Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Simple to Complex - Reproduction
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 46 of 69 (169749)
12-18-2004 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Quetzal
12-18-2004 2:48 PM


Q, I was trying to end our off-topic discussion. Someone made a claim - not me. I don't see why I have to go and defend a position I wasn't taking. I simply disagreed with someone's claim. I haven't time to debate an issue I didn't intend to debate.
Maybe you'd have me defend every little belief and disagreement I have, but I wouldn't expect you to.
Meanwhile, Dan asks about a simple sperm - with complicated DNA information in it - and a purposeful intent of reaching the egg, which is clearly a consciously caused system. If it were random - I'd expect that it wouldn't have any intention. If a single celled organism has information to produce a single celled organism then that might be simpler than a complex sperm and egg, with specific functions, and DNA information for meiosis, thus becoming a multiple organed and complex organism.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-18-2004 03:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Quetzal, posted 12-18-2004 2:48 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Quetzal, posted 12-18-2004 5:02 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 54 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-22-2004 1:42 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 47 of 69 (169754)
12-18-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by mike the wiz
12-18-2004 3:03 PM


Bull Mike. We weren't having "an off-topic discussion". I challenged you to back up your recourse to the supernatural - which you explicitly stated you preferred - and directed you to a thread where such discussion was appropriate. In response, you scratched out what can only be termed drivel. Therefore, I accept your unwillingness to discuss. Bye now.
Maybe you'd have me defend every little belief and disagreement I have, but I wouldn't expect you to.
Why wouldn't you expect me to? This IS a discussion board - it's the nature of the beast. If I present an opinion or make a statement, I am fully prepared to support it if called on. It doesn't always happen, but has happened enough that I'm willing to either not provide the opinion or be prepared to discuss/defend it. Remember the thread on who's being held to the higher standard? There's your standard: be prepared to defend your opinion. Otherwise, what's the point in expressing it - just "witnessing to the heathen" or something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2004 3:03 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2004 5:13 PM Quetzal has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 48 of 69 (169756)
12-18-2004 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Quetzal
12-18-2004 5:02 PM


If every opinion and/or belief had to be defended in a thread for each, then we would have thousands of threads for one person.
Since I didn't make a claim, then I am not obliged to defend a position I have not claimed. I merely disagreed with the claim made. It's not bull, it's fact.
Your agressive overtones are unwarranted.
I do understand thoug - you see me as a new fresh meat pertaining to creationism, and want a slab of my ass on some other turf, where I can be forced into a position I haven't claimed openly.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-18-2004 05:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Quetzal, posted 12-18-2004 5:02 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Quetzal, posted 12-19-2004 8:44 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 49 of 69 (169862)
12-19-2004 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
12-18-2004 5:13 PM


Did you or did you not state in post 19 of this thread: "I strongly disagree that we were not planned, and that we 'just happened'."? That is a postive statement - even if you were responding to someone else's post. All I've asked is that you support this statement by going to the other thread on evidence for evolution, examining the post I made, and showing where "planning" is manifest. This is similar to the as-yet-unanswered challenge I posed to Maestro. Neither of you appear to wish to respond. So be it.
I do understand thoug - you see me as a new fresh meat pertaining to creationism, and want a slab of my ass on some other turf, where I can be forced into a position I haven't claimed openly.
The point is, the issue I challenged you on HAS been claimed openly. You are not "fresh meat" - you've been on this board sufficiently long to be aware of how these things are supposed to play out. You have ALWAYS been a creationist - there's nothing new here. If you simply don't want to defend the position, then say so and I'll leave you alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2004 5:13 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 69 (170638)
12-22-2004 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
12-15-2004 1:42 PM


