Evolution My ToE

[nPeace]

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

That is not an example of an ad hominem.


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.


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.


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


So you think cars reproduce naturally and have a genome?


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

Do you understand what an ad hominem is?

Do I sound rude?
Perhaps the constant ad hominem got to me.
Ad hominem
fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

I don't think there is any need to assume that someone does not understand something, just because they don't say what the person believes.
Nor do I think there is a need to assume a person has not read an article, especially since one may be assuming the person is making a point one assumes the person is making.
You would know, it can be tiring, and my imperfection kicks in sometimes.

However, I do appreciate your reminding me, as I think we have been there, and that's why you understand, and can now apply it.
For that reason, I have been enjoying our discussions lately.

I'll remember to tone down... despite. Let people keep taking advantage of that.

 

[nPeace]

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

So what are you saying viole... that because one reaches a conclusion, whether they assume it to be the case, then it must be the case, so long as the person is named "scientist"?

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

You're losing track of the conversation.

Remember, the reason I cited the paper was in response to your argument that there's "No evidence of simple organism to complex". In the experiment, researchers directly observed and documented the evolution of all those traits I listed....traits that weren't present in the original population.

So keeping that in mind, the question remains.....is that an increase in "complexity"? If not, then please explain how you're defining and measuring "complexity" and then explain why the evolution of all those new traits isn't an increase of it.

Also, do you now understand how natural selection acts on variability in populations?

 

[viole]

So what are you saying viole... that because one reaches a conclusion, whether they assume it to be the case, then it must be the case, so long as the person is named "scientist"?

Of course not. For instance, we know today Newton was wrong, but he was definitely a scientist.

But this is what science today overwhelmingly holds for true: that life did not start independently on this planet million of times. Not even twice.

So, even in the unlikely event that your bronze age book is right and modern scientists are wrong, it still holds true that your book is incompatible with science. It would be actually necessarily so.

IOW: to insist that creationism, especially in the creation of life, is compatible with science is a ridiculous claim. Even if creationism was true.

It is just a pathetic attempt to not lose contact from science completely, as you should actually do if you were logically coherent, because of its huge success. It is nothing more than marketing of beliefs that cannot stand on their own feet, and cannot show a similar track record.

It is actually a defensive position, that shows who really dominates the intellectual Zeitgeist today.

And that is: cosmology, physics, biology, astronomy, etc. ... not talking snakes, rib women and such.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

How did complex life begin? Goddidit.

What evidence do you have for that? I think that we may need to go over the concept of scientific evidence again.

But you do realize that you have now conceded the evolution argument. We were debating evolution which does not rely on abiogenesis. The first life could have been magically poofed into existence. Once it existed it evolved. Moving the goal posts past the argument is a tacit admission of defeat.

 

[tas8831]

No evidence at all aside from the bible either way, so make no claims for science as if it covered the issue, got it?

No - I reject your absurd claims.

No, I am pointing out that you employed a logical fallacy.

Thinking it was one is one actually.

Really? What is that fallacy called?

You assuming that a cause for which no evidence exists was actually the cause is, in fact, begging the question.

You are not good at logic.

Scripture re: creation was tested and proven?

Yes, the bible says try it and we will know.

Non sequitur; fallacy of begging the question again.

And how were the different states past corrected for?

Well, when we entered the current nature the bible records the different world/nature we lived in as compared to the former.

What was the former nature, and how was this established and by whom?

What is the evidence for there being a "former nature"?

 

[tas8831]

Great. I'm no ape.

A snake, then?

 

[dad]

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.
Are there any written, eyewitness accounts of Jesus, or just reports written decades later of Christians and christian doctrine?

Have you any birth certificates from the time of Jesus?

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.

False. The records compiled into what became the bible, from Peter and John and etc etc were here before they got put in book form! There are even records from pagans. You simply are in no position to doubt what the apostles who knew Jesus said or how they recorded His words.

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

Why would we doubt they lived??

If it were this easy to obtain 'Jesus-consciousness' why is this mystical knowledge not near universal?

Not everyone will obey what He said and try it apparently...no idea why!

If it were so clear and unambiguous, why is there so much disagreement amongst Christians?

Because people claim religion for personal benefit and not exclusively because they had a genuine experience or change of heart.

Why do so many Christians lose their faith if, as you say, it's actually knowledge?

In many cases I have found that when people don't really know Him, He may allow them to go through dark valleys so that they can come to a point where they actually want to really know Him. He wants the real thing.

