Evolution is a joke Pt. VIII

That is a horrible explaination of evolution!!!

I tell all to read this before starting the discussion since most have no clue what they are talking about, they only know what some idiot told them about evolution...

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/

From Single Cells to Multicellular Organisms18

Introduction

Go to:Top▲
Single-cell organisms, such as bacteria and protozoa, have been so successful in adapting to a variety of different environments that they comprise more than half of the total biomass on earth. Unlike animals, many of these unicellular organisms can synthesize all of the substances they need from a few simple nutrients, and some of them divide more than once every hour. What, then, was the selective advantage that led to the evolution of multicellular organisms?

A short answer is that by collaboration and by division of labor it becomes possible to exploit resources that no single cell could utilize so well. This principle, applying at first to simple associations of cells, has been taken to an extreme in the multicellular organisms we see today. Multicellularity enables a plant, for example, to become physically large; to have roots in the ground, where one set of cells can take up water and nutrients; and to have leaves in the air, where another set of cells can efficiently capture radiant energy from the sun. Specialized cells in the stem of the plant form channels for transporting water and nutrients between the roots and the leaves. Yet another set of specialized cells forms a layer of epidermis to prevent water loss and to provide a protected internal environment (see Panel 1-2, pp. 28-29). The plant as a whole does not compete directly with unicellular organisms for its ecological niche; it has found a radically different way to survive and propagate.


Panel 1-2>

The cell types and tissues from which higher plants are constructed.
As different animals and plants appeared, they changed the environment in which further evolution occurred. Survival in a jungle calls for different talents than survival in the open sea. Innovations in movement, sensory detection, communication, social organization - all enabled eucaryotic organisms to compete, propagate, and survive in ever more complex ways.

Single Cells Can Associate to Form Colonies

Go to:Top▲
It seems likely that an early step in the evolution of multicellular organisms was the association of unicellular organisms to form colonies. The simplest way of achieving this is for daughter cells to remain together after each cell division. Even some procaryotic cells show such social behavior in a primitive form. Myxobacteria, for example, live in the soil and feed on insoluble organic molecules that they break down by secreting degradative enzymes. They stay together in loose colonies in which the digestive enzymes secreted by individual cells are pooled, thus increasing the efficiency of feeding (the "wolf-pack" effect). These cells indeed represent a peak of social sophistication among procaryotes, for when food supplies are exhausted, the cells aggregate tightly together and form a multicellular fruiting body (Figure 1-31), within which the bacteria differentiate into spores that can survive even in extremely hostile conditions. When conditions are more favorable, the spores in a fruiting body germinate to produce a new swarm of bacteria.

I'm surprised you're not aware of this, since it's basic biology, and you've repeatedly claimed to have a better grasp of biology than major researchers around the world both government and private, every other type of scientist, professors, and everyone else ITT.

 

Since you know what you're talking about, why don't you explain the theory of Evolution to us, in your own words?

 

The only 'evidence' you provide is asking why doesn't a rabbit have Human Chromsomse 2.....Get lost.

 

Correct

There is no specie named an 'Ape'. Ape is generic term hominids. So I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here.

 

That wasn't directed at you, I added it in because DBS seems to think that if modern apes don't "evolve" into h. sapiens over 3-4 generations, the theory is invalid.

 

THANK YOU!!!!

I know I already posted that… but, thank you! I appreciate you sending links that support my argument! It’s appreciated!! I would give you a Rep, but I doubt you know that you just helped me!

 

The evidence I provided you was in ALL life that common life share a common ancestor, but have a different number of chromosomes, the model for your Chromo 2 doesn't match.

Why does it only match for humans and not the rest of all life on the planet that also has a different number of chromo's than it's close relatives?

Why is that Grasping?

 

ahhh Understood

 

You simply cannot grasp that only future generations will receive mutations, not past generations.

Your ignorance doesn't change facts.

 

Fabulous! I do understand that - so why don't you go ahead and tell us how the future generations of hare and rabbit worked out since they have a different number of Chromo's...

OR

You can explain The Euro Beaver and US Beaver and how it worked out with them...

