To me it's like looking at a glass and saying it is half empty or half full. Evolution didn't take place for the free-floating single cell of the brewer's yeast, in the experiment they were discarded, so to me that leaves questions about the experiment. What if in that yeast culture there were two types of yeast (for the sake of clarity & brevity name them A and B) yeast A is not prone to multi-cellularity and yeast B is prone to multi-cellularity, they both co-exist in the culture before the experiment took place. And the experiment just separated the two traits and it favoured the yeast that would give rise to the desire result of multi-cellularity instead of the undesired uni-cellularity.
It reminded me of Russian experiment done on wild fox, fox were made domesticated in time they lost many traits of fox like bushy tail but when released fox back into the wild they gain back those traits like bushy tail. So like the fox tail what would happen to that multi-cellular yeast if it was released back into its natural environment would it regress to natural state of uni-cellularity, and is multi-cellularity a trait it can revert to back and forth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by duga
The one thing we can't seem to make them understand is that if we are shown significant evidence disproving evolution, we would all start questioning it.
|
I think that should be always done. Experiments and the hypothesis dealing with evolution should be questioned anyway that's just a part of science.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.
|
"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards