Jump to content


Photo

Evolution-tested And Falsified


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
118 replies to this topic

#101 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 08 April 2010 - 08:25 AM

It is a normal part of Bacterial Lifestyle.  They have to adapt to survive, but I'm asking specifically what the evolution is.  Even if the AntiBiotic is Synthetic, the bacteria by default still have to use the same molecular bases that are available to it.


The evolution is the change in the nucleotide combination and after that the selection on the offspring. You already agreed there is a change in the nucleotide arrangement "shift", "recombination" or whatever you call it.
I don´t really get it, what do you think evolution is?

It's Adaptation, which is just a recombination of nucleotides... You and every other evolutionist on this planet want mislead/misinform the entire population mankind,...

Wait a moment. There is no misleading and no misinformation. There are thousands of books about it and hundreds of university courses open to the public.

What characteristics must a mechanism have for you to call it evolution?

that this is somehow evolution, when it clearly, and I mean clearly isn't.

Well, actually it really clearly and I mean really clearly is. Change in the genome and selection of a specific trait. Nobody ever stated evolution is something different.

  You will in fact keep stating it's evolution, when it's not, and it can actually be demonstrated as not being evolution.

I am now very interested in that demonstration and please use understandable terms or at least define what you mean by them like "shift" and "recombination" which you still haven´t defined.

  Mutation doesn't = evolution.  Recombination of nucleotide bases does not = evolution.

not on it´s own no. it just generates the necessary variability to have selection (and other mechanisms) to act on. Then you have evolution.

This recombination of nucleotides is all that is needed for the Bacteria to find a way around the Antibiotic.  This is not misleading, it's actually what it is, you just want to mask your problem with terms, because you have actually lost the debate.

I don´t even think a debate has even started yet because we are still in the progress to define the first argument. Not rebuttal yet on any of our sides :lol:

I don´t mask my points with terms. Clearly defined terms are crucial to even understand what your discussion partner has to say, and I´m still trying to understand where your problem lies because you use some terms which are not defined or used in another meaning as they are used in scientific context.

To declare victory before you even clearly stated what your point is, is ... I don´t know? childish?

This is not evolution, the Bacteria isn't using new nucleotides, and it isn't creating new nucleotides.

Another piece of the puzzle. What do you mean by new? Does it have to use other nucleobases than Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine and Thymine? Do you think the total amount of bases in the DNA is constant? What does recombination and mutation with the DNA? Could it be that the sequence of the bases are changed by this processes? What is the result of that? What happens at the replication step? Is replication always perfect?

To have actually an argument you should give us a bit more than:
"nah, I don´t feel like this is evolution because evolution methinks is bah bah."

The Bacteria, as a matter of fact already have the nucleotide bases contained within their DNA to recombine.

Yes, so what? And what is recombination as you use it? The same as this:
http://en.wikipedia....c_recombination ??

And why is this not qualified as changing the genetic makeup of the bacteria and all it´s offspring?

  Since this is true, and neither Skeptic, or McStone can show where the evolution is happening.  Then my point still stands.

The debate is over, and evolution has yet again failed to show itself.


I didn´t show? so please what do you think evolution is and why do the things I said don´t qualify?

I hope you don´t mean it when you said the debate is over because as i said I don´t think we even started. We even didn´t scratch the cover of the surface.

#102 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 April 2010 - 12:07 PM

Change in the genome, selection of a new trait. The definition of evolution.

That's what I'm talking about. This change... how can it truly be called evolution, especially in the Bacteria's case, simply because this new trait really isn't all that new. It's a change in the molecular bases, to block the AntiBiotic from invading parts of it's genome, which would therefore disable the Bacteria.

I don't see how this is not a natural reaction to an AntiBiotic ( Synthetic, or None-Synthetic).

It's just clear that what you call evolution here, and what the forum defines this as Micro-evolution... which really isn't evolution, but simple adaptation. When I say genetic recombination, I'm referring to the exact same thing that you are referring to.

You see the change in the genome as the evolution itself. I don't see it as evolution, because I see no way that this change in the genome could actually lead to a multicellular organism... Decent with modification, I don't see actual Decent with modification going on here... Actually all that's happening is a switch, so that the Bacteria can still reproduce, and survive being around the Antibiotic. This switch did nothing but change the molecular make-up (combination) so that it could do these things, but nothing else was actually modified. The Bacteria is simply switching bases, so that it can go around the AntiBiotics attack.

