Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

unlike you, I know there is research that shows I can find research to show anything.

Or a text book. It's good to see there are now textbooks in publicly supported schools that cite the existence of the Loch Ness Monster as refutation of the theory of evolution. Intelligent design indeed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Or a text book. It's good to see there are now textbooks in publicly supported schools that cite the existence of the Loch Ness Monster as refutation of the theory of evolution. Intelligent design indeed.

How does Nessy do that?

I might write one showing how you all couldn't find a single THEORY, let alone any proof, of how 1 celled animals developed organ systems. I mean, besides the baby Jesus of Buddha or whoever. Anyone know if Ty deleted those admissions?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

How does Nessy do that?

I might write one showing how you all couldn't find a single THEORY, let alone any proof, of how 1 celled animals developed organ systems. I mean, besides the baby Jesus of Buddha or whoever. Anyone know if Ty deleted those admissions?

Ty, you were right. Same stimuli, same reaction, no matter what the context or environment. It's obviously a very simple form of organism.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Ty, you were right. Same stimuli, same reaction, no matter what the context or environment. It's obviously a very simple form of organism.

seriously, how do they say nessy disproves anything? Coelcanths would be the better argument.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

seriously, how do they say nessy disproves anything? Coelcanths would be the better argument.

check yesterday's Washington Post, when you aren't googling biology 101 outlines

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

How does Nessy do that?

I might write one showing how you all couldn't find a single THEORY, let alone any proof, of how 1 celled animals developed organ systems. I mean, besides the baby Jesus of Buddha or whoever. Anyone know if Ty deleted those admissions?

How about first you find a single celled "animal" that has a organ systems?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

How about first you find a single celled "animal" that has a organ systems?

I've no idea what point you think you're making. But this might be the stupidest thing you've ever posted. Well, no I guess not, but it is dumber than anything anyone else has ever posted. Congrats?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I've no idea what point you think you're making. But this might be the stupidest thing you've ever posted. Well, no I guess not, but it is dumber than anything anyone else has ever posted. Congrats?

I'm just trying to make sense out of your nonsense.

Certainly you didn't mean to ask for a theory for how single celled organisms evolved into multi-celled organisms with organ systems, as I'm 100% certain I've offered you links to multiple theories on that question in the past.

So the best I can do is interpret it as a trick question, because as read literally, you're asking for a theory that explains organs in single celled organisms.

ETA: Heck, wikipedia even describes three theories.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

theories.

in your freshman science survey class you were taught what this word means. I guess you forgot.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I might write one showing how you all couldn't find a single THEORY, let alone any proof, of how 1 celled animals developed organ systems.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

in your freshman science survey class you were taught what this word means. I guess you forgot.

Nice try.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Nice try.

a hypothesis is not a theory. you might be able to get a job writing text book for Louisiana but you ain't getting that shit past me.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

a hypothesis is not a theory. you might be able to get a job writing text book for Louisiana but you ain't getting that shit past me.

So let me get this straight. You say, "there aren't any theories," I give you the simplest of cites to three things that are each described as a "theory" and you reject them as mere hypothesis?

And we're supposed to treat you as something other than a troll?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

So let me get this straight. You say, "there aren't any theories," I give you the simplest of cites to three things that are each described as a "theory" and you reject them as mere hypothesis?

And we're supposed to treat you as something other than a troll?

What you cited called them each a hypothesis.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

What you cited called them each a hypothesis.

The Symbiotic Theory
This theory suggests that the first multicellular organisms occurred from symbiosis (cooperation) of different species of single-cell organisms, each with different roles. Over time these organisms would become so dependent on each other they would not be able to survive independently, eventually leading to the incorporation into one multicellular organism of their genome.[7] Each respective organism would become a separate lineage of differentiated cells within the newly created species.

This kind of severely co-dependent symbiosis can be seen frequently, such as in the relationship between clown fish and Riterri sea anemones. In these cases, it is extremely doubtful whether either species would survive very long if the other became extinct. However, the problem with this theory is that it is still not known how each organism's DNA could be incorporated into one single genome to constitute them as a single species. Although such symbiosis is theorized to have occurred (e.g., mitochondria and chloroplasts in animal and plant cells – endosymbiosis), it has happened only extremely rarely and, even then, the genomes of the endosymbionts have retained an element of distinction, separately replicating their DNA during mitosis of the host species. For instance, the two or three symbiotic organisms forming the composite lichen, while dependent on each other for survival, have to separately reproduce and then re-form to create one individual organism once more.

[edit]The Cellularization (Syncytial) Theory
This theory states that a single unicellular organism could have developed internal membrane partitions around each of its nuclei[8] Many protists such as the ciliates or slime molds can have several nuclei, lending support to this hypothesis. However, simple presence of multiple nuclei is not enough to support the theory. Multiple nuclei of ciliates are dissimilar and have clear differentiated functions: The macronucleus serves the organism's needs, while the micronucleus is used for sexual-like reproduction with exchange of genetic material. Slime molds syncitia form from individual amoeboid cells, like syncitial tissues of some multicellular organisms, not the other way round. To be deemed valid, this theory needs a demonstrable example and mechanism of generation of a multicellular organism from a pre-existing syncytium.

[edit]The Colonial Theory
The third explanation of multicellularisation is the Colonial Theory proposed by Haeckel in 1874. This theory claims that the symbiosis of many organisms of the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which suggests the symbiosis of different species) led to a multicellular organism. At least some, it is presumed land-evolved, multicellularity occurs by cells separating and then rejoining (e.g., cellular slime molds) whereas for the majority of multicellular types (those that evolved within aquatic environments), multicellularity occurs as a consequence of cells failing to separate following division.[9] The mechanism of this latter colony formation can be as simple as incomplete cytokinesis, though multicellularity is also typically considered to involve cellular differentiation.[10]

The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been seen to occur independently in 16 different protoctistan phyla. For instance, during food shortages the amoeba Dictyostelium groups together in a colony that moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then slightly differentiate from each other. Other examples of colonial organisation in protista are Volvocaceae, such as Eudorina and Volvox, the latter of which consists of up to 500–50,000 cells (depending on the species), only a fraction of which reproduce.[11] For example, in one species 25–35 cells reproduce, 8 asexually and around 15–25 sexually. However, it can often be hard to separate colonial protists from true multicellular organisms, as the two concepts are not distinct; colonial protists have been dubbed "pluricellular" rather than "multicellular".[12] This problem plagues most hypotheses of how multicellularisation could have occurred.

Um, okay.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Um, okay.

What is the heading of the section you copied? What do the first several paragraphs called each explanation? Shit the parts you copied each raise enough problems that anyone who had a single college level science course would know these aren't theories based upon what you copied.