The origins of multicellular life

November 6, 2014
Diversity among nascent multicellular organisms – the experiment in the laboratory. Credit: Gayle Ferguson

The biological world around us is dominated by multicellular plants and animals. All of these intricate forms have evolved from far simpler, single celled ancestors.

What could explain the transition from single to cooperative groups, to groups of cells that put the prosperity of the whole group before the one? This is the essential question of how organisms evolved from single celled types and it is one of life's greatest mysteries.

In ground-breaking research reported in this week's edition of the science journal Nature, researchers from New Zealand, Germany and the USA report the real time evolution of life forms that have all the hallmarks of multicellular organisms.

Beginning with single cells, the researchers show how simple cooperating groups of bacteria can reproduce via a life cycle that incorporates 'cheating' cells as a primitive germ line.

Cheats are cells that do not contribute to the integrity of the group, but still take advantage of the benefits of being part of a collective. An over abundance of cheating cells can cause the group to collapse.

Lead researcher Distinguished Professor Paul Rainey from the New Zealand Institute for Advanced Study (NZIAS) and Allan Wilson Centre at Massey University, and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Germany, points out that the idea that cheats might be integrated into a life cycle is counter-intuitive.

"Cheats are typically viewed as the greatest impediment to the emergence of multicellular life because they collapse cooperating groups—the obvious thing to do is to get rid of them."

Joint first authors of the paper, Caroline Rose and Katrin Hammerschmidt, of the NZIAS, performed painstaking experiments over the course of five years in which they tested the idea that cheats might play a constructive role in evolution. They allowed simple microbial groups to evolve via a life cycle in which cheats were either embraced, or purged.

"When cheats were embraced we discovered something surprising," Dr Rose says. "Evolution saw a new kind of entity—a group comprised of two different cell states: cheating and cooperating cells. Evolution couldn't focus on just one state or the other; for lineages to persist, evolution had to see both types—it had to work on a developmental programme."

Dr Hammerschmidt explains: "When this happened, the groups became better adapted, but they did so at the expense of the individual cells that made up the groups. This might seem nonsensical, but it is precisely what is thought to happen during major evolutionary transitions: the higher (group) level subsumes the lower (cell) level, with the lower level eventually coming to work for the good of the collective. Nothing so remarkable happened when we performed the same experiment, but with a life cycle in which we got rid of cheats."

One of the most important outcomes of the work surrounds the origins of life cycles.

"Little is known", explains Professor Rainey, "but life cycles involving at least two different states are almost universal in the world of . I suspect that this is because multiphase life cycles generate an organismal configuration that delivers to natural selection a machine-like entity with which it can really work.

"The emergence of these primordial holds the key to understanding some of biology's most profound problems: the origins of multicellularity; the origins of soma/germ differentiation, of reproduction, of development—even the origins of cancer."

Explore further: Cells like us stick together

More information: Hammerschmidt, K., Rose, C. J., Kerr, B. & Rainey, P. B. (2014). "Life cycles, fitness decoupling and the evolution of multicellularity."  Nature 2014. DOI: 10.1038/nature13884

Related Stories

From one cell to many: How did multicellularity evolve?

January 24, 2014

In the beginning there were single cells. Today, many millions of years later, most plants, animals, fungi, and algae are composed of multiple cells that work collaboratively as a single being. Despite the various ways these ...

Recommended for you

Why mole rats are more flexible than we previously thought

August 29, 2016

One of the most interesting facts about mole rats - that, as with ants and termites, individuals specialise in particular tasks throughout their lives - turns out to be wrong. Instead, a new study led by the University of ...

94 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RobertKarlStonjek
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 06, 2014
Individuality evolved, not cooperation. Just why the reverse assumption is made is somewhat mysterious and unexplained, but the very first life required the cooperation of individual chemical reactions and processes.

In other words, one of the prominent differences between living and non-living chemical processes is the presence of some mechanism (eg negative feedback, homoeostasis, metabolism) to bring together otherwise unrelated processes and keep them within certain limits to the benefit of the organism.

Cooperation came first and is one of the most essential components of life without which life could not and would not exist at all. The process repeated itself to produce eukaryotes and then repeated once again to produce tissue.

Like reproduction, cooperation is a foundational property of life and living systems.
tritace
Nov 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2014
Cheats are cells that do not contribute to the integrity of the group, but still take advantage of the benefits of being part of a collective...Cheats are typically viewed as the greatest impediment to the emergence of multicellular life

The void twaddlers like our "skippy guy" come on mind here - they enjoy the collective life at forum, but they don't contribute with anything to the rest of community
@ZEPHIR / tritace
and what about the malicious cheat like yourself?

-you support a known, debunked pseudoscience that has no empirical evidence
-you continually promote this even in the face of empirical evidence that falsifies your pseudoscience, which makes you the worst kind of cheat
-you somehow think that being able to post to a science site lends you credibility
-you seem to enjoy the negative attention

this makes you more of a malignant cancer
but cheat is another accurate label
right there with pseudoscience crackpot
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2014
twaddlers like our "skippy guy"
@ZEPHIR
Uncle Ira actually tries to learn ACTUAL physics and ACTUAL science
this is one step above you
so this makes him beneficial to the collective

he also has a knack for spotting the crackpots
which is another beneficial trait
it gives the NooB's warning and provides comic relief for the experienced (which is a double benefit, really)

Ira also benefits in other ways, like with support and interest, including asking questions
this stimulates conversations
you offer only narcissistic belief in your own faith which has been proven wrong: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf
or the continued water-strider transverse wave duck farting analogies that are not necessarily relevant nor accurate considering the continual linkage to aw/daw

you lose out to Ira
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2014
Some of the characteristics of most bacteria species is their ability to establish colonies in which individuals may communicate with signaling molecules according to the stimulus of the living environment. But for 2-3 billion years they have not evolved in multicellular organisms. Apparently this way of being completely suits them and multicellular organisms have no advantage over them in terms of survival in the living environment which share. Bacteria are the most numerous organisms on the planet and even live where other organisms would not survive. There are extremophiles which can survive under conditions where all other organisms would disappear? What is the reason to develop from an evolutionary point of view, since the higher multicellular organisms have not survival advantage to them. The simplest organisms are more resistant to harmful influences of the environment than complex organisms.The presence of complex species can not be explained by evolutionary principles.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2014
What is the reason to develop from an evolutionary point of view, since the higher multicellular organisms have not survival advantage to them
@viko
their slow evolution may have had something to do with their environment
but that is not what you are suggesting
The presence of complex species can not be explained by evolutionary principles.
and again, you post completely biased unproven conjecture without any legitimate scientific support

you continue to post like that and it will not be a response you get, but a report!

personal conjecture without evidence needs to be labeled as that
and since we KNOW you are a creationist idiot who cannot comprehend science and completely ignore empirical evidence regardless of source, then i will point out again:
your claims need to be supported by evidence, not conjecture

I've given you PLENTY of evidence since i've been posting to you
you have given NONE

sky-fairy = PSEUDOSCIENCE
TROLL elsewhere
try reddit or 4chan
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 07, 2014
"The simplest organisms are more resistant to harmful influences of the environment than complex organisms.The presence of complex species can not be explained by evolutionary principles."

