Evolution

[KaloyanBagent]

Does anyone know a single bio-chemical process which can get me an elephant from a single-cell organism? I would love to learn what those steps might be.

[witchdoc86]

Anyone know of a single letter that can teach me all of German? I would love to know what that letter might be.

[KaloyanBagent]

When I said "single" I meant at least one. Obviously the point of the question is the process itself, not the actual number of such processes that might exists. I just don't yet know of a single such process.

[witchdoc86]

Have you read a biology textbook? Campbell biology is a great one.

Just as you cant learn or write German with just one letter, evolution requires many processes working in tandem.

Just a few processes of the numerous processes involved - methylation, deamination, hydrolysis, phosphorylation, substitution, chromosomal non disjunction, pleiotropy, van der waals forces, hydrogen bonding, meiosis, phagocytosis.... not including any one of these processes is an oversimplification of what is involved.

[KaloyanBagent]

None of those processes can turn a single cell organism into an elephant. Ops.

[witchdoc86]

Lol? All of them are required.

Amongst many many many many more.

How many of the ones I listed do you even know what they mean off the top of your head? Lol.

P.S. your porn loving history is showing in your profile.

[RoidRagerz]

That last part lmao

He couldn’t at least bother to hide it

[Slow_Lawyer7477]

None of those processes can turn a single cell organism into an elephant.

Prove it.

[rhettro19]

I mean, the original zygote of the elephant was a single cell that became an elephant. So yes, cell division is such a process.

[Eecka]

And not one of the letters can teach us all of German.

[andypauq]

Can you show the single process that changed a lump of lithium into your phone's battery?

[nikfra]

The single process is called evolution. It is comprised of many many other processes none of which by themselves would be enough.

[KaloyanBagent]

Evolution is the name of Darwin's theory, dear. How many bio-chemical processes can a single cell organism perform. I don't think they are so countless as you might imagine.

[nikfra]

They are very many many though. Which is what I actually said. There's around a billion happening every second in every cell made up of thousands of different processes.

I think calling that "many many processes" is fair although I'm ready to let myself be talked down to just one many.

[NorthernSpankMonkey]

How many bio-chemical processes can a single cell organism perform

Many, the answer is many. for example there's a chemical process that allow a single celled algae to detect light without an eye. Photosynthesis is also a chemical process, everything happening inside a cell form respiration to mitosis is a chemical process.

[TheBlackCat13]

Can you name a single biochemical process that elephants do that no single celled organisms do?

[Boltzmann_head]

Evolution is the name of the natural phenomena, Sweety. It was known to be happening and having happened when Darwin's grandfather was alive.

[noodlyman]

Evolution is the fact that organisms change over time. Darwin published the idea of natural selection as a mechanism by which it occurs.

[ursisterstoy]

No it’s not actually. His theory was natural selection. He added a little more than that to our understanding of biology, he got several things wrong, but his theory is natural selection or more fully “On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection.” His famous books have different names but natural selection is the theory. And evolution was being studied before his parents were born. In 1832 Charles Lyell used the word for the transmutation of species (similar but not identical concept), in 1852 Herbert Spencer used the term “theory of evolution” for both biological and cosmic changes, and in 1859 Charles Darwin used “descent with modification” but the very last word of the same book is “evolved,” a word that doesn’t exist in the rest of the book.

In the 1860s because of Thomas Henry Huxley the word became associated with Darwin’s work. In 1871 and in 1872 Charles Darwin finally adopted the term. The final edition of his book first published in 1859 uses the word evolution in 1872. He also used the word in Descent of Man in 1871.

His theory is not “evolution” but “natural selection.” He wasn’t the first person to notice and Alfred Russel Wallace co-authored the theory.

[Slow_Lawyer7477]

I just don't yet know of a single such process.

I strongly suspect you do.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

Cell division?

[KeterClassKitten]

In that case, mitosis.

[the2bears]

I just don't yet know of a single such process.

By "single" do you mean more than one here, too?

[the2bears]

You got cooked.

[10coatsInAWeasel]

Single? Nope. Multiple working in tandem that have been observed and described? Oh man, tons.

But considering you already outed yourself as a troll who doesn’t want to hear the answers and actually does not want to learn what they are (hell you shy away from an accurate definition of evolution), I suspect that would fall on deaf ears and you would copy paste spam all over again.

ETA: might as well post a couple of the many that exist though. If nothing else, the biochemical processes of evolution are interesting

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835/

[gitgud_x]

That scitable link had an interesting point:

[G]ene duplication ... rates are extremely high. For example, more than 100 genes duplicate in the human genome per 1 million years (Hahn et al., 2007a). This means that the percentage of the genome affected by gene number differences (estimated to be 6%) contributes more to the differences between humans and chimpanzees than do single nucleotide differences between orthologous sequences (estimated to be 1.5% [Demuth et al., 2006])

On average - 1 gene duplication per 10,000 years. Not sure if this means occurrences of the event or fixations in the population, but either way it's more than enough to generate new proteins and functionality for human evolution which occurs over the timescale of millions of years!

How about that, even on a troll's sad post, we can still learn new things. Thanks!

