Transition from from unicellular to multicellular Organisms, a major change that finds no good explanation through evolution
Proponents of evolution claim like a mantra, that micro evolution leads to macro evolution, and no barrier exists which hinders the transition from one to the other, which last not least explains our biodiversity today.
The emergence of multicellularity was supposedly, a major evolutionary leap. Indeed, most biologists consider it one of the most significant transitions in the evolutionary history of Earth’s inhabitants. “How a single cell made the leap to a complex organism is however one of life’s great mysteries."
Macro evolutionary scenarios and changes include major transitions , that is from LUCA, the last common universal ancestor, to the congregation to yield the first prokaryotic cells, the associations of prokaryotic cells to create eukaryotic cells with organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria, and the establishment of cooperative societies composed of discrete multi-cellular individuals. Or in other words : The current hierarchical organization of life reflects a series of transitions in the units of evolution, such as from genes to chromosomes, from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, from unicellular to multi cellular individuals, and from multi-cellular organisms to societies. Each of these steps requires the overcome of huge hurdles and increase of complexity , which can only be appreciated by the ones, that have spend time to educate themselves, and gained insight of the extraordinarily complex and manifold mechanisms involved. The emergence of multi-cellularity was ostensibly a major evolutionary leap.
The switch from single-celled organisms to ones made up of many cells have supposedly evolved independently more than two dozen times. Evolution requires more than a mere augmentation of an existing system for co-ordinated multicellularity to evolve; it requires the ex nihilo creation of an entirely new system of organisation to co-ordinate cells appropriately to form a multicellular individual.
There is a level of structure found only in multi-cellular organisms: intercellular co-ordination. The organism has strategies for arranging and differentiating its cells for survival and reproduction. With this comes a communication network between the cells that regulates the positioning and abundance of each cell type for the benefit of the whole organism. A fundamental part of this organisation is cellular differentiation, which is ubiquitous in multicellular organisms. This level cannot be explained by the sum of the parts, cells, and requires co-ordination from an organisational level above what exists in individual cells. There is a 4-level hierarchy of control in multicellular organisms that constitutes a gene regulatory network. This gene regulatory network is essential for the development of the single cell zygote into a full-fledged multicellular individual.
If evolution and transition from unicellular to multi cellular life is exceedingly complex, the chance that it happened once is also exceedingly small. That it happened multiple times separately, becomes even more remotely possible. Convergent evolution of similar traits is evidence against , not for evolution. In order to infer that a proposition is true, these nuances are important to observed. The key is in the details. As Behe states : In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as the de novo make of cell communication and cell junction proteins essential for multi-cellular life must include a molecular explanation.
The cells had not only to hold together, but important mechanisms to stick the cells together had to emerge, that is, the ability of individual cells to associate in precise patterns to form tissues, organs, and organ systems requires that individual cells be able to recognize, adhere to, and communicate with each other.
Of all the social interactions between cells in a multicellular organism, the most fundamental are those that hold the cells together. The apparatus of cell junctions and the extracellular matrix is critical for every aspect of the organization, function, and dynamics of multicellular structures. Animal cells use specialized adhesion receptors to attach to one another. Many of these adhesion proteins are transmembrane proteins, which means the extracellular portion of these proteins can interact with the extracellular portion of similar proteins on the surface of a neighboring cell. Although diagrams of adhesive structures may suggest that they are static once assembled, they are anything but. Cells can dynamically assemble and disassemble adhesions in response to a variety of events. This seems to be a essential requirement for function right from the beginning of multicellularity. Many adhesion proteins are continuously recycled: Protein at the cell surface is internalized by endocytosis, and new protein is deposited at the surface via exocytosis. The molecular machines to exercise these functions therefore had to emerge together with adhesion proteins. Furthermore, cell adhesion is coordinated with other major processes, including
1.cell signaling,
2.cell movement,
3.cell proliferation, and
4.cell survival.
We now know that cell-cell adhesion receptors fall into a relatively small number of classes. They include
1.immunoglobulin superfamily (IgSF) proteins,
2.cadherins,
3.selectins, and, in a few cases,
4.integrins
In order to explain multicellularity, its origin must be explained .
