Thread: Evolution is a joke Pt. VIII

Originally Posted by Burzmali

How could he be talking about multiple clusters if he just said "a cluster?" Ratcliff authored a report about the development of multicellular yeast, and spent several posts on this blog defending the fact that the yeast was multicellular, but you want us to believe that he also said the yeast weren't multicellular in a Wired article? Really? Isn't it more likely that you just misunderstood what he said?

Because using “a” is proper English… He stated in two links that a cluster is not multicellular, but shows evidence of “becoming” multicellular…

Mo[b]ility is irrelevant as far as multicellularity is concerned. Regardless, Volvox doesn't use apoptosis as part of reproduction. During asexual reproduction, the cells surrounding the daughter(s) just separate from each other. None of them die through apoptosis.

Apoptosis is irrelevant for declaring yeast is multicellular… You do know that right? But, to humor the people reading, why don’t you quote something where he states what you’re stating… Also, wrong again on Volvox… You are getting sloppy again Burz!! http://9e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=18&id=302 - Through a series of cell movements resembling gastrulation, the embryonic Volvox invert and are eventually released from the parent. The somatic cells of the parent, lacking gonidia, undergo senescence and undergo programmed cell death, while the juvenile Volvox mature. The entire asexual cycle takes 2 days.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...73.ch2/summary - Half-way through their maturation, juveniles hatch out of the parenteral spheroid, whereupon parental somatic cells undergo programmed death while juvenile gonidia prepare for a new round of reproduction.

OOOPS!!!!! Looks like you were wrong again… Burz… you should know me by now – I gave you volvox for a reason, to do your research – you didn’t… now you are just in a deeper whole than what you were beforehand… I do suggest you just drop this before it becomes EPIC, because that’s where it’s headed… I like you, but you are spiraling out of control trying to prove point after point that is just not there!

What do you mean that I was wrong from the get-go? The article states that apoptosis is what causes the clusters to split into daughter clusters. That's reproduction through fission.

No, that is just breaking off a cluster, no cells were reproduced in any way… You know that… you are really getting sloppy in your attempt to save face…

Please, provide a link to a colony of unicellular organisms that splits through apoptosis.

Just did above…

Originally Posted by rstones199

Splitting of Chromosomes (not meiosis) and fusion of Chromosomes is a pretty common event in Evolution. You do realize Chro[mo]somes can also split into two right? When a fusion or split happens, NO INFORMATION IS LOST!!!! That is why you can have one specie A in Canada and Specie B in Enlgand, one can have 48 chromosomes, the other 40. Do you understand this? Yes or no. You are simply saying this specie has X amount of Chromosomes while that one has X amount, with out looking for one reason WHY they do. Have you looked into WHY one beaver has 40 the other 48? Or are you just looking the numbers?

Here, I'll do some leg work for ya: Cytogenetics of beavers: a case of speciation by monobrachial centric fusions

There are readers here… so why don’t you explain what you are posting here… Or do you even know?

And another:

Beavers (page 3)

Well what do you know....Chro[mo]some fusions in the Beaver.

Are you done yet?

Okay… Looked at both, and none say that, like 2A and 2B, the same thing… So, go ahead and look again and find out what you are looking for that confirms your story with 2A and 2B… Your Google Ninja skills will not help you now because you have to know the material in order to post something about the topic, which you don’t or your sites are just going to come out like these two… not even remotely close to the topic…

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

Because using “a” is proper English… He stated in two links that a cluster is not multicellular, but shows evidence of “becoming” multicellular…

Those two articles use the same quote. He said it once, it was just reported multiple times. I'll ask again, is it more likely that he you misunderstood him, or that he contradicted himself?

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

Apoptosis is irrelevant for declaring yeast is multicellular… You do know that right? But, to humor the people reading, why don’t you quote something where he states what you’re stating…

That's the division of labor he's talking about. Some cells stop growing and some cells die in order for the entire cluster to reproduce.

