Explaining Macroevolution to a creationist

[JohnHeintz]

You said you just wanted an explanation. So what is the problem if some of them say hypothesis? Beyond that, you do realize how Wikipedia works. There are citations for all the sections. Thus, you can click through and find the actual scientific studies for each of those.

Beyond what Dragan Glas has already posted, it appears you are not asking the correct question. You said you want to see single cellular life becoming multicellular. Both Dragan Glas and I have already provided that for you. Now, it appears, you are actually asking for single cellular life to give rise to worms, trilobites, and fishes. This is not what evolutionary theory teaches and more akin to Pokemon evolution.

No. I also stated that there are colonies, biofilms and molds. I'm asking for an example or explanation for single cell organisms or eukaryotic cells becoming multicellular reproductive animals. The theory does teach this happens.
So many people produce the "algae predation article". This is a group of single cell algae in a biofilm. Does not show how we get to skeletons, organs, eyes , reproduction , vascular system, nervous system and the like.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

No. I also stated that there are colonies, biofilms and molds. I'm asking for an example or explanation for single cell organisms or eukaryotic cells becoming multicellular reproductive animals. The theory does teach this happens.
So many people produce the "algae predation article". This is a group of single cell algae in a biofilm. Does not show how we get to skeletons, organs, eyes , reproduction , vascular system, nervous system and the like.

Neurobiology

Visit the Neurobiology Website at: www.blackwellpublishing.com/matthewsAs the second edition of a very successful neurobiology book, this text covers a range from molecules to systems, and uses various systems to illustrate each major concept. In addition to the text, this title offers a...

books.google.com

Evolutionary origins of the blood vascular system and endothelium

Every biological trait requires both a proximate and evolutionary explanation. The field of vascular biology is focused primarily on proximate mechanisms in health and disease. Comparatively little attention has been given to the evolutionary basis of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Where did bone come from?: An overview of its evolution

Bone is specific to vertebrates, and originated as mineralization around the basal membrane of the throat or skin, giving rise to tooth-like structures and protective shields in animals with a soft cartilage-like endoskeleton. A combination of fossil ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Deleted member 619]

Clearly a dishonest shill for fantasy. It's perfectly obvious what John's game is here, because we're all seen it play out thousands of times.

JAQing off is the worst trolling.

 

[Sparhafoc]

No. I also stated that there are colonies, biofilms and molds. I'm asking for an example or explanation for single cell organisms or eukaryotic cells becoming multicellular reproductive animals. The theory does teach this happens.

1) No, you're clearly not. You asked for examples of single-celled organisms evolving into fish and other multicellular organisms with hundreds of millions of generations of genetic changes.

2) You do not tell other people what evolution says or doesn't say when you clearly don't know your arse from your elbow. You are here to learn (or most likely to perform increasingly strenuous acrobatics in order not to learn), but certainly not to inform. To inform others, you first need to have a clue.

So many people produce the "algae predation article". This is a group of single cell algae in a biofilm. Does not show how we get to skeletons, organs, eyes , reproduction , vascular system, nervous system and the like.

See?

Same exact error again, and you refuse to even understand why your own questions are flawed, but instead keep demanding that people satisfy your hokey misunderstanding.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

No. I also stated that there are colonies, biofilms and molds. I'm asking for an example or explanation for single cell organisms or eukaryotic cells becoming multicellular reproductive animals. The theory does teach this happens.

Yes, what both Dragan Glas and I provided qualifies for this. You know why? Because they are not talking about colonies, biofilms, or molds. They are talking about cellular life differentiating into doing different things to support an organism—the very definition of multicellular.

So many people produce the "algae predation article". This is a group of single cell algae in a biofilm. Does not show how we get to skeletons, organs, eyes , reproduction , vascular system, nervous system and the like.

Again, you do not know what you are asking for. Asking for an example of single cellular life becoming multicellular has already been provided by Dragan Glas and me. If you think that what Dragan Glas and I provided is anything akin to algae becoming biofilm, you demonstrate that you have not read our citations. And yes, that simple process of cells differentiating into different tasks does show us how we get to skeletons, organs, eyes, reproduction, vascular systems, nervous systems, and the like.

 

[We are Borg]

It’s apparent that John does not want to learn how iit all works, he is seeking excuses left and right.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No. I also stated that there are colonies, biofilms and molds. I'm asking for an example or explanation for single cell organisms or eukaryotic cells becoming multicellular reproductive animals. The theory does teach this happens.
So many people produce the "algae predation article". This is a group of single cell algae in a biofilm. Does not show how we get to skeletons, organs, eyes , reproduction , vascular system, nervous system and the like.

The article I cited shows how single-celled organisms become multi-cellular organisms that reproduce as multi-cellular organisms.