And while your at it - you can go ahead and answer my question from earlier or are you going to post up some more cartoon figures?

 

No you don't. If you did, then you would understand why The rest of the Great Ape familly has 48 while we have 46.

These are not the same species nor are they even on the same continent. WTF?

 

Wow I look at this and read the following “humans AND modern apes” evolved from a common ancestor…

And I am supposed to take this poster seriously? Can’t even get my name right… DontBeMessing (DBM)…

 

I don't think Humans in Australia like on the same continent as apes and chimps... Or do you think that all apes live in all borrows of the world? And do you think you are the same species as a gorilla?

wtf?

Your spinning out of control like Grasping... Slow down... think before you post!!

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I ASKED PLEASE!!

 

Back to the question:

If the clumps do not constitute multicellular life, then why is offspring of the clumps multicellular?

Still waitiing for an answer, not red herrings

 

Where did your two friends go? Seems they skedaddled after being asked questions they didn't know?

Interesting - but you'll answer yours right?

 

They got tired of you red herrings and nonsense.

 

Back to the question:

If the clumps do not constitute multicellular life, then why is offspring of the clumps multicellular?

Still waitiing for an answer, not red herrings[/QUOTE]

I told you they are not and provided links that stated so. You did not read them and that is not my fault.

AND if you read what lopey posted (little did he know) - the person who ran the experiment stated that the clump wasn't multicellular life - he was "quoted" stating that it wasn't multicellular...

You are just posting ridiculousness now... But, you can still answer my questions. Seems lopey and I answered that ridiculousness...

 

There is absolutely nothing in that link about creating yeast colonies. Nothing. So, I'll ask again: what does replicating DNA for analysis have to do with your side of the argument?

 

The same way that humans don't generally reproduce until they reach the size of their parents. You don't seem to understand what they meant by offspring. Yet another of your adorable misunderstandings of the material in question.

 

Yea they didn't... They knew they were wrong and if they come back I am going to ask the same question that made them leave to begin with...

 

Yes it does... Read it again...

 

HA HA HAA!!!

I misunderstood... let me get this straight. Parent”s” - as in plural, not parent, means one?

Also, how you need to answer the questions I left you. Don't you remember you posting that you ALWAYS answer the questions I present, of course I called you out and stated that you don't...

Because you don't... you only answer the ones you can Google!

 

You bring up links about Colonies, which have thing to do with a single-cell creature becoming mulitcellular.

If that is not bad enough, you further try to question Weird Science’s credibility by bring up an article where YOU claim they claim that bacteria lives on Asteroids. You simply looked at the headline instead of actually reading the article.

And if that isn't bad enough, now you are attaching other posters and asking where did my 'friends go'.

All this because you simply cannot and will not answer this:

Once again from the article:

Here is what you simply cannot and will not answer: if the parents are not multicellular beings, then why are the children multicellular beings?

This is Evolution in action: single cells clumping together to form permanent structures that are multicellular, that produce multicellular beings.

What is the next bull(*)(*)(*)(*) red herring from you?

 

You misread the guy in the article. He was making a distinction between simple clumps of cells and the multicellular yeast that they had developed. Here's his quote again:

“A cluster alone isn’t multicellular,” Ratcliff said. “But when cells in a cluster cooperate, make sacrifices for the common good, and adapt to change, that’s an evolutionary transition to multicellularity.”

The behavior he described there, "cooperat[ion], mak[ing] sacrifices for the common good" is exactly what their yeast cells were doing. The apoptosis to form two clusters when there was originally just one, that's a sacrifice for the common good.

By the way, Ratcliff (the guy with the quote above) and Travisano are partners in this experiment. Here's Travisano calling the yeast "multicellular":

“Our multicellular yeast are a valuable resource for investigating a wide variety of medically and biologically important topics,” Travisano said.

Are you really saying that Ratcliff is undermining his partner with the earlier quote?

Dude, you are misunderstanding so much of this that it's pathetic. You're posting links that have nothing to do with your argument and you can't even get the details of the original article right. This is exactly what I was talking about before when I urged you to stay away from things you don't know. Just back away now.