Can mutation and selection increase information?

The theory says that all life evolved from 1 cell.
Now we have observed that cells can multiply but the theory collapses because a cell can only multiply itself.
For example a whales liver cell can only produce more whale liver cells.
It most definitely has not been observed to spawn completely new and different cells.
As for mutations that only occurs when information is missing from the DNA. So a mutation cannot introduce new information.
Biologists cannot call their practice a science. Physics and chemistry is science. Biology the way it operates on evolution and the big bang is a philosophy.
Simply put unless a cell is observed multiplying into new cells then the theory collapses. The theory is also made redundant unless several fossils of an evolutionary man in transition can be found.
As for creationists don't get too excited because this does not automatically mean that your theory is correct either

Incoming......

Welcome to the fray Porkncheese

The theory says that all life evolved from 1 cell.

Which theory would that be?

Now we have observed that cells can multiply but the theory collapses because a cell can only multiply itself.

Which theory is that again?

For example a whales liver cell can only produce more whale liver cells.

Or cancer cells.

It most definitely has not been observed to spawn completely new and different cells.

Why would a liver cell "spawn completely new and different cells?"

As for mutations that only occurs when information is missing from the DNA. So a mutation cannot introduce new information.

What is information, how do you measure it? How do you now when it is missing?

Biologists cannot call their practice a science. ...

Curiously, you are not in a position to make this claim.

... Physics and chemistry is science. ...

Well that make biology a science then.

Biology the way it operates on evolution and the big bang is a philosophy.

Twice wrong in one sentence.

Simply put unless a cell is observed multiplying into new cells then the theory collapses. ...

Then it hasn't collapsed, because that has been observed, but still waiting to know what theory you are talking about.

... The theory is also made redundant unless several fossils of an evolutionary man in transition can be found.

Then, once again, the theory hasn't collapsed, because they have been found. Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

As for creationists don't get too excited because this does not automatically mean that your theory is correct either

What theory is the creationist theory? I didn't know they had one.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Ok lets simplify things as much as possible then.
The theory of evolution claims that all life originated from 1 cell.
Has a cell ever been observed to create a totally different cell?
Seeing that would have been required to produce such different types of life forms.

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

The theory of evolution claims that all life originated from 1 cell.

Nope.

Porkncheese writes: The theory of evolution claims that all life originated from 1 cell.

Actually, evolution does not say that "all life originated from 1 cell." You're probably thinking of the universal common ancestor, that all life present on earth today evolved from one or a few universal common ancestors through a process of descent with modification and natural selection.

Has a cell ever been observed to create a totally different cell?

That wouldn't be evolution, more like a miracle, though laboratory experimentation has manipulated cells to produce other cell types, for instance, stem cells.

Seeing that would have been required to produce such different types of life forms.

Evolution is about gradual change over many generations, not sudden change.

--Percy

Percy writes: New Kid and School just started writes: Has a cell ever been observed to create a totally different cell? That wouldn't be evolution, more like a miracle, though laboratory experimentation has manipulated cells to produce other cell types, for instance, stem cells.

Not a very big miracle though. And yes, I think it has been observed.

Almost all reproduction among animals starts with a single cell called an egg getting fertilized and then splitting into new cells that go on to become liver cells and limb cells and lymph cells and ...

Ok you are describing reproduction in animals which is not what im talking about.
From what I understand a cell can only multiply itself. This being the case how can all life on earth have originated from only 1 cell?
So now some of you are saying that life did not originate from 1 cell. So Richard Dawkins must be incorrect then.

Or these scientists must not be representing evolution then
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...darwin-single-ancestor

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Pornncheese writes: Ok you are describing reproduction in animals which is not what im talking about.

Nevertheless, you now know that cells can differentiate - that is, start as one kind of cell and divide and specialise to become another. And you know that it's absolutely routine because it's simply the birth and growh process.

From what I understand a cell can only multiply itself.