Extremophiles make up a tiny percentage of all bacteria and don't well out of their native environments.

Your rejection of evolution isn't in any way based on science.

Religious dogma doesn't belong on a science site.

STFU!
viko_mx
1 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2014
It's not about religion, but about scientific credibility. When an inconsistent theory is supported by the majority in academia despite the fact, this is not science but ideology relying on wishful thinking, vague concepts and irresponsible assumptions which are not confirmed in reality. Since there are approximately 3% difference between the genes of man and ape, does that mean that we are descended from them?
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 07, 2014
@viko mixedup

"It's not about religion, but about scientific credibility."

That's hilarious coming from you.

Your posts are totally devoid of any credibility.

viko_mx
1 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2014
It's not about religion, but about scientific credibility. When an inconsistent theory is supported by the majority in academia despite the fact, this is not science but ideology relying on wishful thinking, vague concepts and irresponsible assumptions which are not confirmed in reality. Since there are approximately 3% difference between the genes of man and ape, does that mean that we are descended from them? Maybe that means that Creator who is a great engineer is used the same standard component to achieve similar goals. Nevertheless there are compelling differences between the genomes of each species on this planet, and two random genome of different even closely related species can not be associated with a common origin based on evolution.
Mayor__Dooley
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2014
Viko,
You have revealed your personal agenda already, you come bearing contempt for those who would help you. Your cult, your personal god, your petty insinuations, they will sway none but the most vulnerable minds. But that is what you're cult is all about, antagonising and exploiting.
Mayor__Dooley
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 07, 2014
...vague concepts and irresponsible assumptions which are not confirmed in reality.


Yes, the mouth moves, but the eyes live in a fantasy world. There is therapy and medication available for your problem.

But we really know you're just a sour-faced Troll.

Treat others as you would be treated yourself. You bear no respect for the intelligence of others, so we can assume that is how you'd like to be treated in return.
viko_mx
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2014
You call a belief in the futility of randomness and lack of reason for the emergence and existence of our reality in this kind without reason science and belief in intelligent creator who created our reality with purpose and meaning religious dogma? What kind of scientific standard? You turn things of 180 degrees.
Mayor__Dooley
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 07, 2014
Since there are approximately 3% difference between the genes of man and ape


The words Creationism and Cretinism are 82% alike, but 100% compatible and clearly decendant.
viko_mx
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2014
Do I need to remind remind you that it's almost a scientific forum, not a pub. Offensive qualifications do not make you more convincing, but show poor emotional control and lack of scientific arguments.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2014
Do I need to remind remind you that it's almost a scientific forum, not a pub. Offensive qualifications do not make you more convincing, but show poor emotional control and lack of scientific arguments.


You haven't offered any scientific arguments, just conjecture.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2014
FWIW, this is the 3d time multicellularity has been evolved in the lab (takes less than a year), but the first time something like sexuality has shown up. This can well be a model system to understand evolution of sexuality, still an open question (with many hypotheses).

Debating creationists is like debating someone who maintains Canada doesn't exist.

It takes 10 s to google up the scientific credibility of the basis of biology: "Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.[10]" [ http://en.wikiped...volution ]

They are lying, showing for all that their religion is a trash dump.

@RKS: "Individuality evolved, not cooperation. Just why the reverse assumption is made is somewhat mysterious and unexplained,".

Superficially the description looked like "group selection", but that is known to be inclusive fitness in reality. I wouldn't worry too much, the result is good.
RobertKarlStonjek
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2014
The desire for individuality to be the benchmark is a desire for simplicity, not reality. No individual of any species can survive for long, but species have evolved both inseparable colonies (especially in some insect species) and individualistic (eg Orang-utans) species.

But the very first life was a collection of individual chemical processes, the first eukaryotes was a collection of prokaryotes and the first multi-celled animals were a collection of individual cells.

This has been a theme of life from day one. One of the distinguishing features of life is the dependence of one individual on others and the need to form collectives (of chemical processes, prokaryotes, cells or individuals) to survive.

I don't see why anyone would dismiss the biology and choose the political stance ie American's near worship of Individualism.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2014
Debating creationists is like debating someone who maintains Canada doesn't exist.


Agreed.

They are lying, showing for all that their religion is a trash dump.


Were scientists who maintained that you couldn't get a heavier than air machine to fly lying? What about a child that vehemently defends the existence of Santa Claus? I think they are expressing their opinions about reality as best they can with their current worldview and understanding. That you and I can see the fallacy quite easily doesn't mean they're lying.

That you ascribe nefarious intent to the ignorant says a hell of a lot more about you than it does them...
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2014
It's not about religion, but about scientific credibility
viko-veggiematic
you cannot link evidence supporting your delusions so you have NO scientific credibility
Maybe that means that Creator who is a great engineer is used the same standard component to achieve similar goals
unproven conjecture based upon a delusion
argument from fallacy and delusion & more proof of lack of credibility
if your creator was omniscient/omnipotent, why is there extinction events?
why the failures?
why the grand deception with a fossil record?
belief in intelligent creator who created our reality with purpose and meaning religious dogma
this is definitely RELIGIOUS DOGMA, you idiot
belief without evidence=faith
science REQUIRES evidence, therefore your faith is unfounded conjecture without evidence and is the foundation of your religion
it is not scientific, nor does it have a place on a science site (unless we are talking about criminal/abnormal psyche)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2014
Do I need to remind remind you that it's almost a scientific forum, not a pub. Offensive qualifications do not make you more convincing, but show poor emotional control and lack of scientific arguments
@viko
then you should stop being so offensive

science requires empirical evidence!

you post without evidence and base your conclusions NOT on the scientific method, but on your religion, which makes your posts dogmatic, delusional and NOT SCIENTIFIC

this is offensive to anyone wishing to discuss science and being TROLLED and SPAMMED by your posts!

feel free to leave
there are sites just for your kind: go there and talk about your religion/creationist delusions where you have support and they don't mind that you cannot produce evidence

it will make you feel smarter AND those with real intelligence don't have to put up with your stupidity
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2014
That you and I can see the fallacy quite easily doesn't mean they're lying.