Thus, the apparatus of cell junctions and the extracellular matrix is critical for every aspect of the organization, function, and dynamics of multi cellular structures. The arise of adhesive junctions, tight junctions and gap junctions, and how they emerged is therefor a key factor to explain multi-cellular life. The cells of multi-cellular organisms detect and respond to countless internal and extracellular signals that control their growth, division, and differentiation during development, as well as their behavior in adult tissues. At the heart of all these communication systems are regulatory proteins that produce chemical signals, which are sent from one place to another in the body or within a cell, usually being processed along the way and integrated with other signals to provide clear and effective communication. The arise of these communication channels had to arise together with junction mechanisms in order to establish successful multi cellular organisms. One feature without the other would not have provided success and advantage of survival.
The ability of cells to receive and act on signals from beyond the plasma membrane is fundamental to life. This conversion of information into a chemical change, signal transduction, is a universal property of living cells. Signal transductions are remarkably specific and exquisitely sensitive. Specificity is achieved by precise molecular complementarity between the signal and receptor molecules.
Question : signal transduction had to be present in the first living cells. How could the specificity of the signal molecule , and the precise fit on its complementary receptor have evolved ? or the Amplification, or the desensitization/adaptation, where the receptor activation triggers a feedback circuit that shuts off the receptor or removes it from the cell surface, once the signal got trough ?
Three factors account for the extraordinary sensitivity of signal transducers: the high affinity of receptors for signal molecules, cooperativity (often but not always) in the ligand-receptor interaction, and amplification of the signal by enzyme cascades. The trigger for each system is different, but the general features of signal transduction are common to all: a signal interacts with a receptor; the activated receptor interacts with cellular machinery, producing a second signal or a change in the activity of a cellular protein; the metabolic activity of the target cell undergoes a change; and finally, the transduction event ends. This seems to be a irreducible system, requiring high content of pre-programming and advanced coding.
Question : how did the high affinity, cooperativity and amplification have emerged ? Is a preestablished convention not necessary, and so a mental process to yield the function ? Is trial and error or evolution not a completely incapable mechanism to get this functional information system ?
This is a important, essential and fundamental macro evolutionary change, and the explanation of macro-evolution must account for these changes, and provide feasible possible and likely ways through mutation and natural selection. Beside this, a shift on several levels of biological organization had to occur, providing a considerable advantage of survival, considering that for example one of the first cooperative steps required for the evolution of multicellularity in the volvocine algae was the development of the extracellular cell matrix from cell wall components, which can be metabolically costly to produce. But much more is required.
Ann Gauger: New genes and proteins must be invented. The cytoskeleton, Hox genes, desmosomes, cell adhesion molecules, growth factors, microtubules, microfilaments, neurotransmitters, whatever it takes to get cells to stick together, form different shapes, specialize, and communicate must all come from somewhere. Regulatory proteins and RNAs must be made to control the expression in time and space of these new proteins so that they all work together with existing pathways.In fact, in order for development to proceed in any organism, a whole cascade of coordinated genetic and biochemical events is necessary so that cells divide, change shape, migrate, and finally differentiate into many cell types, all in the right sequence at the right time and place. These cascades and the resulting cell divisions, shape changes, etc., are mutually interdependent. Interrupting one disrupts the others.
And last not least:
Like engineers carefully blowing up a bridge, cells have intricate, programmed suicide mechanisms. Without apoptosis, all multicellular life would be impossible. Good luck to proponents of evolution to explain how it emerged…
Macro evolutionary scenarios and changes include major transitions , that is from LUCA, the last common universal ancestor, to the congregation to yield the first prokaryotic cells, the associations of prokaryotic cells to create eukaryotic cells with organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria, and the establishment of cooperative societies composed of discrete multi-cellular individuals. Or in other words : The current hierarchical organization of life reflects a series of transitions in the units of evolution, such as from genes to chromosomes, from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, from unicellular to multi cellular individuals, and from multi-cellular organisms to societies. Each of these steps requires the overcome of huge hurdles and increase of complexity , which can only be appreciated by the ones, that have spend time to educate themselves, and gained insight of the extraordinarily complex and manifold mechanisms involved. The emergence of multi-cellularity was ostensibly a major evolutionary leap.No shit sherlock and it took literally billions of years to happen. Given that amount of time and incredibly large number of variations evolution went through, you've just explained why in fact there is complex multi-cellular life on the planet. Learning the science so you can then twist it doesn't make you intelligent...just really, really dishonest.