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

Also, wrong again on Volvox… You are getting sloppy again Burz!! http://9e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=18&id=302 - Through a series of cell movements resembling gastrulation, the embryonic Volvox invert and are eventually released from the parent. The somatic cells of the parent, lacking gonidia, undergo senescence and undergo programmed cell death, while the juvenile Volvox mature. The entire asexual cycle takes 2 days.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...73.ch2/summary - Half-way through their maturation, juveniles hatch out of the parenteral spheroid, whereupon parental somatic cells undergo programmed death while juvenile gonidia prepare for a new round of reproduction.

OOOPS!!!!! Looks like you were wrong again… Burz… you should know me by now – I gave you volvox for a reason, to do your research – you didn’t… now you are just in a deeper whole than what you were beforehand… I do suggest you just drop this before it becomes EPIC, because that’s where it’s headed… I like you, but you are spiraling out of control trying to prove point after point that is just not there!

You're right about apoptosis. I don't know that much about Volvox and couldn't find anything further explaining it.

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

No, that is just breaking off a cluster, no cells were reproduced in any way… You know that… you are really getting sloppy in your attempt to save face…



Just did above…

The reproduction that Volvox goes through is what makes it in between a unicellular and multicellular organism. So, now that you agree apoptosis for the purpose of reproducing a cluster is a step in the evolution towards multicellularity, you can admit that the yeast evolved toward multicellularity. Right?

Originally Posted by Burzmali

Those two articles use the same quote. He said it once, it was just reported multiple times. I'll ask again, is it more likely that he you misunderstood him, or that he contradicted himself?

Key word – “quote”… he was quoted saying that… I did not misunderstand “A cluster isn’t multicellular”… Do you think that means something different?

That's the division of labor he's talking about. Some cells stop growing and some cells die in order for the entire cluster to reproduce.

I know what he’s talking about, I don’t know what you are talking about though… You know for a fact that you stated that this yeast replicates/reproduces via programmed cell death which is so incorrect… you used worms and whatever else to try to prove your case and I proved you wrong on everything you put forward, and now you are changing it to what? Let me know, in full, what you are changing it to know so I can prove it wrong yet again…

You're right about apoptosis. I don't know that much about Volvox and couldn't find anything further explaining it.

Sheesh Burz… I’ve been saying this for like weeks!!!



The reproduction that Volvox goes through is what makes it in between a unicellular and multicellular organism. So, now that you agree apoptosis for the purpose of reproducing a cluster is a step in the evolution towards multicellularity, you can admit that the yeast evolved toward multicellularity. Right? [/QUOTE]
Toward being the key word… yes. I believe in what Ratliff stated. It’s not multicellular by no means, it’s a colony and acts as such. Colonies, as in all unicellular colonies including yeast (that is why I posted about the notties), can be looked at as an example of how, if evolution is real, unicellular might make the leap to multicellular. I never disagreed with that. I just know that the difference between colony and multicellular and was trying to explain that the yeast is not multicellular, but a colony.


Now problems I have - yeast isn’t even CLOSE to Volvox… apoptosis for the purpose of reproducing/replicating is “not” a step toward evolution. Apoptosis is a phenomenon that is yet to be understood fully. I can’t hypothesize on that, because I refuse to guess… guessing has no place in science in my opinion. But, when chemical responses happen within a cluster to act a one entity, I would say “that” was a step. Funny – you nor anyone arguing FOR yeast stated anything about that, which I found quite funny since that would be something significant!

But, to wrap this up… Burz – you got sloppy way too often in this discussion… way too often… You got me dealing with the nervous system, which I don’t remember much, but other than that – you’ve made way too many mistakes. The yeast isn’t multicellular like Ratliff stated, but can be viewed as such, but as I stated, Volvox has been around for like 200 million years and reproduces/replicates, on average, 3 times a day and that doesn’t go well for evolution now does it…?

Uhhh – for those who don’t know the answer to that? It’s “NO”… it doesn’t hold well for evolution…

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

There are readers here… so why don’t you explain what you are posting here… Or do you even know?