Apples & Oranges
Dan Carroll writes:
So, I hear from Creationists a lot that it's just impossible...that evolution could start with a single celled organism, and wind up with us. That a single celled organism is too simple to change over generations into something as complex as mankind, no matter how much time passes.
I don't know whether you believe in abiogenesis or not. Apparently you do believe that all life forms have evolved from at least one single-celled organism. Point is, no single-celled organisms have been observed evolving into any multi-cellular organism (esp. not humans); therefore, it is an event you believed happened (a bit of faith involved, in other words).
More importantly, though, is the fact that evolution "theory" provides mechanisms and timeframes for this event. Based on these mechanisms (mutations and natural selection) and timeframes (some billions of years); the process of zygote maturing has nothing to do with the process of evolution (though evolution theory MIGHT consider this process to be a result of evolution). In other words, this process of a zygote maturing has no basis for comparison to the evolutionary process.
You yourself admit this in your opening post.
Dan Carroll writes:
Now... maybe I'm being dense here, but isn't every single one of us the result of two extremely simple things complexifying into people? I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about the fact that each of us comes from sperm and ova.
That's right! You're not talking about evolution. The maturing process that a zygote goes through does not utilize random mutations or natural selection. Furthermore, this process has been very often observed and the timeframe, as you indicate, is nowhere near the billions of years postulated for a single cell evolving into humans.
{Added by edit}
Another very important point is that the human genome would be completely different than whatever genome the hypothetical first cell possessed. The human baby possesses essentially the same, if not exactly the same, genome as the human zygote from which the baby developed.
Chart added for fun and emphasis:
Differences Summarized

Hypothetical single-cell evolves into humans
Mechanism? Random mutations and natural selection
Required time? Billions of years
Times observed? Never observed
Genome changes significantly? Yes
Human zygote matures into a human baby
Mechanism? Differentiation
Required time? Approximately 9 months
Times observed? at least 6 billion times1
Genome changes significantly? No

1Please note: I am incorrect in asserting that this process has been directly observed at least 6 billion times. It can be reasonably inferred that the process has occurred at least that many times, but it has not been directly observed that many times. However, it suffices to say that, likely, it has been observed several times, at least.

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-22-2004 05:42 AM
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-22-2004 06:01 AM
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-26-2004 04:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-15-2004 1:42 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Ooook!, posted 12-22-2004 1:06 PM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 52 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-22-2004 1:25 PM TheLiteralist has replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 51 of 69 (170766)
12-22-2004 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TheLiteralist
12-22-2004 3:08 AM


Re: Apples & Oranges
Hello,
Just a few points:
More importantly, though, is the fact that evolution "theory" provides mechanisms and timeframes for this event. Based on these mechanisms (mutations and natural selection) and timeframes (some billions of years); the process of zygote maturing has nothing to do with the process of evolution (though evolution theory MIGHT consider this process to be a result of evolution). In other words, this process of a zygote maturing has no basis for comparison to the evolutionary process.
Fair enough, embryogenesis does not include the processes of random mutation and selection and should not be used as a direct analogy to evolution (eg look embryos are evolving all the time!!). I don’t think that’s what Dan meant though. What can be said in reply to the tired creationist bacteria-to-man dogma is that evolution took it a bit at a time, and this can be demonstrated by looking at events in development. From single cell zygote to a multi-cellular ball, to having two germ layers and then developing three, it’s all about small steps. The steps involved in embryogenesis are echoed, not only by current organisms but also by the fossil record. The ‘significant changes’ to the genome you state are just not possible start to become less substantial if you look at it like this. How much of a change would you think is required for going from single to multi-celled for example?
Which leads me to
Point is, no single-celled organisms have been observed evolving into any multi-cellular organism
I’m pretty sure this is not true. Crashfrog has frequently put up a link to a paper that reported just that — a single celled organism evolving into a multi-cellular, and stable colony, I’ll try and dig it up for you. On top of this, organisms like slime moulds are well known for forming multi-cellular aggregates in response to environmental conditions, is it really hard to accept this becoming a permanent arrangement?
And I know this is a fair bit off-topic, but it’s one of my personal bug-bears: from the same paragraph (my emphasis)
Apparently you do believe that all life forms have evolved from at least one single-celled organism. Point is, no single-celled organisms have been observed evolving into any multi-cellular organism (esp. not humans); therefore, it is an event you believed happened (a bit of faith involved, in other words).
This is not true. There is a cartload of molecular evidence pointing to common ancestry. So it's not an act of faith it's a position based on evidence. If you don’t accept this then maybe we could take it to another topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-22-2004 3:08 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by PerfectDeath, posted 12-22-2004 1:27 PM Ooook! has not replied
 Message 55 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-22-2004 4:06 PM Ooook! has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 69 (170785)
12-22-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by TheLiteralist
12-22-2004 3:08 AM