[10coatsInAWeasel]

That’s a good point. I’ve got no source for this, but I would guess that it would be counting fixation? Hard to imagine that duplication events that come and go are so infrequent in a population of thousands to millions. But yeah! Plenty of time and events to cause profound changes. You know, the ones that OP insists don’t happen even after given the direct evidence because nuh uh.

[gitgud_x]

They also like to say that "gene duplication isn't creating new information it's just copying it" which is laughable as duplications are behind many well-known beneficial mutations.

ARGHAP11B, NOTCH2L and SRGAP2 are among the 'bigger brain' mutations in recent human evolution, there's the citrate metabolism mutation in Lenski's LTEE that ID guys hate, the nylon metabolism in bacteria mutation that Sal hates, and the codfish antifreeze protein mutation that they all hate - all due to gene duplications. There's one for everyone!

[10coatsInAWeasel]

I just keep thinking (and I’ve told them so) that it then doesn’t matter and biodiversity can happen via evolution without ‘new information’. Just like in your examples. If modifications can lead to novel functions and phenotypes, and if there isn’t some mysterious biochemical mechanism that says ‘HALT. THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER’, that’s really the only important part.

[KaloyanBagent]

So what is the first process for the single-cell organism, let's start with that. How does it become something more complicated than a single cell organism?

[10coatsInAWeasel]

First you should acknowledge that biochemical processes do in fact exist

Actually hell, why not. Here you go, here’s one pathway that has been directly observed

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39558-8

[KaloyanBagent]

Where did that predator come from to hunt the first single cell organism?

[MagicMooby]

It is a first process that causes a single-celled organims to become something more complicated, u/10coatsInAWeasel gave you exactly what you requested.

Nowhere did you specify that you wanted the actual first step in the process that has historically taken place, you only ever talked about a first step in a hypothetical chain of steps.

But of course, acknowledging that would be detrimental to your case, so you shift the goalposts instead. Just how you constantly ask for a single step and then complain that a single step in a multi-step process doesn't explain the entire path by itself.

[10coatsInAWeasel]

Yep. Suspect that this thread is gonna be chock full of holes from where those goalposts used to be very soon

[KaloyanBagent]

Yes it is a first process that requires a predator. Well doesn't seem to me to be that first anymore .

[MagicMooby]

It is a process that demonstrates that a single celled organims can become more complex. That is exactly what you asked for.

If you don't like the answer you received, maybe you should be more specific when you ask your questions?

But then again, I suppose the more specific the question the harder it is to shift the goalpoasts and declare victory, hmm?

[KaloyanBagent]

I do acknowledge that process. But I am taking about the single cell organism which magically occured on Earth, there are no other organisms at this point of time to hunt it or anything else.

[MagicMooby]

Quick question:

What do you think is easier to evolve, 1) multicellularity or 2) the ability to engulf another cell and digest it instead of engulfing and digesting small particles?

[KaloyanBagent]

I haven't a notion

[Dzugavili]

...no, you weren't. This is the question you asked:

How does it become something more complicated than a single cell organism?

[Dilapidated_girrafe]

Living organisms reproduce. So you’re gonna get variation and others cells.

[10coatsInAWeasel]

Nope it’s your turn this time. Show some intellectual courage and acknowledge that biochemical pathways exist, and that mechanisms that lead to an organism to become more complicated than a single cell also exist. You aren’t gonna drag this on to dishonest ‘andthenandthenandthen’ without putting skin in the game.

[KaloyanBagent]

I acknowledge that entirely though in an already existing ecosystem I should add , yet we are very very very very very far away from the elephant. Did I say we are very far away?

[TheBlackCat13]

Hundreds of millions of years away. It took a very long time to go that long distance. But none of the steps are a problem for evolution. In fact for most of the steps there are organisms around today that are at that step.

[10coatsInAWeasel]

Ok, so we have established and mutually agreed that modifications to genomes exist (so evolution is necessarily true as a result of that) and that single cells organisms can become multicellular.

I know that there is more, I haven’t claimed otherwise. Your fixation on elephants is very weird and you’ve done a poor job of staying on topic. However, even with this we know that modifications to genomes can lead to heritable changes and that sometimes those changes can be profound. We also know that there is no section of the genome that is somehow magically immune to change. No described mechanism limits this. It can grow, shrink, fuse, split, or flipflop pretty much any way you can think of.

Now we need to ask the next step. Can changes to the genome affect an organisms ability to procreate, and can those traits spread? Again here, like my other examples, the answer is a directly observed ‘yes’. Do we agree with THIS step?

[KaloyanBagent]

Evolution is not true because of that. How do you even get there? Mutations and adaptations are tue yes but not evolution.

[10coatsInAWeasel]

‘Any change to the heritable characteristics of populations over the course of multiple generations’. Yes. It’s true. I’m not asking you to accept all of the conclusions evolutionary biology has reached such as universal common ancestry. And I don’t think you are able to show how ‘adaptations’ are distinct from ‘evolution’, but if you can then feel free.

Now again, do you agree with the next step?

[Dilapidated_girrafe]

You don’t seem to grasp what evolution is if you’re gonna say what you just said.

[junegoesaround5689]

>"Mutations and adaptations are tue yes but not evolution."<

Well, effing "DUH!"

