|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2012 : 05:23:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Christianity is about forgiveness, reconciliation and the spread of gods message. It should not be the energy that drives refutation of evolution to become a wedge between people of different beliefs. |
Yet this is where morons like AiG make their business. And you support them by using them as support.
If Christianity saw evolution as less of a rival religion and more as a misguided tribe of Adam attracted to monkeys and apes. The zoos would be filled with gods creation and not our ancestors. |
So your opposition against evolution is religiously driven, and not prompted by a desire to find out the truth about how we are all connected to each other. That's not what science is about. Religious belief in the first room, scientific investigation is ok as long as the answers support your religion, that's Jamal.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 08:30:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by jamalrapper
This experiment actually supports the position they held as dictated by the scriptures. Now they have scientific proof Darwin and evolutionary theorist were wrong.
|
Scripture dictated that multicellular live was created the same day life was created on planet earth. Not 60 days. The yeast definitly took more than the week it took for God to finish his work, as recorded by Genesis chapter 1.
|
It is a matter of interpretation. Darwin and evolutionary theory claims because of the slow and gradual process evolution took billions and millions of years to get to this point. The Scriptures suggest it took a lot shorter than that.
Even the authors of the experiment I paraphrase here. Multicellurity was not well understood by evolutionist who believed it was a slow gradual evolutionary process. But evolutionary transitions as demonstrated in the lab suggest otherwise. It was relatively simple and occurred rather quickly.
One of the standing criticism by creationist was the evolutionary view that it was a slow gradual evolutionary process which took millions of years. That is not to say evolutionist said it took millions of years for multicullarity but by their slow gradual process it was a long evolutionary process.
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 08:47:51 [Permalink]
|
| Going from a bacteria to a human takes billions of years of speciation, Going from a bacteria to a different bacteria can happen very quickly. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 09:46:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by jamalrapper
I really wish your reading skills were better Kil. Even given a clean link to the Ratcliff experiment you fail to grasp the material.
1. Check title of the article. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html
| Lab yeast make evolutionary leap to multicellularity |
What this is saying is the yeast is singlecellular and the lab experiment made it multicellular.
The deception here is the yeast used in the test was already multicellular so the experiment cannot be accepted for what it claimed. |
There is no deception, but your failing to grasp that New Scientist isn't a peer-reviwed journal. It's a popular science-rag which "dumbs down" research papers so that a lay-person can understand. Simplifications like the quote above is unfortunately standard journalistic practice, and is made for brevity and smashing headlines, not to convey a deeper philosofical or scientific truth.
We could of course discuss the usefulness of such practice, but not in this thread. It belongs in Media or Social Issues section.
2. The opening paragraph introduces the claims. Note the mention of single-celled yeast in just a few weeks evolved into a multicellular organism. |
Quote the original research instead. You're arguing against a straw-man.
Again the yeast they used was not a single-celled organism to start with.
It was already known that the yeast they used Saccharomyces cerevisiae, forms clumping under stress. The term clumping is also called budding. So what they produced were normal cell reproduction. But under stress Saccharomyces cerevisiae which is a multicellular organism reproduced as expected. No break through or transition from single to multi cell. |
This is wrong, and has already been addressed by Dave.
Edited spelling.
|
We are referring to several original links here which can get confusing. By original liks it refers to what was originally posted by Halfmooner which includes the AIG. The new scientist link which I linked to because I think they are a science journal. And finally you mentioned PNAS. The gist of the articles all say the asame thing. The transition from single cellular to multicellurarity conducted in the lab in 60 days.
As for refuting the Ratcliffs claim Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a single celled organism. This is not done by creationist....there is nothing in the scriptures that drill down to a cellular level of yeast to even begin to raise the argument.
Ratcliff is actually rejecting other biologist studies done of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae. So how does it become a creationist debunking when it is really between Ratcliff and his peers or other biologist.
I have responded to the same argument which is in my response to Halfmooner. This response was based on the PNAS link the original Ratcliff papers provided by DaveW. The time and date of the post is osted - 02/20/2012 : 07:03:46 (page 8).
Great stuff Halfmooner. I was using clumping not clustering in the context of budding. But now that you have put out a lot more information we can sort out our differences.
