Experiments show origin of multicellularity by Lamarckian dearmation.

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 13 of13

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Sweden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Apr 27, 2013
 
Although the experiment "Key step in evolution replicated by scientists" was interesting, the study failed to observe the transitional stages. But I did a follow-up experiment where I stressed sugar-fed yeast cells by heating and cooling them between 2 and 45 degrees Celsius and subsequently pouring in salt, citric acid and bicarbonate. When I observed samples each hour or so, I saw that the cells became weaker and lost their ability to fight each other, thus coming together into lumps and filaments. The filaments connecting the lumps showed that it was patently not banding up against enemies. So multicellularity began by Lamarckian dearmation (not Darwinian arms race), producing a several centimeters big sponge-like entity (bigger could not fit into the experiment glass) in 27 hours or less.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

And then you submitted a thoroughly detailed science paper for peer-review.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Sweden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Apr 27, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
And then you submitted a thoroughly detailed science paper for peer-review.
I did not submit it into any prestigious paper, but I described the experiment in detail so that it can be independently tested. I followed the scientific repeatability principles by transparence, but I avoided the prestige-obsessed academic world. Academia judges theories by the status of their creators, which is a violation of the scientific method.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Apr 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Martin J Sallberg wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not submit it into any prestigious paper, but I described the experiment in detail so that it can be independently tested. I followed the scientific repeatability principles by transparence, but I avoided the prestige-obsessed academic world. Academia judges theories by the status of their creators, which is a violation of the scientific method.
That is about as open of an admission that you have nothing that is possible.

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Sweden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Apr 28, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is about as open of an admission that you have nothing that is possible.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that prestigious academic papers publish any sufficiently transparent and repeatable experiment results, absolutely no matter the status of those who performed the experiment and submitted it? If not, then your whole accusation is totally bogus. Judging an experiment or a theory by the social status of its creator is completely antiscientific. I described the experiment transparently, so anyone with a microscope can repeat it. 300 times magnification is ideal.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Apr 28, 2013
 
Martin J Sallberg wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean by that? Do you mean that prestigious academic papers publish any sufficiently transparent and repeatable experiment results, absolutely no matter the status of those who performed the experiment and submitted it? If not, then your whole accusation is totally bogus. Judging an experiment or a theory by the social status of its creator is completely antiscientific. I described the experiment transparently, so anyone with a microscope can repeat it. 300 times magnification is ideal.
Your first failure was to show how the sort of environment you created in your laboratory recreates an environment that you can find outside.

And a variation of your experiment has already been done. Did you copy them?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/evo...

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Sweden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Apr 28, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first failure was to show how the sort of environment you created in your laboratory recreates an environment that you can find outside.
And a variation of your experiment has already been done. Did you copy them?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/evo...
I was inspired by that experiment, but there are also differences.

#I imposed temperature and chemical stress, speeding it up to 27 hours or less.

#Most of my experiment was conducted at temperatures that places common yeast cells in a non-dividing state, ruling out Darwinian explanations.

#The multicellular entity in my experiment formed from the floating cells, not those on the bottom.

#And most importantly, I observed transitional stages in a microscope and saw that the cells changed their behavior towards generally less fighting. The lumps were also connected by filaments, ruling out the "cooperation for the purpose of selfish competition" model.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Apr 29, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Martin J Sallberg wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not submit it into any prestigious paper
Thought so. That's all anybody needs to know.(shrug)

Level 1

Since: Apr 13

Sweden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Apr 29, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Thought so. That's all anybody needs to know.(shrug)
Submission to prestigious papers are not a measure of scientificness. Prestige means bias against criticism of the theory you have bet your career on. Prestige is, thus, incompatible with the scientific method and its objectivity. Just because a theory, by historical contingency, happens to be dominant in academia does not mean that it is correct. Or are you claiming that the editors of prestigious papers are absolutely objective and unbiased?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Apr 29, 2013
 
Martin J Sallberg wrote:
<quoted text>
Submission to prestigious papers are not a measure of scientificness. Prestige means bias against criticism of the theory you have bet your career on. Prestige is, thus, incompatible with the scientific method and its objectivity. Just because a theory, by historical contingency, happens to be dominant in academia does not mean that it is correct. Or are you claiming that the editors of prestigious papers are absolutely objective and unbiased?
No, one of the reasons that you submit papers to journals is that experts will look at your work and try to find mistakes. If they can't find any you are probably onto something. People who avoid peer review might be right. But very very very rarely are.

There is a reason that prestigious journals are prestigious.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Apr 29, 2013
 
Martin J Sallberg wrote:
<quoted text>
Submission to prestigious papers are not a measure of scientificness. Prestige means bias against criticism of the theory you have bet your career on. Prestige is, thus, incompatible with the scientific method and its objectivity. Just because a theory, by historical contingency, happens to be dominant in academia does not mean that it is correct. Or are you claiming that the editors of prestigious papers are absolutely objective and unbiased?
Prestige?

I never even mentioned it.

For a self-proclaimed scientist your focus seems off just a tad.
LowellGuy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 3, 2013
 
Martin J Sallberg wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not submit it into any prestigious paper, but I described the experiment in detail so that it can be independently tested. I followed the scientific repeatability principles by transparence, but I avoided the prestige-obsessed academic world. Academia judges theories by the status of their creators, which is a violation of the scientific method.
You are aware that a class of 4th grade science students got published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, right? If your experiment is valid, prove it. Real scientists don't go around wasting their resources testing every crackpot idea a bunch of mouth-breathing morons on the interwebs come up with. Do the experiment yourself, follow the scientific method, and submit your findings for publication. Or, just admit you're just jerking off online.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 3, 2013
 
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
You are aware that a class of 4th grade science students got published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, right? If your experiment is valid, prove it. Real scientists don't go around wasting their resources testing every crackpot idea a bunch of mouth-breathing morons on the interwebs come up with. Do the experiment yourself, follow the scientific method, and submit your findings for publication. Or, just admit you're just jerking off online.
But... but he (probably) has a Scribd page!

:-(

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 13 of13
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••