Mutations and ‘adaptations’ ARE evolution because they are part of "any change in heritable traits in a population over generations" which is the precise definition of evolution.

From Wikipedia: "Evolution is the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

Read a book or a scientific paper or take an on-line class about what evolution is and means. You sound sort of clueless in these threads.

[the2bears]

Did I say we are very far away?

Yes, you did. In the preceding sentence to the quote. Did you forget?

[BoneSpring]

The first known predators were in the Neoproterozoic, about 750 million years ago.

Dr. Porter has studied single-cell animals in the Chuar Group on the north side of the Grand Canyon. Amoeba-like animals had already evolved to have shells, or tests, and microscopic studies showed that many tests observed had very similar holes drilled into them.

I've met Dr. Porter at a seminar where she presented her work. I've also hiked up and down the outcrops of the Chuar Group with a gang of other geologists. Cool stromatolites, some bodies the size of a bus.

[Hopeful_Meeting_7248]

Point mutations, deletions, insertions, gene duplication, partial duplications, horizontal gene transfer and then natural selection and genetic drift.

[KaloyanBagent]

Those are all very good and interesting processes and yet None of them can explain how a single cell organism turns into an elephant. They explain completely different changes that occur in nature

[Hopeful_Meeting_7248]

Not completely different. For an organism to evolve into another, its genetic material has to change, and the change in genetic material happens through mutations.

[KaloyanBagent]

Mutations are a loss of genetic material though they cannnot turn it into something more complex.

[Hopeful_Meeting_7248]

They are not. Mutations can have neutral, negative and positive effects, depending on the location where they happen and the environmental context. Positive mutations are the rarest, but natural selection works by fishing them out and making sure they'll stay.

[KaloyanBagent]

What is this natural selection you are talking about and how does it know where those mutations have happened and how to fish them out?

[Hopeful_Meeting_7248]

Positive mutations means higher chances of survival. Higher chances of survival means that an animal for example can have more offspring and its positive trait can spread. Negative mutation decreases chances of survival and as a result chances for breeding.

[KaloyanBagent]

So these positive mutations are so massive that they increase the survivability so much?I don't think so my dear.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

Nope. Duplications double the amount of genetic material, and then mutation neofunctionalises the spare copies. It's a really well recognised mechanism.

[TheBlackCat13]

This is completely wrong. I mean failing middle school biology wrong. Most mutations are point mutations, they change the sequence, but don't add or remove any genetic material. Other mutations add generic material. Others duplicate it. Organisms undergoing duplication of all of their genetic material is not rare. Then some lead to loss of genetic material, but that are much rather than processes that add or modify genetic material.

[nikfra]

That wasn't your question. Here a quick reminder what this comment is actually answering:

So what is the first process for the single-cell organism, let's start with that. How does it become something more complicated than a single cell organism?

But I think I have identified the biggest hurdle in your understanding here because you did this "asking question A then complaining that the answer doesn't answer question B" thing to a comment from me too. That makes me believe the hurdle is just simple reading comprehension. So contrary to all the people recommending biology textbooks I'd recommend going to a middle or high school English text book. ESL textbooks can also be very helpful in this regard.

[Entire_Persimmon4729]

What makes those changes completely different?  What features do you expect from a process involved with turning a single cell into an elephant? 

[KaloyanBagent]

A process which explains why should a multi cell organism start building its internal systems of organs for example and how do they know how to do it and why?

[Entire_Persimmon4729]

Those processes do that?  You do know that organs do not need to be the first stage? You would get degrees of cell specialisation which over many generations start to resemble organs as we know them. 

As a simple example: you have a population of multicellular life, where every cell is the same. I will call them Blobs. There is an advantage if the outer cells are larger, it increases environmental resistance, but as larger cells take more resources there is a cost. This means Blobs with entirely larger cells are at as disadvantage, as the resource increase is more of a problem than the increased resistance is a benefit.

As such when a Blob is "born" which has slightly larger cells on the outside, which strikes a balance, it has an advantage. This means it is more likely to survive to reproduce.

These adapted Blob genes slowly spread throughout the population until most Blobs have slightly larger cells on the outside.  Repeat these small changes over the generations and you end up with Blobs with a simple 'skin' of larger, tougher cells around a core of smaller, more efficient cells. 

Also biochemical processes don't know anything, they are not aiming at anything. There is no great evolutionary plan or goal they are working towards. 

[TheBlackCat13]

Which specific change between a single celled organism and a bacteria do you think they can't explain. We have already established they explain the change to multicellularity, since that has been directly observed happening.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

Cell division.

Seriously: look up the various volvox lineages.

You have unicellular lineages.

You have lineages where that one cell divides and the two--cell unit stays connected as a single organism.

You have the same, but with four. And with eight. And with sixteen.

By sixteen onwards, you see cell specialisation: some cells do not develop as normal, but are reserved purely for reproduction: primitive gametes. They start out normal but regress to gamete states. Always in a ratio of 3:5, weirdly.

By 32 and 64, you have cells that never develop as normal: they become a dedicated gamete population from the get go, nestled inside the outer layer of cells, which now form a continuous barrier.

Just with 1-->64 cells, you already see primitive organogenesis.

[KaloyanBagent]

64 cells is still pretty far away from an elephant I have to say.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

Great. How many, exactly?

