Scientists Supposedly Show Evolution: Single to Multicelled

[Mariolee]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=435067

But doesn't yeast have both multicellular and single cellular properties? Maybe I'm not just understanding it. Also, the Christian mocking in that thread is unbelievable.

[neo-x]

The beautiful question is not how a single yeast cell developed into multicellular, the question is, how did the single yeast cell came into existance in the first place

There is a joke on the main forum about such a thing, here I'm pasting it

Once upon a time, a scientist came up with the conclusion that he could form life without God being in the Equation. One day, he came up to God and said:
God, you say you create life, but i can be a god also, because in my lab, i am able to create life. We(talking about science) dont need you. We are as smart and capable as you are.

God responded by saying: Sure, Billy (God knew his name, obviously because God is all knowing ) So, you think you have come up to the conclusion that the creation is more capable then his master huh?

When the face off started, the Scientist bent over and picked up some dirt, to create life form in the same way God had done.
God, almost laughing told Billy: Bil, get your own dirt.

[kmr]

I love that joke!

Yes, while the increasing phases of improbability down the evolutionary timeline seem to pose a severe issue, the biggest of all is the question of life getting there in the first place.

[Reactionary]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=435067

But doesn't yeast have both multicellular and single cellular properties? Maybe I'm not just understanding it. Also, the Christian mocking in that thread is unbelievable.

My question is: Is this really evolution? When we put aside the obvious pro-evolution bias in the article, and a standard collection of ifs, buts and maybes, what do we have left? In my opinion, this is the key paragraph:

Even so, much of evolution proceeds by co-opting existing traits for new uses - and that's exactly what Ratcliff's yeast do. "I wouldn't expect these things to all pop up de novo, but for the cell to have many of the elements already present for other reasons," says Kerr.

This smells like one big equivocation to me, as we know that adaptation =/= evolution. As far as I understood, we don't see an increase in the genetic info, we only see some cells partially adapting to a new use. Big deal. The fact that some organisms form colonies and their cells specialize is nothing new. There is a good article about this topic: http://creation.com/multicellularity

[Reactionary]

For those still interested, Answers in Genesis also addressed this issue in "News to Note", 2 July 2011, paragraph 2:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-07022011

[RCath]

Evolution does not disprove the bible or God but only someones theological interpretation. On the idea of whether there is a God or not, good science yet remains neutral. Since God is tracing genes in the bible, doesn't that mean that God new about evolution before science? Does Genesis 30:39 where Jacob is dealing with the flocks of sheep reveals that God had taught him something about genes and how they are passed from generation to generation?

The things spoken about in Genesis 1 that God did in an instant mentally/Spiritually is still unraveling in the progress of time and Genesis 2:1-3 from the point of view of the physical has not yet happened. Now Adam was the start of a new segment of time called the Adamic age (of which the bible deals with) within a much older segment of time that could be millions or billions of years old. Adam was something new introduced to this world. Time is actually insignificant to the God. Genesis 6 speaks about Adam's offspring (called the Sons of God) being mixed with the humanoid evolved creatures, that were here before Adam, through their daughters. Noah was mixture and so are we. Adam's offspring introduced language and objectivity to the purely subjective and emotional world of the animal. Adam is the missing link that science has yet to find because of his origin as an angelic genes that were placed in a physical body his bones dissolved after death and so did his descendants that were giant. Not all were physical giants though but some mental and spiritual giants. Adam's genes remain on this planet but only mentally and spiritually