ludwig perhaps you can answer[is algae a single cell,or'compound_cells']

i been searching out the ambiogensis of the eucalypt by trying to find a'POSSABLE'first-cell[singular]that clearly needs to somehow develop a membrane[that then reproduces itself that then'evolves'][not as you know because i believe evolution but to taste[test]the topic

so you could greatly simplify the story by revealing these facts#im tracking the story down in my own way of course[allready on my third[HAH]search i find interesting info[you evolutionists may be able to use[to reveaL IM-NOT BIASED]

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=935&pst=1241996
it seemed intrersting of course but proves nothing[my search goes on]

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1666%2F0094-8373(2002)028%3C0244%3AMTAMON%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1

>>Mitotic topologies and mechanics of Neoproterozoic algae and animal embryos
Shuhai Xiao.Department of Geology,Tulane University,New Orleans,E-mail:sxiao@tulane.edu

Cell-division is a key biological process in growth,morphogenesis, and reproduction.Despite our improved understanding of the genetics and dynamics of cell division in all major groups of living organisms,paleontological evidence for cell division is largely restricted to silicified(and some carbonaceous)algae and vascular plants where three-dimensional observation is possible.Animal cell division has been documented in the fossil record to a lesser extent;>>[lol]

however,such knowledge is highly desirable in the recently revitalized field of evolutionary developmental biology.

Two fundamentally different mitotic cell division topologies are preserved in late Neoproterozoic Doushantuo phosphorites ca.550–600 million years old)in South China.

Doushantuo algal cells(20 μm]in diameter)are successively cleaved by mitotic division planes that are offset but not deformed by subsequent cytokinesis.Mitotic division planes in successively cleaving Doushantuo animal embryos(several hundred microns in diameter)are also offset.

However,in sharp contrast to Doushantuo algae,Doushantuo animal blastomeres repeatedly shift to mechanically stable configurations by disturbing preexisting division planes.This divergence reflects the underlying cytological and developmental differences between algae and animals.

Specifically,the presence/absence of rigid cell walls and different cytokinetic mechanisms,coupled with mechanics at mitotic offsets, contribute to the diverging mitotic topologies in Doushantuo algae and animal embryos.

These findings not only confirm previous interpretation of Doushantuo fossils but also provide direct paleontological evidence of cell movement in the development of these early animal fossils.<<Accepted:October 5,2001

full pdf here
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=res-loc&uri=urn%3Aap%3Apdf%3Adoi%3A10.1666%2F0094-8373%282002%29028%3C0244%3AMTAMON%3E2.0.CO%3B2

so we talkning about ONE CELL
[or two[re flora/fauna ; abgensis?]

it must be'faily'well accepted that plants have a growing'TIP'[be it that life behind the root shield pushing the root outwards[or the growing tips at its'outer'extremities]

where as in'life'[fauna]the cells agregate and push outwards as defined by the grey streak[and the cells migration in the'early'embryo[it seems'two'different mechanisms[thus one'single-cell'couldnt have done it]as seems be be confirmed by this link
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3595522

quote..>>Cell-division is a key biological process in growth, morphogenesis, and reproduction...Despite our improved understanding of the genetics and dynamics of cell division in all major groups of living organisms,paleontological evidence for cell-division is largely restricted to silicified(and some carbonaceous)algae and vascular plants where three-dimensional observation is possible.

Animal cell-division has been documented in the fossil/record to a lesser extent;however,such knowledge is highly desirable in the recently revitalized field of evolutionary developmental biology.

Two fundamentally different mitotic cell division topologies are preserved in late Neoproterozoic Doushantuo phosphorites(ca.550-600 million years old)in South China.Doushantuo algal cells(~20 µm]in diameter)are successively cleaved by mitotic division planes that are offset but not deformed by subsequent cytokinesis.

Mitotic division planes in successively cleaving Doushantuo animal embryos(several hundred microns in diameter)are also offset...However,in sharp contrast to Doushantuo algae,Doushantuo animal blastomeres repeatedly shift to mechanically stable configurations by disturbing preexisting division planes.

This divergence reflects the underlying cytological and developmental differences between algae and animals.Specifically,the presence/absence of rigid cell walls and different cytokinetic mechanisms,coupled with mechanics at mitotic offsets,contribute to the diverging mitotic topologies in Doushantuo algae and animal embryos.

