Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Gene changes Single Cel to Mult Cell organism

slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.

"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."


Full paper
http://www.nature.com...
janesix
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 8:32:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.

"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."


Full paper
http://www.nature.com...

That's great. We're getting closer every day to understanding evolution.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 9:06:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Well, that's one more thing that God didn't actually do. What a surprise (not).
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 10:35:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

Great, Slo1. Thanks!
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:05:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

You might impress the choir. But, calling a colony of single-celled organisms multicellular provides nothing to support or explain the claim that multi-cell life evolved from single-celled life.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2016 11:14:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:05:40 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

You might impress the choir. But, calling a colony of single-celled organisms multicellular provides nothing to support or explain the claim that multi-cell life evolved from single-celled life.

Your post provides nothing to support the claim that you are not in my imagination.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 12:00:17 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:05:40 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

You might impress the choir. But, calling a colony of single-celled organisms multicellular provides nothing to support or explain the claim that multi-cell life evolved from single-celled life.

Yeah I know, but baby steps my friend. You are thinking of multicellular organism that have different types of cells. You can use the silver bullet fallacy, but everyone understands that to unlock this nut it is going to take incremental learning and knowledge . This is an amazing find because it could explain how cells even joined together. We will save how it either gathered different cells or differentiated an existing cell in the colony for later.
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 1:08:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 11:05:40 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

You might impress the choir. But, calling a colony of single-celled organisms multicellular provides nothing to support or explain the claim that multi-cell life evolved from single-celled life.

Your assessment is absolutely incorrect. You didn't put much thought into this, did you? Nor did you read it with an honest and open mind, huh? You immediately began trying to formulate an argument you could use in order to dismiss the importance of this finding.

This helps us to identify the type of, and degree of, genetic changes needed for this sort of behavior to begin expressing itself. This fills in another gap in our understanding of how metazoans first developed. Once you have multicellularity, even of this basic level, you already have greater protection from predation, and you now have the potential for these cells to begin cooperating; they could evolve the capability to share information and resources. Eventually, some - but not necessarily all - lineages could see a division of labor among all of these cells, and specialization among different cells/tissues. Indeed, that is what we see; did you know that more than 20 groups of eukaryotes have evolved multicellularity, but just six clades have developed complex multicellularity? [1]

Do you understand the scope of the temporal range we're discussing here? Look at the changes that have occurred in the cultures being studied by Lenski and his colleagues. That's less than three decades of work, and something like 60,000 generations of E. coli. Now, look at the history of life. The first evidence of life pops up at about 3.5 billion years ago. The earliest evidence of metazoa (the first metazoans would have been sponges) can be dated to before 635 mya [2], and though my reference on this point does state that there's no evidence of any sponges living prior to Sturtian glaciation, there are some references which argue that they could have originated as early as 800 mya. That's 2.9 to 2.7 billion years.

What are your credentials that you can come in here and speak authoritatively about the ability or inability of random mutation and natural selection to generate organisms which exhibit complex multicellularity over a temporal range of over two and a half billion years?

[1] Knoll, A. H. 2011. The multiple origins of complex multicellularity. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science 39: Pages 217-239

http://www.annualreviews.org...

[2] Love, G. D., Grosjean, E., Stalvies, C., Fike, D. A., Grotzinger, J. P., Bradley, A. S., Kelly, A. E., Bhatia, M., Meredith, W., Snape, C. E., Bowring, S. A., Condon, D. J., Summons, E. E. 2009. Fossil steroids record the appearance of Demospongiae during the Cryogenian period. Nature 457:718-721.

http://www.nature.com...

^^ That second reference was not exactly fun to type up, but hey, it turns out that there's a Professor Snape!
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 9:01:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.
So an intelligent mind was necessary to cause this multi cellular chlamydomonas to exist. Good to know. Links are for biologists. But anyone can certainly comprehend the information at a level that's applicable to the claim. It explains very specific biological functions in RNA in plants...etc......and yes, the information is peer reviewed and references peer reviewed papers.
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...
"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."

Full paper
http://www.nature.com...
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 1:06:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 9:01:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.
So an intelligent mind was necessary to cause this multi cellular chlamydomonas to exist. Good to know.

