than the theory of evolution.

 

[blü 2]

How do you think that complex life began? It started very simple and developed more as time went on.

Remember the analogy of walking across the U.S.? Each evolutionary step is so small that the only reaction one would have is "Meh." But we have hundred of millions, in fact billions of years for all of those changes to add up. A drunken senior using a walker would seem like a cheetah compared to the evolutionary rate.

And every now and then the intoxicated mariner and his walker reach the top of a hill and ─ zip! ─ he slithers down the other side, singing Punk eke, punk eke / Or you can kiss my cheek!

 

[Valjean]

Were you at Waterloo? Does that mean either that you are Napoleon or that there was no Napoleon?

Unlike Jesus, we have first person, written, eyewitness accounts of Napoleon, from verifiable authors, as well as birth and baptismal records, thousands of letters, diaries, portraits and newspaper articles, not just from him and his intimates, but from all over Europe. Napoleon is very well documented.

Hundreds of people witnessing something and may dying to attest to what they saw is not some 'report'.

Are there any written, eyewitness accounts of Jesus, or just reports written decades later of Christians and christian doctrine?
There are no diaries, or letters, or portraits or official, eyewitness reports surviving. The reports of his life are usually of uncertain origin and provenance. Reports of him are hearsay.

We have more, and more reliable evidence of Muhammad and Baha'u'llah than we have of Jesus.

The verse told us. If we do what He said, we will know. What He askes is that we believe and ask Him into our lives.

If it were this easy to obtain 'Jesus-consciousness' why is this mystical knowledge not near universal?
If it were so clear and unambiguous, why is there so much disagreement amongst Christians? Why do so many Christians lose their faith if, as you say, it's actually knowledge?
Why do adherents of other religions assert pretty much the same thing about their chosen faiths?

Nonsense. Jesus had followers, and relatives, one for example that became a leader in the early church.

Please read what the Christian scholars and historians say.
None of his friends and family left first-person accounts. We generally can't even verify the identities of those writing the stories about him.

Not really. Creation shouts out that there is.

It would seem so, at a casual glance. And Christians have been using these arguments from ignorance and incredulity for centuries -- as have Hindus, Muslims, &c.
Recently, though, we've developed a powerful research and testing modality that explains all these wonders of creation as natural phenomena, created by ordinary chemistry, geology or physics, with no need to appeal to magical "explanations."

Empirical is just a silly buzz term for fitting into your religious boxed beliefs.

We keep telling you that you don't understand evidence, or critical analysis, or logic; that you're not good at seeing connections or understanding analogies, or grasping explanations when given.
And with statements like this, you keep verifying it.

 

[Valjean]

You have every opportunity to present the "science of ToE", in a very simple way. Simply show me that it is not based on subjective opinions of the circumstantial evidence. You have not done that, so it would seem that you are happy with the opinions of men... maybe because they fit your worldview.

Wait. You can't explain simply what you said?
"And similarly, selection is also acting on something else, i.e., variability in the population."
Then forget it.

nPeace, you're being deliberately obtuse, asking the same questions over and over again.
All this has been explained countless times, in multiple threads, plus in your own posts, and you've even reiterated the answers yourself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have every opportunity to present the "science of ToE", in a very simple way. Simply show me that it is not based on subjective opinions of the circumstantial evidence. You have not done that, so it would seem that you are happy with the opinions of men... maybe because they fit your worldview.

So you're asking for a crashcourse in the fields of biology, molecular biology, evolutionary biology, evolutionary genetics, comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, biogeography, paleontology,...
Or a rundown of the more then 300.000 peer reviewed publications on these topics in heavily scrutinzed scientific journals...

So, basically a summary of some 2 centuries worth of field work by thousands, millions even, of scientists?

And all that in a forum post?
Well, that's... ambitious.

 

[nPeace]

How do you think that complex life began? It started very simple and developed more as time went on.