Re: Apples & Oranges
Point is, no single-celled organisms have been observed evolving into any multi-cellular organism (esp. not humans)
I don't recall watching you type your post. But I can see the results, and extrapolate backwards.
I guess technically you could have a helper monkey that types for you, but I think it's reasonable to assume that you typed it.
You yourself admit this in your opening post.
Yeah, I know. That's why you going on about it is a strawman.
The maturing process that a zygote goes through does not utilize random mutations or natural selection.
I don't recall talking about random mutations or natural selection. I was talking about issues of complexity.
Furthermore, this process has been very often observed
You stuck your head that far inside a woman? That rules.
the timeframe, as you indicate, is nowhere near the billions of years postulated for a single cell evolving into humans.
Yeah, evolution has a lot more time to account for that much of an increase in complexity.
Another very important point is that the human genome would be completely different than whatever genome the hypothetical first cell possessed. The human baby possesses essentially the same, if not exactly the same, genome as the human zygote from which the baby developed.
You're a clone of your father? That's even cooler.
(Ooook! pretty much nailed the rest of your points. Feel free to direct your attention upward in the thread to that post if you think I left anything out.)
This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 12-22-2004 01:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-22-2004 3:08 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-22-2004 6:34 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
PerfectDeath
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 69 (170786)
12-22-2004 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ooook!
12-22-2004 1:06 PM


Re: Apples & Oranges
also there is something called a fossil record that shows that things started out small and gradually got bigger.
now IF we observed a group og single celled organisms over a billion year time period then we could see if this is true.
when zygotes are used as an example they mean that it is like sped up process that our species whent through al LONG time ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ooook!, posted 12-22-2004 1:06 PM Ooook! has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 69 (170797)
12-22-2004 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by mike the wiz
12-18-2004 3:03 PM


with complicated DNA information in it
Oh, well you said it was complicated. That explains it.
and a purposeful intent of reaching the egg, which is clearly a consciously caused system.
Well, Mike said it. It's true.
Gotta go now, Eliza's calling. She gets snippy if I don't tend to her needs once every hour or so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by mike the wiz, posted 12-18-2004 3:03 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 69 (170895)
12-22-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Ooook!
12-22-2004 1:06 PM


Re: Apples & Oranges
Hi Ooook,
Fair enough, embryogenesis does not include the processes of random mutation and selection and should not be used as a direct analogy to evolution (eg look embryos are evolving all the time!!).
Thank you. I rarely get ANY concessions around here.
What can be said in reply to the tired creationist bacteria-to-man dogma is that evolution took it a bit at a time, and this can be demonstrated by looking at events in development. From single cell zygote to a multi-cellular ball, to having two germ layers and then developing three, it’s all about small steps.
The unobserved small-steps of the hypothetical first cell evolving into humans involve numerous and significant changes to the hypothetical first cell's genome over eons of time. The observed small steps of human zygotes developing into baby humans involve nearly no changes (perhaps no changes at all) to the zygote's genome.
The steps involved in embryogenesis are echoed, not only by current organisms but also by the fossil record.
Yes, the step in human embryogenesis are echoed in embryogenesis of other creatures. These steps are also echoed in the fossil record in that fossilized embryos in various stages of development exist in the fossil record. However, if you mean that the fact that the fossil record contains preserved remains of ameobas, dinosaurs and creatures of various other structures somehow {typo edited by TheLiteralist} "echoes" embryogenesis, then I must disagree because this fact proves merely that tons of organisms found themselves in the unique conditions required for fossilization.
There is a cartload of molecular evidence pointing to common ancestry. So it's not an act of faith it's a position based on evidence. If you don’t accept this then maybe we could take it to another topic.
This is my fault for getting a little "dig" in. I almost edited it out because it sure looked like it could lead away from the topic. No, this is not a subject I am interested in discussing now. My main point in my statement (that follows):
TheLiteralist writes:
I don't know whether you believe in abiogenesis or not. Apparently you do believe that all life forms have evolved from at least one single-celled organism. Point is, no single-celled organisms have been observed evolving into any multi-cellular organism (esp. not humans); therefore, it is an event you believed happened (a bit of faith involved, in other words).
...was that it is an unobserved event. I should have made that point clearer and left the bit about faith out.
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 12-22-2004 04:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Ooook!, posted 12-22-2004 1:06 PM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 12-22-2004 4:24 PM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 60 by Ooook!, posted 12-22-2004 6:49 PM TheLiteralist has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 69 (170906)
12-22-2004 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by TheLiteralist
12-22-2004 4:06 PM