These findings not only confirm previous interpretation of Doushantuo fossils but also provide direct paleontological evidence of cell movement in the development of these early animal fossils.>>

i think this part should be easilly fixed by your explanation[one cell or two][and if algae is a compound or single cell

an interesting discovery re algae
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7144/full/447520a.html
might be worth while thinking about
so what is the next logical step NEEDED to'evolve'these[TWO?]cells
http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/reprint/28/2/244.pdf
or
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=IikPwCt1ioEC&pg=PA408&lpg=PA408&dq=algae+cell+migration&source=bl&ots=hKY5Bx0hV9&sig=Z5intjG8by2JFc8Yk7lTXQwbX-o&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

what aRE THEIR NAMES?
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-98634779.html

THEN'WHAT'THEY #'EVOLVE'INTO?
http://www.springerlink.com/index/50TEC8A1DMK754K0.pdf

how can i ever hope to prove a negative?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2432043
its such a facination'WHICH BRANCH'should we follow
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/bit.260260206

we have become so specialised
[we lost the big picture]

as the previous links reveal ,getting any proof of evolution is fraught with things like this
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v2/n8/full/nrg0801_607a.html

so it seems to be all about hiding the info [or selling it [yet never explaining it] it of course cant be explained ,and tring to find it from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_plant_evolution
only reveals the theory , but no science PROOF

[clicking on many of the links mearly reveals some book you must buy [or like previous 35 bucks for an extract]

we have much the same in law
\[where one page from your own trial costs 10 $ a page] many just give up [or as has been done on this very page give some 'pay for info' link] that presumably FOR THEM explains it all

anyhow as you guys cant [or refuse to] put the info up for faulsification ,

it is you guys that thus fail to prove 'evolution' to be science ,

leading to the final con-clusion
,you been conned into believing a theory

i will be here to test any [publicly available ] proofs you can concieve ,but remain convinced the facts arnt in[your belief has not been proved

[thus any belief you evolutionists hold is just that belief [not science] your faith in the delusion of evolution , with its faulse god replacements seems not even a logical theory

defense of the god creation is hereby concluded

forgive them father
they know not why ; they think as they do

oh look here comes satan clause['santa' has more facts than evolutionary theory[but both are flawed theory]both sold to children,

but children are supposed to grow up
[or else they will be fed with milk [lies/spin]the rest of your lives]
and that is longer than this one mortal life time
but believe as you chose
[just dont be calling it science]

I really couldn't pass up the opportunity to throw my thoughts in...

oug wrote:
"defense of the god creation is hereby concluded"

You are an extremely funny person oug to think that concludes the argument, best laugh I've had all day.

oug wrote:
"so it seems to be all about hiding the info [or selling it [yet never explaining it] it of course cant be explained ,and tring to find it from - wikipedia...only reveals the theory , but no science PROOF"

So, let me get this straight...all the relevant info that possibly explains anything is being HIDDEN or SOLD on the internet and no one can find it or afford it...hmmmmmm I cant swallow that one.

oug wrote:
"it is you guys that thus fail to prove 'evolution' to be science"

So...we supposedly have FAILED to present any evidence to prove evolution, so now we MUST hereby absolutely only accept OUG's explanation.

However, there is just one neat little catch, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY OUG either.

So, just to recap, it transpires that the conclusion to this whole exercise is that no evidence has been presented on either side of the arguement? Am I right? Who could have known?

I've looked, its all out there, you only have to LOOK in the RIGHT places. It's real, it's an ongoing body of work by many people all around the world, still lots of work to be done but its not hidden, is well documented and well discussed.

trikkerdee>>NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY OUG either.>>

the topic is about evolution
[im not going to verify a theory i feel fatally flawed]
i will in a reasonable way present my case once YOUR proof HERE is documented [here] one last time for this dumb creationist

..>>no evidence has been presented on either side of the arguement? Am I right?>>

if you [dear tricker]
FEEL that evidence has been produced here~*

please RE-PRODUCE it[here]#

[i seem to have missed it ]

just cut and paste it [one more time] PLEASE

>>its all out there,you only have to LOOK in the RIGHT places.<<

WE CAN BYPASS IT BEING ELSEWHERE

you claim its here !

please reveal where it is HERE?

>>It's real,it's an ongoing body of work by many people all around the world,still lots of work to be done but its not hidden,is well documented and well discussed.>>>

HEY GREAT
is it 'well discussed' HERE?

WHERE?

a simple cut and paste can confirm
if you guys proved your case HERE ,

please reveal just what that 'PROOF' here ,was

just cut and paste[you still got one post left]
i look forward to reading it tomorrow

dear oug...I dont think you're a stupid creationist, I think you are genuine, if perhaps a little desperate in your search to find evidence to disprove this well documented and monumental theory.

The whole conversation has motivated me to go searching, although I'm not trained in science, I can think, search, read and talk. I've found that although there is certain dispute regarding the beginnings of life, there is an awful lot of discovery going on all the time that is bringing us very close to big answers. There is also a lot of evidence to prove evolution has and does happen. I cant personally give you proof, I could point you in some directions to search or people to talk to as I have done, but I feel you need to search yourself. I will also continue to look into it all as it now fascinates me, so thanks for bringing it up. But as for saying "you win" I don't think that is true at all. Perhaps you could consider going to your local museum and speak to some of the people there who are always willing to discuss their collections, its the start that I made to get me on the right track.

I wish you good luck in the search to find the answers you are looking for. A word of advice, for what its worth. In My Humble Opinion you should curb your abrasive method of communication, limit your conspiracy theory jargon and perhaps rein in your obvious contempt for others opinion, which in turn brings contempt back onto you, and you may find that people are more willing to discuss rather than diss you, which in turn may lead you to find more than what you're looking for.