Yeah, no sh1t. Every thing a human does is from an intelligent mind, murder, building a bank and even eating your cereal in the morning.

That however is irrelevant when investigating how something came to be such as a 50 ft perfect circle of ice rotating in an river or whether an odd periodic change of luminosity is a natural phenomena or and alien death star in orbit.

Links are for biologists. But anyone can certainly comprehend the information at a level that's applicable to the claim. It explains very specific biological functions in RNA in plants...etc......and yes, the information is peer reviewed and references peer reviewed papers.

No the links are not peer reviewed. First and foremost any good scientist knows you don't stake a position and defend it to the death. Unless you have evidence. Creationism will always be on the fringe because they can't prove how or by whom it was done, so they are relegated to try to disprove based upon a failed assumption that life is too complex to have arose without a creator. That is fine to look for a Chinese wall but an argument that is fundamentally based upon apologies doesn't arise to the level of peer to peer scientific review.

http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...
"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."

Full paper
http://www.nature.com...
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 1:15:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 9:01:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.
So an intelligent mind was necessary to cause this multi cellular chlamydomonas to exist. Good to know. Links are for biologists. But anyone can certainly comprehend the information at a level that's applicable to the claim. It explains very specific biological functions in RNA in plants...etc......and yes, the information is peer reviewed and references peer reviewed papers.
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...
"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."

Full paper
http://www.nature.com...

As I have pointed out in another thread, the courts have actually ruled that I.D./creationism is not science, and that Dr. Michael Behe testified that there have been no legitimate, scientific studies published which support intelligent design.

I would provide a more comprehensive response, but alas, I am typing this up while at work, lol.
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2016 1:15:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I wonder if the other cells thought of this as a deleterious mutation.

Cell 1: "Oh my GOD Sussie did you hear about Gina's daughter cells!? They're conjoined twins!"
Cell 2: "Like, gross. Someone should totally put them out of their misery."
Cell 1: "Shu!"
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 2:22:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 1:15:23 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 5/7/2016 9:01:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.
So an intelligent mind was necessary to cause this multi cellular chlamydomonas to exist. Good to know. Links are for biologists. But anyone can certainly comprehend the information at a level that's applicable to the claim. It explains very specific biological functions in RNA in plants...etc......and yes, the information is peer reviewed and references peer reviewed papers.
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...
"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."

Full paper
http://www.nature.com...

As I have pointed out in another thread, the courts have actually ruled that I.D./creationism is not science, and that Dr. Michael Behe testified that there have been no legitimate, scientific studies published which support intelligent design.
Appeal to authority. Second studies all say intelligent design. You mistake the assertion that there's an intelligent designer with intelligent design. It's obvious you didn't read those links, which you probably couldn't understand them anyway. Those links are written by PhDs. They also are more than happy for you to engage them on any subject you feel qualified to discuss.
I would provide a more comprehensive response, but alas, I am typing this up while at work, lol.
No problem. Please debate whatever subject you chose with any one of the many scientists on that web site. There isn't debate anymore. Inside all simple one cell organism is a motor or machine that is obviously symbiotic to the existence of the cell.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 2:44:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/7/2016 1:06:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/7/2016 9:01:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.
So an intelligent mind was necessary to cause this multi cellular chlamydomonas to exist. Good to know.

Yeah, no sh1t. Every thing a human does is from an intelligent mind, murder, building a bank and even eating your cereal in the morning.

That however is irrelevant when investigating how something came to be such as a 50 ft perfect circle of ice rotating in an river or whether an odd periodic change of luminosity is a natural phenomena or and alien death star in orbit.

Links are for biologists. But anyone can certainly comprehend the information at a level that's applicable to the claim. It explains very specific biological functions in RNA in plants...etc......and yes, the information is peer reviewed and references peer reviewed papers.

