• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution, Religion, and Introspection

Status
Not open for further replies.
ludin said:
the worlds biologist have been proven so many times wrong with their theory of evolution I pretty much don't what they say.
I don't look to people who are constantly wrong with their theories as any kind of reliable source of information.

you might but then that is on you not me.
Click to expand...

No, I think the problem is there are a lot of pseudo science sites like answers in genesis and other creationist sites that peddle a lot of nonsense that has long been discredited in mainstream science (for example, the notion that evolution is statistically impossible).

What do you think ludin, that all of world's biologists are just delusional or are they in on some big conspiracy? Evolution is a foundational law of all of biology for crying out loud.
 
ludin said:
Did Scientists Evolve a Multicellular Organism from a Single-Celled Organism?

umm yea they can't form multi-cell organisms unless they are already capable of doing that.
Click to expand...


That's the first step. The condition of forming colonies was due to several mutations that cases bacteria to produce collagen when under stress, and that allowed for those organisms to survive when others that didn't have that mutation. This happened multiple times.

This is a couple of videos that discuss the progress in figuring out how that happened, as a lecture to students. It's almost an hour long, but is very detailed, and while I could do it as a real simplistic level here, this gets down to a much lower, but still very very high level overview of what we know about the development of multicellular
animals from single cell animals. Unfortunately, when it comes to the specific questions you are asking, telling a few facts is not going to do anything but raise more questions. These two videos are much more complete, but hardly the entire answer. It does explain 'what we know about the development of single celled to multi cell' and 'how we know it'.

The origin of animal multicellularity: Nicole King
Choanoflagellate colonies, bacterial signals and animal origins: Nicole King
 
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
More pseudo science garbage. There are literally mountains of peer reviewed evidence for single celled to multi-celled evolution.

How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones
How Life Made the Leap From Single Cells to Multicellular Animals | WIRED
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/what-does-it-take-to-become-multicellular/
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-leap-from-single-cell-to-multicellular-life/
Click to expand...

All of those articles discuss how a variety of scientists think it happened.

None prove that it happened in any particular way, nor are any capable of demonstrating experimentally how it happened.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Because multicelluarity evolved independently numerous times. See: http://www-eve.ucdavis.edu/grosberg/Grosberg pdf papers/2007 Grosberg & Strathmann.AREES.pdf
Click to expand...

Right, but again, all of those articles discuss how a variety of scientists think it happened.

There are ~25 examples of species in which scientists believe the transition (from uni- to multi-cellular) occurred and there are a corresponding number of hypotheses for explaining how the transition occurred.

But there is zero evidence for the transition actually occurring as hypothesized.

It's all theoretical.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No, I think the problem is there are a lot of pseudo science sites like answers in genesis and other creationist sites that peddle a lot of nonsense that has long been discredited in mainstream science (for example, the notion that evolution is statistically impossible).

What do you think ludin, that all of world's biologists are just delusional or are they in on some big conspiracy? Evolution is a foundational law of all of biology for crying out loud.
Click to expand...

there is a thing that is called entropy it is based on the theory of thermodynamics 2nd law.
it is the proving ground of science on whether something is possible nor not possible.

even evolutionist have said that the entropy levels for forming the basic simplest organism is scientifically impossible based on evolution.

The Odds of Evolution Occurring by Chance

science says that it is scientifically impossible not those sites that is a distortion argument.
science says that anything that is 10^50 or smaller is scientifically not possible.

the chances of the simplest bacteria forming at random is 10^430.

so you are mistaken it is science that says it isn't possible.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
More pseudo science garbage. There are literally mountains of peer reviewed evidence for single celled to multi-celled evolution.

How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones
How Life Made the Leap From Single Cells to Multicellular Animals | WIRED
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140125172414.htm

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/what-does-it-take-to-become-multicellular/
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-leap-from-single-cell-to-multicellular-life/
Click to expand...