That you ascribe nefarious intent to the ignorant says a hell of a lot more about you than it does them...
@MM
i don't personally agree with this

1- when they have been shown error and something is proven, there is no excuse for continuing with stupidity unless there is a mental problem
2- they can accept science, but only choose to accept that which supports their own delusions (see jk and her failure to comprehend mutations)
3- it is NOT assigning nefarious intent to the ignorant... but to the malicious and blatantly, willfully stupid

the intent of the creationist is to undermine actual science and rewrite reality to suit their religious dogma
this is why religion has no place in science-religion inhibits free thought and knowledge

religion is designed to segregate, cause friction and control the weak minded
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2014
MM cont'd
Were scientists who maintained that you couldn't get a heavier than air machine to fly lying?
this is different, and those scientists were trying to define reality with what they knew and spoke without testing, experimenting and comprehending the reality of physics
What about a child that vehemently defends the existence of Santa Claus?
again, this is a completely different argument:
the child is TAUGHT that santa is real from authority figures, and this is reinforced by visiting santa on stores, etc
the child is lied to and the belief is reinforced through additional lies, so the defense is conditioning as well as lack of experience and trust in authority figures

this is NOT the same thing as arguing with creationists

creationists learn enough "science" to give them a certain amount of knowledge, but then that knowledge is intentionally skewed/misrepresented to promote an internal delusion

this is pseudoscience & insanity, not science
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2014
1- when they have been shown error and something is proven, there is no excuse for continuing with stupidity unless there is a mental problem


It takes a loooooong time to change a worldview Captain. I know, I've seen me do it.

2- they can accept science, but only choose to accept that which supports their own delusions (see jk and her failure to comprehend mutations)


It's different with different people. I never had a problem with evolution, even when I was a believer. I did have a problem with the "something from nothing" creation of the universe. It doesn't mean I was being malicious, or willfully stupid. I know, I was there...

this is different, and those scientists were trying to define reality with what they knew and spoke without testing, experimenting and comprehending the reality of physics


Were THEY being malicious when they failed to do these things, or just being sloppy...or neither?

(cont)

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2014
creationists learn enough "science" to give them a certain amount of knowledge, but then that knowledge is intentionally skewed/misrepresented to promote an internal delusion


We all use facts and science to uphold our worldviews...even when it's blatantly obvious to others we're incorrect. This doesn't mean that people are evil, it means that virtually everyone (you and I included) proceed from worldview first then set about bolstering it with facts.

this is pseudoscience & insanity, not science


I totally agree with this statement, and I disagree that anything "not science" is "evil" or has a specific intention. These people aren't sitting at home twisting their black mustaches thinking of ways to destroy the world (with a few notable exceptions like L. Ron Hubbard). Thinking that they are as a matter of course or default is actually part of how human beings DO destroy the world....
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2014
What the two of you are basically saying is that anyone who doesn't reach the same conclusions you do, when you do, how you do, or at the pace you do, is evil, stupid, malicious, and of bad intent....

Sound familiar?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2014
Were THEY being malicious when they failed to do these things, or just being sloppy
@MM
IMHO it is a combination of being sloppy and forgetting the basics of science (maybe lazy?)
the malicious comes in when they actively try to stop others from believing while not having all the information available
remember, the flight issue was not debunked, but still open to interpretation
this is why continued study allowed for Heavier Than Air (HTA) flight
so in a way, it is more about not having all of the information and then they made a call...instead of waiting for the evidence they chose to be lazy
I disagree that anything "not science" is "evil" or has a specific intention
when did i ever give that impression?
i hope you aren't saying that i said that... because i never ascribed that to things not science unless the science is blatantly ignored for a specific malicious purpose, like kohl ignoring mutations for his faith
that IS intentional evil IMHO
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2014
We all use facts and science to uphold our worldviews...even when it's blatantly obvious to others we're incorrect
@MM
if it is a fact, then it cannot be incorrect
only a fact
so i don't get what you are trying to convey here
everyone (you and I included) proceed from worldview first then set about bolstering it with facts
this is how the typical human thinks
but that is the great thing about science
it moves forward by letting the facts/evidence speak for itself (which is why experiments must be repeatable and not taken as a one time offering)
These people aren't sitting at home twisting their black mustaches thinking of ways to destroy the world
with regard to those ppl like creationists... no, they think about forcing their views upon others while not having evidence which supports their faith-based conclusions

religions are malicious and designed to segregate, create friction and control the weak
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2014
Thinking that they are as a matter of course or default is actually part of how human beings DO destroy the world
@MM
actually, there is truth in the above... but there is also truth in that creationists really are attempting to "destroy the world"

they just do not perceive their actions as being malicious or malignant because they, in their delusion, feel like they are "defending" their faith (fear of unknown/knowledge) while it is usually the creationists that are causing the hostility

this mentality causes them to severely denounce science and knowledge and as they attack them, they build more dedicated unquestioning children to further their crime of inhibiting knowledge (Mob rules)

This is actively destroying the world as to accept their world view would mean to remove a century of hard earned knowledge for the sake of a fallacious book that contradicts itself repeatedly

there is also more:
ctn'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2014
ctn'd @MM
the reason i chose to say they feel threatened and defending their faith is because they are not scientifically literate enough to comprehend what science is or what it does and does not do

and again, it goes back to building a better zealous acolyte by example

this is one way religions allow followers to demonstrate allegiance
With allegiance comes the social positive feedback which allows those of a "like mind" to congregate and share while those who are not "like minded" are ostracized and outcast (or attacked)
the friction generated within the x-tian church is fully evident in this manner: look how many factions have sprung up around the same basic message
Once there is friction, the like minded are cast out and a new faction is born

The tenets are used to control rather than to give a guidelines
people fear being ostracized

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2014
What the two of you are basically saying is that anyone who doesn't reach the same conclusions you do...is evil, stupid, malicious, and of bad intent
@MM
and that is not what i am saying at all

let me spell it out in terminology that is more concise:
-People who argue science on a science site
while ignoring science and evidence
and actively trying to force their unprovable FAITH based POV onto those who do not want it
while actively denigrating science, evidence and the scientific method
are being malicious and blatantly stupid

this activity proves malicious intent because this is a science site and they are actively ignoring evidence and attacking what they don't like

I don't care about "my conclusions"
i care about the science and the evidence

i don't hang out at churches/religion forums and quote science disproving the lies in the bible, so i don't want them here posting their lies
I would be banned from their site... they should also be banned from here
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2014
RobertKarlStonjek
Cooperation came first and is one of the most essential components of life without which life could not and would not exist at all. The process repeated itself to produce eukaryotes and then repeated once again to produce tissue.

Like reproduction, cooperation is a foundational property of life and living systems.
Not necessarily, look at the earliest likely & proven chemical reactions which can easily happen on the early earth with a predominantly ammonia atmosphere.

First you have this reaction producing a 'feed stock' if you like
http://en.wikiped...ormamide

Then you have this reaction which makes an RNA/DNA base pair
http://en.wikiped...ormamide#RNA_base_creation

When you understand things like Activation Energy, Equilibria in conjunction with Probability & Statistics clearly predicated on observation molecules can easily self assemble (rules) then all you need is enough time, space & materials - which are abundant !
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2014
viko_mx
The simplest organisms are more resistant to harmful influences of the environment than complex organisms.
Not true, complex organisms have sense & neurons to enable them to detect a harmful influence and according to the probability machine activity (neuron) to move away from or ameliorate the threat, happens all the time.

viko_mx
The presence of complex species can not be explained by evolutionary principles
Wrong again.