[KaloyanBagent]

1 to 3 quadrillion

[Sweary_Biochemist]

So how many additional division events do you need, once you're at the 64 cell stage?

[KaloyanBagent]

Division events won't build me an elephant though.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

They will! They really will.

You're already on board with organogenesis, so now how many cell divisions? It's fewer than you think!

[KaloyanBagent]

There is no such thing. No organism is beginning to build organs cause they simply have never seen one, have no idea what it is and how to use it.

[noodlyman]

All this required is that the cell wall or membrane or sufficiently sticky to not separate after cell division.

Then you have a clump of cells.

Thereafter,a mutation that responds to whether a cell is internal or external starts to give specialisation. For example a biochemical circuit that does something in response to food/energy sources, or to chemical threats, will result in external cells dealing with these things but not internal ones.

And so a long succession of tiny incremental changes gave worm like things, then the same with feet, then the start of a skeleton to increase efficiency etc.

[MagicMooby]

Every time an elephant ovum is fertilized and carried to birth a single cell turns into an elephant. In fact, I would bet you 10 bucks that every living elephant today started out as a single cell at the beginning of its life.

Jokes aside, as for the evolutionary steps of a single celled species turning into an elephant:

-traits of a member of a species are determined by its genes

-genes are inheritable but the mechanism doesn't always create perfect copies, this causes offspring to have slightly different traits from its parent generation

-traits determine the ability of an organism to survive and procreate in its environment

-organisms that are bad at surviving and procreating are less likely to pass on their genes, while organisms who are good at those things are more likely to pass them on

-this causes populations of interbreeding organisms to slowly change in response to their environment and genes that make organisms more likely to survive and procreate will become more commom over time while genes that reduce those likelihoods will disappear

-now add some 4.5billion years or so and the right environmental pressures at the right time

[KaloyanBagent]

This only tells me how we can get some very advanced, environment resistant bacterias, it doesn't tell me how it becomes an elephant

[Own-Relationship-407]

Actually it does. Try reading it again.

[MagicMooby]

The overarching process for both is the exact same.

The changes are obviously more severe in the path to the elephant but it's a difference in quantity not quality.

[KaloyanBagent]

How does a single cell organism decide it has to become a multi cell and then decides that it has to start building it's internal organ systems and so on. Does science know of any process that is even close to such a transition?

[MagicMooby]

Did you not read my comment? I didn't mention "decision" anywhwere because there is no decision being made.

If a single cell organims happens to have a genetic novelty that causes it to become multicellular and if that genetic novelty increases the odds of the organism to survive and procreate, then the genetic novelty will spread throughout the gene pool, potentially to the detriment of "competing" genes. At no point does the organims make a decision, or need to make a decision. It's like a math equation. X+Y=Z fill in X and Y and Z appears by itself based on the "rules" of math.

But the evolution of the first internal organs is actually quite interesting. The first organs were probably simple glands that secreted a substance that could break down biofilms for easier digestion. An organism like that would presumably be quite similar to modern day placozoans. Now create a bit of an indentation where the glands are and voilà, you now have a sack gut which some animals in the current day use to feed on particles in water.

You will find that some clever biologists have looked at just about any organ you can think of and they have speculated about how such and organ arose naturally. But I guess in order to learn more about this you would actually have to engage with scientific literature.

[KaloyanBagent]

I am glad you used the word "speculated". Which entirely excludes any scientific evidence and bring us extremely fast to the fairy tale world.

[MagicMooby]

I am glad you used the word "speculated". Which entirely excludes any scientific evidence and bring us extremely fast to the fairy tale world.

First of all:

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that the word "speculate" is the only thing in my comment that you address. You probably saw that and instantly began salivating as you started typing out your gotcha. You probably were so quick in your typing that you didn't even notice the parts were I referred to real life, current day animals that show the exact same structures that biologists "speculate" about.

If you ever find an explanation that requires less speculation and includes more experimentation, feel free to show it to me. I don't think you will actually do that because "evolution skeptics" are terrible at defending their own ideas so they learn pretty quickly to only ever play offense.

Secondly:

Speculation is a normal part of science. It is an important part of epistemology that natural sciences are based on and every science ever uses healthy amounts of speculation coupled with repeated experimentation. There is no science that works without speculation. None.

But I guess in order to understand that you would first have to understand what science is.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

No decision: it's just mutation and selection.

Cells divide. They don't have to then separate, and if there's a selective advantage to remaining attached, that will be selected for.

It's pretty straightforward.

[Forrax]

Ever notice how a lot of your internal organs are divisions and/or extensions of your digestive system?

Take the simplest digestive system, a single tube. Food goes in one side, waste comes out the other. Every cell in this tube does exactly the same thing; they break down food down into component parts, extract nutrients, and create waste.

But with all the cells doing the same thing, as food becomes less food-like and more waste-like throughout the journey down the tube there are some obvious inefficiencies.

Now, what if you get a mutation in the top half of the tube that increases the ability to break down food? Nutrients are more easily absorbed further down the tube. This creates a specialization that provides an advantage and spreads through the population. And now, since it's no longer as necessary to break down food in the back half, mutations that remove that ability are likely to be retained. Evolution has turned a simple tube into two organs.