IE it doesn't agree with me nonsense.

an organism can't do something unless it already had the ability to do it.
I can't fly unless I have the DNA to fly. a single cell organism won't become multi-cell unless it already has the ability to do so.

show me 1 friggen amoeba that has evolved into something other than amoeba. you can't they are still amoebas. there might be different types but they are still amoebas.

think friggen man came from apes we know where humans come from other humans. they didn't evolve from apes.
scientific fact. otherwise there would be no need for reproduction. apes would still be evolving into humans.

get so sick of this pseudo science babble that is proven wrong time and time again.

0 transitional fossils have been found. lucy a bust. so where all the other supposed missing links. either made up and fake or just another animal.

they only thing they have found are fully formed animals with all parts intact. no half of one animal into another animal.
even though the landscape should be littered with all the genetic failures that didn't survive the massive genetic mutations.
 
soot said:
Right, but again, all of those articles discuss how a variety of scientists think it happened.

There are ~25 examples of species in which scientists believe the transition (from uni- to multi-cellular) occurred and there are a corresponding number of hypotheses for explaining how the transition occurred.

But there is zero evidence for the transition actually occurring as hypothesized.

It's all theoretical.
Click to expand...

As to how exactly ancient organism A that was unicellular evolved ancient organism B that was multi-celled is not specifically known. However we have observed it in the lab, so it's not like its impossible. Moreover, if we were to take the flawed logic of creationists, we would have to then argue that since we don't know exactly how it happened in that specific case it happened, then (insert God of the Gaps here) God must have made it happen.

To see the absurdity of that, we only have to apply it to any other field of science. For example, i work in IT. We had a virtualized load balancer that kept marking services down that were clearly up. Despite analyzing network packet captures, tailing the logs, and engaging developers, a clear cause for this could not be found. If I were to use creationist logic, I would then say that since no physical cause could be determined, God must have done it.
 
ludin said:
there is a thing that is called entropy it is based on the theory of thermodynamics 2nd law.
it is the proving ground of science on whether something is possible nor not possible.

even evolutionist have said that the entropy levels for forming the basic simplest organism is scientifically impossible based on evolution.

The Odds of Evolution Occurring by Chance

science says that it is scientifically impossible not those sites that is a distortion argument.
science says that anything that is 10^50 or smaller is scientifically not possible.

the chances of the simplest bacteria forming at random is 10^430.

so you are mistaken it is science that says it isn't possible.
Click to expand...


This is the logical fallacy of 'argument by numbers', and does not take into account that changes are 1) accumulative, and 2) has the filter known as natural selection.
 
ludin said:
IE it doesn't agree with me nonsense.

an organism can't do something unless it already had the ability to do it.
I can't fly unless I have the DNA to fly. a single cell organism won't become multi-cell unless it already has the ability to do so.
Click to expand...

Its been replicated in the lab: Evolution from Single to Multi-Cell Clusters Replicated

think friggen man came from apes we know where humans come from other humans. they didn't evolve from apes.
scientific fact. otherwise there would be no need for reproduction. apes would still be evolving into humans.
Click to expand...

This is just nonsensical. We diverged from a common ancestor that us and Chimpanzees share about 6 million years ago. Chimpanzees evolved to live in the forest canopy, while we evolved to live in the African Savanna. Chimpanzees have actually more more genetic adaptions since diverging from that common ancestor than we have.

Chimps More Evolved Than Humans

Moreover, our classification into the genus Homo is a relic of pre-genetics taxonomy. We actually know now that genetically we should never have been classified into a different genus and actually should be part of the Pan genus. We are actually a third species of Chimpanzee along side Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus. Genetically, there is more that separates a gray and a fox squirrel than what separates us from different members of the Pan genus. Amazon.com: The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal (P.S.) (8601300042237): Jared M. Diamond: Books

0 transitional fossils have been found. lucy a bust. so where all the other supposed missing links. either made up and fake or just another animal.
Click to expand...

This is pointless to discuss this any further as you are simply ignoring reality. Have you ever been to a museum of natural history? Go to any museum of natural history and you will find plenty of examples of transitional fossils.

