Application of the Theory That Man Evolved From a Unicellular Organism
Ian Chua
from a unicellular organism?
Ron O
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?
Why do you think they funded a study to knock out all the genes in
yeast?
Ron Okimoto
Vend
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?
I can think of cancer research: simply put, cancer cells are
individual of the multicellular community that break the cooperation
agreement and live like unicellular organism. Theory of Evolution, is
the fundamental framework to study these phenomena.
Jim Willemin
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?
>
Seems to me that most all medical research that is not conducted on human
subjects or human cell lines depends on the genetic relationship between
humans and the subject species - for instance, cardiac research in dogs.
Of course, I suppose you could argue the utility, indeed,
counterproductiveness, of modern medicine in purely pragmatic (Malthusan?)
terms (longer lifespan, less illness, lower infant mortality leads to
overpopulation and eventual environmental/economic collapse), but most
folks I know of would prefer to stay healthy themselves for a long time.
TomS
<1177324558.0...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ian Chua stated..."
>
>Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
>from a unicellular organism?
>
You are speaking of the theory which is more fully described as the hypothesis
of the common descent for all life on earth? It is a little strange to describe
a
theory by taking one small part of it. It reminds me rather of describing the
hypothesis of the round earth as "the theory that Australians and Americans
point in different directions" - and then asking for a practical application for
that theory.
Of course, everyone admits that each individual human being grew from a
unicellular organism, so you can't be wondering about *that*, can you?
Or are you just trying to "frame" the discussion?
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
alextangent
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?
As in
Chua: "My theory proves the existence of GOD!"
Denizens of t.o.: "Great! Can you suggest a useful application for
this theory?"
or am I missing the point?
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
CreateThis
>Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
>from a unicellular organism?
Suggest one for the theory that man didn't.
CT
Ian Chua
> --
> Regards
> Alex McDonald
Nick Keighley
> On Apr 23, 8:41 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 11:35 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> > > Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> > > from a unicellular organism?
why?
> > As in
>
> > Chua: "My theory proves the existence of GOD!"
> > Denizens of t.o.: "Great! Can you suggest a useful application for
> > this theory?"
>
> > or am I missing the point?
>
> Yes, you missed the point.
so explain it then
--
Nick Keighley
Greg Guarino
>"On 23 Apr 2007 03:35:58 -0700, in article
><1177324558.0...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ian Chua stated..."
>>
>>Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
>>from a unicellular organism?
>>
>
>You are speaking of the theory which is more fully described as the hypothesis
>of the common descent for all life on earth? It is a little strange to describe
>a theory by taking one small part of it.
It is not "strange". It is, as one formerly frequent poster might have
put it, "strategic".
Had he said "the common descent for all life on earth", that would
explicitly include the kinship of humans and lab rats, for instance.
He probably thinks that his construction makes the problem more
difficult. It doesn't, as we exhibit a large degree of genetic
similarity with organisms as seemingly different from humans as yeast.
"Careful" language like that irritates me, in TV commercials,
political speeches and in newsgroup discussions.
Greg Guarino
AC
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?
Why?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
Do you actually think that you're mining some new vein that other
Creationists around here haven't tried before? We all know the
"what practicality does evolution have" line. We've heard it before.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Desertphile
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?
No. Nor did humans evolve from a unicellular organism: why are you
even making the suggestion that they did?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
CreateThis
What "useful application" do your sophomoric word games have?
Get my point?
CT
Ernest Major
<deser...@nospam.org> writes
>On 23 Apr 2007 03:35:58 -0700, Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
>> from a unicellular organism?
>
>No. Nor did humans evolve from a unicellular organism: why are you
>even making the suggestion that they did?
>
>
You're being rather picky about terminology aren't you? animals,
including humanity, are derived from with unicellular eukaryotes, being
one of several multicellular lineages with Opisthokonta. While human
ancestry has been multicellular for over 500,000,000 years, and our
immediate ancestors are hominids, sufficiently remote ancestors are
unicellular, and I don't find it unreasonable to express that in terms
of man evolving from a unicellular organism, at least in informal
conversation.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<Creat...@yippee.con> writes
To lead is to infer that he is a non-Christian, as surely no sincere
Christian would argue his religion in such a fashion, nor would a
sincere Christian treat his religion as a subject for trollery.