The only thing I see is adaptation, and the recombining of these bases. Now, do you think that eventually all of these recombinations could eventually lead to a multicellular organism? Do you think this natuaral switch against the AntiBiotic will somehow make a switch that will one day make the Bacteria evolve actual new parts? Why would this switch, not let the Bacteria adapt back to it's previous combination if in fact it had switched to fight the Synthetic Antibiotic, and then had survive in the wild... wouldn't it simply switch back to fight the other Antibiotics.

That's one of the problems, because since the Bacteria is using some of its Genetic Combination during the switch to fight the Synthetic Antibiotic, it then is now less able to fight the old natural Antibiotics. This is exactly why we see no change, because the same bases are being used, and they are only on different combinations. The fact that the Bacteria are less immune to the old natural AntiBiotics shows that no change really happened, and that the Bacteria can only use the Bases that it currently has to fight the Synthetic.

How is this not change/Evolution? I'll give an odd example for recombination:

If you have a 4 cylinder engine, and you switch pistons in each of the same cylinder holes... have you somehow evolved???

No, you simply switched your existing pistons, into different cylinder holes. The exact same thing is happening with DNA, and its bases.

If evolutionist truly believe this is evolution, then they need to show the modification, the change that makes this Bacteria something more spectacular than it actually is.

As a Creationist, we believe in Micro-evolution, and such is why I totally agree with your points. But what you would refer to as evolution/Micro-evolution... is simply adaptation to us, because we see no real modifications going on here. Just natural base jumping... what Bacteria simply must do to survive these attacks.

It may seem strange, but I do agree with you, on all your points, and all the links, and all the information given. I should have stated this before, but how does this simple Change, account for Evolution in the long run. You know, how Bacteria might some day, far in the future simply find a combination that leads them to evolve into a Multicellular organism?

Wouldn't you think that this would take more than just what is happening with the Bacteria vs the AntiBiotic? What do you think it would take for the Bacteria to get the Gene Combinations, that the Human Immune System has? What do you think it would take for the Bacteria to get the Gene Combinations that would allow it to evolve into a Multicellular organism.

#103 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 April 2010 - 01:35 PM

Change in the genome, selection of a new trait.  The definition of evolution.

That's what I'm talking about.  This change... how can it truly be called evolution, especially in the Bacteria's case, simply because this new trait really isn't all that new.  It's a change in the molecular bases, to block the AntiBiotic from invading parts of it's genome, which would therefore disable the Bacteria.


Well technically Scott, the definition of evolution is a change in the frequency of inherited traits, not just "change in the genome".

Scott, this is evolution. A new trait has arisen, and the frequency of this trait will change in the population.

Im trying my best to comphrehend what your saying scott, and i dont understand why you still think this is a predictable part of the bacterial lifecycle - more than that, a defense mechanism. It is a random mutation. A nucleotide has been entirely replaced, or added, or deleted - not "modified" for a new purpose. By some cellular abnormality, or copying error, a nucleotide has been edited out or into the genome, by chance conferring resistance to an antibiotic.


I don't see how this is not a natural reaction to an AntiBiotic ( Synthetic, or None-Synthetic).


Scott, the natural reaction to an antibiotic is to die (or otherwise experience declines in functionality). Dont you see?

It's just clear that what you call evolution here, and what the forum defines this as Micro-evolution... which really isn't evolution, but simple adaptation. When I say genetic recombination, I'm referring to the exact same thing that you are referring to.


So a genetic "shuffling" mechanism that has no relevence to random mutation then? What do you mean "simple adaptation". Scott, it is really hard reading your comments, you need to clarify what you mean.

You see the change in the genome as the evolution itself.  I don't see it as evolution, because I see no way that this change in the genome could actually lead to a multicellular organism...  Decent with modification, I don't see actual Decent with modification going on here... Actually all that's happening is a switch, so that the Bacteria can still reproduce, and survive being around the Antibiotic.  This switch did nothing but change the molecular make-up (combination) so that it could do these things, but nothing else was actually modified.  The Bacteria is simply switching bases, so that it can go around the AntiBiotics attack.


Scott, for what is hopefully the last time, organisms do not direct their own genetics. Their genetics direct them. They are at the mercy of their genetics, because, as we established some time ago:


genes -> amino acids -> proteins -> genotype

not:

genotype -> genes -> amino acids -> proteins.