1. Another characteristic of most yeast, including S. cerevisiae, is that they divide by budding, rather than by binary fission (Byers 1981)
2. S. cerevisiae are eukaryotic. The binary fission you refer to (correct me if I am wrong) applies mainly to Prokaryotic fission. Prokaryotic, which is binary fission, is a form of asexual reproduction and cell division used by all prokaryotes, (bacteria and archaebacteria). So how does it apply to S. cerevisiae which are eukaryotic. Please explain.
The snowflake clusters are distinct from S. cerevisiae pseudohyphal
phenotypes, which have filamentous elongate cells and arise
under conditions of nutrient stress (26). Clustering in snowflakephenotype
yeast is independent of pseudohyphal growth, as the
snowflake phenotype is stable under both high- and low-nutrient
conditions. Individual cells within clusters retain the ancestral
ability to form pseudohyphae when starved, but remain oval (not
elongate) during standard culture conditions. |
(1) All relevant mutations they would find are in genes related to pseudohyphal growth (see Fig5. http://tinyurl.com/7b4znf6)
(2) Take a yeast that does not pseudohyphal and you won't see the said snowflakes, even after 100 years.
Why do you think I am a creationist? I am approaching your OP with all the scientific material available on the subject from several different sources so as not to appear biased.
You don't need a reason or excuse to pontificate as if knowledgeably about something you are just now struggling to learn. That type of honesty and candor is rare here. Thanks.
You should read( I edited and replaced need) the post with some degree of continuity. Why cherry pick when you have the same argument raised by someone more intelligent (Halfmooner), where I responded in full detail.
You are just putting more pressure on DaveW(poor soul) who is all over the map and in so many disconnect threads. He has his fingers in everything.....literally.
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/21/2012 12:03:14 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 10:11:42 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
Ratcliff is actually rejecting other biologist studies done of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae. |
Support that claim. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 11:01:04 [Permalink]
|
| jamalrapper I see you are now just cutting and pasting your older posts, as if they had not been posted, much less answered. (For instance, I replied and corrected your assertion that this brewers yeast reproduced by budding alone. And other assertions.) This is getting quite irritating. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/21/2012 11:06:24 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 11:01:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
(2) Take a yeast that does not pseudohyphal... |
Name one.| ...and you won't see the said snowflakes, even after 100 years. |
Prove it.| Why do you think I am a creationist? I am approaching your OP with all the scientific material available on the subject from several different sources so as not to appear biased. |
Your bias is clear, even though you're trying to hide it. The three popular-press reports about the experiment are not themselves "scientific material." This is just more hypocrisy from you, since you should be demanding peer criticism of the work, but instead think AiG has a good enough grip on the subject to make their insanity valid. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 12:15:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
We are referring to several original links here which can get confusing. By original liks it refers to what was originally posted by Halfmooner which includes the AIG. |
I don't know what links you are referring to (unless you post the links, for clarity's sake. But you don't seem interested in clarity.)
Halfmooner only linked to Wired in his first post. Which is a popular science-rag, not-peer-reviwed journal. What they write doesn't really matter, because no scientist uses them for a reference on scientific matter. Just like NASA don't go to Science Illustrated to find out stuff about space.
It's popular science magazines like Wired and New Scientist which makes the headlines you object to. We can't take responsibility for you wilfully ignoring important aspects of Ratcliff's work in order to support you own obviously religious agenda to discredit evolution.
The new scientist link which I linked to because I think they are a science journal. |
Are you serious???!??!
That wouldn't be much different from thinking The Sun is just as authorative as Encyclopedica Britannica. Jesus-F.-Christ-on-a-pogo-stick...
And finally you mentioned PNAS. |
PNAS is a peer-reviewed journal. What they publish really is authoritive due to that peer-review.
| The gist of the articles all say the asame thing. |
In different ways, all of them being interpretations by magazine journalists and bloggers who may not have full grasp on the fine print of the original article. Which is the one we really should be referring to. Your criticisms isn't based on primary sources. Most probably not even second source, and in case of AiG: definitly heavily filtered with a dogmatic anti-evolution religious agenda.
The transition from single cellular to multicellurarity conducted in the lab in 60 days. |
Yes! Ain't it grand? The experiment gave us a lot of important information which will help us design even better experiments which could eventually answer some important questions on how multicellular life evolved. Ratcliff's experiment isn't the be-all-answer to the question. It's just a small piece of the puzzle.
As for refuting the Ratcliffs claim Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a single celled organism. This is not done by creationist....there is nothing in the scriptures that drill down to a cellular level of yeast to even begin to raise the argument.