Why do adherents of other religions assert pretty much the same thing about their chosen faiths?

Maybe folks who only know bad spirits think that they are pretty good...till they meet the real deal?

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.

Read what His apostles said, and forget the so called scholars! They knew Him well and died for Him to prove it.

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.

There are other spirits also that exists and influence people and are real.

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."

No, you sure did not, as ignorant and deceived as some people might be.

 

[tas8831]

Do I sound rude?
Perhaps the constant ad hominem got to me.
Ad hominem
fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself..

There comes a point at which a person's attributes and motives are relevant - for example, when you've made an argument that has been debunked, yet you continue making the same argument, then your motivations are fair game.
When you make scientific arguments and it becomes clear that you do not understand the science, then pointing this out is relevant.

If this thread represented your very first ever post on a forum such as this, pointing out such things might be, at least initially, ad hominem.
But given that you have making the same basic claims, and engaging in the same basic dishonest tactics for years, your motivations and knowledge base are part of the issue and thus are NOT irrelevant, and thus are NOT ad hominem.

Like when you pretended to rebut my post about molecular phylogenetics and your entire rebuttal consisted of either ignoring the evidence or using dictionary definitions of specific words in articles to try to undermine the science.

You are way out of your depth.

 

[dad]

No - I reject your absurd claims.

That leaves you with the requirement to show that science covers it, if you claim not only the bible does.

Really? What is that fallacy called?

Whatever you called it the first time.

You assuming that a cause for which no evidence exists was actually the cause is, in fact, begging the question.

You are assuming that a complete inability to interpret evidences means that no evidence exists. No.

Non sequitur; fallacy of begging the question again.

That depends on what the question really is.

What was the former nature, and how was this established and by whom?

By the Creator. Science today (of this present nature) knows only this nature, obviously. It cannot deal with the nature of the future or past, it can just believe real hard that only this nature matters or could have existed or could ever exist! Ridiculous.

What is the evidence for there being a "former nature"?

What is the evidence that this nature always existed on earth?

 

[nPeace]

You're losing track of the conversation.

Remember, the reason I cited the paper was in response to your argument that there's "No evidence of simple organism to complex". In the experiment, researchers directly observed and documented the evolution of all those traits I listed....traits that weren't present in the original population.

So keeping that in mind, the question remains.....is that an increase in "complexity"? If not, then please explain how you're defining and measuring "complexity" and then explain why the evolution of all those new traits isn't an increase of it.

Also, do you now understand how natural selection acts on variability in populations?

If therefore you are using this paper to show that there is evidence of a simple organism to a complex one, then should you not be answering the questions... 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?

Are we discussing an organism, or a cluster of them?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That leaves you with the requirement to show that science covers it, if you claim not only the bible does.
Whatever you called it the first time.

You are assuming that a complete inability to interpret evidences means that no evidence exists. No.

That depends on what the question really is.
By the Creator. Science today (of this present nature) knows only this nature, obviously. It cannot deal with the nature of the future or past, it can just believe real hard that only this nature matters or could have existed or could ever exist! Ridiculous.
What is the evidence that this nature always existed on earth?

It's always someone else's burden of proof, eh Dad?

 

[Jose Fly]

If therefore you are using this paper to show that there is evidence of a simple organism to a complex one, then should you not be answering the questions... 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?

Are we discussing an organism, or a cluster of them?

Whether or not the yeast became a multicellular organism is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether the experiment constitutes an increase in "complexity". In the experiment, the yeast evolved multiple new traits that weren't present in the population, specifically reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, determinate growth, among-cell division of labor, and higher rates of programmed cell death.

Does that constitute an increase in "complexity" or not?

Also, do you now understand how natural selection acts on variability in populations?

 

[nPeace]

Of course not. For instance, we know today Newton was wrong, but he was definitely a scientist.

But this is what science today overwhelmingly holds for true: that life did not start independently on this planet million of times. Not even twice.

So, even in the unlikely event that your bronze age book is right and modern scientists are wrong, it still holds true that your book is incompatible with science. It would be actually necessarily so.

IOW: to insist that creationism, especially in the creation of life, is compatible with science is a ridiculous claim. Even if creationism was true.

It is just a pathetic attempt to not lose contact from science completely, as you should actually do if you were logically coherent, because of its huge success. It is nothing more than marketing of beliefs that cannot stand on their own feet, and cannot show a similar track record.

It is actually a defensive position, that shows who really dominates the intellectual Zeitgeist today.