Remember the analogy of walking across the U.S.? Each evolutionary step is so small that the only reaction one would have is "Meh." But we have hundred of millions, in fact billions of years for all of those changes to add up. A drunken senior using a walker would seem like a cheetah compared to the evolutionary rate.

How did complex life begin? Goddidit.

 

[viole]

Viole, please stop fooling yourself, or letting others fool you.
Science does not say that. Philosophy does.
I really hate to know you guys are doing this to yourselves... but it's your choice, of course.

Consider... and this is in response to @Wild Fox, but to all the other evolution believers.

First. Specifically to Wild Fox, who appears to be missing what my second post says.
Excepts of key points, and highlighted...

Spoiler: 2014 Study

2014 - The stripy stick insect that walked with dinosaurs
This is the earliest known plant-mimicking stick insect, its fragile body preserved for 126 million years in the dusty rocks of north-east China.

Cretophasmomima melanogramma is the latest discovery from the Jehol Biota, a dinosaur-era community preserved in incredible detail.

The prehistoric insect lived sometime during the early Cretaceous period and scientists say that it is one of the early descendants of modern stick insects. "This dearth in the paleontological record makes assessments on the origin and age of the group problematic and impedes investigations of evolutionary key aspects, such as wing development, sexual size dimorphism and plant mimicry."

The insect, which has been named Cretophasmomima melanogramma, may have lacked some of the more complex features found in modern stick insects but it had already evolved the necessary basic structures.

The fossilized remains were found in the Yixian Formation in China. This is an area widely known among paleontologists for producing a relatively large number of well-preserved fossils from the early Cretaceous Period.

"We know from the same locality where the stick insect was discovered that there are a bunch of predators; including tiny tree-climbing dinosaurs and mammals with insect-eating teeth, as well as birds," Béthoux said.

Spoiler: 2019 Study

2019 - Was early stick insect evolution triggered by birds and mammals?
A team of international researchers led by the University of Göttingen has now generated the first phylogenomic tree of these insects. The results have been published in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution

"Previously the relationships between stick insects were inferred based on just a handful of genes. This [the current study] is the first study in which more than 2,000 genes were analysed for each species," explains Dr Sven Bradler...
38 species of stick and leaf insects from all over the world were investigated by the researchers of the 1KITE project (1,000 Insect Transcriptome Evolution). "Previous studies were unable to explain the early evolution of these insects. This has now changed with the new and much more extensive dataset that can even reconstruct the origin of the oldest lineages," adds Dr Sabrina Simon

The most surprising finding is that the relationships between the early emerging groups of stick and leaf insects largely disprove the earlier assumptions. In fact, the genealogy reflects more the geographic distribution than the anatomical similarity of the animals.

The age estimation of the phylogenetic tree suggests that most of the old lineages emerged after the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago. Thus, the remarkable camouflage of stick and leaf insects most probably evolved afterwards as adaptation against predatory mammals and birds.

So finding fossils buried in a layer with other fossils dated to before 66 million years, was not enough to verify that stick insects 'evolved' before the Paleogene period (66–23.03 million years ago), but geographic distribution, and not one of the strongest forms of evidence - comparative anatomy, was used to determine that the stick insect 'evolved' after the dinosaur era, about 47 million years ago.

On the video - #2
Continuing from this point, one of the strongest forms of evidence is subjective opinion.
Organisms with similar anatomical features are assumed to be relatively closely related evolutionarily, and they are assumed to share a common ancestor.

Spoiler

This is another one of the evidences provided in the video. Pure assumption.
All vehicles have the same basic structure. Therefore all vehicles had the same maker. Come on, give me a medal nuh.

On the video - #3
Subjective opinion based on presumptions.
All cars carry various level of fuel. Therefore all cars must be related by manufacturer. The more similar. the closer. Do I get a medal? Come on, don't be closed fisted.

So many assumptions go into genome comparisons.

@Wild Fox, I don't want to pull up numerous examples, but the surprises are countless. This shrew only weighs an ounce but it's more like an elephant than a mouse

Gorillas More Related to People Than Thought, Genome Says
...instead of gorillas being most similar to chimps and then humans in that portion of the DNA, the branches flip to humans being most similar to gorillas and then chimps.