>
>Get my point?
>
>CT
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Craig T
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?
Over 50 million Americans suffer from diseases involving mitochondrial
dysfunction. The mitochondria functions independent of the rest of the
cell. Researchers can only make sense of its DNA and ribosomes by
viewing it as a bacteria that developed a symbiotic relationship with
our unicellular ancestors.
alextangent
Which is?
>
> > --
> > Regards
> > Alex McDonald
Timberwoof
Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?
Easy. Any study of nutrition and energy usage has to take that into
account. Ever hear of mitochondria? They have an interesting history ...
and their own DNA which affects our metabolism.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
Timberwoof
alextangent <bl...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:35 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> > Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> > from a unicellular organism?
>
> As in
>
> Chua: "My theory proves the existence of GOD!"
> Denizens of t.o.: "Great! Can you suggest a useful application for
> this theory?"
Yes. Getting peasants and merchants to buy indulgences.
> or am I missing the point?
>
> --
> Regards
> Alex McDonald
--
Scooter the Mighty
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?
The various degrees of relatedness of organisms is certainly important
for medical research. The fact that bacteria are less related to us
than yeast means which you chose for cloning in can be important.
It's not so much that this factoid is directly useful for specific
applications of practical science as it is that understanding biology
is useful for developing practical science.
er...@swva.net
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?
Sure. You first.
Eric Root
wf3h
Ian Chua wrote:
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?
it answers the question 'where did we come from?'
and that is useful enough
Ian Chua
You're confused - let me paraphrase the question:
"Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man came
from a unicellular organism?"
r norman
It answers the question 'what did we evolve from?'
Mark VandeWettering
Is it not useful to understand how human beings developed?
Mark
Perplexed in Peoria
"r norman" <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote in message news:31vq23pnu97jge6fc...@4ax.com...
I think that this is an amusing example of the difference in world view
between scientists and engineers. wf3h and rnorman are scientists. They
'apply' ideas by using them to answer questions. Mr. Chua is an engineer.
He applies ideas by, directly or indirectly, producing food, shelter, or
clothing.
I won't comment on the irony of the fact that Mr Chua is a religious person
who sees food, shelter, and clothing as ultimately irrelevant to the real
purpose of human existence. However, I will point out that for engineers
to have ideas that they can apply successfully, they need for those ideas
to be generated by scientists. And where do the scientists get their ideas?
You got it! By seeking answers to 'pointless' questions.
But, of course, what Mr. Chua is really asking for are examples of how the
idea of human evolution in particular can be applied by some kind of
'engineer'. Being a civil engineer (though not one like Bill Morse who
works with micto-organisms on a daily basis), he apparently knows nothing
about how insulin and human growth hormone are produced. He hasn't talked
to researchers for pharmaceutical companies and asked them how often they
BLAST and why. He may, for all I know, take vitamin supplements, but he
hasn't stopped to consider how we learned what the various vitamins do and
how little of that knowlege was created using experiments on human subjects.
But, if he reads the responses he has received with an open mind, he
knows some of these things now.
Bobby Bryant
Not if it contradicts a cherished mythology.
Which I suspect is what the "question" is really getting at. I.e., I
suspect he thinks the answer to his question is obviously "no", and
he's asking it only as a rhetorical question to insinuate that we
don't need to be teaching schoolkiddies the basic facts of biology
when they are in conflict with his religious beliefs.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Ernest Major
Chua <ic...@purdue.edu> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu>:
Oh, that's different. Put that way, the answer is "It isn't
a theory; it's an observed fact". (The egg is unicellular,
and for purposes of this discussion can be considered an
"organism".)
So will you go away now?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
wf3h
why isn't the truth useful?
unless, of course, you happen to have a religious bias against truth...
