Thread: Evolution is a joke Pt. VIII

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

Everything... If you read it, then you didn't understand it... Do you want me to explain it to you? I thought, since you are so much more knowledgeable than I, you'd be explaining it to me!

Please, explain it to me.

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

They do and don't... they are not suggesting what Wired stated. Wired took what is correct, per my site and twisted it for their agenda to combat Creationism...

Did you see the difference?

Wired, as I stated several times, is the Darwinism religion propaganda site...

That's funny, because your first link said pretty much the same thing as the Wired article:

The yeast "evolved" into multi-cellular clusters that work together cooperatively, reproduce and adapt to their environment--in essence, they became precursors to life on Earth as it is today.

...

Analysis showed that the clusters were not just groups of random cells that adhered to each other, but related cells that remained attached following cell division.

That was significant because it meant that they were genetically similar, which promotes cooperation. When the clusters reached a critical size, some cells died off in a process known as apoptosis to allow offspring to separate.

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

Do you read? CAN YOU READ?!?!

Here so you will stop...

THERE

IS

NO

SUCH

THING

AS

YEAST

REPLICATING

INTO

MULTICELLULAR

LIFE

Do you understand that now. If you think so - please explain how yeast creates the chromosomes to PRESTO CHANGO multicellular life into existance! You say it can happen, then tell us how it happens there Riddler...

While your shoting is mighty impressive, that does not make you right.

Once again from the article:

Within just a few weeks, individual yeast cells still retained their singular identities, but clumped together easily. At the end of two months, the clumps were a permanent arrangement. Each strain had evolved to be truly multicellular, displaying all the tendencies associated with “higher” forms of life: a division of labor between specialized cells, juvenile and adult life stages, and multicellular offspring.

How can individual cells be permanent arrangement?

If the single cells didn’t clump together and form a multicellular being, then how and why is there multicellular offspring?

If there is no 'yeast replication' then why is there multicellular offspring?

Questions you simply refuse to answer.

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

Do you think that yeast can replicate multicellular life?

Yes, at it allready has. You jumping up and down and saying that it is not, doesn't matter one iota.

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

If you do in fact think this. Provide a link from a “creditable” site that explains how yeast which is not multicellular PRESTO CHANGO’s whole gene sequences into existence when replicating!!! What is that called anyway? Do you even know how yeast reproduces? How did the specimens in the experiment reproduce? Do you even know?

I did provide a link. Just because **you** do not agree with findings does not mean the site is less creditable”, it just furthers shows your ignorance of Evolution.

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

Your Google Ninja skills are slacking!!! And I thought you were Grasping’s No. 1!!! You dishonor his/her name… you should be ashamed…

Ad homs?

I can't find a better picture to sum the OP's knowledge of Evolution.

Originally Posted by Burzmali

Please, explain it to me.

The experiment is testing yeast colonies... From method one you are preparing yeast DNA.

In method 2 you are testing the yeast "colony"...

By reading the experiment - do you know HOW they created the colony of yeast? Here is the site - so you can go through it again. After all this crap you've been spouting about what you remember and grilling me about what I don't, I can't believe I am explaining this to you... Really... I am stunned!



http://depts.washington.edu/younglab...tm)/colPCR.htm

Originally Posted by Burzmali

That's funny, because your first link said pretty much the same thing as the Wired article:

And that is the definition of a colony... Why am I explaining this to you... You never did experiments with yeast? This should be a no brainer for you, why are you saying different?

Now... I question you... I think you are just a Shogun Google Searcher. That is probably why you didn't translate the sequence I put forward. The stuff I do remember is pretty basic to say the least, and if I remember something you should have it memorized backwards after all the crap you've been talking!!!

Why in the hell would you not see what the difference is between the articles I posted and Wired? That's just ridiculous!!! Straight ridiculous!!

Originally Posted by rstones199

While your shoting is mighty impressive, that does not make you right.

Once again from the article:

How can individual cells be permanent arrangement?

If the single cells didn’t clump together and form a multicellular being, then how and why is there multicellular offspring?

If there is no 'yeast replication' then why is there multicellular offspring?

Questions you simply refuse to answer.

It doesn't have multicellular offspring. What is so hard about that? You are holding your Bible (Wired) and telling me the equivalent of Jesus moonwalking across Lake Michigan!!!

I'll believe you if you can find two more articles FROM ACREDITED SITES DEALING WITH BIOLOGY (not retarded wired - which is equivalent to finding something on Rolling Stone) that states that yeast replicates multicellular life.

All you have is that ONE RETARDED SITE that said something incorrectly, not even a biology site, not even has biologist writing on the site, and that is your Bible...

Show me from a Biology site that yeast replicates multicellular life?

Show me how the experiment yeast multiplied?

Show me that you know ANYTHING outside of what your religion told you that yeast replicates multicellular life?

Your post demonstrates how crazy religious some Darwinist can be... and people are reading...

Originally Posted by rstones199

Yes, at it allready has. You jumping up and down and saying that it is not, doesn't matter one iota.

I did provide a link. Just because **you** do not agree with findings does not mean the site is less creditable”, it just furthers shows your ignorance of Evolution.

Ad homs?

Just because that is the only site on the web that states this shows it is probably incorrect... Find something from a biology site at least...

Also, I can find more sites that state that our missing socks are caused by aliens and gremlins... I bet I find more than one that would agree with me!

So, if I find more than one - does that mean it's correct? Since I found it on an unrelated site?

Originally Posted by rstones199

I can't find a better picture to sum the OP's knowledge of Evolution.

WIRED SAID THERE ARE ALIENS ON METEORITES!!!!!!



http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...something-new/



Yea... Great site you have there... Full of just truthful water walking huh...