Point is, no single-celled organisms have been observed evolving into any multi-cellular organism
That's not true, actually. We've observed the sponatenous evolution of multicellularity in Chlorella v. in response to predation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-22-2004 4:06 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-22-2004 6:36 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Kevin
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 69 (170936)
12-22-2004 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mammuthus
12-16-2004 3:32 AM


I also think another reason creationist misrepresent and don't understand evolution is they look at evolution from an individual organism view and not a individual genetic view. The organism is just the body that hold the genes, while the genes are the unit of selection because they convey the correct information that makes proteins or regulatory systems which may or may not allow the body to survive and reproduce its genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 12-16-2004 3:32 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 69 (170940)
12-22-2004 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dan Carroll
12-22-2004 1:25 PM


Re: Apples & Oranges
Dan,
TheLiteralist writes:
Another very important point is that the human genome would be completely different than whatever genome the hypothetical first cell possessed. The human baby possesses essentially the same, if not exactly the same, genome as the human zygote from which the baby developed.
Dan Carroll writes:
You're a clone of your father? That's even cooler.
No, that is not what I have said at all. You may not know what "zygote" means (I had to look it up myself before using it in my post that you are quoting). This definition might be helpful in clarifying what I have said.
Definition from Hyperdictionary
Zygote: the fertilized egg or ovum.
Dan Carroll writes:
I don't recall talking about random mutations or natural selection. I was talking about issues of complexity.
Okay. Two questions:
1) What changes of complexity occur in the evolutionary process when going from that hypothetical first cell to humans? How do these changes in complexity occur?
2) What changes of complexity occur in embryogenesis when going from a human zygote to a human baby? How do these changes in complexity occur?
(I do not mean for you to get a masters degree in biology; I'm just looking for some general concepts.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-22-2004 1:25 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-29-2004 12:14 PM TheLiteralist has replied

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 69 (170941)
12-22-2004 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
12-22-2004 4:24 PM


observed evolution
CrashFrog,
Ooook! seems to recall you being able to link people to this information. I'd be interested in reading it (or at least trying to).
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 12-22-2004 4:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 12-22-2004 8:18 PM TheLiteralist has replied

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 5815 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 60 of 69 (170945)
12-22-2004 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by TheLiteralist
12-22-2004 4:06 PM


Re: Apples & Oranges
Hello again,
These steps are also echoed in the fossil record in that fossilized embryos in various stages of development exist in the fossil record. However, if you mean that the fact that the fossil record contains preserved remains of ameobas, dinosaurs and creatures of various other structures somehow "echoes" embryogenesis, then I must disagree because this fact proves merely that tons of organisms found themselves in the unique conditions required for fossilization.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to get across here. I wasn’t commenting on the freak luck of finding an embryonic dinosaur or a pre-natal mammoth, I was saying that the order we see things appear in the fossil record apes that seen during development.
When we look at the fossil record what is the order we find things cropping up? Single cellssimple multi-cellularorganisms with two germ layers (like jelly fish)organisms with three germ layers
When we look at embryogenesis what do we see? A single cella ball of cellstwo cell layersthree cell layers. It echoes the pattern suggested by the fossil record, and emphasises the step by step nature of evolution.
It’s no longer a matter of single cell to human and a big hand-wavey statement about numerous and significant changes, it’s all about taking it a step at a time: as already pointed out single- to multi- celled is not such a big step (and experimentally observed), the process of developing two germ layers (gastrulation) is also being investigated. Dismissing it all as ‘hypothetical’ does great disservice to the amount of evidence out there.
This is my fault for getting a little "dig" in
Unfortunately, it never seems to be just that (a little dig). It’s something that creationists throw into the argument willy-nilly, without expecting to be challenged on it (which is why I always bite ).
For example, you threw this into the last post:
the hypothetical first cell's
It’s not purely hypothetical, there is a great deal of evidence for common ancestry!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-22-2004 4:06 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-22-2004 8:43 PM Ooook! has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024