David Iain Greig
> On Apr 23, 5:35 am, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
>> from a unicellular organism?
>
> yeast?
To really open the genome up and give it a nice airy feeling.
--D.
Ron O
It looks like Chua's question was just rhetorical. Just another
example of ignoring reality to fit your preconceived notions.
Ron Okimoto
TomS
<obdr23lfujdg7ng3e...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova stated..."
>
>On 23 Apr 2007 20:22:14 -0700, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu>:
>
>>On Apr 23, 10:24 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>> Ian Chua wrote:
>>> > Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
>>> > from a unicellular organism?
>>>
>>> it answers the question 'where did we come from?'
>>>
>>> and that is useful enough
>>
>>You're confused - let me paraphrase the question:
>>"Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man came
>>from a unicellular organism?"
>
>Oh, that's different. Put that way, the answer is "It isn't
>a theory; it's an observed fact". (The egg is unicellular,
>and for purposes of this discussion can be considered an
>"organism".)
But we do not *evolve* from an egg. And I wouldn't say
that "man came from" an egg, but rather, that men come
from eggs.
>
>So will you go away now?
--
---Tom S.
"When people use the X is not a fact or Y is not proven gambits it is a tacit
admission that they have lost the science argument and they are just trying to
downplay the significance of that failing."
BK Jennings, "On the Nature of Science", Physics in Canada 63(1)
Robert Carnegie
> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> from a unicellular organism?
Predicts the existence of stem cells, pre-specialised body cells that
produce cells of many different specialised functions.
Greg Guarino
>Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
>from a unicellular organism?
Here's a handy one from today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/science/24conv.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin
------------------------------------------------------
On the Trail of Parkinson’s, Through Yeast Cells
from the article:
Q. Have you found a key to Parkinson’s disease?
A. I think we found a pathway, rather than a key.
We had this idea. We took the gene from a human brain cell that was
malfunctioning and was thought to be a cause of Parkinson’s. We
inserted it into a yeast cell. The yeast died. Next, we did a very
broad genetic analysis and asked, “Which genes can save that cell from
the Parkinson’s protein?” We took 5,000 different genes and we tested
them one by one. From that, we found several genes, and one that is
particularly strong, that express a protein that can save yeast cells
from the Parkinson’s gene.
To take the experiment further, we collaborated with some other labs.
Together, we took this gene and put it into the brains of nematodes
that were engineered to express a human Parkinson’s gene. Sure enough,
it saved their neurons from dying. We tried the same thing with fruit
flies and then with rat embryonic neurons. The anti-Parkinson’s gene
saved them, too. Later, we screened through some 150,000 chemical
compounds to see if we could find a substance that saved yeast from
Parkinson’s. And we did.
Q. Why start your experiment with yeast, of all things?
A. (Laughs) I know. Even people in my laboratory thought we were crazy
to try to study neurodegenerative diseases with a yeast cell. It’s not
a neuron. But I thought we might be looking at a very general problem
in the way proteins were being managed in a cell. And yeasts are easy
to study because they are such simple cells.
As biology has moved forward, we’ve come to realize that the same
rules apply to all living things. If there’s a defect in basic cell
biology, it might be shared by other cells. So we can learn a lot
about complicated organisms from studying very simple cells like
yeast.
------------------------------------------------------
Greg Guarino
Robert Carnegie
TomS wrote:
> "On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:46:47 -0700, in article
> <obdr23lfujdg7ng3e...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova stated..."
> >
> >On 23 Apr 2007 20:22:14 -0700, the following appeared in
> >talk.origins, posted by Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu>:
> >
> >>On Apr 23, 10:24 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >>> Ian Chua wrote:
> >>> > Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> >>> > from a unicellular organism?
> >>>
> >>> it answers the question 'where did we come from?'
> >>>
> >>> and that is useful enough
> >>
> >>You're confused - let me paraphrase the question:
> >>"Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man came
> >>from a unicellular organism?"