No the links are not peer reviewed. First and foremost any good scientist knows you don't stake a position and defend it to the death. Unless you have evidence. Creationism will always be on the fringe because they can't prove how or by whom it was done, so they are relegated to try to disprove based upon a failed assumption that life is too complex to have arose without a creator. That is fine to look for a Chinese wall but an argument that is fundamentally based upon apologies doesn't arise to the level of peer to peer scientific review.
{Genetic fallacy}
Completely wrong and peer reviewed is an appeal to authority. Here. Let's see some examples of your assertion peer reviewed is somehow still a counter or a reliable relevant rebuttal.
Biomedical journals retracting published "peer reviewed papers" because of scientific fraud.
......https://news.stanford.edu...
More examples of fraud
.....http://www.the-scientist.com...
More "peer reviewed" fraud
...... http://www.iflscience.com...
So your peer reviewed appeal to authority is simply useless.......and those links are beyond what you understand I'm assuming. If not., that web site has plenty of PhDs that will engage in a informal discussion with any objections you think you have to the science. Please post links where you engage the members of that site so we can see how you fare against them in your claims as to what you think validates scientific conclusions.

This site welcomes all points of views. Discuss an issue with them and post link to your conversation instead of merely asserting a genetic fallacy.
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...
"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."

Full paper
http://www.nature.com...
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 2:37:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 2:22:54 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:15:23 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 5/7/2016 9:01:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.
So an intelligent mind was necessary to cause this multi cellular chlamydomonas to exist. Good to know. Links are for biologists. But anyone can certainly comprehend the information at a level that's applicable to the claim. It explains very specific biological functions in RNA in plants...etc......and yes, the information is peer reviewed and references peer reviewed papers.
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...
"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."

Full paper
http://www.nature.com...

As I have pointed out in another thread, the courts have actually ruled that I.D./creationism is not science, and that Dr. Michael Behe testified that there have been no legitimate, scientific studies published which support intelligent design.
Appeal to authority.

Yes and no. I honestly don't think you fully understand the point I'm making here.

Dr. Michael Behe is an I.D. advocate, and he said, under oath, that there "are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.'" He is, as far as I can figure, as close to an authority on the issue of I.D. as can be found and he's admitting this. In that way, I suppose it's an appeal to authority; an authority on YOUR side of the argument.

On the courts, the point is that in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, a conservative, churchgoing republican appointee of President George W. Bush passed down a verdict that strongly condemned the defendants in the trial, finding that I.D. is not science and cannot be taught in a science classroom.

There's also the case Selman v. Cobb County School District. Same outcome; evolution wins, religion loses.

The point here isn't so much to make an appeal to an to authority; these judges aren't authorities on the subject. The point is that the courts were objective and evidence-based in their rulings, even if you can't be lbjective, and your children will be taught about the scientific theory of evolution, not the pseudoscience that you're peddling. You've lost, at least in regards to this facet of the debate.

Second studies all say intelligent design.

No they don't.

You mistake the assertion that there's an intelligent designer with intelligent design. It's obvious you didn't read those links, which you probably couldn't understand them anyway. Those links are written by PhDs. They also are more than happy for you to engage them on any subject you feel qualified to discuss.

I am happy to discuss it with you. If you're so familiar with the arguments that have been presented by both sides that you are qualified to determine which side is correct in their assessment, then you should be able to defend your position here and now. Right?

I would provide a more comprehensive response, but alas, I am typing this up while at work, lol.
No problem. Please debate whatever subject you chose with any one of the many scientists on that web site. There isn't debate anymore. Inside all simple one cell organism is a motor or machine that is obviously symbiotic to the existence of the cell.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2016 6:13:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 2:44:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:06:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/7/2016 9:01:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.
So an intelligent mind was necessary to cause this multi cellular chlamydomonas to exist. Good to know.

Yeah, no sh1t. Every thing a human does is from an intelligent mind, murder, building a bank and even eating your cereal in the morning.

That however is irrelevant when investigating how something came to be such as a 50 ft perfect circle of ice rotating in an river or whether an odd periodic change of luminosity is a natural phenomena or and alien death star in orbit.

Links are for biologists. But anyone can certainly comprehend the information at a level that's applicable to the claim. It explains very specific biological functions in RNA in plants...etc......and yes, the information is peer reviewed and references peer reviewed papers.