As above, but also stem cells are also able to create cells that are not like themselves.

This being the case how can all life on earth have originated from only 1 cell? So now some of you are saying that life did not originate from 1 cell. So Richard Dawkins must be incorrect then.

The article didn't say that did it? It said that it's statistically more likely to have come from one form of single celled organism than say from 2 or 3 or more different organisms. Do you see the difference?

It also said that "the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power." ie much higher than even the multiple organism hypothesis.

So now some of you are saying that life did not originate from 1 cell. So Richard Dawkins must be incorrect then.

There is a difference between a single cell - say a liver cell, that is specialised for a particular function inside a complex organism - and a single celled organism which is a fully functioning, independent life form.

The theory of evolution, ToE, can't tell us much at the moment about how life itself started - in fact that's not covered at all by the ToE, that's a seperate subject called abiogenesis - but it does have a conclusion that all life shares a common ancestor - or, more correctly, at least one. Simple logic takes us all the way back to single celled organisms and before that chemical reactions. As yet we don't know how it evolved from those early stages of life and we may never know because it happened over 3bn years ago, but we know that it did and have the evidence to back it up.

We know that evolution occurrs in living organisms by changes to its DNA - often caused by mutations - followed by selection. This can happen in any reproducing organism - single-celled or otherwise. We have many examples of very simple organisms going through this process - bacteria and yeast for example, you only have to google to find them. Or if you stick around here long enough, they'll be thrown at you.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Little steps.

Your first task is to actually learn to read and to comprehend what you read.

Now you have been shown that cells can reproduce and differentiate into other types of cells.

But wait, there is more. Antibiotic resistance is another example. Beginning with a culture of just one type of cell and allowing it to reproduce under stress results in a new type of cell dominating, one that is resistant to the stress.

So now drop those arguments since they have been shown to be factually wrong.

Next let's address your "Life began with a single cell" mistake.

What has actually been said, and again supported by the evidence, is that life on earth first appears as very simple organisms.

Again, this is not something the Theory of Evolution says but rather the only possible conclusion based on the physical evidence.

So now those two errors have been covered you can begin to learn what the fact of evolution as well as the Theory of Evolution teach us.

Porkncheese writes: Has a cell ever been observed to create a totally different cell?

There are no two cells on Earth that are totally different from one another. Even human cells and bacterial cells share features.

Seeing that would have been required to produce such different types of life forms.

Evolution does cause descendants to be modified versions of their ancestors. How is that a problem?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Porkncheese writes: From what I understand a cell can only multiply itself.

You started out as a single cell, and now you have all these different types of cells in your body. How do you think that happened?

Tangle writes: Nevertheless, you now know that cells can differentiate - that is, start as one kind of cell and divide and specialise to become another. And you know that it's absolutely routine because it's simply the birth and growh process.

However in this case the original cell has ALL of the genetic and extra-genetic information for EVERY cell including the information to switch off the un-needed functions in each specialist tissue. That is the difference between a complex organism and a single celled organism.

CRR writes: That is the difference between a complex organism and a single celled organism.

That's one difference. Another is their success rate. Microorganims are the most successful group alive - able to live in every ecological niche from vaccuum to boiling geyser, they evolve faster than any other organism and their biomass outweighs the combined weight if all other living things. In comparison, 'complex' organisms are a waste of carbon.

btw, is a single-celled life form - ie an organism capable of independent life, feeding, growing and reproducing independently of other cells, more or less complex than, say, a stem cell?

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

btw, is a single-celled life form - ie an organism capable of independent life, feeding, growing and reproducing independently of other cells, more or less complex than, say, a stem cell?

or -- is a single cell organism more or less complex than a skin cell.

Multicellular organism cells depend on other cells to deliver needed materials that a single cell organism is capable of getting on it's own.

Does that dependency decrease or increase the complexity of the multicellular organism cell?

Enjoy