> >
> >Oh, that's different. Put that way, the answer is "It isn't
> >a theory; it's an observed fact". (The egg is unicellular,
> >and for purposes of this discussion can be considered an
> >"organism".)
>
> But we do not *evolve* from an egg. And I wouldn't say
> that "man came from" an egg, but rather, that men come
> from eggs.
Well, /that/ man came from an egg, I very strongly suspect. just like
the rest of us did. Beyond that, what do we mean by "evolve",
exactly? Don't we evolve from children to adults? Except in, say,
the legal sense.
Cheezits
That isn't a paraphrase. It isn't even a rephrase. Wf3h got it right.
Whe are you going to realize that the only way to discredit evolution as
a scientific theory is by presenting actual evidence against it?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>:
>"On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:46:47 -0700, in article
><obdr23lfujdg7ng3e...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova stated..."
>>
>>On 23 Apr 2007 20:22:14 -0700, the following appeared in
>>talk.origins, posted by Ian Chua <ic...@purdue.edu>:
>>
>>>On Apr 23, 10:24 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>>>> Ian Chua wrote:
>>>> > Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
>>>> > from a unicellular organism?
>>>>
>>>> it answers the question 'where did we come from?'
>>>>
>>>> and that is useful enough
>>>
>>>You're confused - let me paraphrase the question:
>>>"Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man came
>>>from a unicellular organism?"
>>
>>Oh, that's different. Put that way, the answer is "It isn't
>>a theory; it's an observed fact". (The egg is unicellular,
>>and for purposes of this discussion can be considered an
>>"organism".)
>
>But we do not *evolve* from an egg. And I wouldn't say
>that "man came from" an egg, but rather, that men come
>from eggs.
A bit sarcasm-challenged today? ;-)
>>So will you go away now?
--
Bob C.
rip...@azonic.co.nz
I used to be a unicellular organism. I found that more useful than
being a zerocellular organism. Then I was fertilized and became
multicellular.
Several suggestions have been made as to the usefulness of the theory
of common descent, which at its origin has that the common ancestor of
all living things was a single cell organism a billion or two years
ago. You seem to have ignored those.
So the first requirement is for you to define what you require by the
term 'useful'. You appear to have ignored the medical usefulness of
this, and that biological understanding wouold be 'useful'. So what
sort of things would you consider would fit you accepting it as
useful ?
In any case, it is irrelevent whether it is useful or not.
loua...@yahoo.com
Irrelevant, because knowing truths about the universe has a value all
its own on moral and aesthetic grounds. Placing "useful" above "true"
is as amoral a position as I can imagine.
LQM, before somebody else does.
John Brockbank
Other useful applications of the theory that we evolved by natural
selection is that it answers the old questions about why evil exists
and also tells us that if we want a nice house, good car, a warm bed
and food in the cupboard and a job which we like and know is
worthwhile, then we had better get cracking and work on it instead of
praying that we win the lottery.
TomS
<1177451923....@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie
stated..."
As I understand it (and I'm not a scientist), evolution is a hereditable
change in a population. So there are two important differences
between the evolution and growth from child to adult.
But as a matter of the history of the word, "evolution" first of all
was used to refer to "unfolding" of the structures of the adult,
among those scientists who believed that the structures were
present in some hidden way in the embryo.
I think that it was only with the acceptance of Darwin's ideas on
"descent with modification" and transformation of species that
"evolution" took on the sense of changes, not to individuals, but
to populations, and those changes which were inherited, rather
than acquired.
Emma Pease
Not sure what LQM means.
This thread sort of reminds me of exchange I heard in a Q&A session
after a talk[1] a few weeks ago at Stanford. The question was on
evaluating whether students taking creationist science courses such as
at Calvary Chapel Murietta (the school currently suing the UC system
to have their biology course approved) got what was needed. A
comment from the audience was that the students from these courses
knew how to use microscopes as well as students from standard biology
courses. Which might be true but is somewhat beside the point.