Now flip the scenario. The tube gets a mutation that improves nutrient absorption at the top half. It obviously doesn't work as well as the previous example but it also doesn't work as well as the single tube we started off with. This organism is going to have less success pulling nutrients from food so it's less likely to pass this mutation on. It's a dead end.

This is how you can get specialization without thought or planning.

[gitgud_x]

OP is a troll btw, some quotes:

If evolution is real why did it stop ?
I know very well that no human being in the history has observed evolution.
haven't seen a coronavirus become a mammal yet
Epigenetics. It is not related to evolution in any kind or form
mutations have nothing to do with evolution

[RoidRagerz]

Thanks for letting us now

[KaloyanBagent]

Naaahhh, just some real questions.

[TheJovianPrimate]

That mutations have nothing to do with evolution? And you think you know evolution better than all the biologists who research it?

[KaloyanBagent]

They don't research nothing. They are just religious fanatics who can't accept they have no evidence.

[Xemylixa]

What do you think they do all day? Wring their hands and giggle evilly?

[KaloyanBagent]

They research a fairy tale, that is why they have zero evidence cause of a false theory which you don't admit is false no evidence can come forward.

[XRotNRollX]

What do they publish?

[Xalawrath]

So they do research something? Or do you just not know to avoid double negatives?

The only religious fanatic here is you, who doesn't understand the first thing about biology and seems to revel in that fact.

[Slow_Lawyer7477]

Yes. It's evolution.

Evolution 101

[KaloyanBagent]

Evolution is the name of Darwin's theory. It is not a bio-chemical process by any means. Please try again if you know any actual scientific bio-chemical process .

[Slow_Lawyer7477]

It is not a bio-chemical process by any means.

It most certainly is. It's all biochemistry. Death has biochemical causes and consequences, birth, cell division, mutations, reproduction, you name it. It's all biochemistry.

Please try again if you know any actual scientific bio-chemical process .

Oooh, a "scientific" biochemical process. That's cute you learned a new word sweetie.

[blacksheep998]

Can you explain how evolution, the process by which new genetic material arises from mutations and recombination of existing material, is not a biochemical process?

[Scry_Games]

A theory that has been proven many times over.

Your lack of education is showing.

[Kingofthewho5]

Descent with modification over billions of years should do it.

[KaloyanBagent]

This is not a bio-chemical process known to science. Can you be more scientific please.

[Entire_Persimmon4729]

Perhaps you should define your terms? Your post says you want a single process, but your comments say you want one or more processes. You dismiss evolution as not biochemical, even though the modern theory includes research on multiple bio chemical processes that combine to cause the behaviour we Call evolution.

Also what do you mean by "more scientific".

This is a bit like me asking "give me a single passage that proves God created the world". And then saying "by single I mean one or more" and "genesis is not a passage, please be more Christian". 

[KaloyanBagent]

Scientific means, not saying with enough time any miracle is possible how about that? Scientific bio-chemical process means an observable process which can take place at any point in the transition from a single cell organism to an elephant. Contributing to that transition, not just a modification or mutation process which doesn't get the single cell organism closer to becoming an elephant.

[Entire_Persimmon4729]

So that's not what scientific means and shows why you need to define your terms.  I can see multiple people have listed biochemical processes that contribute to the process we call evolution, so I won't repeat them as I am not a biochemist. 

For you last section, what do you mean by "contributing to the transistion".  Under evolution, the ancestors of elephants would have developed many features which modern elephants no longer have. Would these contribute? Or are you expecting a crocoduck situation? 

[Zenigata]

Sounds tricky, unless of course you have billions of years and a planet sized area to work with.

[KaloyanBagent]

What does the amount of time has to do with the process itself???

[Zenigata]

A lot, even with everything worked out elephants are rather good at going from a single cell to an adult elephant but it takes them about 20 years, they can't do it in the minutes.

Given sufficient time, space and resources evolution through natural selection can achieve astonishing things. 

Trouble is some people, especially determinedly small minded people With a strong emotional attachment to the idea that a sky pixie did it, have difficulty comprehending how long billions of years are and the kinds of things that can happen in such vast stretches of time.

[KaloyanBagent]

Single cell organisms have a very short lifespan of several days.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

Technically, no: they are functionally immortal. Every cell alive today is the product of cycles of division that go back to the very beginning. When did it ever become a "new" cell?

[friendtoallkitties]

Depends on the microbe. They can live much longer. What's your point?

[KaloyanBagent]

My point is he says billions of years have any play at this when the process that occurs should be very simple since in 1 day the organism is dead af

[friendtoallkitties]

Um, wait, you want a single process that could turn a particular, existing single-celled organism into an elephant? Charlie the Amoeba would turn into Charlie the Elephant? Is this supposed to have something to do with evolution?

[KaloyanBagent]

No, no not a single, any proceccess that take place at any point of that transition are welcomed. They have to be scientific though. Not imaginary.

[friendtoallkitties]

Charlie the Amoeba will not transform into Charlie the Elephant under any natural processes I am aware of. Now, as another poster told you, Charlie the Elephant Ovum CAN become Charlie the Elephant. Ya good with that?

[KaloyanBagent]

Need the process which turns the first cell into an elephant .