Macro evolutionary scenarios and changes include major transitions , that is from LUCA, the last common universal ancestor, to the congregation to yield the first prokaryotic cells, the associations of prokaryotic cells to create eukaryotic cells with organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria, and the establishment of cooperative societies composed of discrete multi-cellular individuals. Or in other words : The current hierarchical organization of life reflects a series of transitions in the units of evolution, such as from genes to chromosomes, from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, from unicellular to multi cellular individuals, and from multi-cellular organisms to societies. Each of these steps requires the overcome of huge hurdles and increase of complexity , which can only be appreciated by the ones, that have spend time to educate themselves, and gained insight of the extraordinarily complex and manifold mechanisms involved. The emergence of multi-cellularity was ostensibly a major evolutionary leap.No shit sherlock and it took literally billions of years to happen. Given that amount of time and incredibly large number of variations evolution went through, you've just explained why in fact there is complex multi-cellular life on the planet. Learning the science so you can then twist it doesn't make you intelligent...just really, really dishonest. Time makes everything becoming possible. Really ? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2025-time-makes-everything-becoming-possible-really This is a frequently raised, but unsophisticated argument for Darwinian evolution and the origin of life. You can't just vaguely appeal to vast and unending amounts of time (and other probabilistic resources) and assume that Darwinian evolution or whatever mechanisms you propose for the origin of life, can produce anything "no matter how complex." Rather, you have to demonstrate that sufficient probabilistic resources or evolutionary mechanisms indeed exist to produce the feature. What is education" when it produces individuals who swear that evolution is true or that those who oppose it don't understand the process. The so called evolutionary argument is more a matter of assaulting the intelligence of those who oppose it with a range assertions that proponents of evolution really have no answer, how these mechanisms really work. To argue that forever is long enough for the complexity of life to reveal itself is an untenable argument. The numbers are off any scale we can relate to as possible to explain what we see of life. Notwithstanding, you have beings in here who go as far to say it's all accounted for already, as if they know something nobody else does. http://bevets.com/evolutionevidence.htm A Parable: Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire." You say "Prove it." He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.) You say "What does that prove?" He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them" You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?" "Because it's GREEN" he says. "What else can you show me?" He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire." You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask. "I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?" "Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, The possible probable, And the probable virtually certain, One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles." (Wald, G., Scientific American, 1954) 1) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.html
What, pray tell, is the alternative explanation?
Learning the science so you can then twist it doesn't make you intelligent...just really, really dishonest.^^This^^ Creotards aren't interesting in honesty, they just want to twist reality to fit their antediluvian thinking.
What, pray tell, is the alternative explanation?intelligence. of course.
What, pray tell, is the alternative explanation?intelligence. of course. You are not intelligent enough to see the irony in that statement.
What, pray tell, is the alternative explanation?intelligence. of course. You are not intelligent enough to see the irony in that statement. ahm. personal attack. nice
What, pray tell, is the alternative explanation?intelligence. of course. You are not intelligent enough to see the irony in that statement. ahm. personal attack. nice Ah, the delicious irony of a creationist pointing out logical fallacies.
Macro evolutionary scenarios and changes include major transitions , that is from LUCA, the last common universal ancestor, to the congregation to yield the first prokaryotic cells, the associations of prokaryotic cells to create eukaryotic cells with organelles such as chloroplasts and mitochondria, and the establishment of cooperative societies composed of discrete multi-cellular individuals. Or in other words : The current hierarchical organization of life reflects a series of transitions in the units of evolution, such as from genes to chromosomes, from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, from unicellular to multi cellular individuals, and from multi-cellular organisms to societies. Each of these steps requires the overcome of huge hurdles and increase of complexity , which can only be appreciated by the ones, that have spend time to educate themselves, and gained insight of the extraordinarily complex and manifold mechanisms involved. The emergence of multi-cellularity was ostensibly a major evolutionary leap.No shit sherlock and it took literally billions of years to happen. Given that amount of time and incredibly large number of variations evolution went through, you've just explained why in fact there is complex multi-cellular life on the planet. Learning the science so you can then twist it doesn't make you intelligent...just really, really dishonest.
No shit sherlocklove it :cheese: yup, that about sums it up. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And tossing a lot of words at it, in a vain attempt to rational it to yourself, doesn't have anything to do with learning (or teaching) from the full spectrum of evidence that is available.
Doug, if only we could recruit another dozen or so like you to participate over here, this would really become a fun forum again.