Emma
[1] The talk was "Teaching Science: How, What, and Who Decides" given
by Donald Kennedy. It is available at http://itunes.stanford.edu/
under Stanford/Education/Teaching and Learning - Audio (Q&A on
creationism at 48:40 minutes into the talk but I think the microscope
comment got chopped or missed [I was near the creationist
commenting]). Also
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/april11/kennedy-041107.html
Disclosure: I work for Stanford but was not involved in this talk
other than as a member of the audience.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Timberwoof
Emma Pease <em...@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
> This thread sort of reminds me of exchange I heard in a Q&A session
> after a talk[1] a few weeks ago at Stanford. The question was on
> evaluating whether students taking creationist science courses such as
> at Calvary Chapel Murietta (the school currently suing the UC system
> to have their biology course approved) got what was needed. A
> comment from the audience was that the students from these courses
> knew how to use microscopes as well as students from standard biology
> courses. Which might be true but is somewhat beside the point.
Well, that's what biologists do all day, isn't it詰ook a slimy things
though a microscope. Who needs a lot of ejumacation for that?
}: ) ;-)
TomS
<1177508359....@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, loua...@yahoo.com
stated..."
Just to point out the obvious ...
One never knows what knowledge will become very useful. If we had
restricted ourselves in the past to studying things with immediate
practical applications, that would have prevented a lot of money-
making things from being developed.
I am reminded of how many times I've heard the complaint about
learning algebra, "who is ever going to need algebra in real life".
An acquaintance of mine studied for a real-estate-sales license.
It turns out that his memory of high-school algebra helped him
in answering several questions on the exam.
Not that I am accepting any suggestion that (1) there is no use
for our knowledge about human origins or that (2) evolutionary
biology is adequately described as "the theory that man came
from a unicellular organism" or that (3) knowledge about how
the world works is not useful.
Throwback
> In message <c6sp23tjas1at89gi5j3k1g538k5pqe...@4ax.com>, Desertphile
> <desertph...@nospam.org> writes
>
> >On 23 Apr 2007 03:35:58 -0700, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
> >> from a unicellular organism?
>
> >even making the suggestion that they did?
>
> You're being rather picky about terminology aren't you? animals,
> including humanity, are derived from with unicellular eukaryotes, being
> one of several multicellular lineages with Opisthokonta. While human
> ancestry has been multicellular for over 500,000,000 years, and our
> immediate ancestors are hominids, sufficiently remote ancestors are
> unicellular, and I don't find it unreasonable to express that in terms
> of man evolving from a unicellular organism, at least in informal
> conversation.
I am pretty sure it was more than one unicellular organism.
Greg Guarino
1. I have have suggested several useful applications, most involved
with medical and genetic research. One is in this very thread, culled
from that day's newspaper, so far unresponded to.
2. In the thread entitled "Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science
in Schools?" I spent quite a bit of time arguing that trying to limit
science to areas which are known ahead of time to result in tangible
benefits is a recipe for backwardness. We are lucky that our
forebears weren't so short-sighted or else this discussion would have
to be held by firelight in a cave.
It is also a denial of our very nature. We are inquisitive creatures
who inherently want to know how things work. That characteristic has
produced the entirety of our modern life and I include even
agriculture in that category. Beyond that, if you believe that God
made us, by whatever means, what makes you think he would want us to
deny such an important part of what we are?
3. Let's turn the question on it's head to expose the absurdity of it.
If it is true that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor,
can you really imagine that that concept would NOT be useful in
medical research?
You can argue that evolution did not occur, although I don't predict
much success in that venture. But if is true you cannot seriously
suggest that we can ignore the central organizing principle of life on
Earth with no effect on practical research.
Greg Guarino
TomS
<3ab133la30ic8emlo...@4ax.com>, Greg Guarino stated..."
[...snip...]
>2. In the thread entitled "Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science
>in Schools?" I spent quite a bit of time arguing that trying to limit
>science to areas which are known ahead of time to result in tangible
>benefits is a recipe for backwardness. We are lucky that our
>forebears weren't so short-sighted or else this discussion would have
>to be held by firelight in a cave.