No the links are not peer reviewed. First and foremost any good scientist knows you don't stake a position and defend it to the death. Unless you have evidence. Creationism will always be on the fringe because they can't prove how or by whom it was done, so they are relegated to try to disprove based upon a failed assumption that life is too complex to have arose without a creator. That is fine to look for a Chinese wall but an argument that is fundamentally based upon apologies doesn't arise to the level of peer to peer scientific review.
{Genetic fallacy}
Completely wrong and peer reviewed is an appeal to authority. Here. Let's see some examples of your assertion peer reviewed is somehow still a counter or a reliable relevant rebuttal.
Biomedical journals retracting published "peer reviewed papers" because of scientific fraud.
......https://news.stanford.edu...
More examples of fraud
.....http://www.the-scientist.com...
More "peer reviewed" fraud
...... http://www.iflscience.com...

Well if you are going to commit the perfection fallacy, meaning if something is not perfect it should be abandoned then all of humanity should kill itself.

So your peer reviewed appeal to authority is simply useless.......and those links are beyond what you understand I'm assuming. If not., that web site has plenty of PhDs that will engage in a informal discussion with any objections you think you have to the science. Please post links where you engage the members of that site so we can see how you fare against them in your claims as to what you think validates scientific conclusions.


This site welcomes all points of views. Discuss an issue with them and post link to your conversation instead of merely asserting a genetic fallacy.
I don't talk evolution with people who use silly analogies.(see below) We do real science here.

Let"s imagine that Romeo sends Juliet an email every day saying "I love you." But suppose that one day a spontaneous error occurs in the system and the email reads "I love Lou." Juliet goes out and kills herself because she thinks that (a) Romeo no longer loves her, and (b) he now loves someone else called Lou. But has any new information arisen from the spontaneous error? No. Romeo still loves Juliet, not someone called Lou, and Lou does not even exist. All that the error has done is to degrade the integrity of the intended information.

http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...
"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."

Full paper
http://www.nature.com...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 10:03:00 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 6:13:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/8/2016 2:44:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:06:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/7/2016 9:01:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.
So an intelligent mind was necessary to cause this multi cellular chlamydomonas to exist. Good to know.

Yeah, no sh1t. Every thing a human does is from an intelligent mind, murder, building a bank and even eating your cereal in the morning.

That however is irrelevant when investigating how something came to be such as a 50 ft perfect circle of ice rotating in an river or whether an odd periodic change of luminosity is a natural phenomena or and alien death star in orbit.

Links are for biologists. But anyone can certainly comprehend the information at a level that's applicable to the claim. It explains very specific biological functions in RNA in plants...etc......and yes, the information is peer reviewed and references peer reviewed papers.

No the links are not peer reviewed. First and foremost any good scientist knows you don't stake a position and defend it to the death. Unless you have evidence. Creationism will always be on the fringe because they can't prove how or by whom it was done, so they are relegated to try to disprove based upon a failed assumption that life is too complex to have arose without a creator. That is fine to look for a Chinese wall but an argument that is fundamentally based upon apologies doesn't arise to the level of peer to peer scientific review.
{Genetic fallacy}
Completely wrong and peer reviewed is an appeal to authority. Here. Let's see some examples of your assertion peer reviewed is somehow still a counter or a reliable relevant rebuttal.
Biomedical journals retracting published "peer reviewed papers" because of scientific fraud.
......https://news.stanford.edu...
More examples of fraud
.....http://www.the-scientist.com...
More "peer reviewed" fraud
...... http://www.iflscience.com...

Well if you are going to commit the perfection fallacy, meaning if something is not perfect it should be abandoned then all of humanity should kill itself.

Perfect. How about the reality that peer reviewed isn't necessarily a claim to validity.
So your peer reviewed appeal to authority is simply useless.......and those links are beyond what you understand I'm assuming. If not., that web site has plenty of PhDs that will engage in a informal discussion with any objections you think you have to the science. Please post links where you engage the members of that site so we can see how you fare against them in your claims as to what you think validates scientific conclusions.


This site welcomes all points of views. Discuss an issue with them and post link to your conversation instead of merely asserting a genetic fallacy.
I don't talk evolution with people who use silly analogies.(see below) We do real science here

So you're afraid of engaging educated people , point taken

Let"s imagine that Romeo sends Juliet an email every day saying "I love you." But suppose that one day a spontaneous error occurs in the system and the email reads "I love Lou." Juliet goes out and kills herself because she thinks that (a) Romeo no longer loves her, and (b) he now loves someone else called Lou. But has any new information arisen from the spontaneous error? No. Romeo still loves Juliet, not someone called Lou, and Lou does not even exist. All that the error has done is to degrade the integrity of the intended information.

http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...