Genetic algorithms have been programmed into powerful computers and they prove complex functions, devices, designs etc arise from simplicity routinely.

Instead of needing something more complex that a part such as a ' bolt & nut making machine', all you need are:-

- Environment with rules of interaction between things (atoms/molecules)
- Enough time for permutations to be explored
- Enough space for diverse spread of environments

2 billion years on one planet is nothing, evidence exists basic life constituents in space too !
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2014
viko_mx claimed
Since there are approximately 3% difference between the genes of man and ape, does that mean that we are descended from them?
No, the far more likely explanation, supported by genetic evidence is we share a common ancestral species.

One aspect of many is that aps have 24 pairs of chromosomes, we have only 23.

Look closely at human chromosome 2, it shows evidence of fusion, by virtue of remnants of telomores & centromeres not in correct places for 'normal' chromosomes. The conclusion is a form of mutuation which fused ape chromosomes together.

Granted, it takes intellect & wide Science education to appreciate this is a non-zero probabilistic path, that does not mean it didn't happen & how it happened is likely very odd but, the evidence shows it did happen.

What is the alternative 'theory' viko_mx, anything with evidence even on a par with chromosomal fusion, does it have mathematics of probability or is it only a dogma ?

Answer please.
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2014
viko_mx claimed
You call a belief in the futility of randomness and lack of reason for the emergence and existence of our reality in this kind without reason science and belief in intelligent creator who created our reality with purpose and meaning religious dogma?.
Yes it is a dogma, it is untestable, has unclear Provenance.

Tell us where viko_mx are the details, rules, procedures of this "intelligent creator" ?

Is he/she/it really that intelligent, he/she/it seems to revel & enjoy suffering, did u not notice ?

All life has same constituents, all life suffers, all life ages & dies sometimes horribly.

Is your creator really intelligent ?

You claim unscientific, are you scientific, where is the evidence of your belief, your dogma ?

Did u notice 'dogma' backwards = 'amgod', is that a not to subtle way to claim "Am god" ?
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2014
viko_mx claimed
Do I need to remind remind you that it's almost a scientific forum, not a pub. Offensive qualifications do not make you more convincing, but show poor emotional control and lack of scientific arguments.
You havent come even close to 'almost science', where are your scientific qualifications, at least, show us where you proved you have communication, information etc from an intelligent creator ?

Where was it proved, what experiments, what maths (must have probability) ?

Does your creator do things without any sense of probability interactions, very novel that ?

Details of the communications please from the "intelligent creator" ?

As for emotional control, it does seem that those that have an easy belief in a god have very feeble emotions and NEED a parent/father figure as they cannot seem to work things out for themselves like "do unto others" which Greeks devised 600 years before jesus.

Or that bonobo monkeys have as part of their social culture !
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2014
RobertKarlStonjek claimed
This has been a theme of life from day one. One of the distinguishing features of life is the dependence of one individual on others and the need to form collectives (of chemical processes, prokaryotes, cells or individuals) to survive.
No. There is no 'Need', you should be able to see it as chemical equilibria where group orientation behaviour lowers the Activation Energy (AE) for the group survival as a whole.

It makes sense, if at least at the lowest level re surface area of the (clustered) group versus surface area of the individual components. This allows specialisation, again a very sophisticated form of lowering AE & a more complex form of Equiibria which favours the group's survival "as a group" whilst the individuals also have their own survival gestalt.

This can also be seen in symbiosis eg Fungi/bacteria. Obviously as one permutation of billions which favour lowering AE for the organism Eg Lichen.

All comes down to chemistry.
Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2014
@Mike Massen
Anything RobertKarlStonjek post is suspect. He tends to make pronouncements without any knowledge. Such has--- "A number of Southern states didn't have any slavery at all."

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Vietvet
4 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2014
@Ren82
"because science supports creation."

What kind of delusional world do you live in?

One where up is down, black is white?

Next you'll claim the earth is the center of the universe and the sun orbits the earth.

STFU
Vietvet
4 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2014
@Ren82
"-----because science supports creation" is a delusional statement.

"---because science supports creation" is a lie.

"---because science supports creation" is a statement of your ignorance.

"---because science supports creation" is why you should STFU.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2014
Evolution theory says that mutations and natural selection gradually improve living organisms? So far, none of evolutionists not gave me answer to this question and I wonder why?
@dumb&ren-er-er
you HAVE been answered
you just don;t like the evidence which proved you wrong
so you are wither proving: https://en.wikipe...r_effect

or perhaps you are more like this: https://en.wikipe...disorder
all religious acolytes are essentially delusional disorder idiots because they consistently rely upon their delusions for defining reality as well as allow it to interrupt their reality around them

take your faith based conjecture to a faith/religious site where you will have support and people will tell you that you're smart
science proved you wrong and we're telling you that you are stupid
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2014
They are lying, showing for all that their religion is a trash dump.


Were scientists who maintained that you couldn't get a heavier than air machine to fly lying? ...
That you ascribe nefarious intent to the ignorant says a hell of a lot more about you than it does them...


You forgot the context: I noted that they could check what is accepted science and not in about 10 s. I use skepticism equally on all things, which says very little on me, and hesitate to make hypotheses on individual's behavior which must be statistically tested. (I.e. unwarranted application of statistics.) However, it is pretty clear these guys know the score, and prefer to lie for their beliefs. Which makes their beliefs a trash dump.

That you don't like criticism of liars, especially those who do so from a superstitious ground of erroneous belief in magic action says something about you of course.

Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2014
@Ren82
This link dispels your creation myths.

http://www.scient...tionist/
animah
5 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2014
unfinished organs

ren82: You can't find the answer because the question is meaningless. "Unfinished" implies a future goal, a projection of a finished state in the future. Evolution makes no plan; all mutations affect survival (positively or negatively) at the time the organism needs surviving.

However there are organs with extremely limited functions everywhere. Eyes that can only sense day or night in nematodes are a good example. *If* the local environment dictates that individuals with slightly better better vision survive better (i.e. reproduce more than their peers), and *if* the better vision is genetically transmissible, then (and only then) the trait will logically become more common in that species' gene pool.

How is that not logical?
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2014
Ren82
I remind you that the reality does not care about our desires.
This is why nature for ALL beings is "Eat & be Eaten", your desire for immortaility is emotional from a book from an isolated race in the middle east about a god that punishes. Where is there ANY evidence for immortality or a god of any sort for that matter. ?

Where is the scientific method about any deity - EVER ?

Ren82
Do you have any solid evidence to support yours emotional statements?
Do you have any solid evidence an infinite god spoke to one man & did what moses claimed ?

The FACT god hasn't spoken to anyone since mohammed claimed (~1450yrs ago) does go toward a proof he ONLY arose from claims of men who sought & gained power over others !