No, it would have to be discussed without firelight. After all, what's the
immediate practical application for finding out why some things burn?
All we need to know is, don't get too close to it.
Greg Guarino
>"On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:12:00 GMT, in article
><3ab133la30ic8emlo...@4ax.com>, Greg Guarino stated..."
>[...snip...]
>>2. In the thread entitled "Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science
>>in Schools?" I spent quite a bit of time arguing that trying to limit
>>science to areas which are known ahead of time to result in tangible
>>benefits is a recipe for backwardness. We are lucky that our
>>forebears weren't so short-sighted or else this discussion would have
>>to be held by firelight in a cave.
>[...snip...]
>No, it would have to be discussed without firelight. After all, what's the
>immediate practical application for finding out why some things burn?
>All we need to know is, don't get too close to it.
I had actually considered that, but I liked the image. Call it
rhetoric license. There's a quote I like: Unless you live in a teepee
you're using new technology. If you do live in a teepee, you're using
old technology.
Greg Guarino
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Throwback <throw...@gmail.com>:
Really? Explain.
Ernest Major
<nos...@buzz.off> writes
In context I was clearly referring to a species of unicellular organism.
I suspect Throwback of being over-literal; the population immediately
ancestral to the animal stem group would have been composed of many
unicellular organisms, and, as the this population can be inferred to
reproduce sexually, more than one of these would be ancestral to the
animal stem group. He might also be alluding to the symbiogenesis of the
eukaryote cell, or even to evolution from a lineage of unicellular
species/individuals.
--
alias Ernest Major
Timberwoof
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?F=E9achad=F3ir?= <Féach@d.óir> wrote:
> Scríobh TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com>:
> >"On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:12:00 GMT, in article
> ><3ab133la30ic8emlo...@4ax.com>, Greg Guarino stated..."
> >[...snip...]
> >>2. In the thread entitled "Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science
> >>in Schools?" I spent quite a bit of time arguing that trying to limit
> >>science to areas which are known ahead of time to result in tangible
> >>benefits is a recipe for backwardness. We are lucky that our
> >>forebears weren't so short-sighted or else this discussion would have
> >>to be held by firelight in a cave.
> >[...snip...]
> >No, it would have to be discussed without firelight. After all, what's the
> >immediate practical application for finding out why some things burn?
> >All we need to know is, don't get too close to it.
>
> Knowing? What's the use of knowing? Our forebears managed perfectly
> well with only instinct.
Ah, but when the environment in which those instincts evolved changed,
they had to either develop new instincts or some other way to acquire
knowledge.
Throwback
> >I am pretty sure it was more than one unicellular organism.
>
> Really? Explain.
You are not seriously suggesting that abiogenesis
produced only one organism?
Perplexed in Peoria
"Throwback" <throw...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1177683036.9...@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
This is an excellent example of snipping context so as to change
the subject. Here is the context restored:
----------------
>> >> >> Can anyone suggest a useful application of the theory that man evolved
>> >> >> from a unicellular organism?
>> >>
>> >> >No. Nor did humans evolve from a unicellular organism: why are you
>> >> >even making the suggestion that they did?
>> >>
>> >> You're being rather picky about terminology aren't you? animals,
>> >> including humanity, are derived from with unicellular eukaryotes, being
>> >> one of several multicellular lineages with Opisthokonta. While human
>> >> ancestry has been multicellular for over 500,000,000 years, and our
>> >> immediate ancestors are hominids, sufficiently remote ancestors are
>> >> unicellular, and I don't find it unreasonable to express that in terms
>> >> of man evolving from a unicellular organism, at least in informal
>> >> conversation.
>> >
>> >I am pretty sure it was more than one unicellular organism.
>>
>> Really? Explain.
>
> You are not seriously suggesting that abiogenesis
> produced only one organism?
------------------
Notice how the subject got changed from human and metazoan ancestry to
abiogenesis. And also notice the evasiveness of an 'explanation' which
begins "You are not seriously suggesting ...".