Just look at our family tree for example:

hominids2_big.jpg

Or whales:

whale-fossils.jpg

Or horses:

toes.jpg

Or frankly thousands upon thousands upon thousands of others.
 
ludin said:
IE it doesn't agree with me nonsense.

an organism can't do something unless it already had the ability to do it.
I can't fly unless I have the DNA to fly. a single cell organism won't become multi-cell unless it already has the ability to do so.

show me 1 friggen amoeba that has evolved into something other than amoeba. you can't they are still amoebas. there might be different types but they are still amoebas.

think friggen man came from apes we know where humans come from other humans. they didn't evolve from apes.
scientific fact. otherwise there would be no need for reproduction. apes would still be evolving into humans.

get so sick of this pseudo science babble that is proven wrong time and time again.

0 transitional fossils have been found. lucy a bust. so where all the other supposed missing links. either made up and fake or just another animal.

they only thing they have found are fully formed animals with all parts intact. no half of one animal into another animal.
even though the landscape should be littered with all the genetic failures that didn't survive the massive genetic mutations.
Click to expand...

Y'know, I think your above post explains a great deal about how you post in general.
 
JC Callender said:
If you believe in Evolution and Judeo-Christianity, do you believe Adam and Eve and the advent of introspection occurred at the same time?
Click to expand...

No. I see no reason to believe that.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
As to how exactly ancient organism A that was unicellular evolved ancient organism B that was multi-celled is not specifically known.
Click to expand...

Right, that's what I'm saying.

We have ideas, we know what's reasonably likely to have occurred, but we can't say for sure.

However we have observed it in the lab, so it's not like its impossible.
Click to expand...

We've observed an unicellular organism evolve in to an entirely new species of multi-cellular organism?

I'm not sure that's the case.

Moreover, if we were to take the flawed logic of creationists, we would have to then argue that since we don't know exactly how it happened in that specific case it happened, then (insert God of the Gaps here) God must have made it happen.
Click to expand...

I agree that's silly.

Just as silly as arguing that since we didn't actually see God do it, there's no way that God could have done it.

To see the absurdity of that, we only have to apply it to any other field of science. For example, i work in IT. We had a virtualized load balancer that kept marking services down that were clearly up. Despite analyzing network packet captures, tailing the logs, and engaging developers, a clear cause for this could not be found. If I were to use creationist logic, I would then say that since no physical cause could be determined, God must have done it.
Click to expand...

I would argue that a limited problem being outside the limited abilities of a limited handful of IT professionals to analyze is quite different than science's inability after centuries of study to adequately explain the evolution of life from unicellular to multi-cellular organisms.

But, at the same time, I wouldn't write off the possibility that God did it.

I think we're pretty much in full agreement that insisting that God must have done such-and-such a thing, predicated only on the absence of any other reasonable explanation for why that thing happened, is a little overboard.

But I similarly find the kind closed-mindedness that insists that God quite simply doesn't exist and consequently couldn't have done it equally overboard.
 
RAMOSS said:
That's the first step. The condition of forming colonies was due to several mutations that cases bacteria to produce collagen when under stress, and that allowed for those organisms to survive when others that didn't have that mutation. This happened multiple times.

This is a couple of videos that discuss the progress in figuring out how that happened, as a lecture to students. It's almost an hour long, but is very detailed, and while I could do it as a real simplistic level here, this gets down to a much lower, but still very very high level overview of what we know about the development of multicellular
animals from single cell animals. Unfortunately, when it comes to the specific questions you are asking, telling a few facts is not going to do anything but raise more questions. These two videos are much more complete, but hardly the entire answer. It does explain 'what we know about the development of single celled to multi cell' and 'how we know it'.

The origin of animal multicellularity: Nicole King
Choanoflagellate colonies, bacterial signals and animal origins: Nicole King
Click to expand...