And that is: cosmology, physics, biology, astronomy, etc. ... not talking snakes, rib women and such.

Ciao

- viole

Remember viole, you and I have a different understanding of what science is.
I think there is pseudo science, and true science. I think some philosophy is considered science by some.
So I do agree that those forms do go against the Bible.

 

[nPeace]

Whether or not the yeast became a multicellular organism is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether the experiment constitutes an increase in "complexity". In the experiment, the yeast evolved multiple new traits that weren't present in the population, specifically reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, determinate growth, among-cell division of labor, and higher rates of programmed cell death.

Does that constitute an increase in "complexity" or not?

Also, do you now understand how natural selection acts on variability in populations?

Your question is irrelevant to whether there is evidence of a simple organisms to a complex one. I don't know what you are driving at, but you are driving me nuts.
We have been here before. Don't expect me to say what you want to hear while refusing to consider anything I say, or ask you.
This is your normal approach, but I think it needs changing.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your question is irrelevant to whether there is evidence of a simple organisms to a complex one.

Then I guess we're at an impasse. I can only conclude that when you claimed that there is "no evidence of simple to complex", you didn't really have any sort of understanding what you meant by "complex".

Also, you have deliberately ignored my question as to whether or not you understand how selection acts on variability in populations. As with the above, the fact that you have gone out of your way to ignore the question multiple times leads me to conclude that you're avoiding it for a reason, likely because something about it makes you uncomfortable.

I don't know what you are driving at, but you are driving me nuts.
We have been here before. Don't expect me to say what you want to hear while refusing to consider anything I say, or ask you.
This is your normal approach, but I think it needs changing.

I understand.

So in sum, it seems we have learned a couple of things. First, you have no idea what "complexity" means nor do you have any idea how one would measure it. Second, selection acting on variability in populations is something you'd now like to avoid discussing.

Is there anything else about evolutionary biology you'd like to discuss?

 

[nPeace]

Then I guess we're at an impasse. I can only conclude that when you claimed that there is "no evidence of simple to complex", you didn't really have any sort of understanding what you meant by "complex".

Also, you have deliberately ignored my question as to whether or not you understand how selection acts on variability in populations. As with the above, the fact that you have gone out of your way to ignore the question multiple times leads me to conclude that you're avoiding it for a reason, likely because something about it makes you uncomfortable.


I understand.

So in sum, it seems we have learned a couple of things. First, you have no idea what "complexity" means nor do you have any idea how one would measure it. Second, selection acting on variability in populations is something you'd now like to avoid discussing.

Is there anything else about evolutionary biology you'd like to discuss?

I have not ignored your question, or if it seems I did, it is because I have not gotten back to that post as yet. I will. I don't want to be discussing two things at once with you. I want to cover one thing at a time.

Did the unicellular organism become a complex organism? No.
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.
Why do unicellular organisms display multicellular characteristics? Are they new to the species? No.

 

[dad]

It's always someone else's burden of proof, eh Dad?

Sorry, I am a skeptical thinker, and when you claim a basis for science models we must have some evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have not ignored your question, or if it seems I did, it is because I have not gotten back to that post as yet. I will. I don't want to be discussing two things at once with you. I want to cover one thing at a time.

Okay.

Did the unicellular organism become a complex organism? No.

So the yeast at the end of the experiment, with all their newly evolved traits, were no more "complex" than the yeast at the beginning of the experiment? Exactly how did you determine that?

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.

Why do unicellular organisms display multicellular characteristics? Are they new to the species? No.

Again, the specific traits I've mentioned (reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, determinate growth, among-cell division of labor, and higher rates of programmed cell death) were not present in the population at the beginning of the experiment, and were present in the population at the end of the experiment.

You're claiming that's not an increase in "complexity". I'm asking how you came to that conclusion.

 

[nPeace]

Okay.


So the yeast at the end of the experiment, with all their newly evolved traits, were no more "complex" than the yeast at the beginning of the experiment? Exactly how did you determine that?


Again, the specific traits I've mentioned (reproduction via multicellular propagules, a juvenile phase, determinate growth, among-cell division of labor, and higher rates of programmed cell death) were not present in the population at the beginning of the experiment, and were present in the population at the end of the experiment.

You're claiming that's not an increase in "complexity". I'm asking how you came to that conclusion.

Don't put words in my mouth please. You are repeating a bad habit.

I said... Did the unicellular organism become a complex organism? No.

Talking about the experiment...
“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.