Full paper
http://www.nature.com...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 10:15:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 2:37:26 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 5/8/2016 2:22:54 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:15:23 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 5/7/2016 9:01:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.
So an intelligent mind was necessary to cause this multi cellular chlamydomonas to exist. Good to know. Links are for biologists. But anyone can certainly comprehend the information at a level that's applicable to the claim. It explains very specific biological functions in RNA in plants...etc......and yes, the information is peer reviewed and references peer reviewed papers.
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...
"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."

Full paper
http://www.nature.com...

As I have pointed out in another thread, the courts have actually ruled that I.D./creationism is not science, and that Dr. Michael Behe testified that there have been no legitimate, scientific studies published which support intelligent design.
Appeal to authority.

Yes and no. I honestly don't think you fully understand the point I'm making here.

Dr. Michael Behe is an I.D. advocate, and he said, under oath, that there "are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.'" He is, as far as I can figure, as close to an authority on the issue of I.D. as can be found and he's admitting this. In that way, I suppose it's an appeal to authority; an authority on YOUR side of the argument.

On the courts, the point is that in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, a conservative, churchgoing republican appointee of President George W. Bush passed down a verdict that strongly condemned the defendants in the trial, finding that I.D. is not science and cannot be taught in a science classroom.

There's also the case Selman v. Cobb County School District. Same outcome; evolution wins, religion loses.

The point here isn't so much to make an appeal to an to authority; these judges aren't authorities on the subject. The point is that the courts were objective and evidence-based in their rulings, even if you can't be lbjective, and your children will be taught about the scientific theory of evolution,

not the pseudoscience that you're peddling.
Genetic fallacy, please pick any subject, engage them and prove it pseudoscience, oh wait. You aren't even remotely qualified enough to talk to them much less point out any "pseudo" in their science.
Pseudoscience, yet you're too afraid to engage them. Says more about you than them
You've lost, at least in regards to this facet of the debate.
Obviously you have a need for external validation. I would suggest you slap your parents.
Continuation of a red herring, courts don't decide what the science is...,..
Second studies all say intelligent design.

No they don't.
You're correct. I misspoke. I meant complex design.

You mistake the assertion that there's an intelligent designer with intelligent design. It's obvious you didn't read those links, which you probably couldn't understand them anyway. Those links are written by PhDs. They also are more than happy for you to engage them on any subject you feel qualified to discuss.

I am happy to discuss it with you. If you're so familiar with the arguments that have been presented by both sides that you are qualified to determine which side is correct in their assessment, then you should be able to defend your position here and now. Right?
Too afraid to discuss it with those who hold Phds. Point taken
I would provide a more comprehensive response, but alas, I am typing this up while at work, lol.
No problem. Please debate whatever subject you chose with any one of the many scientists on that web site. There isn't debate anymore. Inside all simple one cell organism is a motor or machine that is obviously symbiotic to the existence of the cell.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 10:21:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/8/2016 2:37:26 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 5/8/2016 2:22:54 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:15:23 PM, Aran55633 wrote:
At 5/7/2016 9:01:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.
So an intelligent mind was necessary to cause this multi cellular chlamydomonas to exist. Good to know. Links are for biologists. But anyone can certainly comprehend the information at a level that's applicable to the claim. It explains very specific biological functions in RNA in plants...etc......and yes, the information is peer reviewed and references peer reviewed papers.
http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...
"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."

Full paper
http://www.nature.com...

As I have pointed out in another thread, the courts have actually ruled that I.D./creationism is not science, and that Dr. Michael Behe testified that there have been no legitimate, scientific studies published which support intelligent design.
Appeal to authority.

Yes and no. I honestly don't think you fully understand the point I'm making here.

Dr. Michael Behe is an I.D. advocate, and he said, under oath, that there "are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.'" He is, as far as I can figure, as close to an authority on the issue of I.D. as can be found and he's admitting this. In that way, I suppose it's an appeal to authority; an authority on YOUR side of the argument.