Ren82
The question in my previous post is waiting for reply. Do you have a answer?
There are still several questions of mine you haven't answered ?

Where Ren82, did you learn hypocrisy ?
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2014
Ren82
I want serious impartial scientific articles, not articles for laymen.
So do I when it comes to creationism, unlike the bibles - where is the peer review, how do we contact the Author or even better the being the Author claimed existed ?

Ren82
Can't you find such independent sources of information?
Great news, do that for the bible as well please ?

Ren82
Wikipedia is not a reliable source especialiy of this type of information.
I told your clone viko_mx this before, look at the references at the bottom of each page !

Ren82
Will you try to answer the question from my previous post?
You STILL havent answered my key questions.

Why are you so narrow & robot like, a follower not a thinker like all emotional creationists.

Where did the bible claim god continues to create beings after the 7 days elapsed ?
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2014
This is one of the most meaningful questions that evolutionists instead to answer specifically start to boggle and offered strange unsatisfactory explanations. No even one animal have uncompleted or beginnings of new organs and systems---


@Ren82
With the above comment you've demonstrated that you don't have a clue about biology nor are you capable of logical thinking.
animah
5 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2014
All they have is what they exactly need to live according to their normal standards in their environment

Yes -and that shows it is the environment that drives what they have!

So as the environment changes, life adapts to it. Very natural.

It's the opposite -animals having unnecessary organs- that might be proof of external intervention.

Or is there some magic?


In science? Magic not allowed. You're the one who invokes magic!
MandoZink
5 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2014
Those of you who keep saying "this-and-that just cannot happen" need to look a bit more inward and see what you really could be expressing.

Imagine being truly curious, honest with yourself, and dedicated to your desire to possibly learn the answer to a perplexing mystery. In place of taking an adamant stand of denial, you just might instead say:

"I personally cannot conceive of how this might work"
or
"This is not obvious to me"

and then you can ask:

"Anybody got any ideas here?"
or
"Can someone else guess how this might work?"

But no, you act like every asshole that ever held up human advancement, pompously declaring your inability to conceive is a belief that just has to be championed.

Well it's a disgusting exhibition to anybody that actually enjoys thinking about and pondering the universe with others of like mind.

Your just idiots. Annoying trolls.

Contribute something positive for a change, or can you?

I get tired of reading your crap.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2014
Can anyone show some similarities in the areas listed above
@dumb&dumber-ren
already asked and answered
if you had read the links i have provided to you already, you would not still be asking this question

you are TROLLING now

for baiting/trolling and SPAMMING with your religion, i am reporting you
especially since you are blatantly ignoring the empirical evidence given to you for the sake of a non-empirical belief in something that cannot, by definition, be proven

epic fail
Mayor__Dooley
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2014
Human standards in communication?

You mean constructive reasoning, logic and basic respect? Well its quite clear that you are not willing to engage any of these faculties, you ignore everything that contradicts your personal superstitions and Troll this forurm with contempt for those who have a genuine interest.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2014
This is one of the most meaningful questions that evolutionists instead to answer specifically start to boggle and offered strange unsatisfactory explanations. No even one animal have uncompleted or beginnings of new organs and systems---


@Ren82
With the above comment you've demonstrated that you don't have a clue about biology nor are you capable of logical thinking
Ren forgets or chooses to ignore vestigial organs which are clear evidence of evolution. For why would god give anacondas little legs which do not break the skin?

But there are also many examples of developing organs. Eyes for example. We can trace a clear progression of complexity.

Hey Ren ever see a flatfish? Why did god put their 2 eyes on one side and make them swim sideways? What a cockup for the immaculate creator. Here too we can see the eye actually shift from one side to the other in the progression of species.

But as ren fears evidence, he will not look.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2014
Evolution of the flatfish
http://youtu.be/L6zXpCM1w1Y

-Watch and tremble at gods Sinn fur Humor.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2014
So what does a snake or a legless lizard need interior legs for anyway? You think science will uncover a use for them eventually or will they forever remain a divine mystery?

For after all they must serve a purpose if god put them there, right? Ignorance of gods will is no excuse either is it?

"Anyway we know it happened because god described it in his book." Ken Hamm

-Well ken, god says in his book that rabbits chew the cud. At least they did in biblical times I suppose.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2014
Oh and don't forget whales. They have legs on the inside too.

Why?
Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) Nov 10, 2014
Ren82 continues is denial of reality.
http://www.livesc...ans.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2014
Hey ren

"Dr. Myles Munroe and his wife Ruth, who were the co-leaders of the Bahamas Faith Ministries, were two of the nine people on board the plane that crashed Sunday evening.

"The private Lear Jet plane struck a shipping container crane as it tried to land in heavy rain,"

-So what are we to make of this? Do you think they were all praying most sincerely and expertly in the moments before the crash? For who knows how to pray better than evangelical ministers?

Perhaps god knew something about them that their wailing congregation didnt. Perhaps there is some deeper purpose here which serves the greater good. Perhaps god is offended by pastors flying around in lear jets. Perhaps it means absolutely nothing at all - what do you think?

We know full well that if they had survived they would be calling it a miracle. But they didnt. So what do we call it now? Gods will?

Either way god wins I guess, at least in the hearts and minds of believers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2014
Say - why did jesus only cure people he met along the way? He could have cured all the lepers in the world, but chose to cure only those he came upon while he had an audience.

"33 After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man's ears. Then he spit and touched the man's tongue. 34 He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, "Ephphatha!" (which means "Be opened!"). 35 At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly.

36 Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it." mark7

-Well duh. 'I can cure anything and bring dead people back to life but dont tell anyone about it.'

Do you think jesus didnt know theyd be telling everybody? He is god after all. Sort of.

I think jesus was the first spin doctor.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2014
@Ren82 & viko_mx

All religions ONLY have a book written by humans with a CLAIM a god told them to do it.

Thats ALL you have !
Thats why you cannot be taken seriously & especially on any Science forum.

No evidence, no chance ever of any proof, the god refuses to talk to anyone EVER.

Those hypnotised by belief make up excuses why their god only spoke to one person.

Ren82 made a BIG claim with
God is too big and people too small to speak personally with all of them.
Where does it say that in ANY religious work anywhere, did u check the book ?

Science is about observation, hypothesis & evidence.

WHERE Ren82 is the EVIDENCE anyone was EVER told by a god to write a book ?
Mayor__Dooley
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2014
Awakening, is that what you call it when you pollute the mind of the vulnerable innocent children with your fearful superstitions? Where you scold them for engaging their rational minds, where you sew a metaphorical dunce cap to their scalps?
Certification of media needs to be applied to books, so preaching of your psychotic god cannot be inflicted upon the under fifteens.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2014
Ren82 admitted
Do you think that I can speak on behalf of the Creator?
Well why not, did u ask him/her/it to communicate to you - what did he/she/it say ?

Lots of people make claims they can speak on behalf of a god, some claim god told them to kill people who have Aids, are they right Ren82, how could you tell ?