Ratcliff is actually rejecting other biologist studies done of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae. |
Then provide links to those studies! As long as you don't back up these kinds of assertions, we will call them bullshit. Once you present a clear and cogent argument and back it up with evidence, and explain to us how your evidence is relevant to your assertions, we will change our minds. But you're doing a piss poor job at convincing us. Most likely because you're just making shit up: there's no evidence.
Why do you think I am a creationist? I am approaching your OP with all the scientific material available on the subject from several different sources so as not to appear biased. |
You are using anti-scientific organizations like Answers-in-Genesis and Discovery Institute for an assortment of what you believe to be counter-arguments to evolution. That you don't recognize the conflict of interest that AiG's Statement of Faith creates with regards to making science and scientific research clearly indicates that you've been indoctrinated by some kind of religious organization or institution.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 12:54:59 [Permalink]
|
That is a totally false premise. I already mentioned AIG did not refute the claims made in the experiment by Ratcliff. They reported what was published in Science News. If you read the AIG they mention Science News as their source.
It is in Science News that independent scientist are questioning the results.
Science News link.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331789/title/Multicellular_life_arises_in_a_test_tube
The article mentions Adam Waite, who studies cooperation among yeast at the University of Washington in Seattle cautioning premature acceptance of the said claims.
I provided another link on the same experiment reported by New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html
Here a different scientist "I bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely," says Neil Blackstone, an evolutionary biologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb. "I don't think if you took something that had never been multicellular you would get it so quickly."
Now you have 2 other sources besides AIG where they do mention scientist cautioning premature acceptance of the claims.
Adam Waite, who studies cooperation among yeast at the University of Washington in Seattle
Neil Blackstone, an evolutionary biologist at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb.
The 2 scientist don't even appear on the list of creation scientist listed in the AIG site.
Now if AIG said Billy Graham questioned those results I would understand skeptics resistance.....but AIG did not. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 13:08:12 [Permalink]
|
I don't have a problem with New Scientists reporting. I wouldn't call them a rag either. But they are not a journal. They are science news.
In any case, I can't see how the two scientists that are quoted as having reservations equals "many" or in any way implied that the experiment was dishonest.
That's jamalrapper's claim, and he has yet to retract it. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 13:43:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I don't have a problem with New Scientists reporting. I wouldn't call them a rag either. But they are not a journal. They are science news.
In any case, I can't see how the two scientists that are quoted as having reservations equals "many" or in any way implied that the experiment was dishonest.
That's jamalrapper's claim, and he has yet to retract it.
|
You got to be kidding Kil. Both scientist do not accept the claims that the experiment proved singular to multicellular transitions happend because the yeast was already capable of multicellular type divisions.
All the charges were on using AIG as a legitimate source. But I just pointed AIG reported what was published on other journals.
So now 2 scientist are not many for you. That is 2 in less that a week or searching. The experiment is still very new and there will be others reviewing the results.
Have your gang produced any scientist supporting the experiment? |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 13:53:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Originally posted by Kil
I don't have a problem with New Scientists reporting. I wouldn't call them a rag either. But they are not a journal. They are science news.
In any case, I can't see how the two scientists that are quoted as having reservations equals "many" or in any way implied that the experiment was dishonest.
That's jamalrapper's claim, and he has yet to retract it.
|
You got to be kidding Kil. Both scientist do not accept the claims that the experiment proved singular to multicellular transitions happend because the yeast was already capable of multicellular type divisions.
All the charges were on using AIG as a legitimate source. But I just pointed AIG reported what was published on other journals.
So now 2 scientist are not many for you. That is 2 in less that a week or searching. The experiment is still very new and there will be others reviewing the results.
Have your gang produced any scientist supporting the experiment?
|
These are your words:
jamalrapper:
Hi Bill. I would'nt take the experiment too seriously. It has already been proven deception was involved. The authors hid the fact they used common brewer's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), which normally grows as individual cells but is also known to grow as "multicellular" structures in a clumped manner forming "pseudohyphae" when grown under adverse conditions...