There is no known mechanism Scott - unless you know otherwise - which allows an organism to influence its inherited genome for the good. If that was the case, why do we have cancer? Why is genetic disease rampant? Why does the majority of our genome attest to a history of latent viral infection? Just as one particular bacterium may have a novel mutation conferring antibiotic resistance, many thousands of its conspecifics are now dead from exposure to the same compound. How does your "DNA defense hypothesis" explain this?

Your problem Scott is that you want it both ways, and it doesnt work like that. You want - god wants- genomes to be flexible and dynamic - responsive to new challanges in the environment. On t'other hand, too much flexibility and we might be running a risk of evolution here.


Your DNA defense hypothesis works via "deliberate genomic switches" (what other people call "random mutation")
At the same time - thousands - lo, millions - of conspecifics die because, for some reason or another (which you still havent divulged), their DNA simply isnt capable of "switching".

The ironic thing is scott, and what you really havent thought about, is that, essentially, this is exactly the same thing as evolution - an inequality of a trait in a population. The bacteria with your "switching ability" will survive, and the trait will become fixed in the new population.

Scott, you really need to provide some evidence for such a mechanism, otherwise, its a waste of time talking about it. Its based, once again, on your misunderstandings of genetics (though i didnt think random mutation was actually that hard to get around). Those who actually report and discover antibiotic resistance understand random mutation is the cause. Are they missing a trick?

The only thing I see is adaptation, and the recombining of these bases.  Now, do you think that eventually all of these recombinations could eventually lead to a multicellular organism?  Do you think this natuaral switch against the AntiBiotic will somehow make a switch that will one day make the Bacteria evolve actual new parts?


Scott, i thought the whole "DNAgate" episode would have taught you to read some biology. Why are you even coming on here still?!!! Go and pick a book up!!!

Adaptation? yes. "Recombining the bases?". No. Scott, recombination is the swapping of sequences from one chromosone to another, not messing the nucleotide sequence up.

If evolutionist truly believe this is evolution, then they need to show the modification, the change that makes this Bacteria something more spectacular than it actually is.


My god, scott, this is so frustrating.

"Nucleotide sequences encoding and promoting expression
of three antibiotic resistance genes indigenous
to Streptomyces"

Read this, the nucleotide sequence change for several random mutations, conferring antibiotic resistance, is documented.
http://www.springerl...65228822063435/

As a Creationist, we believe in Micro-evolution, and such is why I totally agree with your points.  But what you would refer to as evolution/Micro-evolution... is simply adaptation to us, because we see no real modifications going on here.  Just natural base jumping... what Bacteria simply must do to survive these attacks.


You heard him folks, good, old-fashioned "base-jumping", which happens to be as a effective, for 99% of the general bacterial population, as a catflap in an elephant house.

Scott, we wouldnt expect to see "a multicellular organism" evolving from a bacteria. Multicellular organisms didnt evolve from bacteria.


It may seem strange, but I do agree with you, on all your points, and all the links, and all the information given.   I should have stated this before, but how does this simple Change, account for Evolution in the long run.  You know, how Bacteria might some day, far in the future simply find a combination that leads them to evolve into a Multicellular organism?


Multicellular organisms didnt evolve from bacteria Scott.

Wouldn't you think that this would take more than just what is happening with the Bacteria vs the AntiBiotic?  What do you think it would take for the Bacteria to get the Gene Combinations, that the Human Immune System has?  What do you think it would take for the Bacteria to get the Gene Combinations that would allow it to evolve into a Multicellular organism.


Multicellular organisms didnt evolve from bacteria Scott.

#104 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 April 2010 - 03:42 PM

So Multicellular Organisms just poofed into existance McStone??? :lol:

You have lost this debate if you continue with that statement McStone, because by default you are stating that Multicellular animals only evolved from Multicellular animals. Bacteria, or any other single celled organism. This is very important, it has to start somewhere.

Where did Multicellular animals evolve from McStone??? Where? Poof they were always Multicellular.

McStone, I understand completely what the Recombination is, and it's not helping your case one bit. Hasn't been helping you this entire thread. I know the organisms itself doesn't guide the combination. Why? Because the AntiBiotic is trying to prevent the combination of certain Molecules during the process, therefore naturally the Molecules trying to combine, will try to combine successfully using another combination... Randomly. Then again, it's just doing what it's supposed to do, because the DNA is what's actually guiding ( in a sense ) these combinations. Therefore, if the AntiBiotic is blocking a specific combination for specific traits, then by default ( naturally) the molecules within the DNA will try to make another combination, that will find a way to make a molecular combination around that block.

