Test Tube Yeast evolves to be Multicellular

[Willamena]

Frog is a fuzzy term. What exactly is a frog? How can you tell if something is really frog or only kind of a frog?

wa:do

I suspect it has something to do with [youtube]z4ZxxHbJGbY[/youtube]
being green.

 

[Matthew78]

I like that. Evolution is a "fuzzy fact." I think I will get the opportunity to use that soon! Thanks! :angel2:

You just pulled a rusra02! You must be so proud of yourself.

 

[Alceste]

I like that. Evolution is a "fuzzy fact." I think I will get the opportunity to use that soon! Thanks! :angel2:

If you're going to misquote someone, AT LEAST don't include the very sentence you are misquoting in a quote above your post.

 

[Alceste]

I don't. I have a problem with them evolving into a different family of organism. Can a frog evolve into a different species of frog? Certainly. Can a frog evolve into a prince? That's fuzzy to me.

Give a population of frogs half a million generations to gradually drift away from their original form and you never know what you might end up with.

 

[fantome profane]

I suspect it has something to do with [youtube]z4ZxxHbJGbY[/youtube]
being green.

Looks like a “fuzzy” concept to me.

 

[Sunstone]

I like that. Evolution is a "fuzzy fact." I think I will get the opportunity to use that soon! Thanks! :angel2:

That's one of the most blatantly dishonest things I've seen in seven years on this forum.

 

[ScottySatan]

My sources say that this is selective breeding

actually if you read the article, it says what they did. There was no selective breeding. It was a genetic change in response to an environmental stress.

 

[Man of Faith]

Give a population of frogs half a million generations to gradually drift away from their original form and you never know what you might end up with.

And this is what qualifies as objective science in the classroom. We are doomed.

 

[Man of Faith]

Well if you believe God exists then sure, why not believe that God could be the source of such possible traits that may evolve.... Creation by God and even Design by God does not mean that evolution is not possible, heck it may even be that such a God may have used evolution to reach its design.

It is only if you interpret the bible (or whatever creation story you are an adherent of) literally (i.e. that every word is not just true, but means exactly what it says - it is not allegorical at all) that you run into problems. If you look at the story as more of a metaphor then you can incorporate scientific advancements into your theological based understanding of the origins of life and the universe.

Only literalistic interpretation of your creation story is challenged by evolution, not the creation story itself if you were to take a less dogmatic approach and to concede the possibility that your creation story was written for a bunch of people with limited understanding of the universe (they did not even know that there was iron in blood, let alone what DNA was) and therefore the story conveyed may have been simplified to a level that they could understand.

Instead of interpreting a six day creation into millions of years of evolution, what I do is interpret millions of years of evolution, into six days of creation. That fits better into my worldview.

 

[Man of Faith]

Each of these splits is "fuzzy." You'll never find a first frog, or a first human -- but you'll find periods of time when neither existed yet.

I understand what you are saying. Fuzzy means that we don't know when a creature began, using a gradual evolution method. I hope you can understand how some would consider that to be non-objective science, imagination, or philosophy.

 

[not nom]

My sources say that this is selective breeding, not evolution.

this may come as a shock to you, but there is no difference. organisms don't care and don't have to know why the evolutionary pressures are there. but whatever helps, heh?

 

[not nom]

I hope you can understand how some would consider that to be non-objective science, imagination, or philosophy.

because they don't pay attention and/or are intellectually dishonest? if you see other possibilities, you have to name them explicitly, because I cannot come up with any... or with a definition of "objective science" that isn't written in crayons, for that matter.

 

[painted wolf]

I understand what you are saying. Fuzzy means that we don't know when a creature began, using a gradual evolution method. I hope you can understand how some would consider that to be non-objective science, imagination, or philosophy.

Here is an example of what Meow is trying to demonstrate.

This is fuzzy... are these a bird or a dinosaur? There is no hard line separating a dinosaur from a bird... it's a fuzzy line where lots of things end up in between.

wa:do

 

[johnhanks]

Fuzzy means that we don't know when a creature began, using a gradual evolution method.

Clearly not, as the characteristics that define "a creature" are shaped over a long period and there is no single moment before which they were not there and after which they are. But whatever "creature" you are referring to (mammals? house cats? the London Underground mosquito?), we can point with no fuzziness whatsoever to a time when it categorically did not exist, and to a later time when it did. We can say with confidence that teleost fish had not "begun" when trilobites dominated the Cambrian oceans, and that mammals had not "begun" at the time of the first fishes. These observations are best explained by evolution.

 

[Man of Faith]

we can point with no fuzziness whatsoever to a time when it categorically did not exist, and to a later time when it did. .

I can also, that isn't special. All creatures didn't exist before the world began and all creatures that we see today do exist.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Instead of interpreting a six day creation into millions of years of evolution, what I do is interpret millions of years of evolution, into six days of creation. That fits better into my worldview.

I see... well that would be significantly more difficult to achieve, but okay - in that case, evolution (both on the micro and macro scales) is possible

 

[johnhanks]

I can also, that isn't special. All creatures didn't exist before the world began and all creatures that we see today do exist.

Another classic missing of the point. By your reckoning, before the event you call creation no "creatures" existed and after it they all did. The fossil record contradicts this viewpoint comprehensively.