...The goals behind scientist perpetuating such fraud and deception is to bring credibility to evolution as a science by demonstrating evolutionary transition theories are scientifically provable. They realize the public are tired of hearing evolution is a slow process which takes millions and billions of years, which conveniently helps to hide the lack of supportable transitional forms and the scarcity of fossil evidence( things do get lost after millions of years) so does memory, accountability. Instead such large gaps are filled with conceptual assumptions in an aura of scientific curiosity... |
You have yet to retract those claims of deception and fraud. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 14:11:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Originally posted by Kil
I don't have a problem with New Scientists reporting. I wouldn't call them a rag either. But they are not a journal. They are science news.
In any case, I can't see how the two scientists that are quoted as having reservations equals "many" or in any way implied that the experiment was dishonest.
That's jamalrapper's claim, and he has yet to retract it.
|
You got to be kidding Kil. Both scientist do not accept the claims that the experiment proved singular to multicellular transitions happend because the yeast was already capable of multicellular type divisions.
All the charges were on using AIG as a legitimate source. But I just pointed AIG reported what was published on other journals.
So now 2 scientist are not many for you. That is 2 in less that a week or searching. The experiment is still very new and there will be others reviewing the results.
Have your gang produced any scientist supporting the experiment?
|
These are your words:
jamalrapper:
Hi Bill. I would'nt take the experiment too seriously. It has already been proven deception was involved. The authors hid the fact they used common brewer's yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), which normally grows as individual cells but is also known to grow as "multicellular" structures in a clumped manner forming "pseudohyphae" when grown under adverse conditions...
...The goals behind scientist perpetuating such fraud and deception is to bring credibility to evolution as a science by demonstrating evolutionary transition theories are scientifically provable. They realize the public are tired of hearing evolution is a slow process which takes millions and billions of years, which conveniently helps to hide the lack of supportable transitional forms and the scarcity of fossil evidence( things do get lost after millions of years) so does memory, accountability. Instead such large gaps are filled with conceptual assumptions in an aura of scientific curiosity... |
You have yet to retract those claims of deception and fraud.
|
The whole experiment is a deception.
1. Claimed single celled yeast turned to multi-cell. This claim is being disputed, cautioned against premature acceptance.
2. The yeast they used are not true single-celled because scientist are question it. It is known the yeast they used are capable of multicellular like divisions and is in their genetic code.
You can say I made a judgmental call based on my reading of the articles that it is a tall claim like the fusion in a test tube. And until proven beyond any reasonable doubt, the results are very questionable.
Even Ratcliff in his own words said he believes the Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a single celled organism. So how do you base your conclusion on his word when there are others who question that as a fact.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 14:32:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
The whole experiment is a deception.
1. Claimed single celled yeast turned to multi-cell. This claim is being disputed, cautioned against premature acceptance. |
So that makes the experiment a deception?| 2. The yeast they used are not true single-celled because scientist are question it. It is known the yeast they used are capable of multicellular like divisions and is in their genetic code. |
The researchers themselves mentioned that. How could they be deceptive when they were open about the capabilities of the yeast?| And until proven beyond any reasonable doubt, the results are very questionable. |
Then question the results instead of telling lies about the researchers.| Even Ratcliff in his own words said he believes the Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a single celled organism. So how do you base your conclusion on his word when there are others who question that as a fact. |
"Was once multicellular" is not synonymous with "is multicellular." Neither of the scientists you cite is claiming that S. cerevisiae is not normally a single-celled organism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2012 : 15:55:43 [Permalink]
|
It is already known S. cerevisiae is a single-celled organism. Under environmental stress they will show multicullar activity.
No one said they are not single-celled.
Read what Adam Waite said "because today’s single-celled yeast actually evolved from long-ago multicellular ancestors. "
Read what Neil Blackstone said "bet that yeast, having once been multicellular, never lost it completely,"
Understand what they are saying. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae according to one "evolved from ong-ago multicellular ancestors. Translatedm it has already inherited the blueprint for multicellular capability from its ancestors.
Or if you want to accept the second scientist "having once been multicellular, never lost it completely."
We try to paraphrase. Now to say was is not is. That is true. But what the experiment produced was what was already imherent in the yeast multicellular capability and all the experiment did was bring out this capability. That is the gist of the debate.
Now read this "Ratcliff and his colleagues are planning to address that objection head-on, by doing similar experiments with Chlamydomonas, a single-celled alga that has no multicellular ancestors.
Now that will silence all critics when a true single-celled test sample that has no multicellular ancestors is used. And even I will admit to the validity of their experiment under the new conditions. I am a reasonable person.
|
|
|
 |
|
Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days