All gods are silent, they can only communicate from human claims, why is that Ren82 ?

Did you notice Ren82, you have an appendix a vestigial organ, why is that Ren82 ?

No organ anywhere is complete, all are comparatively inefficient.

Obviously organs that don't support the survival of the host don't allow the host to procreate,
its called *LOGIC* Ren82 ?

Did you god ever supply an education, such as Logic, surgery, microbiology, diet advice, how about anything on genetic disorders, eg Wilsons, Menke's so advise how to deal with suffering ?

Why do ALL gods watch over so much suffering, it is as if they WANTED it ?

Can't god predict ?
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2014
Mike Massen conjectured:
"Not necessarily, look at the earliest likely & proven chemical reactions which can easily happen on the early earth with a predominantly ammonia atmosphere."

The problem with this guess is that there are no life forms that consist of just one chemical line. Further,the presence of RNA requires a long history of information transfer by simpler means.

RNA as an information carrier requires numerous steps. There is not just the existence of the molecule, a mechanism for reading the molecule and producing proteins as well as a method of reproducing the code accurately must exist before RNA is a viable form of information transference for living systems. I see that you at least realise that DNA came later.

Lowering activation is not the hallmark of life.Controlling activation energy is. Homoeostatic can only be achieved in the simplest organisms by controlling activation energy.

Ubiquitous individuality is a political desire,not a biological reality.
RobertKarlStonjek
2 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2014
Mike Massen conjectured:
No. There is no 'Need', you should be able to see it as chemical equilibria where group orientation behaviour lowers the Activation Energy (AE) for the group survival as a whole.

'Survival'??That is a philosophy, not chemistry. Why would a chemical reaction want to survive?

We know that control of activation energy through negative feedback and the use of catalysing enzymes is the method that cells use to maintain homoeostasis, but chemistry alone does not explain the underlying physical laws that compel this behaviour.
As the same theme is repeated throughout all living systems and further, that it is repeated in entirely different forms such as co-operation of separate units, the formation of tissue, eukaryote formation from prokaryotes and so on, we can assume that some physical law compels this behaviour and that it is no less a physical law than those that drive chemical reactions.
If you only have a hammer (chem) then everything is your nail
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2014
@RobertKarlStonjek
Thanks for your posts. I should point out I was replying to the devout creationists Ren82 & viko_mx.

They've shown no basic education in Science, therefore pointless offering anything more than superficially addressing or rather stimulating some consideration, that is, if they were genuinely interested in how Science approaches the issue.

It is clear they point to a 'creator' & presumption this 'creator' does everything according to no communicated or observable discipline.

Although I've studied microbiology/biochemistry, part of post graduate qualification, I'm not in that career. However, met highly proficient & high intellect people that have addressed issues U have raised & in respect of combinatorial complexity in respect of activation energy, equilibria, bilateral feedbacks, metalloid catalysis & all that implies re advanced permutations.

I'm thus well satisfied contemporary Science is beyond primitive idea of a (personal) god.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2014
Ren82 claimed
I already explained when and why diseases have emerged.
No. You have shown NO evidence, yet you ask scientists for evidence, where is yours ?

Ren82
There are no vestigial or uncompleted organs or systems in humans or in any other living organism.
No, U are ignorant some asians have vestigial tail bone,

Ren82
Appendix is important part of the reticulo-endothelial system of the body...
Evidence please ?
http://en.wikiped...appendix
As U can read there is evidence it is an adaptation & not the initial function.

Ren82
Like tonsils, appendix fight against infections.
Like loss of appendix, it doesnt affect people's lifespan or quality of life when removed.

Which raises these question, if your god exists;-

1.Why did he put it there ?
2.How does he educate about it ?
3.Why does he refuse to answer questions ?
4.Why does it continue to be grown when its not needed ?
5.Why is all detail re humans missing from bibles ?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2014
whales have structures... reproduction
Those tiny little bones serve no purpose.
http://car-memes....veloped/

-But since you enjoy guessing about purpose in gods creation so much, why don't you speculate on why Jesus only healed people for an audience?
Do you think that I can speak on behalf of the creator?
But you and your brethren do this all the time. "Jesus loves you. Jesus wants you to be happy. Jesus wants you to believe or he will send you to hell."

But when you are asked an uncomfortable question you seem offended. You speculate on whale bones, so why not venture a guess as to why Jesus only healed for an audience?

Here's another one - why did Jesus go to SO MUCH TROUBLE to make it look like the bible stories are untrue. Why so much incontrovertible evidence for evolution and against the bible fables?
Cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2014
It's not just the absence of evidence for evolution and against the bible stories, but the overwhelming presence of contrary evidence, which makes us doubt. So why did your god try so hard to deceive us?

We might conclude that he didn't know the past, in which case he is incompetent, or he didn't think we would ever look. Or he may have, in his infinite majesty and power, erased all the evidence of the one-week creation, the flood, and the travails of the hebrews and replaced it with an overwhelming preponderance of totally convincing and completely reliable counter- evidence.

So why would he do these things? Would your god actually LIE to you in order to find out how much you TRUST him? And if he lied about the past, how could you possibly trust his promises about the future?

Please - try to speculate on these things.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2014
This might seem nonsensical, but it is precisely what is thought to happen during major evolutionary transitions: the higher (group) level subsumes the lower (cell) level, with the lower level eventually coming to work for the good of the collective.


This isn't nonsensical at all, otherwise you'd have a whole organism spending all of its energy on trying to save one cell or a group of cells and the whole thing collapsing. It seems extremely straightforward and non controversial.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2014
Please - try to speculate on these things.

Here's a speculative question. Do creatures with no distinct sexual organ (a vagina) have appendix's?
My first guess would be no, thereby leaving open the possibility it was once an repository for eggs/ovum) that eventually evolved to a separate ovulary transfer point.

--or not...
Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2014
Ren82;

Do you think God made elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, or do you believe in nucleosynthesis? That's a clear example of complexity out of simplicity without intervention from the supernatural. It's a complete theory that has observational confirmation, and is uncontroversial.

If you accept that, in principle, the universe can do this what is the principle that prevents it to continue to do this on deeper and deeper levels?

IOW, this isn't about the SCIENCE, it's about your beliefs being threatened. I understand that, but your fear of losing a worldview is insufficient reason for the rest of us to not proceed without it. I know this is difficult for you (seriously and no sarcasm here at all), but ultimately that's about you and for you to resolve.

I wish you the best of luck with that, but won't debate with you about equivalents of whether or not the Earth is flat. I simply wish you the best of luck with your resolving reality with your beliefs.

Cheers!
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2014
But this process does not explain the presence of heavier than iron elements. Some speculate that they are due to supernova explosions but this is just a guess


You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. This is not just a guess we know exactly how it happens and we even transmute elements in fission reactors. This requires nothing other than than nature simply ticking away.