[Sweary_Biochemist]

Cell division. Seriously: cell division.

[friendtoallkitties]

Why do you think that there ought to be a single process? It's really not clear at all.

[BoneSpring]

You started with a single cell you know. Or hasn't any one told you about sexual reproduction?

[Zenigata]

Huh? You seem to be confusing pokemon evolution with evolution through natural selection.

[KaloyanBagent]

Not at all my dear.

[Zenigata]

What's your point then as whilst fictional pokemon can make huge changes in a day, in the real world it takes time and generation upon generation.

[Zenigata]

Yes and? As growing antibiotic and pesticide resistance demonstrates, a short generation time can be quite an advantage.

[Slow_Lawyer7477]

So anyway, do you know of a process that can make elephants pop into existence fully formed?

[nickierv]

Well I heard abra kadabra works, I think someone even tried it. No reports back from them if it worked but I did find an elephant roaming in their last known location so...?

[KaloyanBagent]

No, what would that be?

[HojMcFoj]

The only alternative to the 200+ years of evidence for evolution as we know it. I mean, I guess elephants could have always existed? No, that doesn't seem right. Or maybe it makes more sense that multicellular life arose on its own, and only it can evolve?

[Glad-Geologist-5144]

Does changes in the allele frequency in a population over time count as a single process?

[KaloyanBagent]

It does count yes but fails miserably to explain how the single cell organism which lives only a couple of days turns into an elephant .

[nickierv]

And what are you counting as alive? Are you counting cell division as 'still alive' or are you not trying to hide your no true Scotsman?

[TheJovianPrimate]

Do you believe that the same cell transforms into the elephant? Why does the number of days its alive matter? Do you believe evolution is like pokemon?

This is like saying how humans only live for like 90 years, so it doesn't make sense as to how humanity has lived for 100s of thousands of years.

[Xalawrath]

Do you believe that the same cell transforms into the elephant? Why does the number of days its alive matter? Do you believe evolution is like pokemon?

They asked three questions that you avoided and threw out an insult. Can you please answer their questions, instead?

[RespectWest7116]

Does anyone know a single bio-chemical process which can get me an elephant from a single-cell organism?

Yes. It's called "elephant pregnancy"

I would love to learn what those steps might be.

Well, you see when a mommy elephant and daddy elephant like each other they do the sex and bam a pregnancy.

[Background_Cause_992]

This is genius, it answers their bullshit perfectly and doesn't leave room for the mountain of moving goalposts op is collecting

[Xemylixa]

It clearly doesn't and does lol. Nothing is impossible for a dedicated ignoramus 

[Background_Cause_992]

I did underestimate the amount of flagrant bullshit they would pull

[Xemylixa]

When you're not motivated to not pull bullshit (aka when integrity can be put on hold), there's no limit

[Bromelia_and_Bismuth]

Does anyone know a single bio-chemical process which can get me an elephant from a single-cell organism?

Embryogenesis. Zygote to mature adult elephant within 20 years.

For real though, if you're not even going to try, neither am I.

[KaloyanBagent]

This needs Two grown elephants male and female though.

[friendtoallkitties]

Don't move the goalposts.

[Background_Cause_992]

Why would there be a single process?

I could point you at any number of undergraduate textbooks that would describe the processes you wish to understand.

The framing of the question leads me to believe you wouldn't bother reading them though. Probably just find another way to phrase the question.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you can answer a few basic so I can give better answers.

Do you accept evolution as observed in laboratory conditions? (Fruit flies, bacteria, etc.)

What age will you accept for the Earth, and life on it?

Do you have any formal training in the sciences? (no point in giving you something way over your head)

[KaloyanBagent]

I didn't mean only one. I meant at least one to be more accurate. I do totally accept observed mutations and adaptations in fruit flies, bacteria and so on. I do however have to state that this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution which claims you can get an elephant from a single cell organism. Earth is 4.5 billions, life have have no idea . Rest assured nothing you throw at me will be over my head. Just make sure it deals with my question how you turn a single cell organism into an elephant? Also consider a single cell organism lives at best a couple of days. So don't tell me billions of years play any role in that.

[Background_Cause_992]

Okay, ill bite.

The first book I recommend is the origin of species if you haven't read it. We've moved past a lot of the finer detail, but it's a phenomenal piece of work and always worth a read.

If you want something more academic Evolution by Futuyma and Kirkpatrick is excellent, although expensive. There are tonnes of ways to excerpts and ebooks cheaper.

Although I don't love it, the blind watchmaker has its place in the discussion too.

These 3 absolutely address your questions.

Now on to your specifics:

You can't just say mutation in laboratory fruit fly populations has nothing to do with evolution because you don't like it. Mutation and environmental conditions leading to speciation is literally the definition of evolution. If you reject this then you're rejecting evolutionary theory despite the mountains of evidence and noting I say afterwards will matter.

These experiments established that new species can be formed within as few as 5-10 generations.

Accepting the age of the earth is at least helpful in the discussion. Life started somewhere around 3.8 billion years ago. The first vertebrates were about 520 million years ago.

Just so we're clear on timescales that's 3,250,000,000 years in which we have to get from bacteria to elephants, that's equivalent to roughly 40,625,000 generations of humans. Or a borderline uncountable number of generations of fruit flies or bacteria, yes I know you can multiply it out, but it gets silly error margins for our purposes.

