Creationists, what do you think of this cross phylum evolution/speciation event observed in lab?
"Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human" (Van Valen and Maoirana 1991; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures).
Human cells mutate and evolve into a new, amoeba-like, organism. Thats a phylum to phylum transition. Similiar things have been noted with the HPV virus which originally came from human cells.
So how inclusive is the christian and biblical "kind" that restricts evolution?
I have just demonstrated a phylum to phylum evolutionary leap.
Due to their ability to replicate indefinitely, and their non-human number of chromosomes, Leigh Van Valen described HeLa as an example of the contemporary creation of a new species, Helacyton gartleri, named after Stanley M. Gartler, who Van Valen credits with discovering "the remarkable success of this species." His argument for speciation depends on three points:
The chromosomal incompatibility of HeLa cells with humans.
The ecological niche of HeLa cells.
Their ability to persist and expand well beyond the desires of human cultivators.
a virus is not human cells, viruses do not even have a cellular structure.
and of course no creationists can answer, becasue none of them can understand let alone explain it.
- Grela LaTucLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
HeLa derives its name from Henrietta Lacks, a Baltimore woman who died in1951 of cervical cancer, which are the cells HeLa comes from. As such, HeLa is an all female species which reproduces A-sexually. HeLa is female due to its two X chromosomes.
Hela cannot be considered to be a different species. Yes they are immortalized, but so are hundreds of other cell lines that were taken from tumor or other genetically compromised tissues. Is each one of these immortalized cell lines a separate species?
HeLa cells have no life of their own, they may survive quite well under laboratory conditions, but have not occupied any particular ecological niche.
- Monica VLv 61 decade ago
These cells were taken from a CANCER (which kills life, by the way) and then cultured and propagated into what they've become by a man with intelligence in a laboratory.
This is more an argument in support of the laws of thermodynamics and intelligent design than anything else.
The man is needed to guide the so-called evolution. This is not evolution at all. Evolution is a single kind mutating into another in a relatively closed system. These cells formed due to an irregular combination of pre-existing genetic material. The reason they keep displaying variation ("evolution" is poor word choice when it is the topic at hand) is because the newly fused genetic information has not yet reached equilibrium and is in fact non-viable and artificial because if the fragile "fundamental cell survival conditions" cease to be provided in the laboratory, the replication and variation also stops.
This is a result of a man-directed horizontal chromosome transfer. This line of experimentation is certainly interesting, and it will be neat to see what comes of it, but once again, it is better proof of intelligent design. These phenomena required man's interference to take place, just as life on this planet required God's "interference" in order to begin and then to thrive. This phenomenon would not have happened on its own.
Pre-existing genetic information being fused, horizontally transferred, and guided in a laboratory has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called millions of years of macro-evolution which supposedly occurred with no guidance. This serves as further proof that such changes are not natural and cannot happen in nature.
The cells aren't stable, they're not predictable, and they degenerate (genetic information) as they replicate. Plus they are cancerous to other types of life. Great freak experiment, but definitely not evolution: it serves as better proof against it than for it.
I also encourage you to further study the taxonomic system we use for classification purposes. These divisions of classification are not scientific boundary lines of development. Scientists still don't know for sure what a "species" is and it's still debated. This system was invented by creationist Carlos Linnaeus in 1729. It is still unknown how far up a "kind" can go along certain types of beings. Talk of "speciation" with evolutionists is a bate-and-switch technique that pulls peoples' attention away from the facts to a classification system whose value of specificity is still debated and being determined.Source(s): Young Earth Creationist
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Unlike you, a lot of people already knew that many cancers are in fact viral. They should be investigating the origins of this foreign cancer virus and how it was introduced into certain populations. Haha -- "non-human number of chromosomes" doesn't make the replicating cells "non-human." It just means that mutations (caused by oncoviruses in this case) result in incomplete and or scrambled DNA. This just proves that there are no beneficial mutations.
- yousefLv 44 years ago
They do creationist experiments. in a unmarried such attempt they pray over a pile of airborne dirt and dust: "contained in the call of Jesus enable this pile of airborne dirt and dust placed forth existence! Amen!". Then they study a pattern of the airborne dirt and dust below a microscope and in the experience that they see little organisms in it they regard their attempt as proving creation of existence from the airborne dirt and dust. yet of route, that pile of airborne dirt and dust they used for his or her attempt became already contaminated with existence to commence with. yet they say: "that is preposterous! We did not placed any existence contained in the unique pattern, so how could it are starting to be there? by danger? extremely no longer! It became spoken into existence contained in the call of Jesus!"
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- kdanleyLv 71 decade ago
Let me get this straight: This amoeba changed into a fundamentally different kind of creature all by itself with no external help? Were the scientists involved deeply committed to evolution, hoping to find and show some creature changing into another kind of creature? Who is making the classification?
Even if this project is true, it would not prove anything. It just shows that this sort of thing cannot happen in nature. This reminds me of Miller's experiment. I suppose you think he created life in the lab?
- Super AtheistLv 71 decade ago
Helen Lacks is immortal, and there is more of her now than when she was alive.
- 1 decade ago
creationists cant come up with a response...ha
- The Bald SatyrLv 51 decade ago