"monobrachial centric fusions" is just fancy talk for chromosome fusion.

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

Okay… Looked at both, and none say that, like 2A and 2B, the same thing… So, go ahead and look again and find out what you are looking for that confirms your story with 2A and 2B… Your Google Ninja skills will not help you now because you have to know the material in order to post something about the topic, which you don’t or your sites are just going to come out like these two… not even remotely close to the topic…

Ahh yes, if you cant beat em in debate, throw the ad homs.

Fact is, the Beaver does show Chromosome fusions, which easily explains why one specie of beaver has 48 chromosomes while the other only has 40.

BTW: The Beaver doesnt have the Chimps Chromosome 2A and 2B Chromosomes.

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

Originally Posted by Burzmali

So, now that you agree apoptosis for the purpose of reproducing a cluster is a step in the evolution towards multicellularity, you can admit that the yeast evolved toward multicellularity. Right?

Toward being the key word… yes. I believe in what Ratliff stated.

Why are you continuing this thread if you believe the yeast evolved?

Originally Posted by Burzmali

Why are you continuing this thread if you believe the yeast evolved?

Becoming a colony of algae, of yeast, of snotties is not evolving... again I will say this... IF (please I don't want to submit the high school link that explains the word "if" and how it's used like I had to with rs199)... wait...

WHAT THE!!!

Ohh!!! You sneaky little son of a... I know what your doing Burz... Your trying to hold on!! You are in great hopes this thread gets closed soon so you don't have to admit defeat!!! You are playing silly games with words and posting getting the numbers higher so it will be flagged for a Moderator to close this thread!!!

YOU SNEAKY SON OF A!!!!

Admit you were wrong!!! You were wrong about PCD!!! Admit it!!! AND Hell no yeast didn't evolve... It became a colony just like we already knew it was capable of doing like algae...

Originally Posted by rstones199

"monobrachial centric fusions" is just fancy talk for chromosome fusion.

Okay, now explain how that justifies the fusion of 2A and 2B with these other species since the links don’t explain it…

Ahh yes, if you cant beat em in debate, throw the ad homs. Fact is, the Beaver does show Chromosome fusions, which easily explains why one specie of beaver has 48 chromosomes while the other only has 40. BTW: The Beaver doesnt have the Chimps Chromosome 2A and 2B Chromosomes.

I have to ask because I can’t see how you have such difficulty with the English language… Is English your native language?

The beaver shows chromosome fusion? At what points? Your typing, but I see nothing to back up these outlandish statements… What do you say again? OH THAT RIGHT!!!

“GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND!!!”

Use it Ninja!!!

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

Okay, now explain how that justifies the fusion of 2A and 2B with these other species since the links don’t explain it…

YOu do realize that the fusion of Chimps Chrosomes 2A and 2b ONLY applies to Humans right?

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

The beaver shows chromosome fusion? At what points?

I gave you links - go read them.

Originally Posted by rstones199

YOu do realize that the fusion of Chimps Chrosomes 2A and 2b ONLY applies to Humans right?

HA HA HAA!!!! You said the “the fusion of chimp chromo 2A and 2B only applies to humans…” and the funny thing… I bet you don’t see anything wrong with that statement do you? Which even makes it MORE funny!!! Do you even know what is wrong with your little post there rs199?

I gave you links - go read them.

I did, and I read nothing… (I will stress this) absolutely nothing about Beaver fused chromosomes 15, 18, 30, 26 or whatever… I have no clue what chromosomes (as you said) are fused, because it never says anything about the fused chromosomes!! So… Again, how is Chromo 2 evidence of evolution since in the “real” world this is not the case dealing with life that do not share the same amount of chromosomes.

Now, you can always do an opossum like Freeware and just leave without looking foolish, or you can keep posting… I think that Freeware’s bailout was cowardice, but effective as nobody will question his knowledge on the subject since we don’t know… Now if you continue and I, for the umpteenth time, show you have less than high school knowledge of biology, well, people who read will make their own assumptions on you…

Just sayin’…