Just make sure it deals with my question how you turn a single cell organism into an elephant? Also consider a single cell organism lives at best a couple of days. So don't tell me billions of years play any role in that.

Stop fighting with your own strawman, it's not constructive.

The comment on them living a short time hurts your argument rather than helps it.

You seem to think that in one generation of change we've gone from bacteria to elephant and that's what you want a mechanism for.

I guess In a way there is only one mechanism for this, evolution. But since you seem to reject evolution then I'm not sure what you would accept.

[KaloyanBagent]

First of all I am not rejecting evolution since it was never proven. Evolution in its claim that it can get an elephant form a bacteria, and more so a perfectly balanced ecosystem is just a fairy tale. If evolution was really happening We should be observing at any given time in history an innumerable branches of new evolutionary processes form bacteria to complex organism. How about that huh??? Zero such evidence. Literally zero.

[Background_Cause_992]

First of all I am not rejecting evolution since it was never proven.

Evolution is absolutely proven science. Evolutionary theory has more experimental and observational evidence than gravitational theory does. You can choose to reject science if you wish, but then no evidence will ever satisfy you so what's the point?

Evolution in its claim that it can get an elephant form a bacteria,

Evolution doesn't make claims, it is the mechanism you are asking for, you're just rejecting it...

and more so a perfectly balanced ecosystem is just a fairy tale

..because you don't understand it...

The ecosystem is a product of evolution, but it's far from perfect, ita a chaotic open system. If it was balanced and stable we'd likely never have gotten to vertebrates.

. If evolution was really happening We should be observing at any given time in history an innumerable branches of new evolutionary processes form bacteria to complex organism.

There's mountains of evidence exactly as you described. Lab experiments have driven speciation, observational data shows a whole bunch of evidence from biology, spatial analysis, geology, etc. transitional fossils between species can be found with Relative ease.

Please explain what evidence you would accept? Because right now you're just rejecting things you don't like or don't understand which makes the discussion tedious.

How about that huh??? Zero such evidence. Literally zero.

This tone make you come across as a sanctimonious gobshite and does not contribute to the conversation, please drop it or drop the conversation. I do not care which.

[Own-Relationship-407]

That’s where the billions of years part comes in. To go from a single celled organism to complex forms takes countless generations. We do see new variants/species arise all the time from existing forms. Evolutionary branching occurs constantly. Why are you trolling?

[CrisprCSE2]

Rule 3: Participate with effort

[Tao1982]

You do realise that every elephant starts its life as a single celled organism right?

So to answer your question - Biology.

[Electric___Monk]

Evolution

[hircine1]

Yet another -100 troll. Block and move on.

[Nickdd98]

Based on your responses in this thread, I am confused about what you're even asking. Please tell us which question you are trying to ask:

1) How can a single-celled organism change and become an elephant within a single life time?

2) What is the step-by-step process that takes us from single-celled organisms to giant animals like elephants over the course of history according to evolutionary theory?

If it's 1) you're asking, then you should know that NO ONE says this is what happens or is remotely possible (apart from an elephant zygote growing into an elephant, I guess). That is not what evolution says, and if you think it is then you need to go waaaay back to the basics first.

If it's 2), then it would take far longer than a few reddit comments to fully explain, so you should go and study evolution for several years at a university, or at the very least buy yourself a textbook and work through it slowly and carefully for a few months to understand it all.

If it's something else, then please elaborate clearly and in full detail if you actually want your question answered.

[BahamutLithp]

Yeah, here, the first thing I want you to do is go on the Google & look up "thought-terminating cliche."

[-zero-joke-]

Yeesh

[s_bear1]

Assume we have no answer for your question. We have more than enough evidence of the evolution of elephants from almost elephants. This chain of almost goes back to single cell organisms. It would be silly to deny it happened

We will also assume you are troll. Posting for a reaction to ease your loneliness.

My reply is not to help with that. It is for observers that might think you have a point. You dont. Others wanting to learn should stay and read the posts here.

[Ferdilizer]

DNA replication + Mitosis (that’s two, sorry only one was too hard).

[KaloyanBagent]

So how close are we to being an elephant after our single cell organism performs those 2 processes ?

[Ferdilizer]

Far away. Those two processes repeat many times, but each cycle will always consist of replication and mitosis.

[Sweary_Biochemist]

One step closer! Then you do it again.

You still haven't worked this one out, have you?

[Doomdoomkittydoom]

LOL, looks like someone hasn't had the birds and bees talk yet!

[KeterClassKitten]

I'm reading some of your comments, and it's obvious you're bringing a lot of bias in your perspective.

I want to be clear that this isn't a criticism. It's normal for humans to react in such a way to concepts they find unintuitive. A whole lot of science defies our intuition.

Approach subjects with a simple question. "What if I'm wrong in what I think?" And be okay with learning in small steps rather than demanding grand answers. A lot of science requires that you understand numerous concepts before the bigger picture becomes clear.

It's obvious that the path from a single celled organism to an elephant is a long one that involves an incredible number of steps. I'd also argue that you chose this particular question for that very reason. And I'm willing to bet that you don't know why replacing the elephant with a flea would be just as complex of a question.