As it is, you make it worth looking in and checking if there’s anything new.[/I]
Oh and Darron you must do something about your withering personal attacks. :coolsmirk:
Here are some tips: Having Thick Skin Is A 'Survival Technique,' Says Comic Jeff Ross | Fresh Air | WNYC
What, pray tell, is the alternative explanation?Jesus people are sooo dense. :sick: God said: LET IT BE and poop, no poof, there it was. Jesus, it says so right in the first page of the Bible. No Jesus didn't say a thing about it. Jesus can't anyone get anything straight? Yeah and on the seventh day he, God not Jesus, rested and Eve had to go and seduce Adam - which admittedly wasn't that hard because she looked hot and he was tingling inside and speaking of hard, ... Well you know, one thing led to another, next thing you know there are thousand and millions of different creaturing running around on this planet. Makes perfect cents.
For those who may be interested it’s not difficult finding decent evolution video lectures and documentaries that help explain what confuses the good-faith student.
Here are a couple lectures you can learn much from.
Consilience of Evidence
Why Evolution is True and Why Many People Still Don't Believe It (Jerry Coyne, 2012) bdw5000 - 1:05:32 min https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9G2YVtBYc Published on Jun 9, 2012 Jerry Coyne, a professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and author of the seminal book, Why Evolution is True, is one of the world's most eloquent defenders of evolutionary science in the face of legal, religious, and cultural opposition. In this talk, Coyne explored the evidence for evolution, why Americans are so resistant to accepting the theory, and what can be done to make the country more evolution-friendly. and blog: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
22. Emergence and Complexity Stanford - 1:42:30 min Uploaded on Feb 1, 2011 (May 21, 2010) Professor Robert Sapolsky gives a lecture on emergence and complexity. He details how a small difference at one place in nature can have a huge effect on a system as time goes on. He calls this idea fractal magnification and applies it to many different systems that exist throughout nature. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9G2YVtBYc
Time makes everything becoming possible. Really ?Science isn't attempting to explain everything, that would be faith. Science takes the latest evidence and attempts to find the most accurate explanation. The existence of life on the planet based on the fossil evidence, the observed evolution of existing species, the relationship of species currently alive and molecular biology all points to a natural process that doesn't require an outside presence to guide it. It works at the molecular level in minute changes in genetic coding that over very large periods of time adequately explains why life is here in so much diversity. There is clear evidence that mutation in genetic coding occurs, that species do in fact evolve and that life has been on the planet for an incredibly long time. From a scientific standpoint this creates very high confidence in the evolutionary model to explain life on Earth. It's not complete in the same sense that science is never complete. It's based on skeptical examination of the evidence that never ends.
This is a frequently raised, but unsophisticated argument for Darwinian evolution and the origin of life. You can't just vaguely appeal to vast and unending amounts of time (and other probabilistic resources) and assume that Darwinian evolution or whatever mechanisms you propose for the origin of life, can produce anything "no matter how complex." Rather, you have to demonstrate that sufficient probabilistic resources or evolutionary mechanisms indeed exist to produce the feature.Researchers in the field haven't been appealing to anything, they've applied the scientific method to examining the evidence on how life has reached its current state on Earth. And the best evidence based on the relationship of all life now here, the fossil record which stretches back billions of years and molecular biology which is mapping out how life is connected at a genetic level all point to life evolving over an incredibly long period of time resulting in the huge amount of complexity we see now. So yes, you can start with a relatively simple set of rules and conditions and given BILLIONS of years end up with complex multi-cellular life in a highly complex biosphere. You're making a sky hook argument and attempting to attache everything to a presence that can not be tested - ever - then claiming that somehow supersedes direct observation and best possible explanation. In the end you're looking for a final faith based explanation which ends with and always will, "God did it". You're making a faith based argument in a science format and claiming that your sky hook is superior to the crane that all science must be attached to. We can see where theories like evolution start and how they extend because the entire structure is in evidence even if all the details have not been mapped out. Sky hook theories provide none of that and instead are based on myth, legend and received "wisdom" dating back millenia to a time when humans were just waking up to deeper questions. You're basically taking a reworked argument from a user manual created in the bronze age and trying to use it to replace the latest and highest confidence evidence based knowledge.
Science was created in an attempt to overcome a powerful factor in how our minds work, the inclination to see patterns where there are none. It’s far easier to explain why some people see god everywhere than it is to deconstruct long standing scientific theories like evolution with faith based “arguments”.