Also I never stated the recombination is messing the sequence up... It's merely recombining the original, to the AntiBiotic that it has not encountered before. Therefore, as has been stated again again and again... this change is supposedly evolution, when in fact it isn't.

You stated that Multicellular animals did not evolve from single celled organisms. Now I think you need to back that up with something. Really, and I mean really you do.

#105 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 08 April 2010 - 06:36 PM

Well technically Scott, the definition of evolution is a change in the frequency of inherited traits, not just "change in the genome".

Scott, this is evolution. A new trait has arisen, and the frequency of this trait will change in the population.


That´s all micro-evolution, please read the forum rules.

#106 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 April 2010 - 07:04 PM

So Multicellular Organisms just poofed into existance McStone???  :D

You have lost this debate if you continue with that statement McStone, because by default you are stating that Multicellular animals only evolved from Multicellular animals.  Bacteria, or any other single celled organism.  This is very important, it has to start somewhere.

Where did Multicellular animals evolve from McStone??? Where?  Poof they were always Multicellular.

McStone, I understand completely what the Recombination is, and it's not helping your case one bit.  Hasn't been helping you this entire thread.  I know the organisms itself doesn't guide the combination.  Why?  Because the AntiBiotic is trying to prevent the combination of certain Molecules during the process, therefore naturally the Molecules trying to combine, will try to combine successfully using another combination... Randomly.  Then again, it's just doing what it's supposed to do, because the DNA is what's actually guiding ( in a sense ) these combinations.  Therefore, if the AntiBiotic is blocking a specific combination for specific traits, then by default ( naturally) the molecules within the DNA will try to make another combination, that will find a way to make a molecular combination around that block.

Also I never stated the recombination is messing the sequence up... It's merely recombining the original, to the AntiBiotic that it has not encountered before.  Therefore, as has been stated again again and again... this change is supposedly evolution, when in fact it isn't.

You stated that Multicellular animals did not evolve from single celled organisms.  Now I think you need to back that up with something. Really, and I mean really you do.

View Post


So anything that isn't multicellular is bacteria???

#107 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 08 April 2010 - 08:19 PM

Quote: So anything that isn't multicellular is bacteria???

Uhm...aren't most bacteria unicellular???

I believe Scott is talking about the illusion that evolutionists claim that evolution, as described by them, started from "simple" (perhaps unicellular) to more "complex" (multicellular) organisms through this fantasy step by step "process".

In other words, multicellular had to start from "somewhere" ,according to the story, and that somewhere started way back when, once upon a time long long ago with bacteria or unicellular organisms and even before that a pond of goo. Something like that.

So if multicellular organisms DIDN'T evolve from more "simple" unicellular organisms...uhm, did the story change again? I think that's where Scott was going with this. Sorry Scott if I've misunderstood anything. :D

#108 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2010 - 07:03 AM

McStone, I understand completely what the Recombination is, and it's not helping your case one bit. Hasn't been helping you this entire thread. I know the organisms itself doesn't guide the combination. Why? Because the AntiBiotic is trying to prevent the combination of certain Molecules during the process, therefore naturally the Molecules trying to combine, will try to combine successfully using another combination... Randomly. Then again, it's just doing what it's supposed to do, because the DNA is what's actually guiding ( in a sense ) these combinations. Therefore, if the AntiBiotic is blocking a specific combination for specific traits, then by default ( naturally) the molecules within the DNA will try to make another combination, that will find a way to make a molecular combination around that block.


Is it just me, or does that make no sense what-so-ever? The antibiotic isnt "trying" to do anything. Antibiotics work at a variety of scales, from destroying the cell structure to preventing replication or protein synthesis. Scott, DNA is passive, it doesnt "sense" anything, much less "guide anything".


  So Multicellular Organisms just poofed into existance McStone??? biggrin.gif

You have lost this debate if you continue with that statement McStone, because by default you are stating that Multicellular animals only evolved from Multicellular animals. Bacteria, or any other single celled organism. This is very important, it has to start somewhere.

Where did Multicellular animals evolve from McStone??? Where? Poof they were always Multicellular.....