Setting that aside, iron is more complex than hydrogen so there's the whole argument right there ;)
Modernmystic
4 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2014
We think we know what happens in stellar cores, but this is different than knowing for sure. There is no way to monitor nuclear fusion in stellar cores and take notes.


Neither is there a way to take notes all the way down to iron and you accept that don't you?

Were you alive when Abraham Lincoln was? Do you believe he existed? Why?

We have proof from observations of a supernova that occurred in 1987 (well that's when the light reached us to be precise) with elements that showed up that have half lives that limit their natural existence to less than a year...yet there they were...in the exact ratios that theory predicted. That's not the only example, merely one of many.

Again, feel free to express your opinion, but you are not entitled to your assertion as fact that the sky is red or the Earth flat.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2014
I believe that the Creator has created all the nesesery chemical elements in the universe to build our reality as it is
So again, why did he go to SO much trouble to make it look as if it happened some other way? WHY does your god actively try to deceive us?

Why is it that the god who could do absolutely anything, choose DECEPTION instead of honesty as his primary mode of interaction with us??

This is a question you really need to answer.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2014
This article thread reminds me of the quote -
"any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from divinity..."
Arthur C. Clarke, wasn't it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2014
I can not understand your question? What God's word contradicts with reality?
Okay. Why is it that 100s of 1000s of scientists over dozens of generations continue to amass an enormous body of knowledge which directly contradicts what the bible says? Do you think that ALL those people can be so thoroughly deluded as to believe wholeheartedly that the evidence that they have found is real, when it is not?

And who would be deluding all those people? Satan? The scale of the deception - erasing history and replacing it with a sham history - would indicate a power rivaling that of the original creator.

No - to make a 6500yo universe look 13 billion years old, it would have needed to be created that way from scratch. Every photon, every cosmic ray would have had to be dropped in precisely the right place and sent on its way, just to deceive us.

This is certainly more impressive than making rabbit cuds disappear. And obliterating mt sinai. But just as dishonest, yes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2014
Let's look at it another way. Even you must admit that it is easier to explain geology by assuming that processes take millions of years to happen. We watch sediment being deposited, layers being formed, erosion taking place, and we reasonably extrapolate that it would need to take millions of years to create geology in that manner, yes?

It doesn't LOOK as if it all happened in a great flood. It takes MUCH MORE effort, in order to reach that conclusion. Plus we know what the detritus from such a flood would look like, and we just don't see it. WHO CLEANED UP THE MESS?

The same with evolution and genetics. The more we look, the more real it appears. Why did god make it LOOK this way? It didn't HAVE to look so obviously real, but Occam's razor says either that it is, or that it's creator took great pains to make it look as if it were.

Not to mention all the bible fables. Like I said all evidence says that things were going on back then which would have made them impossible.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2014
@Ren82

"In fact genetics, physics and biochemistry categorically disprove evolutionary theories."

In fact genetics, physics and biochemistry categorically PROVE evolutionary theories."

There, I fixed it for you poor delusional fool.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2014
Generally most people choose convenient beautiful lie to the truth, which makes them feel uneasy and required to change immediately and motivate them to be active, conscious and responsible to themselves and others
@dumb&dumber-ren
this explains why you choose your religion over science/physics/biology
you choose to live in your big glaring lie than accept the fact that you are not special ...

i know you like to think otherwise, because that is what your book tells you (or your preachers)
however, you have IGNORED scientific evidence
you have NOT given scientific proof of your claims
you have NO studies proving anything you say
your faith is a relative newcomer to the planet and is bastardized and taken from other religions
your religion has been proven to be based on a fallacious book

but you say SCIENCE, which is founded upon empirical data and repeated experiments, is wrong

you have conjecture
science has evidence

go back to your lie & STFU
quit TROLLING
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2014
Ren82 with immense hypocrisy
Educate yourself, talk with honest professionals microbiologists, organic chemists, and physicists in order to clarify certain natural principles and laws.
Have U done this ?

If U really had U would see evolution occurs in short time frames re biological adaptations.

Ren82
And most importantly, think independently without assistance.
No.This assumes you are taught essential skills in order to "think independently". When & where did you obtain these skills ?

Eg Logic, Critical Analysis, Experimental methods, evaluation of evidence etc ?

U have ONLY one book about a (personal) "creator" written by a human ~3000 yrs ago.

Where is ANY evidence of this (personal) creator ?

Ren82, why are u here, U have already proved U are emotionally attached to an idea without evidence, yet U demand evidence of Science ?

Do U realise how stupid that makes U look ????????????

Y U are intentionally trying to waste our time & yours ?
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2014
Ren82 getting there
The idea of evolution occurs much later than the idea of creation
Yes quite correct as primitive people had no education in chemistry, probability & couldn't conceive of activation energy in concert of chemical equilibria over long times :-(

Ren82
Therefore, this theory should be demonstrated before be considered to be realistic.
Absolutely true.

Idea of the theory some god "did it" should be proven without recourse to primitive emotional desire people are looked after by a god yet STILL suffer if they believe.

Ren82
But it was accepted without evidence in the education system.
True & sad that primitives & recent narrow peoples accept the theory of a creator that only comes from one claimed book.

Sad Ren82, that there's no evidence :-(

Ren82
So the debate becomes uninteresting.
Very true, so therefore lets find essential evidence for the (personal) creator which could in some way confirm Moses' claims ?

Where please ?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2014
I have watched this train wreck with great amusement.

So let me give something back, and point out the antics of the religious now-nothings that looks helpless in the headlight of science and has to resort to character defamation and lies:

@Ren82: "I have wo simple questions."

QFT, but it is spelled "woo" questions.

None of which has to do with the evolution of multicellularity. Now, why is that?

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
[ctd]

"Why some scientists are so confident in the accidental origin of life on Earth in the distant past, when they have no precise explanation, despite the progress of physics and chemistry, how appeared the first living cell. For them it remains a mystery, but take one unrealistic hypothesis as undeniable truth."

Lies from beginning to end.

Why would it be a "mystery" if scientists are confident?

In fact, astrobiology has had 50 years of building theory, culminating in identifying a putative phylogeny. [Russell et al.] That means evolution is the process at work when life emerges out of geophysical systems. It also means there were no accident behind but an identifiable process.

The field moved to testing the various pathways in order to identify the correct one about 10 years ago. NASA has started to pour money into this.

That life emerged is not a hypothesis but an undeniable fact. Earth was lifeless after its aggregation, now we see life, it has emerged.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
[ctd]

"And since there is no way to measure the age of the universe and no witnesses to her beginning, claiming to know what happened before tens of billions of years? What is the reason for this unexplained conceit? Thanks to pure scientific facts discovered by observation and experimentation or mainly to their desires and careerism? It seems to me that they are taking the desired reality for real."

Lies from beginning to end.

WMAP 1st data release measured the age of the universe to ~ 14 billion years, an observation that with Planck has been made precise to the level of a few tens of %.