Why do people see faces in nature, interpret window stains as human figures, hear voices in random sounds generated by electronic devices or find conspiracies in the daily news? A proximate cause is the priming effect, in which our brain and senses are prepared to interpret stimuli according to an expected model. UFOlogists see a face on Mars. Religionists see the Virgin Mary on the side of a building. Paranormalists hear dead people speaking to them through a radio receiver. Conspiracy theorists think 9/11 was an inside job by the Bush administration. Is there a deeper ultimate cause for why people believe such weird things? There is. I call it “patternicity," or the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise.Should we be surprised at all that people who can see the face of Jesus in a piece of burnt toast can also see the face of god in the presence of life on Earth...or anything for that matter. https://www.buzzfeed.com/arielknutson/people-who-found-jesus-in-their-food?utm_term=.vtlAnWOKV#.boYVj2vnr
What, pray tell, is the alternative explanation?intelligence. of course. Any details?
What, pray tell, is the alternative explanation?intelligence. of course. Which is the same as creationism. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/education/judge-rejects-teaching-intelligent-design.html?_r=0
HARRISBURG, Pa., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for a Pennsylvania school district to present intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in high school biology courses because it is a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity." In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, the judge, John E. Jones III, issued a broad, stinging rebuke to its advocates and provided strong support for scientists who have fought to bar intelligent design from the science curriculum. Judge Jones also excoriated members of the Dover, Pa., school board, who he said lied to cover up their religious motives, made a decision of "breathtaking inanity" and "dragged" their community into "this legal maelstrom with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."Intelligent design is part of the same ongoing religious campaign that hasn't ended since the days of Darwin and the introduction of the theory of evolution. And it's gotten even more cynical now that religion has become even bigger business in the US where it is sold to millions. http://gawker.com/making-money-off-miracles-the-gospel-of-televangelists-1725330875 So what really going on here is really sick marketing to keep a sufficient amount of people ignorant enough to keep being fleeced. This is all part of the longest con in human history.
What, pray tell, is the alternative explanation?intelligence. of course. Any details? You want "intelligent design", one need look no further than the creation of atoms, and all that cascaded from those fundamentals. No superpower needed!!!
Chemistry Tutorial Chemical bonds and attractive forces http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biochemistry/tutorials/chemistry/page2.html
Molecular Interactions (Noncovalent Interactions) illustrated by biochemical systems http://ww2.chemistry.gatech.edu/~lw26/structure/molecular_interactions/mol_int.html
Biological Atoms & Molecules http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/courses/buchwald/1030HRAP/Fall2013_files/Sept19b.pdf
The Chemical Components of a Cell Matter is made of combinations of elements—substances such as hydrogen or carbon that cannot be broken down or converted into other substances by chemical means. The smallest particle of an element that still retains its distinctive chemical properties is an atom. However, the characteristics of substances other than pure elements—including the materials from which living cells are made—depend on the way their atoms are linked together in groups to form molecules. In order to understand how living organisms are built from inanimate matter, therefore, it is crucial to know how all of the chemical bonds that hold atoms together in molecules are formed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26883/
What, pray tell, is the alternative explanation?intelligence. of course. Any details? You want "intelligent design", one need look no further than the creation of atoms, and all that cascaded from those fundamentals. No superpower needed!!!
Chemistry Tutorial Chemical bonds and attractive forces http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biochemistry/tutorials/chemistry/page2.html
Molecular Interactions (Noncovalent Interactions) illustrated by biochemical systems http://ww2.chemistry.gatech.edu/~lw26/structure/molecular_interactions/mol_int.html
Biological Atoms & Molecules http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/courses/buchwald/1030HRAP/Fall2013_files/Sept19b.pdf
The Chemical Components of a Cell Matter is made of combinations of elements—substances such as hydrogen or carbon that cannot be broken down or converted into other substances by chemical means. The smallest particle of an element that still retains its distinctive chemical properties is an atom. However, the characteristics of substances other than pure elements—including the materials from which living cells are made—depend on the way their atoms are linked together in groups to form molecules. In order to understand how living organisms are built from inanimate matter, therefore, it is crucial to know how all of the chemical bonds that hold atoms together in molecules are formed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26883/chemical bonds and attractions do not create languages and codified instructional information, nor ciphers and translation mechanisms, not the hardware to process the information.