What is THE explanation of this?

1. 80

   aka-djposted 10 years ago

   Have a quick look at this, (only very short).
   http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_cell … blue_whale
   
   So, it if one does simple math, one gets the following
   
   1Trillion, divided by 10billion, = 100,000 new cells added every year, to an amoeba, to turn into a blue whale.
   
   Seen, or heard of any such developments lately?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      As the blue whale is the largest animal on earth, there ARE no other instances.  There are, of course, such things as other whales, large sharks, elephants and hippos.
      
      Got any other foolish questions?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Not until we get the answer for this one.At least.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            But you DID get one - the elephant.  And the giraffe and a hippo.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               ?

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  A big creature that has only been found in recent eons.  There are 3 listed, although there are others as well.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     This only reinforces my point.
                     A shorter time in which a creature developed from one cell, to billions/trillions.
                     And, it seems, greater "quantum leaps" from early, to late species.
                     Don't forget, that it's not just about numbers of cells, but incredible organization of said cells, to be a functioning, cohesive, living creature.

                     replyreport
            2. 0

               mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               

               replyreport
   2. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Is this yet another attempt to discredit evolutionary biology?
      
      Another attempt to claim that so many cells could not randomly organize and produce an entity we call a whale?
      
      If yes, this really demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the theory and mechanics of evolution.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         It is also clearly demonstrated that an whale egg and sperm do this wonderful act of multiplication on a regular basis without even needed an evolutionary time scale

         replyreport
      2. 80

         aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Either evolution as a concept is easy to understand, or it's complex.
         I understand it, but refute it's (unrealistic,) claims.
         
         Now, please answer the question. If you understand it, please explain my OP.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Your question is whether we saw an amoeba become a blue whale in out lifetime.
            
            If you think that related to evolution, you actually do not understand it. Evolution is not seen on that scale in that time frame.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               But the question was not our lifespan, but "lately".  And yes, the whale is a latecomer to the earth, on that evolutionary time scale.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  If the whale is a "latecommer", then the increase in number of cells year by year would have had to be WAY more than my original number.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     You are kidding right?
                     
                     You cannot possibly believe that the number of cells a creature has is a marker in any way of his or her place on some evolutionary time scale.
                     
                     Talk about uninformed and utter nonsense!

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        I see. I don't understand evolution because I'm not highly educated about cellular biology.
                        
                        So, in order for one to understand evolution, one has to have detailed knowledge of said field.
                        
                        Therefor a layman has to take it by faith (in what experts have presented) to accept evolution.
                        
                        Your attempt to ridicule, or belittle me with your emotive sentences does nothing for you, in this discussion.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Not detailed, but very basic, as one might get in any high school biology class.

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              So, according to your estimation of my "education", that is the answer to the op.
                              If one is supposed to develop some level of knowledge, critical thinking ability, and resolving their own worldview, that one HAS to accept high school level biology?
                              There is no room to question those things taught?
                              Is that normal? I mean accept what you are taught, without question?

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 Never mind.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 80

                                    aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    Was my question (above) too hard?
                                    
                                    I recognize my op question might have been.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       Whatever.

                                       report
                        2. 65

                           psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           You don't need to know any cellular biology at all to know that we have had earlier periods were more animals were big (dinosaurs) and that some evolution tracks make animals smaller (kiwi). 
                           
                           I am not even sure how you drew an insulting inference from the polite suggestion that you were starting with an idea that could easily be falsified if you wished to make the effort--on the clear assumption that you are smart enough to do so if you choose.

                           replyreport
                     2. 80

                        aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        This makes no sense at all.
                        A creature's "place in the evolutionary time scale" does indeed include the number of cells, indirectly. If you care to note, each stage on most species tends to get larger. Therefore, more cells.
                        Now, back to the whale. It is here, with us today. It came from ONE cell, in it's origin, therefore, the number of cells indeed relates to it's place on the evolutionary time scale.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Reality: Birds, as they evolved, grew smaller. This is just one example.
                           
                           Evolution over time does NOT mean more cells and getting bigger.
                           
                           Evolution means adaptation for survival.

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              I did say, most, NOT ALL.
                              That's your insertion.
                              However, just survival, is not enough to demonstrate the reason behind all the diversity. But, I digress.