What you term their "biofilm" is their skin, which they inherit as multi-cellular organisms.

We've shown you how multi-cellularity arises..

If you want to know how we get from this to the various stages of more complex development, Greg has given you a few examples. We can provide more.

Will you accept evolution then - or will you just start asking for more steps?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

Wait a minute... you filled in the ignorance gap I artfully manufactured to pretend I was interested in reality?

Well sucks to be you! Now you've just made two new gaps! Har har!

 

[JohnHeintz]

Greetings,


The article I cited shows how single-celled organisms become multi-cellular organisms that reproduce as multi-cellular organisms.

What you term their "biofilm" is their skin, which they inherit as multi-cellular organisms.

We've shown you how multi-cellularity arises..

If you want to know how we get from this to the various stages of more complex development, Greg has given you a few examples. We can provide more.

Will you accept evolution then - or will you just start asking for more steps?

Kindest regards,

James

The algae article is about a colony or biofilm of algae. It is not groundbreaking. It is definitely not an explanation of how single cell organisms became multicellular sexually reproductive animals.
The article Greg presented about bone.
Let's talk about this. It doesn't begin single cell organisms. Not sure why it was even presented. It was so let's keep going.
I'm not sure if you guys paid attention to how often or said 'the origin of this gene/mechanism or whatever is not known", "this MOST LIKELY became that", "this MAY have lead to that".
These are not facts. These are not answers. These are " IF this is the answer then we THINK it MAY have gone like this".
Unless you can point out what that article is saying that I'm missing.
And what happened to Aron Ra ? Is he gone ? Has he

 

[Greg the Grouper]

The article Greg presented about bone.
Let's talk about this. It doesn't begin single cell organisms. Not sure why it was even presented.

Because it goes into the origins of bone, which is what you asked for.

Well, I suppose not. I had actually taken you at your word, when you said you understood that evolution occurs incrementally, in small bits over multiple generations, but it sure does seem more and more like you expect us to just hand you a video of a bacteria spitting out an acorn, as though the theory of evolution suggests that such a thing could actually happen.

Seriously, it seems like at this point you just expect it all to happen at once, because apparently providing explanations for how it could all happen isn't enough. Why don't you just admit that you either genuinely believe that we're supposed to be showing you an instance of a single-celled organism overnight, or that you're just here to waste our time?

 

[Sparhafoc]

It is not groundbreaking.

Because you say so?

It is definitely not an explanation of how single cell organisms became multicellular sexually reproductive animals.

Because you say so?

Let's talk about this. It doesn't begin single cell organisms. Not sure why it was even presented. It was so let's keep going.

Let's ignore all the answers, then demand answers!

I'm not sure if you guys paid attention to how often or said 'the origin of this gene/mechanism or whatever is not known", "this MOST LIKELY became that", "this MAY have lead to that".
These are not facts. These are not answers. These are " IF this is the answer then we THINK it MAY have gone like this".
Unless you can point out what that article is saying that I'm missing.
And what happened to Aron Ra ? Is he gone ? Has he

Go away John - if you can't engage in any level of discursive honesty, there is no point in this performance at all - and certainly no point in Aron Ra wasting his time talking to someone who's not actually interested in anything other than blagging and bullshit.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well, I suppose not. I had actually taken you at your word, when you said you understood that evolution occurs incrementally, in small bits over multiple generations, but it sure does seem more and more like you expect us to just hand you a video of a bacteria spitting out an acorn, as though the theory of evolution suggests that such a thing could actually happen.

Crockoducks.

Mendacious Creationists always demand examples of the kind of Pokemon Evolution they've been told is biological evolution by Creationist propaganda outlets, then because no one can furnish them with such examples, they declare evolution false.

Of course, everyone with half a fucking clue knows that if there were such an example, then that would actually cause major problems for our understanding of evolution.

It's empty-headed molecules-to-man shit. I guess the only way to remain a Creationist is to contrive ways to reject empirical evidence.

Haven't seen John offer any explanations for his God Did It hypothesis, which he also declared was 'more likely'. What's he going to do? Tell us exactly how many times God wiggled His ineffable nose?

 

[Sparhafoc]

The article Greg presented about bone.
Let's talk about this. It doesn't begin single cell organisms. Not sure why it was even presented. It was so let's keep going.
I'm not sure if you guys paid attention to how often or said 'the origin of this gene/mechanism or whatever is not known", "this MOST LIKELY became that", "this MAY have lead to that".
These are not facts. These are not answers. These are " IF this is the answer then we THINK it MAY have gone like this".
Unless you can point out what that article is saying that I'm missing.

What are you missing?

How about HONESTY?

That appears to be the missing ingredient.

Oooh! But how dare I suggest you are being dishonest?

Well, how about real world empirical evidence - the form you keep denying has value, but which honest people can't just ignore.

Let's see how honest you were in your appraisal of the link by running a search for the supposed quotes you've cited above.

Where did bone come from?: An overview of its evolution

Bone is specific to vertebrates, and originated as mineralization around the basal membrane of the throat or skin, giving rise to tooth-like structures and protective shields in animals with a soft cartilage-like endoskeleton. A combination of fossil ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

>> the origin of this gene - 0 hits
>> the origin of this mechanism - 0 hits
>> the origin of - 3 hits, none of them are part of a sentence that has anything to do with any of these 'we don't know' scenarios you concocted.

-- The origin of bone. Precipitation of hydroxyapatite around the basal membrane of the skin gave rise to enamel- and dentine-like tissues that formed odontodes, which became the progenitors of teeth and scales. Spread of mineralization deeper in the dermis formed shields consisting of acellular—and later cellular—bone. (Adapted from Donoghue et al. 2006).

-- But why did vertebrates choose an entirely new mineralization strategy, and what special properties of calcium hydroxyapatite led to its integration into early vertebral skeletons? There are several hypotheses for the origin of a phosphate-based skeleton.

-- Modern theories suggest that it is not so meaningful to argue that teeth are the origin of dermal mineralization, or vice versa.

>> not known - 0 hits
>> think - 0 hits
>> most likely became - 0 hits
>> may have lead - finally, 1 hit.

Let's see what that says:

There are several hypotheses for the origin of a phosphate-based skeleton. The first major advantage that may have led early vertebrates to sequester marine phosphate could have been the fact that accessible phosphate stores were useful sources of energy for active animals, and may therefore have improved their metabolism (Ruben and Bennett 1980). However, this view of the unique chemical attributes of vertebrates affords no advantage that would not have been equally advantageous to the invertebrates.

The context in which the words are being used is clearly conditionally:

This may have happened, but even if it did, it offers no satisfying explanation with respect to the kind of competitive advantage we'd expect to see as part of a gradient of evolution that resulted in bio-mineralization.

So, despite this being the ONLY one of your supposed quotes actually being in the article, it doesn't even attempt to suggest that this is true, only that it would follow rationally: i) newly available phosphates ii) organisms use available phosphates for metabolism iii) adaptations evolved while using phosphate in biological processes allow organisms to bio-mineralize and create hard structures like skeletons.

Thus the real take-away here John, is that you're fucking lying. That then produces the next and only reasonable question on which all further discussion is predicated: why should other people waste their time on someone who refuses to engage in any honest discussion?

 

[JohnHeintz]

Because it goes into the origins of bone, which is what you asked for.

Well, I suppose not. I had actually taken you at your word, when you said you understood that evolution occurs incrementally, in small bits over multiple generations, but it sure does seem more and more like you expect us to just hand you a video of a bacteria spitting out an acorn, as though the theory of evolution suggests that such a thing could actually happen.

Seriously, it seems like at this point you just expect it all to happen at once, because apparently providing explanations for how it could all happen isn't enough. Why don't you just admit that you either genuinely believe that we're supposed to be showing you an instance of a single-celled organism overnight, or that you're just here to waste our time?

You guys get upset very easily. What is the problem ? If the origin of bone is what that article is presenting. Then please, walk me through it.
I openly said "maybe I'm missing something". That's honest.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You guys get upset very easily.

And this is now outright trolling.

I think it's perfectly justifiable to 'get upset' with someone who's lying through their teeth, don't you?

What is the problem ? If the origin of bone is what that article is presenting. Then please, walk me through it.
I openly said "maybe I'm missing something". That's honest.

Bullshit.

 

[Sparhafoc]

That then produces the next and only reasonable question on which all further discussion is predicated: why should other people waste their time on someone who refuses to engage in any honest discussion?

 

[Sparhafoc]

How did God create all the species, John?

Only, you seem to think there's better evidence for that than there is for biological evolution..... yet you don't seem to be offering a damn thing.

Funny that.

Meanwhile, your 'expertise' in believing in the God claim has led you to wave away all the legitimate evidence you don't want to acknowledge.

You can lead a horse to water.

 

[JohnHeintz]

I can not believe this Sparhoc is still replying. As if I would care enough to consider any of what he may write.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I can not believe this Sparhoc is still replying. As if I would care enough to consider any of what he may write.

And yet you wrote this publicly in order to ensure that I read that you don't care what I write!

Aside from the obvious trolling of doing so, all you're really doing is reiterating is your methodology of ignoring things that are inconvenient for you.

Ignore me all you like: all you're actually doing is guaranteeing you can't respond to my debunking of your absurd behavior.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I can not believe this Sparhoc is still replying. As if I would care enough to consider any of what he may write.

Disgustingly dishonest and weaselly behaviour.