So, you want to know how the fossil record supports creation. Actually it's not only the fossil record, it everything else.
Here is what we expect, as the various kinds of life-forms were created, with reproductive powers, and allowed to spread their genes... as stated in the Bible.

Spoiler: Support for creation

1. No evidence of simple organism to complex.
2. No evidence of non-vertebrate to vertebrate.
3. Fully formed complex organisms of most major groups of organisms, with the full body plan of all living and non-living organisms suddenly appearing in the lowest geological period.
4. No evidence of transition from one organism to another in the fossil record, or anywhere else, for that matter.
5. Little or no change in features, or traits, and many "living fossils".
6. Thousands of years with no observation of one kind of organism evolving to another kind.

On the other hand, these are what we do not expect to find if the idea of LUCA were true.
In fact, we expect to find this...

Spoiler: Lack of Support for Evolution

1.
From Simple To Complex
Despite their efforts, however, the origins of this intriguing phenomenon remain shrouded in mystery. Evolution and extinction over hundreds of millions of years have blurred the details of the transition, and the answers provided by genome sequencing only lead to more questions.

2.
Although the backbone is one of the most important innovations in the history of life, its origins have long been shrouded in mystery.
Speculations abound, sure enough.

3.
The Cambrian explosion was far shorter than we thought
Considered a mystery.

4.
Debates over what is a transitional fossil, because this circumstantial evidence relies on subjective opinion.
Archaeopteryx continues to play an important part in scientific debates about the origin and evolution of birds.

5 & 6.
Living fossils: contentious but necessary? Whether it is horseshoe crabs, coelacanths, or gingko trees, taxa that allegedly display extraordinary levels of morphological stasis over geological time have called out for a special explanation since Darwin...

Actually, all the so-called evidence presented to try to support the LUCA idea, are subjective opinion, all conjecture from circumstantial evidence. Basically, they are all hypothetical.
The phylogenetic tree - a hypothesis.
The molecular evolutionary clock - a hypothesis.
Transitional fossils - a hypothesis.
Did I miss anything? Oops. How could I forget...
LUCA - a hypothesis.

There is no way, imo, one can know all of this, and not recognize that this is all philosophical, unless they are duped, deluded, or just plain emotionally attached to claims for their own personal desire - basically, it is in line with their selfish pursuits... imo.
To me, the most they have done is substitute an intelligent designer / creator for LUCA, but just as one can't prove God by natural mean, they can't prove LUCA, but they can block God and keep LUCA.
It's not science, plain and simple, but then again, perhaps it is... the 19th century and beyond science - where any assumption that supports the presumptions goes, basically. So if the evidence does not fit the theory, the theory can be modified to fit the evidence. If I did that, they would call me dishonest, a fraud and con man.

I just want to say, in conclusion, when we assume something to be true, we are really saying we suppose something to be the case, without proof.
For example, "The only things that exist are those that..." "Nothing of this sort can exist, or happen."
It seems to me, the only ones allowed to assume, in the minds of the anti-God, anti-miracles, anti-Christian, opinionated bias, are scientists. So to them it is wrong to point out that assumptions are not fact, or proof of anything.
However, it is right in their eyes to claim everything outside of their box is an assumption without merit.
Hilarious!

So, not so compatible with science after all. Or better, only compatible with science only if we redefine science so that it does not contradict a book written by people who probably knew vastly more about goats and sheep than molecular biology.

Well. Just look at us. Do you really believe that God created man, the very being in His image, the crown jewel of His creation, the being His son will incarnate into, from dust so that ....PUFF... he turns out to be a mammal, primate with nipples, and with a silent gene to grow tails?

And you find that a rational thing to believe?

So, either evolution is true or God has an obsession for mammals primates.

Your call, basically

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

You keep proving you do not understand science and with the same examples that support science.

You keep proving that you guys can't help with the Ad hominem.