We also know the physics surrounding the emergence of the local universe to various degree of reliability. [See the 1st figure here, from one of the researchers: http://profmattst...eliable/ ]

And of course that is no conceit, but the progress of science. The same science that enabled your laptop and the web you use here.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2014
Why some scientists are so confident in the accidental origin of life on Earth in the distant past, when they have no precise explanation, despite the progress of physics and chemistry, how appeared the first living cell
-You mean 'not yet'. There is no reason to think they won't.
For them it remains a mystery, but take one unrealistic hypothesis as undeniable truth
It is unrealistic to conclude that a universe which appears to be billions of years old, was created in 6 days, only 6500 years ago.
And since there is no way to measure the age of the universe and no witnesses to her beginning
Hard evidence is much better than eye witness accounts. You can examine it in many different ways and revisit it at leisure.
What is the reason for this unexplained conceit?
We know the speed of light. The objects we see in the sky appear to be millions of light years away. Why would your god make them look that way in a 6500yo universe? WHY would he LIE? WHY??
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2014
If your god got the age of the universe wrong ren, and the entire ancient history of the hebrews, then he cannot be considered a reliable source of anything, including evolution and your eternal future in paradise.

If he is willing to lie about the obvious then you cannot trust his judgment on the not-so-obvious.

Evidence favors evolution. Evidence thoroughly discredits your god and his book. Evidence says it was written by people with selfish interests and with no divine guidance.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
Captain Stumpy
Educate yourself, talk with honest professionals microbiologists... most importantly, think independently without assistance.
@dumb&dumber-ren
two 4year degree's (one business management with specialty, one physical science with specialty)
paramedic
Truck Captain
Haz-Mat Technician
Space Shuttle Orbiter Rescue Technician
A+ certification (computers)
Combat Arms Veteran Both Gulf wars + Afghanistan
Worked in Engineering for an Aircraft Parts manufacturer researching specifications and more
trained A/C employees how to trouble-shoot and build safety/productivity/efficiency into the workplace
Consultant on troubleshooting problem spots in efficiency for manufacturing/administration
Work with biologists/engineers for EPA for a state
research science because i like it
currently taking courses at MIT because it is FUN

i think perhaps it is you who needs the education and to learn how to think "independently without assistance"
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2014
it was accepted without evidence in the education system
@Dumb&dumber-ren
personal conjecture based upon stupidity

it is accepted and taught BECAUSE of the overwhelming evidence
and because that is how science works... you don't get to the "scientific Theory" stage just by consensus or popularity

you get there by evidence, repeated experiments and by evidence (what would be considered PROOF in a court of law), and then there is the confirmation and their evidence (see a pattern here?)
None of the their supporters in thist forum gave to my main questions a meaningful answer. So the debate becomes uninteresting
no, your questions were answered and i've given you LINKS to evidence
the "debate" is not a debate, it is your delusion

you cling to a FAITH without evidence and now you will bail out because you've been proven stupid
PERIOD

if you would read the evidence/links/studies and see the science
you would not be delusional

you have Dunning-Kruger
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014

The idea of evolution occurs much later than the idea of creation. Therefore, this theory should be demonstrated before be considered to be realistic. But it was accepted without evidence in the education system. It's strange at first glance. None of the their supporters in thist forum gave to my main questions a meaningful answer. So the debate becomes uninteresting.

So.... Creation is a Theory or Law? Where is the evidence? TO quote from a movie - "Show me the money!"
Demonstrating it has been done - what do think all the available data on the internet or in any library is? What have all these researchers around the world been doing?!? Masturbating?
It becomes uninteresting to you because you are not reading the answers you WANT to read...
Open your mind...
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2014
@Ren82
Why don't you or can't you answer the questions I have posed, why the ignorant attitude in your attachment to the notion a god "did it" ?

Where is there any evidence of Moses claims a god spoke to him ?

AND

If you can, answer this later, why SHOULD self-assembly stop regardless of permutations, variances in; environment, radiation & other extraneous energy sources ?

I will add there is NO way you can confirm any details of the religion of creationism but, you can confirm, as well as improve over time, the knowledge & understanding of simple molecules leading to organic precursors for life, for example:-

Why did you ignore the link of ammonia to formamide to guanine ie a DNA base pair ?

Are you blind ?

There is NO evidence for any of your remaining negative beliefs.

The idea of 'creation' by some (personal) god DEMANDS evidence - where is it please ?

Why are U here Ren82, with an emotional attachment to a creator with NO evidence ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2014
Ren82 asked
How new assembled due to random factors in a complex functional 3d structure organism, receives DNA which encodes the exact information, required for its basic functions and reproduction?
Obviously its NOT exact, errors accumulate & are subject to change including radiation from space - overall its called aging.

Why did you god make such powerful cosmic rays causing mutations & cancers ?

No, please for a change answer MY questions, re evidence for the (personal) creator, all you have so far is a book from the claims on a man long ago ?

Where is your Evidence Ren82 ????????????????????????????????????????
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2014
@Ren82

Please for a change answer MY questions, re evidence for the (personal) creator, all you have so far is a book from the claims of a human long ago ?

Where is your Evidence Ren82 ????????????????????????????????????????
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2014
Ren82 claimed
People know about its Creator long before someone speculators to offer them a strange idea of evolution.
What people ?
How did they 'know' ?
Where is there any evidence of a god from the idea of a (personal) creator ?

Ren82 muttered
These "scientists" have to prove this theory with irrefutable facts,but have not been offered such facts, but offer only vague hypotheses and general explanations without specifics, that can not be taken seriously by professionals.
Which "scientists" ?

Ren82 you are ignorant that microbiology professionals investigate & USE evolutionary processes in industry, just because you arent aware doesnt mean it doesnt happen

Why are you ignoring activation energy in relation to equilibria & combinatorial complexity & vast divergence of environments ?

Do they ("scientists") have more evidence for evolution than that of a creator - YES ?

Where is there evidence a (personal) creator spoke to moses ?

Evidence Ren82 ?????
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
The question is to ensure that minimum functionality, what should be the length of its RNA or DNA that encodes the synthesis of its structural proteins, biological machines for reading DNA and protein synthesis, molecular structures for synthesis of energy providers molecules and mechanisms for reproduction?
The task is not so complex. Must be calculated the minimum required length of RNA or DNA for the simplest single-celled living organism that can function independently in the environment and is functional enough to be able to multiply.

Not so complex?!?!? Sounds like you have it figured out. You must be a creator - of your own little Universe...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2014
People know about its Creator long before someone speculators to offer them a strange idea of evolution. These "scientists" have to prove this theory with irrefutable facts, but have not been offered such facts, but offer only vague hypotheses and general explanations without specifics, that can not be taken seriously by professionals.

Just a point of curiousity - where are the "irrefutable facts" in your side of the argument? The vague hypothesis and general explanations are more a hallmark of religious or creationist propaganda...
And - what" professionals" could you possibly be talking about?!?!?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.