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 No, not even most.  If that were the case, either new species, developed from a single cell, are filling the vast majority of niches or we would all be 50' tall with similar sized animals.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 80

                                    aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    This is entirely your assumption.
                                    Who knows. In in another universe, (far far away, that could be the case).
                                    But, lets stick to the whale.
                                    
                                    In response to my error in calculation, lets work with 100 cells. I err in your favour. Have we observed ANY creature "add" 100 cells, to it's total number per year, (or it's equivalent)?
                                    I mean, towards evolving into something other than it is.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 78

                                       wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                       Your question assumes that that's how evolution works, but that is a false assumption.  You've been told that, it has been explained, but you continue to use the false assumption to make fun of a theory that is accepted by science throughout the world.  By everyone, basically, except a few theists that prefer a myth to evidence.
                                       
                                       Not real interested, then, in calculating how many cells were added each year as a dinosaur became a sparrow.  Or a whale returned to the oceans.  Might it be easier to count the cellular increase in man over the last few centuries?  North Americans have increased considerably over their European ancestors; why don't you count those cells as evidence of evolution happening?

                                       report
                  2. 78

                     wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Perhaps it was.  A single gene, of course, might produce billions of cells in only a few days.  Do you have no knowledge of biology and how things grow and develop?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        wilderness:
                        
                        I think we are dealing here either (a) with someone who knows better/knows some biology, but is trying to make a Creationist point OR (b) someone who does not know even the most basic biology that one would acquire in an elementary school classroom.

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           Oh, sure.  No one that went through grade school can be that ignorant of basic biology, but some radical believers will try to twist things to "prove" evolution is impossible by making it sound silly.  It works, too, for those that aren't interested in learning, just in shoring up their belief system at the cost of their self respect.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Exactly.
                              
                              The compulsiveness of Creationists is shocking to me. I live in what I now know to be a very insulated world of rational people who understand science and who can and do accept facts and evidence as they are.

                              replyreport
                           2. 80

                              aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Discussing my education, (or lack of has zero to do with answering my op), and even less with my (lack of) self respect.
                              I have at least an average, or better view and acceptance of my self.
                              Other's respect of me is another matter.
                              That's up to you.

                              replyreport
               2. 65

                  psycheskinnerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  I am not sure how I would see or hear of something before I was born, hence my extrapolation.
                  
                  If that is a wrong assumption, Well, of course I have heard of evolution and seen the fossils, so I guess that makes the answer: yes.

                  replyreport
            2. 80

               aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               This part is accurate!

               replyreport
   3. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Your claim is nonsensical and whatever you are describing ain't evolution.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         So, what is it?
         How did the transition happen?
         Evidently, it DID happen. We actually have a whale.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            There is no "transition" as you claim.
            
            Are creationists now denying the existence of DNA and the mechanisms of  cells? I recently heard a Creationist/politician try to discredit embryology. Is that what you are trying to do---discredit cell biology and embryology?
            
            You need a basic course in cell biology---with some emphasis on the structure and organization of cells.
            
            As I said, the claim which I think you are making is utterly uninformed and nonsensical.
            
            If you want to discredit evolution,  learn some biology---study genetics, familiarize yourself with some of the very real questions that remain about the evolution of ANY species. And then, ask questions that make sense and have some potential to open a discussion.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               As I claim?
               Where did I claim that?
               Are you saying, then, that there are/were NO transitional creatures in the evolution of the whale? Or, are you saying, we don't have one (that we can demonstrate)?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Whatever.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     So, you have run out of worthwhile things to say?
                     Fair enough.

                     replyreport
      2. 80

         aka-djposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Fine. But that's not an answer.

         replyreport
   4. 86

      GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      What does your link have to do with your post? It states the number of cells comprising an average Blue whale... what is doing the math supposed to mean?
      
      Did you mean to include a second link to source your equation??????
      
      ps. doesn't 1 trillion, (1,000,000,000,000) divided by 10 billion. (10,000,000,000) = 100?
      
      Where does the 1 trillion come from? The 10 billion represents what?
      
      GA

      replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 10 years ago

   It was a quadrillon. (one thousand trillion). 

   replyreport