But that's the problem with random evolution. There's no benefit to retaining the mutation that caused that reaction until it was needed. So if a cell developed that trait, but never needed it, then it becomes a NEGATIVE trait, since it takes away from the organism in times of stress. It's only when the resulting change actually helps them to survive that it becomes a benefit. So if a cell never encountered stress, then the trait breeds out since it's not beneficial. The concept you're promoting is demands that the results drive the change and random evolution is incapable of that. Without a mind behind the process, evolution becomes a dead end. As another example, look at the colorful displays put on by certain species of birds. The first bird that got the mutation that gave it that patch of red on it's chest was at a disadvantage, since it made it an easier target for predators. It was only when a complimentary mutation in the specie that produced an attraction to that patch of color came along that outweighed the disadvantage that it brought that it was a beneficial mutation. So you have to have not just one, but two separate and complimentary changes at the same time. Evolution doesn't plan, it's imply the rolling of the cosmic dice in the hopes that a massively remote chance occurs.
 
RAMOSS said:
This is the logical fallacy of 'argument by numbers', and does not take into account that changes are 1) accumulative, and 2) has the filter known as natural selection.
Click to expand...

But they have massive negative reinforcements going on as well. Changes that require a complimentary change in order for them to be beneficial are next to impossible to retain and propagate. Since the change has no benefit to being retained, it's easy to lose and if it produces ANY negative results, then it's even more difficult. If you want to see a modern day example of how hard it is for a mutation to spread throughout a population, just take a look at red-heads. The consensus is that within a few more centuries, red-heads will be bred out of existence. The mutation occurred, it spread, but as it spread and the population become more homogeneous (a requirement for evolution), it is disappearing. To stop this would require that a complimentary mutation occur that gives red-heads a better chance of reproducing and passing that gene around (not just passing on to the next generation, but spreading it across an entire population).
 
faithful_servant said:
But that's the problem with random evolution. There's no benefit to retaining the mutation that caused that reaction until it was needed. So if a cell developed that trait, but never needed it, then it becomes a NEGATIVE trait, since it takes away from the organism in times of stress. It's only when the resulting change actually helps them to survive that it becomes a benefit. So if a cell never encountered stress, then the trait breeds out since it's not beneficial. The concept you're promoting is demands that the results drive the change and random evolution is incapable of that. Without a mind behind the process, evolution becomes a dead end. As another example, look at the colorful displays put on by certain species of birds. The first bird that got the mutation that gave it that patch of red on it's chest was at a disadvantage, since it made it an easier target for predators. It was only when a complimentary mutation in the specie that produced an attraction to that patch of color came along that outweighed the disadvantage that it brought that it was a beneficial mutation. So you have to have not just one, but two separate and complimentary changes at the same time. Evolution doesn't plan, it's imply the rolling of the cosmic dice in the hopes that a massively remote chance occurs.
Click to expand...

But, unless that particular mutation gets filtered otu, there is no reason to eliminate it either. The average individual has several hundreds of mutations in there, and quite a number of them will be passed on. That can be shown to happen all the time, take a look at the lactic acid experiement by Miller. That has been repeated many times, because that's the standard university experiment to show college students on how things happen.
 
joG said:
I saw a study of mitochondriale dna that made it seem rather believable that humanity had one over-mother and one over-father from whom we all have descended. If I recall correctly eve lived about 130.000 years prior to Adam. ;)

Discuss.


PS: I am agnostic to the shape and timing and origins of the All and doubt that we will be able to falsify Gödel's proof implying that we probably never can understand God, the Universe and everything.
Click to expand...

When I first learned this I was flabbergasted, but it's really just an artifact of statistics.

Every single person is the last link (or 2nd/3rd/4th last if you have kids/grandkids/g.greatkids) in a chain of birth that stretches all the way back until the beginning of life. What that means is that any 2 people will have an MCRA (most common recent ancestor). You and your sisters MCRA is your mum or dad. You and your cousins is your grandparent. You and random stranger down the street is some guy that lived 500 years ago (it doesn't take a long time for ancestral lines to diverge massively). In fact any set of any number of people will have a MRCA, it just goes further and further back in time (statistically) the more people we add to the set. The MCRA of you, your sister and your best friend is the same as the MCRA of your parents and your best friend, so we just kind of 'retreat' back up the family tree until we find the MCRA. Eve and Adam are specific examples of matrilineal and patrilineal MCRA's. It's easiest to find the matrilineal MCRA because matriarchal lineage is preserved in mitochondrial DNA. There is no male input into it. Yours is the same as your mothers. All we do to find when mitrochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam is to look at the current population and extrapolate backwards.