On the courts, the point is that in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, a conservative, churchgoing republican appointee of President George W. Bush passed down a verdict that strongly condemned the defendants in the trial, finding that I.D. is not science and cannot be taught in a science classroom.

There's also the case Selman v. Cobb County School District. Same outcome; evolution wins, religion loses.

The point here isn't so much to make an appeal to an to authority; these judges aren't authorities on the subject. The point is that the courts were objective and evidence-based in their rulings, even if you can't be lbjective, and your children will be taught about the scientific theory of evolution,

not the pseudoscience that you're peddling.
Genetic fallacy, please pick any subject, engage them and prove it pseudoscience, oh wait. You aren't even remotely qualified enough to talk to them much less point out any "pseudo" in their science.
Pseudoscience, yet you're too afraid to engage them. Says more about you than them
You've lost, at least in regards to this facet of the debate.
Obviously you have a need for external validation. I would suggest you slap your parents.
Continuation of a red herring, what courts decide as far as what is in schools has no relevance to the OP subject matter
Second studies all say intelligent design.

No they don't.
You're correct. I misspoke. I meant complex design.

You mistake the assertion that there's an intelligent designer with intelligent design. It's obvious you didn't read those links, which you probably couldn't understand them anyway. Those links are written by PhDs. They also are more than happy for you to engage them on any subject you feel qualified to discuss.

I am happy to discuss it with you. If you're so familiar with the arguments that have been presented by both sides that you are qualified to determine which side is correct in their assessment, then you should be able to defend your position here and now. Right?
Too afraid to discuss it with those who hold Phds. Point taken
I would provide a more comprehensive response, but alas, I am typing this up while at work, lol.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:28:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 10:03:00 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/8/2016 6:13:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/8/2016 2:44:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/7/2016 1:06:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 5/7/2016 9:01:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.
So an intelligent mind was necessary to cause this multi cellular chlamydomonas to exist. Good to know.

Yeah, no sh1t. Every thing a human does is from an intelligent mind, murder, building a bank and even eating your cereal in the morning.

That however is irrelevant when investigating how something came to be such as a 50 ft perfect circle of ice rotating in an river or whether an odd periodic change of luminosity is a natural phenomena or and alien death star in orbit.

Links are for biologists. But anyone can certainly comprehend the information at a level that's applicable to the claim. It explains very specific biological functions in RNA in plants...etc......and yes, the information is peer reviewed and references peer reviewed papers.

No the links are not peer reviewed. First and foremost any good scientist knows you don't stake a position and defend it to the death. Unless you have evidence. Creationism will always be on the fringe because they can't prove how or by whom it was done, so they are relegated to try to disprove based upon a failed assumption that life is too complex to have arose without a creator. That is fine to look for a Chinese wall but an argument that is fundamentally based upon apologies doesn't arise to the level of peer to peer scientific review.
{Genetic fallacy}
Completely wrong and peer reviewed is an appeal to authority. Here. Let's see some examples of your assertion peer reviewed is somehow still a counter or a reliable relevant rebuttal.
Biomedical journals retracting published "peer reviewed papers" because of scientific fraud.
......https://news.stanford.edu...
More examples of fraud
.....http://www.the-scientist.com...
More "peer reviewed" fraud
...... http://www.iflscience.com...

Well if you are going to commit the perfection fallacy, meaning if something is not perfect it should be abandoned then all of humanity should kill itself.

Perfect. How about the reality that peer reviewed isn't necessarily a claim to validity.

Strawman, as I don't know any person who would say peer to peer = 100% validity. The irony here is that you claimed your creation sites were peer to peer reviewed and I told you no they are not. Now you are on a kick to discredit peer to peer to review process in science.

Your site is not legitimately peer to peer reviewed. Also, peer to peer review serves a very valuable purpose in the scientific process. It is not infallible, but it allows other scientists to evaluate the claim for reliability and validity. It serves a very valuable purpose to validate experiments were conducted with reliability and ability to duplicate. Your creationist site can not come close to providing the scientific scrutiny because it is all theoretical and largely based upon analogy rather than observations and experiments. Don't pretend they are even remotely equivocal.

