jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (44 posts)

What is THE explanation of this?

  1. aka-dj profile image76
    aka-djposted 3 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?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 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?

      1. aka-dj profile image76
        aka-djposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

          1. aka-dj profile image76
            aka-djposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            ?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 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.

              1. aka-dj profile image76
                aka-djposted 3 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.

          2. profile image0
            mbuggiehposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            wink

    2. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 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.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 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 smile

      2. aka-dj profile image76
        aka-djposted 3 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.

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 3 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.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 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.

            1. aka-dj profile image76
              aka-djposted 3 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.

              1. profile image0
                mbuggiehposted 3 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!

                1. aka-dj profile image76
                  aka-djposted 3 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.

                  1. profile image0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

                  2. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 3 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.

                2. aka-dj profile image76
                  aka-djposted 3 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.

                  1. profile image0
                    mbuggiehposted 3 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.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 3 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?

                1. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 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.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 3 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.

            2. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 3 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.

          2. aka-dj profile image76
            aka-djposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            This part is accurate!

    3. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

      1. aka-dj profile image76
        aka-djposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

        1. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 3 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.

          1. aka-dj profile image76
            aka-djposted 3 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)?

            1. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years agoin reply to this

              Whatever.

              1. aka-dj profile image76
                aka-djposted 3 years agoin reply to this

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

      2. aka-dj profile image76
        aka-djposted 3 years agoin reply to this

        Fine. But that's not an answer.

    4. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 3 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

  2. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 3 years ago

    It was a quadrillon. (one thousand trillion).  smile

 
working