1. The 2014 finding of a fossil of a insect that shows body mimicking vegetation was geological evidence. The 2019 genetic study was using genetics to predict when these patterns developed. So why the discrepancy? They are two different forms of information. It is interesting that the 2019 study did not identify the 2014 fossil but we do not know if they were aware of that geologic evidence or whether the just wanted to use there genetic testing to predict. The beauty in science is that someone else can use the fossil record to adjust the genetic prediction to improve our understanding.
What you see as a discrepancy representing a flaw is actually what makes science the best way we can understand our world. With each new piece of evidence we slowly but clearly learn more and these types of discrepancies continue to challenge us to improve our techniques and learn more.

You entirely missed what I am pointing out, and it seems deliberate to me. I know I am not that bad. Not blowing my own trumpet... Aw, why not... I am a good teacher. So...

A stick insect fossil in a layer with dinosaur fossils dating before 66 million years will automatically indicate the fossil must be older than 66 million years - which was done.
If other studies say that is wrong, and the stick insect fossil is younger - many millions of years after 66 million years ago, the how did it get buried in a layer with dinosaur fossils?
If the insect fossil is much younger, then why are the other fossils in that strata older, and not considered younger?
Does it have anything to do with the phylogenetic tree?

2. Fossils are objective information with observable structures to show that the whales flipper has the same basic bone structure as human or dog despite its outward appearance and altered function and even bird wings show very similar bone structure despite its outward appearance. This is clear observable evidence of similarity or cant you see that? Excellent evidence for common ancestry. From your comparison to cars you apparently do not understand that cars do not have genetic material to determine how they look and function or are completely ignorant of how the comparison is meaningless and really do not comprehend science at all.

Fossils are objective information of what?
Fossils are circumstantial evidence that don't say nuttin about nuttin. Circumstantial evidence can be interpreted to fit a number of circumstances - unlike direct evidence.

Does similarities say, "Ooh. Ooh. I belong to evolution."
"Why look at the similarities. Oh my. These must have been built by the spaghetti monster. Just look at 'em. Yup. He did it."
I expect better of you Wild Fox. I'm disappointed.
You have not observed evidence of anything other than your subjective opinion.
How about we accept they say Goddidit. That's why they look similar.
The argument about cars not being genetic and able to reproduce is the height of ridiculous, imo.

3. The elephant shrew only show how amazing the genetic material is to create such variation in phenotype - also supportive of evolution.

Subjctive.
Again, Goddidit.

4. Gorillas, chimpanzees and humans - If you actually read what you linked to and had a grasp of biology you would think that 98 shared dna between organism is clear evidence of shared ancestry and the patterns show we are not descended from each other but from a common ancestor. Again you site evidence in support of evolution.

Oh. I didn't read it?
Ad hominem. You can't help it. I totally get that.
By the way, you apparently missed the point... again. Why am I not surprised...

Challenge what is said in the bible or its discrepancies and you get the same scriptures recited over and over or new and imaginative ways of rethinking what the same words mean. No advancement in understanding only the same misunderstanding. Thanks for the supportive examples.

Now I am missing your point. Not deliberately, but it makes no sense apparently.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You keep proving that you guys can't help with the Ad hominem.

I'm going to have to pull you up on that one.

That is not an example of an ad hominem.

Fossils are objective information of what?
Fossils are circumstantial evidence that don't say nuttin about nuttin. Circumstantial evidence can be interpreted to fit a number of circumstances - unlike direct evidence.

I'm not sure I'm keen on your tone, nPeace. Please be more respectful.

Fossils are not circumstantial. Especially when they fit exactly within evolutionary predictions and cannot be explained any other reasonable way.

Does similarities say, "Ooh. Ooh. I belong to evolution."
"Why look at the similarities. Oh my. These must have been built by the spaghetti monster. Just look at 'em. Yup. He did it."
I expect better of you Wild Fox. I'm disappointed.

Yet again, please stop being rude and patronizing people who are trying to explain this to you. You should know by now that similarities alone are not presented as compelling evidence of evolution. It is part of the whole picture which clearly illustrates evolution as the current best (and only) explanation of biological diversity.

You have not observed evidence of anything other than your subjective opinion.
How about we accept they say Goddidit. That's why they look similar.

Because that would be arbitrary and silly. Why couldn't Godhavedoneit USING evolution, since that's what all of the available evidence indicates?

The argument about cars not being genetic and able to reproduce is the height of ridiculous, imo.

So you think cars reproduce naturally and have a genome?

Oh. I didn't read it?
Ad hominem. You can't help it. I totally get that.

Once again, there was no ad hominem in that pargraph.

Do you understand what an ad hominem is?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wait. You can't explain simply what you said?
"And similarly, selection is also acting on something else, i.e., variability in the population."
Then forget it.

This post, right here, shows you aren't interested in learning anything.

 

[metis]

The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor",

That is a "hypothesis", not an "axiom"-- there's a difference.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thanks, but no, I don't think that was a simple and detailed explanation.
You see how you made me break down what I was saying, in order for you to understand? I'll like you to break it down simply, that a child can understand.

I might take a stab at this. It may take a little time, so I'll come back to it.

 

[nPeace]

I'll repeat.....The paper describes the direct observation of the evolution of several new life history traits that weren't in the original population (reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, determinate growth, among-cell division of labor, and higher rates of programmed cell death). If that's not an increase in complexity, then you'll have to explain precisely how you're defining and measuring "complexity", and then explain how what was observed isn't an increase of it.

Why repeat what you want to hear, or see, rather than what is there?

I read...
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.
What was it that evolved, and what did it evolve to, according to the paper, and not according to what you wrote?

Multicellular organisms are organisms that consist of more than one cell, in contrast to unicellular organisms.
Do you agree that a cluster of single celled organisms is not a multi-celled organism? Or do you think the cluster was a multi-celled organism?

Scientists are discovering ways in which single cells might have evolved traits that entrenched them into group behavior, paving the way for multicellular life
I will wait until the scientists complete their studies, and demonstrate how simple life did evolve to complex.

Yeast suggests speedy start for multicellular life
“I think this paper marks the beginning of a really important body of work that may take many years to play out — not only dissecting the genetics of what's happened so far, but asking just how far the yeast can go in terms of a multicellular lifestyle,” says Lenski.

Yeast evolved from multicellular ancestors, so it is possible that they had an easier time of recreating their ancient lifestyle.

As for now, I will go with the facts that have been left out - whether deliberately or not... I don't know.
Yeasts are fungi that grow as single cells, producing daughter cells either by budding (the budding yeasts) or by binary fission (the fission yeasts)
Yeasts are unicellular organisms that evolved from multicellular ancestors, with some species having the ability to develop multicellular characteristics by forming strings of connected budding cells known as pseudohyphae or false hyphae.

The most common mode of vegetative growth in yeast is asexual reproduction by budding, where a small bud (also known as a bleb or daughter cell) is formed on the parent cell. The nucleus of the parent cell splits into a daughter nucleus and migrates into the daughter cell. The bud then continues to grow until it separates from the parent cell, forming a new cell. The daughter cell produced during the budding process is generally smaller than the mother cell. Some yeasts, including Schizosaccharomyces pombe, reproduce by fission instead of budding, and thereby creating two identically sized daughter cells.

What is the problem then?
Eric Libby - “This work shows that a cell living in a group can experience a fundamentally different environment than a cell living on its own. The environment can be so different that traits disastrous for a solitary organism, like increased rates of death, can become advantageous for cells in a group.”

The poor frightened life is simply reacting to an environment in which they are forced to try to keep their lineage alive. Therefore adapting.
They have not become a multi-cellular organism. Okay.

 

[nPeace]

I might take a stab at this. It may take a little time, so I'll come back to it.

Thanks. I look forward to it.
I plan on coming back to it, but not today, so that will work fine.