So your peer reviewed appeal to authority is simply useless.......and those links are beyond what you understand I'm assuming. If not., that web site has plenty of PhDs that will engage in a informal discussion with any objections you think you have to the science. Please post links where you engage the members of that site so we can see how you fare against them in your claims as to what you think validates scientific conclusions.


This site welcomes all points of views. Discuss an issue with them and post link to your conversation instead of merely asserting a genetic fallacy.
I don't talk evolution with people who use silly analogies.(see below) We do real science here

So you're afraid of engaging educated people , point taken

No I am afraid of engaging educated people who don't understand that analogy is meant to explain a complex concept by simplifying it via a process of showing similarities to something less complex rather than an actual proof.

Let"s imagine that Romeo sends Juliet an email every day saying "I love you." But suppose that one day a spontaneous error occurs in the system and the email reads "I love Lou." Juliet goes out and kills herself because she thinks that (a) Romeo no longer loves her, and (b) he now loves someone else called Lou. But has any new information arisen from the spontaneous error? No. Romeo still loves Juliet, not someone called Lou, and Lou does not even exist. All that the error has done is to degrade the integrity of the intended information.

http://creation.com...
http://creation.com...


Full paper
http://www.nature.com...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 8:17:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/6/2016 9:06:00 PM, user13579 wrote:
Well, that's one more thing that God didn't actually do. What a surprise (not).

The salt.
Meh!
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 10:06:27 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.

"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."


Full paper
http://www.nature.com...

This is rather amazing; I wonder what the more science-denying creationists have to say about that.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 7:46:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/6/2016 9:06:00 PM, user13579 wrote:
Well, that's one more thing that God didn't actually do. What a surprise (not).

Well, no - to show that you would have to show that the information was not latent in the original genomes. This study suggests just the opposite - that latent ability can be triggered by juggling pre-existing machinery.

And in this case, ironically, the juggling is done by intelligent design, not by mutation. Maybe God took a lot of ribs out of a lot of primordial Adams, eh? That would in fact be a quite delightful analogy to the cut & pasting of GMOs.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 7:59:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/7/2016 1:08:49 AM, Aran55633 wrote:
...

Do you understand the scope of the temporal range we're discussing here? Look at the changes that have occurred in the cultures being studied by Lenski and his colleagues. That's less than three decades of work, and something like 60,000 generations of E. coli. Now, look at the history of life. The first evidence of life pops up at about 3.5 billion years ago.

And do you realize that a single specimen of human being is estimated to have over 37 trillion cells? That's 3.5 billion ten thousand times over. In one human body. And each cell is a galaxy of complexity all on its own, with the 37 trillion cells serving innumerable different purposes throughout the body. Each function would have had to be the result of how many sequential mutations and survival trials? 3.5 giga-year sounded like a lot at one time, but it's probably nowhere near enough time, actually. We live in an age of Gigahertz and gigabytes, and we now know that saying "Billion" is not some kind of key to a kingdom of magic. At billions of cycles per second a CPU still obeys the deterministic laws of the universe, just as all the chemicals in the primordial soup did.
This space for rent.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2016 6:20:43 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/6/2016 8:32:55 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.

"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."


Full paper
http://www.nature.com...

That's great. We're getting closer every day to understanding evolution.

That is true.
Meh!
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 10:16:02 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 5/6/2016 8:09:56 PM, slo1 wrote:
One of the much investigated but key outstanding questions of evolution, If all life is a single cell, how did organisms with multi cells arise? IE 8 celled green algae.

Below is just a two paragraph excerpt from article on a newly published study. It find it amazing one gene can cause single cell to colonize together.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...

When the researchers took the RB gene from Gonium and introduced it in to Chlamydomonas, it caused Chlamydomonas to become multicellular.

"Gonium is representative of the first steps toward the evolution of complex multicellular organisms such as plants and animals," Olson said. "These findings have the potential to help scientists understand the origin of cancer and may contribute to future abilities to treat and detect cancer."


Full paper
http://www.nature.com...

Oh, don't know if you're still checking this thread, but this is a great article on this topic (Courtesy of "AstroBiology" magazine)

http://www.astrobio.net...

The website also has articles on other similar topics if you would like to check it out.
Meh!