Incidentally, many people do indeed suggest that abiogenesis produced only
one organism. And then that that organism reproduced and it went on from
there. To add some drama to this account:
There was only one ten-million-year interval in Earth's 4.5 billion year
history when conditions were roughly right for life to arise. And only
one place on Earth - in an Iceland-like setting where glaciers, volcanos,
seacoast, and the remains of a large metallic meteorite came together -
only one place where the conditions were exactly right. Yet still, the
abiogenic event was so improbable that it only happened once during that
short window of opportunity. But that one chance occurrence was all it
took.
It really could have happened that way. I do seriously suggest.
But even if it didn't, it might still be the case that out of dozens or
thousands or billions of abiogenesis events, only one of them left descendents
leading to us.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Throwback <throw...@gmail.com>:
>On Apr 26, 5:40 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
No, nor was that ever implied. Perhaps you need to be
reminded of the exchange:
[Ernest]
>> You're being rather picky about terminology aren't you? animals,
>> including humanity, are derived from with unicellular eukaryotes, being
>> one of several multicellular lineages with Opisthokonta. While human
>> ancestry has been multicellular for over 500,000,000 years, and our
>> immediate ancestors are hominids, sufficiently remote ancestors are
>> unicellular, and I don't find it unreasonable to express that in terms
>> of man evolving from a unicellular organism, at least in informal
>> conversation.
[You]
>I am pretty sure it was more than one unicellular organism.
[Me]
Really? Explain.
Note that the question wasn't whether abiogenesis initially
resulted in one or in many organisms, it was whether there
was more than one unicellular organism *directly* ancestral
to man ("...I don't find it unreasonable to express that in
terms of man evolving from a unicellular organism...")
So I repeat: Please explain how there was more than one
unicellular organism directly ancestral to man.
Mark Isaak
> In article <1177508359....@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> [...]
>> Irrelevant, because knowing truths about the universe has a value all
>> its own on moral and aesthetic grounds. Placing "useful" above "true"
>> is as amoral a position as I can imagine.
>>
>> LQM, before somebody else does.
>
> Not sure what LQM means.
Laboratory for Quantum Magnetism. I'm not quite sure how it applies, but
that seems to fit better than Link Quality Monitoring or Land Quality
Management.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Robert Carnegie
Bob Casanova wrote:
Are you waiting to see whether he mentions the binary origin theory of
eukaryotes?
Or the load of virus DNA, including zooviruses, in our genes?
Throwback
> On 27 Apr 2007 07:10:37 -0700, the following appeared in
There wasn't. I took it out of context so I could make
a point I wanted to.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com>:
I'm waiting to see if he posts anything comprehensible.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Throwback <throw...@gmail.com>:
Pity you failed to do so.
Robert Carnegie
Bob Casanova wrote:
Then I'll just throw in the trivial point that it would appear the
descendants of the earliest unicellular organisms were other
unicellular organisms, and the confusing fact - if I have it straight
- that (some?) unicellular organisms are observed to exchange traits
with each other without being very closely related (except in the very
sense of this behaviour going on since whenever), and then...
Well, perhaps now you're waiting for /me/ to post anything
comprehensible??
Bob Casanova
Huh? ;-)
No, the exchange of genetic material among unrelated species
of eukaryotes, prokaryotes and even viruses is something I'm
vaguely aware of; I try to keep up in overviews of most
disciplines and that's one I remembered. But I'd wager
Throwback is/was unaware of it, and I'd further wager that
he would/will attempt to use it to prove he was right all
along (about whatever he may actually be attempting to
promote), and that it's a significant problem for
evolutionary theory.
Robert Carnegie
Bob Casanova wrote:
Well, of course! :-)
I am not sure in fact which "seeker after truth" here is on which side
sometimes. Shouldn't we each be open-minded anyway? Not too much so,
of course!
Having identified four separate senses in which evolutionary mankind
can be held to be the indirect descendant of more than one form of
unicellular life /without/ interfering with the theory, I think it
really is Throwback's turn.