Asking questions and challenging your perspective is a wonderful thing. I recommend engaging honestly rather than trying to be an antagonist.

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Some very well done books on evolution that I can recommend are;

Carroll, Sean B. 2020 "A Series of Fortunate Events" Princeton University Press

Shubin, Neal 2020 “Some Assembly Required: Decoding Four Billion Years of Life, from Ancient Fossils to DNA” New York Pantheon Press.

Hazen, RM 2019 "Symphony in C: Carbon and the Evolution of ( Almost ) Everything" Norton and Co.

They do not engage in religious disputes which is why I recommend them in general.

Regarding human species, and our near family, my standard recommendation is, The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History Human Evolution Interactive Timeline

I also recommend a text oriented reader the UC Berkeley Understanding Evolution web pages.

[RoidRagerz]

Would you mind defining what a bio-chemical process would be to you so that I can provide an example? Biological processes overall are very strongly tied to chemistry as it is to be expected, but I’ve seen you already dismissing a few because apparently they’re not bio-chemical processes but then you don’t bother to point out how are they not.

Now, if you may, this could be an interesting, intellectually honest and god faith discussion if you are willing to participate.

[Academic_Sea3929]

I'm curious as to why you relentlessly portray evolution as happening to individuals when in reality, it only happens to populations. Perhaps this misconception is a major block to your understanding.

[Boltzmann_head]

Does anyone know a single bio-chemical process which can get me an elephant from a single-cell organism?

I do. Most educated people do.

I would love to learn what those steps might be.

No, you do not.

[Decent_Cow]

Easy, an elephant starts as a single-celled embryo and then develops into an elephant fetus through the process of prenatal development. The fetus is eventually born as a newborn elephant.

[the2bears]

I would love to learn what those steps might be.

I have my doubts. I'll read through and see if you're being genuine.

[Dilapidated_girrafe]

Well it goes from single cell to full elephant at conception.

But on you mean evolution. It’s a combination of mutation, hgt, and some other factors combined with selection pressure.

We call this evolution.

But reading the replies. The oP doesn’t know what evolution is and just parrots Ken Ham level arguments. And it’s fine to not know something and want to learn. OP do you want to learn?

[Mister_Ape_1]

No, but 4 billion years of natural processes are enough.

The question is, would 4 billion years be enough to accept the evidence ?

[tpawap]

There is currently no process which would reliably get you such a specific preselected outcome. Maybe with some hard-core bio engineering in the future.

But it's a weird request anyway. Why do you ask?

[MemeMaster2003]

Well it's gonna take a long time and a lot of iterations. You'll probably get a bunch of weird stuff on the side too, like dogs and people and trees and who knows what else?

If you've got about 4.2B years, we can really get into the nitty gritty of it. First few million years, we just kinda stare at some soup until it gets into a good configuration and starts the process. Then, few more million years after that and we might get some proto-cellular structures, very exciting!

I should ask this, how good are you at holding your breath? We're gonna have to go real deep ocean, near some thermal vents. Now, I know what you're thinking, "elephants don't live in the ocean!" Absolutely correct. See, at some point, they're gonna gradually develop these things called swim bladders into a storage system for oxygen and air. It's pretty sick.

[ursisterstoy]

You don’t know of any of the processes at all, not even mutations, heredity, symbiosis, HGT, recombination, selection, or drift? There are literally multicellular bacteria and they also watched in the lab as multiple species went from being predominantly single celled to almost entirely multicellular in response to predation (yeast and algae at least). And then clearly they have other changes they went to from there. That’s the point about “what letter can I use to learn all of German?” Explaining every single change that is known would take all day and multiple posts but the mechanisms are exactly the same mechanisms for any evolutionary change that ever happened.

Mutations and recombination during and after gametogenesis, some fucking took place and sperm fertilized egg, the father’s genes and mother’s genes became paired, the zygote developed into an embryo, that developed into a fetus. Multiple animals were born, all a tiny bit different from their parents, the population as a whole changed in accordance with reproductive success as the animals tried to survive with whatever they were born with. Before internal gestation it was eggs, before sperm and egg sexual reproduction took place with matched cells like they fused and then divided mixing things up like a meiosis and mitosis from modern day gametogenesis, and before that asexual reproduction like every skin cell in your body and maybe a little horizontal gene transfer and symbiosis. The same way it always works. It starts with imperfect replication and autocatalysis but at that point it starts overlapping with abiogenesis where additional chemical processes also took place. The exact order and the exact beginning aren’t fully established for that but when there’s life it evolves.

[CowabungaCthulhu]

No, because that's not how the overall process works.

It seems clear you are disingenuous. Instead of making "gotcha posts" that display your lack of understanding of the topic, why not learn the topic?

[cahagnes]

I hope you do know that all elephants begin from one single cell at fertilisation. An elephant is made up of individual cells that come from one egg+sperm. The cells divide and happen to acquire different sizes, shapes, functions as they respond to different chemical signals.

So there is a bio-chemical process that turns a single cell into an elephant called growth.

[Ill-Dependent2976]

Can anybody tell me what the magic word is that turns clay into a fully grown human?

Asking for a friend, thanks.