......You stated that Multicellular animals did not evolve from single celled organisms. Now I think you need to back that up with something. Really, and I mean really you do.


Quote: So anything that isn't multicellular is bacteria???

Uhm...aren't most bacteria unicellular???

I believe Scott is talking about the illusion that evolutionists claim that evolution, as described by them, started from "simple" (perhaps unicellular) to more "complex" (multicellular) organisms through this fantasy step by step "process".

In other words, multicellular had to start from "somewhere" ,according to the story, and that somewhere started way back when, once upon a time long long ago with bacteria or unicellular organisms and even before that a pond of goo. Something like that.

So if multicellular organisms DIDN'T evolve from more "simple" unicellular organisms...uhm, did the story change again? I think that's where Scott was going with this. Sorry Scott if I've misunderstood anything


Gentlemen, i would like to say i understand your concerns about the evolution of multicellularity, but i dont, because, once again, you are asking this question from ignorance of the actual position of evolutionary theory. "Why cant bacteria evolve into a multicellular organism"

The fact that your even asking these questions shows to me that you havent thought about the possible answer - you havent tried too. You havent thought about what a truly multicellular organism actually is.

A multicellular organism is an organism consisting of Eukaryotic cells. This is in contrast to bacteria and archaea, which are Prokaryotic cells. The differences between the two clades are vast, not least, the occurrence of a cell wall (absent in eukaryotes), the cell nucleus (absent in prokaryotes), DNA storage and synthesis, size (eukaryotes are alot bigger), and, amongst other things, these happy little chaps, which are curiously missing from prokaryotes:

Posted Image

mitochondria

Posted Image

chloroplast

The former are found in most kinds of eukaryotes, the latter in photosynthesising eukaroyotes (various protists, plants).

These things are quite strange - exceptionately strange in a YEC universe - because they are, in fact, once-seperate organisms, now with their survival and reproduction instrinsically linked to that of a host, symbiotic cell. These things have their own prokaryotic cell structure - even their own genomes, which, you guessed it, bear striking similarity to bacteria. Mitochondria are early bacteria so-called "proteobacteria", whilst chloroplasts are cyanobacteria, with striking resemblance to modern day examples. These bacteria were engulfed by an early eukaryotic cell, and, by some fluke, were not destroyed (this, by the way, still happens in eukaryotic cells). Rather they became symbiotic in the host cell; mitochondria, in a protective environment, produce ATP energy for the host, choloroplasts use light energy to fix carbon. It is now a tight-symbiosis; neither eukaryote or prokaryote can survive without the other, and the host cell has absolute control on the replication of the prokaryotic genome(s).
Put simply, Eukaryotes, with their prokaryotic partners, were able to grow and physically diversify in a way bacteria - very much alone in a harsh environment - have always been unable to do. With one central genome, and with devoted energy and carbon producers in the cell, eukaryotes were able to "take the risk". Multicellularity, with this mind, is just a matter of time. Even today, there are one-celled eukaryotes which can form multicellular groups - with cell specialisation - despite remaining reproductively-distinct individuals. Somewhere along the line - i suspect with organisms not unlike amoeboids - asexual cell replication became the same thing as "growth". If you like, i can give a whole history of what happened. How you came from such an organism.

Multicelluarity did not evolve from bacteria; rather it evolved from a unique macroevolutionary event (perhaps events), where a symbiosis was formed with bacteria. Mitochondria and chloroplasts are essentially no different in any eukaryote; its the central nucleus (and its energetic and chemical demands) that has evolved.

The real question is why adam's cells had bacteria in, isnt it?

#109 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 09 April 2010 - 07:57 AM

McStone, I do appreciate the fantastic replys, however I don't know if you can take their blinders off.

#110 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2010 - 09:24 AM

Uhm...aren't most bacteria unicellular???

I believe Scott is talking about the illusion that evolutionists claim that evolution, as described by them, started from "simple" (perhaps unicellular) to more "complex" (multicellular) organisms through this fantasy step by step "process".

In other words, multicellular had to start from "somewhere" ,according to the story, and that somewhere started way back when, once upon a time long long ago with bacteria or unicellular organisms and even before that a pond of goo. Something like that.

