Peanut Gallery for the debate between mindspawn and RAZD

Pressie finds: Actually, the more I think about it, it's unicellular life that is weird. We see mitosis in 1-celled life. Why do they split into 2 cells and then split apart into 2 organisms? Seems they would hang together for awhile afterwards, no? Or at least significantly often enough to produce multicellular organisms. You can define your own incredulity in your own words, but what happens happens.funny note: when i type "multicellular" it gets flagged as spelled wrong and suggests "unicellular". LOL

No it shouldn't: because biologists, the people who know about biology, don't recite witless meaningless nonsense made up by creationists, the people who don't know about biology.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Some do hang out together. There are bacteria that grow in chains, in twos, and even in cubes. On top of that, you also have bacteria like myxococcus that form multicellular fruiting bodies as well as biofilm production through cross species cooperation.Bacteria also have sex. Here is a bit of bacteria porn for you:

Broadly, yes. That's why it's provoked a creationist to puke halfwitted nonsense at you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, from my field, it seems as if this process took billions of years in nature. That's from the empirical, verifiable evidence we have in the form of those fossils we find in those wonderful rocks.I don't think anybody with half a brain would call a process that took billions of years to happen saltation.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Luckily for the progress of humanity that's not what biologists claim about the theory of evolution at all.You made that up.

The word "multicellularity" too. I wasn't even sure whether it was a word or not.To me all those critters seem weird and wonderful; maybe it's because I'm not a biologist and also because we evolved to try and understand things on middle-earth.Edited by Pressie, : Edited first sentence

Taq, well, I never....It's a strange, strange world we live in.Thanks.

Yes, Dr A.The more I think about it, the more it seems as if this debate between RAZD and mindspawn is and was just meaningless in a broader context.It was very, very informative to me, though.Creos must hate all that knowledge. Those pesky biologists know way too much about biology. All that knowledge can't be good for them or for anyone else! It seems as if the whole debate is just a result of a creationist using sciencey-sounding words to provide the impression that he knows something; while the sciencey-sounding words are irrelevant to reality. The conditions mindspawn placed for evolution to happen are not necessary at all.Edited by Pressie, : Changed last sentenceEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

So let's go back to the very beginning of the debate. RAZD quoted two statements by mindspawn as the topic of the debate:

quote:

---

"... recent DNA sequencing is not providing enough support for the hypothesis of evolution. (ie increased DNA complexity of new and uniquely functional active coding genes within an organism is not observed to add fitness)."

​

and

​

"I have been looking ... for some evidence that a gene can duplicate, and then produce a novel function in the duplicated coding gene that adds fitness. Haven't seen it yet, this basic process of evolution remains unproven. Without it we would just have bacteria on earth, mutating and evolving into alternative forms but never gaining in complexity."

---

So does the cit+ duplication fit these criteria? Let's take a look.First, is the cit gene duplication unique? Yes. The ancestral bacteria did not have two cit genes with different promoters. Not only that, but it produced a novel phenotype which is citrate utilization in aerobic conditions which was beneficial in the given environment. So we have a novel and beneficial phenotype produced by a gene duplication.Second, does this qualify as an increase in DNA complexity as it relates to the evolution of morphological complexity such as the transition from unicellular to multicellular? Again, the answer is yes. The basic advancement needed for bridging the gap between unicellular and multicellular life is the ability to control gene regulation. Increasing the number of genes under different promoters is essential for increasing the types of tissues and functions that a multicellular organism can have. That is the entire basis for homeobox genes and their importance in metazoan evolution through duplication and divergence of function. Hox genes are transcription factors that bind to gene promoters, and increasing the genes under the influence of different promoters is an increase in genome complexity.So I would say that the cit+ example fits all of the mindspawn's criteria.