What's also interesting/related is that after enough time, you will either be the genetic ancestor of all living humans or of none of them. Slowly as time goes on and people die, the identity of the matriarchal MRCA lineage will move forward in time down to one of the daughters of current matriarchal eve, and will keep on going until it reaches a lady who is currently alive today. Likewise for Y chromosomal Adam.
 
Last edited:
soot said:
We've observed an unicellular organism evolve in to an entirely new species of multi-cellular organism?

I'm not sure that's the case.
Click to expand...

Evolution from Single to Multi-Cell Clusters Replicated


I agree that's silly.

Just as silly as arguing that since we didn't actually see God do it, there's no way that God could have done it.
Click to expand...

There is a difference though. We literally have mountains of evidence for evolution among multiple different disciplines - fossil evidence, molecular biology, genetics and so on. However, we have no physical evidence of the existence of any supernatural being. We haven't just not seen God do this, we haven't seen him do anything. That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but as there is no evidence for the existence of God, you cannot consider God as a variable in science as science does not just throw in the supernatural every time there is a gap in knowledge.

That is not closed mindedness either. The burden of proof as to whether God was involved in any of it is on those that would make such a claim. See Russell's teapot.
 
faithful_servant said:
But they have massive negative reinforcements going on as well. Changes that require a complimentary change in order for them to be beneficial are next to impossible to retain and propagate. Since the change has no benefit to being retained, it's easy to lose and if it produces ANY negative results, then it's even more difficult. If you want to see a modern day example of how hard it is for a mutation to spread throughout a population, just take a look at red-heads. The consensus is that within a few more centuries, red-heads will be bred out of existence. The mutation occurred, it spread, but as it spread and the population become more homogeneous (a requirement for evolution), it is disappearing. To stop this would require that a complimentary mutation occur that gives red-heads a better chance of reproducing and passing that gene around (not just passing on to the next generation, but spreading it across an entire population).
Click to expand...

Well, I bet you can't show peer reviewed articles about that. The whole 'red heads is going to die out' is quite the myth. And there is some bad logic there. Yes, there will be mutations that would have been successful that get lost, but others that will be retained when the environment changes. Then there are the ones that happen during the time that the environment is changing, so there is selective pressure right away.

This link describes how an mutliple genes needing to work together will evolve in bacteria.. it also btw, produces what Behe called 'an irreducibly complex system. This can happen over and over again... since this is a standard assignment in college these days when studying evolution and mutations.

A True Acid Test
 
JC Callender said:
If you believe in Evolution and Judeo-Christianity, do you believe Adam and Eve and the advent of introspection occurred at the same time?
Click to expand...
If you believe in evolution, you are Unlikely to believe in Adam and Eve.
There was likley one slightly mutated indivdual/proto-human/Homo who was born.'He' likely re-bred with some mainstreamer of his group OR with a member of some other group, and gradually thru tens/hundreds/thousands/Tens of thousands of generations, those individuals with advantageous mutations, survived longer, and bred with other of their same tribe/group, or other group, who also had advantageous mutation.
So, Homo advanced gradually, perhaps sometimes faster, depending on who/what they mated with.

So designating an exact 'Adam and Eve' point in this ongoing process seems impossible.

Was watching an amazing Evo/Race/subspecie youtube the other day from a Right-wing website: it was brilliant.
(some of what I have just said is from it)
Evo wasn't just linear, it was a likely web of early groups interbreeding rather than one single group with positive mutations.
Thus that recent Homo Naledi find:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/scien...estors-found-south-africa.html#post1065022268
with features that resembled both Apes and humans.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
But, unless that particular mutation gets filtered otu, there is no reason to eliminate it either. The average individual has several hundreds of mutations in there, and quite a number of them will be passed on. That can be shown to happen all the time, take a look at the lactic acid experiement by Miller. That has been repeated many times, because that's the standard university experiment to show college students on how things happen.
Click to expand...