So if multicellular organisms DIDN'T evolve from more "simple" unicellular organisms...uhm, did the story change again? I think that's where Scott was going with this. Sorry Scott if I've misunderstood anything. :D

View Post


No, the story didn't change, but multicellular, at least in the sense Scott is considering, organisms didn't evolve from bacteria. Bacteria only evolve into bacteria.

#111 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 April 2010 - 10:24 AM

Is it just me, or does that make no sense what-so-ever? The antibiotic isnt "trying" to do anything. Antibiotics work at a variety of scales, from destroying the cell structure to preventing replication or protein synthesis. Scott, DNA is passive, it doesnt "sense" anything, much less "guide anything".
Gentlemen, i would like to say i understand your concerns about the evolution of multicellularity, but i dont, because, once again, you are asking this question from ignorance of the actual position of evolutionary theory. "Why cant bacteria evolve into a multicellular organism"

The fact that your even asking these questions shows to me that you havent thought about the possible answer - you havent tried too. You havent thought about what a truly multicellular organism actually is.

A multicellular organism is an organism consisting of Eukaryotic cells. This is in contrast to bacteria and archaea, which are Prokaryotic cells. The differences between the two clades are vast, not least, the occurrence of a cell wall (absent in eukaryotes), the cell nucleus (absent in prokaryotes), DNA storage and synthesis, size (eukaryotes are alot bigger), and, amongst other things, these happy little chaps, which are curiously missing from prokaryotes:

Posted Image

mitochondria

Posted Image
   
chloroplast

The former are found in most kinds of eukaryotes, the latter in photosynthesising eukaroyotes (various protists, plants).

These things are quite strange - exceptionately strange in a YEC universe - because they are, in fact, once-seperate organisms, now with their survival and reproduction instrinsically linked to that of a host, symbiotic cell. These things have their own prokaryotic cell structure  - even their own genomes, which, you guessed it, bear striking similarity to bacteria. Mitochondria are early bacteria so-called "proteobacteria", whilst chloroplasts are cyanobacteria, with striking resemblance to modern day examples. These bacteria were engulfed by an early eukaryotic cell, and, by some fluke, were not destroyed (this, by the way, still happens in eukaryotic cells). Rather they became symbiotic in the host cell; mitochondria, in a protective environment, produce ATP energy for the host, choloroplasts use light energy to fix carbon. It is now a tight-symbiosis; neither eukaryote or prokaryote can survive without the other, and the host cell has absolute control on the replication of the prokaryotic genome(s).
Put simply, Eukaryotes, with their prokaryotic partners, were able to grow and physically diversify in a way bacteria - very much alone in a harsh environment - have always been unable to do. With one central genome, and with devoted energy and carbon producers in the cell, eukaryotes were able to "take the risk". Multicellularity, with this mind, is just a matter of time. Even today, there are one-celled eukaryotes which can form multicellular groups - with cell specialisation - despite remaining reproductively-distinct individuals. Somewhere along the line - i suspect with organisms not unlike amoeboids - asexual cell replication became the same thing as "growth". If you like, i can give a whole history of what happened. How you came from such an organism.

Multicelluarity did not evolve from bacteria; rather it evolved from a unique macroevolutionary event (perhaps events), where a symbiosis was formed with bacteria. Mitochondria and chloroplasts are essentially no different in any eukaryote; its the central nucleus (and its energetic and chemical demands) that has evolved.     

The real question is why adam's cells had bacteria in, isnt it?

View Post



I'm not saying specifically Bacteria. I'm saying Unicellular to Multicellular.

In other words you knew exactly what I meant, and I know you did. You know what you did, by stating this was an argument out of ignorance, when you knew before hand the question being asked.

Gentlemen, McStone is actually telling a falsehood/fairytale when he is stating that DNA doesn't guide anything. He is stating that we are asking questions out of ignorance, when clearly these questions being asked are quite logical. He is only here to make himself look good, but not to actually give any true statements.

Even with his thoughts on how multicellular organisms have evolved, he is still guessing, and he has having massive amounts of faith in Macro-evolution ( The unobserved, and untested).

DNA is what codes for the molecular recombinations. I should expect ( but most likely won't get) a full apology for the incorrect statements that McStone has just proposed. Everything would be in complete chaos, if DNA wasn't specifically coding for these combinations to produce these traits.

Of course, seeing as how McStone doesn't believe that he actually inherits genes from his parents, then by default we can understand why McStone has made this mistake.

Without DNA McStone, you wouldn't exist, and your body wouldn't be able to make proteins, your body wouldn't be able reproduce cells to make organs for your body.

You see people, McStone, has been caught red handed, because it is DNA which codes for the molecular combinations for each and every part of your body. These molecular combinations ultimate code for the production of each organ to be made. This process has been well documented from when the egg and sperm meet, all the way to the day of death.

It is absolutely clear what helps in the production of living organisms, and it is demobstratable, that DNA is what guides the production of ALL life.

This mysterious force in not a mystery at all. DNA. It's as simple as that. If McStone denies this, then he has lost this debate entirely, because he refuses to accept the basic, of the basic facts.

#112 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 April 2010 - 10:25 AM

No, the story didn't change, but multicellular, at least in the sense Scott is considering, organisms didn't evolve from bacteria.  Bacteria only evolve into bacteria.

View Post


If you will read my original post you will see that I was not specifically saying Bacteria. The question posed was quite well understood.

#113 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 April 2010 - 10:28 AM

Quote: So anything that isn't multicellular is bacteria???

Uhm...aren't most bacteria unicellular???

I believe Scott is talking about the illusion that evolutionists claim that evolution, as described by them, started from "simple" (perhaps unicellular) to more "complex" (multicellular) organisms through this fantasy step by step "process".

In other words, multicellular had to start from "somewhere" ,according to the story, and that somewhere started way back when, once upon a time long long ago with bacteria or unicellular organisms and even before that a pond of goo. Something like that.

So if multicellular organisms DIDN'T evolve from more "simple" unicellular organisms...uhm, did the story change again? I think that's where Scott was going with this. Sorry Scott if I've misunderstood anything. :D

View Post


You are exactly correct. Anyone who actually took the time to read my post could understand the question being asked.

#114 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 April 2010 - 10:33 AM

So anything that isn't multicellular is bacteria???

View Post


Tharock220, that is absolutely the lamest question I've heard you state yet. Where in my post did I say that anything that wasn't multicellular was Bacteria?

Where?

Where?

Where?

Where did you and McStone come up with this? Where?

#115 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 09 April 2010 - 10:44 AM

I'm not saying specifically Bacteria.  I'm saying Unicellular to Multicellular.

In other words you knew exactly what I meant, and I know you did.  You know what you did, by stating this was an argument out of ignorance, when you knew before hand the question being asked.

Gentlemen, McStone is actually telling a falsehood/fairytale when he is stating that DNA doesn't guide anything.  He is stating that we are asking questions out of ignorance, when clearly these questions being asked are quite logical.  He is only here to make himself look good, but not to actually give any true statements.

Even with his thoughts on how multicellular organisms have evolved, he is still guessing, and he has having massive amounts of faith in Macro-evolution ( The unobserved, and untested).

DNA is what codes for the molecular recombinations.  I expect a full apology for the incorrect statements that McStone has just proposed.  Everything would be in complete chaos, if DNA wasn't specifically coding for these combinations to produce these traits.

Of course, seeing as how McStone doesn't believe that he actually inherits genes from his parents, then by default we can understand why McStone has made this mistake.

Without DNA McStone, you wouldn't exist, and your body wouldn't be able to make proteins, your body wouldn't be able reproduce cells to make organs for your body.

You see people, McStone, has been caught red handed, because it is DNA which codes for the molecular combinations for each and every part of your body.  These moleular combinations ultimate code for the production of each organ to be made.  This process has been well documented from when the egg and sperm meet, all the way to the day of death.

It is absolutely clear what helps in the production of living organisms, and it is demobstratable, that DNA is what guides the production of ALL life.

This mysterious force in not a mystery at all.  DNA.  It's as simple as that.  If McStone denies this, then he has lost this debate intirely, because he refuses to accept the basic, of the basic facts.

View Post

The red are assumptions and I would ask for evidence for these claims. If you can't provide the evidence then I will assess that you do not have it and I will dismiss your later comments as assumptions. I also don't believe your comments to the people to dismiss McStones comments as wrong are not very warranted when you yourself seem to not understand biology.

It may seem strange, but I do agree with you, on all your points, and all the links, and all the information given. I should have stated this before, but how does this simple Change, account for Evolution in the long run.  You know, how Bacteria might some day, far in the future simply find a combination that leads them to evolve into a Multicellular organism?

Wouldn't you think that this would take more than just what is happening with the Bacteria vs the AntiBiotic?  What do you think it would take for the Bacteria to get the Gene Combinations, that the Human Immune System has?  What do you think it would take for the Bacteria to get the Gene Combinations that would allow it to evolve into a Multicellular organism.

View Post

Scott, the bold is where you specifically stated Bacteria. If you meant unicellular then you should have stated unicellular. Claiming that McStone knew what you meant is ridiculous.

#116 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 April 2010 - 10:51 AM

The red are assumptions and I would ask for evidence for these claims.  If you can't provide the evidence then I will assess that you do not have it and I will dismiss your later comments as assumptions.  I also don't believe your comments to the people to dismiss McStones comments as wrong are not very warranted when you yourself seem to not understand biology.
Scott, the bold is where you specifically stated Bacteria.  If you meant unicellular then you should have stated unicellular.  Claiming that McStone knew what you meant is ridiculous.

View Post


Claiming that McStone knew what I meant, is obvious, because the question I asked was in my post, and it was quite clearly not specifically Bacteria. You too would also know what my exact words were if you actually read my post.

If you had not inherited transferable information. Genes, from your parents, then by default you would not exist. DNA is what codes for these combinations. Look in any, and I mean any Biology book, and you will see this.

DNA is what codes for these combinations, and it is what ultimately guides it.

When McStone makes these assumptions, about the Macro-evolution of Unicellular to Multicellular, then he is assuming on this, because no one man on this entire planet has witnessed or verified this Macro-evolution happening.

#117 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 09 April 2010 - 10:56 AM

Claiming that McStone knew what I meant, is obvious, because the question I asked was in my post, and it was quite clearly not specifically Bacteria.  You too would also know what my exact words were if you actually read my post.

If you had not inherited transferable information.  Genes, from your parents, then by default you would not exist.  DNA is what codes for these combinations.  Look in any, and I mean any Biology book, and you will see this.

DNA is what codes for these combinations, and it is what ultimately guides it.

When McStone makes these assumptions, about the Macro-evolution of Unicellular to Multicellular, then he is assuming on this, because no one man on this entire planet has witnessed or verified this Macro-evolution happening.

View Post

I'm not arguing against about DNA. I'm stating that the way you created your replies infers that you were saying Bacteria evolves into multicellular organisms. I don't, however, believe that you fully grasp biology to the extent that McStone has replied with and consequently this misunderstanding is directing your logic in the wrong direction. Also to counter your comment on Macro-evolution, do you have evidence for this. If not then this is once again an assumption.

#118 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 April 2010 - 11:08 AM

I'm not arguing against about DNA.  I'm stating that the way you created your replies infers that you were saying Bacteria evolves into multicellular organisms.  I don't, however, believe that you fully grasp biology to the extent that McStone has replied with and consequently this misunderstanding is directing your logic in the wrong direction.  Also to counter your comment on Macro-evolution, do you have evidence for this.  If not then this is once again an assumption.

View Post



How can Macro-evolution be called fact when it hasn't been observed? Can you yourself provide evidence that it has been observed?

If you actually read my post, you would realize that I stated that what do you think it would take for Bacteria to evolve into a multicellular organism.

You will also see in McStones last post, that he could have stated how Bacteria could have done this. He could have stated the differences in Prokaryotic, and Eukaryotic. He could have stated what was needed for this to be accomplished, and he did... in a later post.

Instead, he proposed the old " your completely stupid therefore I'm going to automatically assume that Scott thinks that all unicellular organisms are Bacteria argument."

Instead of: Showing these differences, and showing what Bacteria are missing to complete the step from Unicellular to Multicellular... it is quite clear that he did not do this.

#119 Mr.Razorblades

Mr.Razorblades

    Banned Troll from a troll forum

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • US

Posted 09 April 2010 - 11:20 AM

How can Macro-evolution be called fact when it hasn't been observed?  Can you yourself provide evidence that it has been observed?

View Post

Do you mean observed as in watching the animal change with your own eyes? If this is the case then that will never happen; mostly becaues evolution doesn't occur in individuals but in populations. If this is what your asking for then no I can't provide you with evidence, no one could provide you with that evidence. Not everything has to be observed for it to exist. Dark matter for example exists yet we can't see it. Quantum entanglement exists, yet we can't observe it. You should probably work away from this "hasn't been observed" idealogy because there are many things we havn't observed yet exist.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users