If it's not beneficial, then it will eventually get filtered out. Again, look at red-heads. No genetic benefit, so within a few centuries, there will be no more red-heads. A trait that gets passed on is one that is of benefit, not one that is neutral. A neutral trait slowly but surely fades away.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, I bet you can't show peer reviewed articles about that. The whole 'red heads is going to die out' is quite the myth. And there is some bad logic there. Yes, there will be mutations that would have been successful that get lost, but others that will be retained when the environment changes. Then there are the ones that happen during the time that the environment is changing, so there is selective pressure right away.

This link describes how an mutliple genes needing to work together will evolve in bacteria.. it also btw, produces what Behe called 'an irreducibly complex system. This can happen over and over again... since this is a standard assignment in college these days when studying evolution and mutations.

A True Acid Test
Click to expand...

That's the RESULT of a mutation, not the mutation itself. The process of mutation is NOT intelligent, it is random. Yes bad traits get weeded out, but all traits ONLY happen by chance. The Theory of Evolution states that the arctic ptarmigan didn't develop the trait of turning white in the winter because of the presence of snow, it happened because a trait that triggered that change simply happened at random. Not only did the genes that gave teh ptarmigan it's white feathers all occurred in a short time (from an geological perspective), but those genetic changes were also accompanied by the changes that caused the white feather to grow out at the right time to give the ptarmigan the advantage it needed to survive. Multiple complimentary mutations all happening within a short period of time that never got lost along the way due to predation, disease or accident. Almost sounds too good to be true, doesn't it...????
 
faithful_servant said:
But they have massive negative reinforcements going on as well. Changes that require a complimentary change in order for them to be beneficial are next to impossible to retain and propagate. Since the change has no benefit to being retained, it's easy to lose and if it produces ANY negative results, then it's even more difficult. If you want to see a modern day example of how hard it is for a mutation to spread throughout a population, just take a look at red-heads. The consensus is that within a few more centuries, red-heads will be bred out of existence. The mutation occurred, it spread, but as it spread and the population become more homogeneous (a requirement for evolution), it is disappearing. To stop this would require that a complimentary mutation occur that gives red-heads a better chance of reproducing and passing that gene around (not just passing on to the next generation, but spreading it across an entire population).
Click to expand...

it would be a loss to the world if red heads were to fade away.
 
faithful_servant said:
That's the RESULT of a mutation, not the mutation itself. The process of mutation is NOT intelligent, it is random. Yes bad traits get weeded out, but all traits ONLY happen by chance. The Theory of Evolution states that the arctic ptarmigan didn't develop the trait of turning white in the winter because of the presence of snow, it happened because a trait that triggered that change simply happened at random. Not only did the genes that gave teh ptarmigan it's white feathers all occurred in a short time (from an geological perspective), but those genetic changes were also accompanied by the changes that caused the white feather to grow out at the right time to give the ptarmigan the advantage it needed to survive. Multiple complimentary mutations all happening within a short period of time that never got lost along the way due to predation, disease or accident. Almost sounds too good to be true, doesn't it...????
Click to expand...

which is why evolution and natural selection is full of crap.

otherwise I wouldn't have to wear glasses. if what you said is true then natural selection would have weeded out the need for me to wear glasses.
evidently evolution didn't get your memo that it only passes on the best traits. it doesn't. natural selection is bs.

you don't get to pick and choose your gene's.
it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does in God.

the theory of evolution is basically this.

a tornado hits a junk yard and puts together a fully working plane.
that is about the extent of evolution.

multiple complimentary mutation happening in exact sequence at the exact timing possible is scientifically impossible.
and it isn't me that says it is impossible it is science that says it is impossible.

ol yea it doesn't grow feathers unless it has the dna capable to grow feathers. it can't just make up a gene to grow feathers without it already being there.
that is not how genetics works.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom