Jump to content


Photo

Single Cellular --> Multi Cellular?


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#41 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 12 April 2010 - 08:37 PM

The cells differentiate. There are a few different types of cells found in a sponge, choanocytes and amoebocytes/archaeocytes were just a couple of examples.


Genetically? Or do they just take on different tasks but can change to do those?

#42 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 April 2010 - 09:03 PM

Genetically? Or do they just take on different tasks but can change to do those?

View Post


We’ve already established that differentiation doesn’t typically involve changing a DNA sequence. It involves changing the genes that are expressed. The cells in a sponge take on new tasks, and change physically in order to do so which implies that certain genes are turned on while others are off. The choanocytes grow a collar to feed. The amoebocytes shuttle nutrients to cells deeper in the sponge. Pinacocytes become flat and make an “epidermis” of sorts on the outside. Rhabdiferous cells secrete mucus. And I’m beginning to wonder why I can list so many random facts about sponges off the top of my head. I guess I really absorbed all the information... excuse the pun :) .

#43 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 13 April 2010 - 04:45 AM

You have a colonial organization of cells and due to mutation/silencing, some are able to remain in one form while others take on a different role.


What mutations ? What selective pressure ?

When did I ever suggest that was possible? Choanoflagellates are not choanocytes, and they cannot turn into sponges. But their morphology and behaviour suggest that sponges could have originated from a similar organism.


It does suggest they had a common design.

#44 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 13 April 2010 - 04:47 AM

We’ve already established that differentiation doesn’t typically involve changing a DNA sequence. It involves changing the genes that are expressed.


What genes if the critter is not multicellular ? If it has the genes then it´s already multicellular.

#45 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 13 April 2010 - 11:37 AM

What mutations ? What selective pressure ?

View Post

The mutation that might cause this could be similar to the ones which cause neoteny, in which a cell is “suppressed” before it reaches its adult form (that was the whole point of using neoteny as an example, to show that it does happen and it’s not that uncommon). And the selective pressure would be energetic efficiency. Cells are responsible for many tasks, and dividing up those tasks is beneficial to its survival when resources are limited.

It does suggest they had a common design.

View Post

Or that they are similar because of convergent/divergent evolution. I really don’t see much evidence of design in nature. When something is designed, the signs of planning are apparent.

Snails have a digestive tract that forms a “U” shape, so they basically defecate right next to their head. Slugs have a similar situation, with their anus right beside their pneumostome (the hole they breathe from). The animals have learned to deal with this inconvenience by carefully timing their excretion with their breathing, but in terms of “design” it would be much better to have the anus at the posterior end of the body, like a worm.

Evolution can explain why slugs and snails adapted this way. It has to do with the phenomenon of torsion in the larval stage, which ultimately helps the adult snail get into its shell faster (and doesn’t really serve any purpose in the slug, which has no shell). This is because the common ancestor of a snail was an aquatic mollusc that didn’t have a snail-shell to get into, and the larva still reflects this. If the larva had been “planned”, it shouldn’t need torsion and shouldn’t have a twisted digestive tract.

Yes, I realize that was totally off topic. But I just wanted to show you why I don’t agree with design. That was one specific reason, and I could list several more.

What genes if the critter is not multicellular ? If it has the genes then it´s already multicellular.

View Post

What do you mean? Single cells have genes.

#46 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 13 April 2010 - 03:16 PM

We’ve already established that differentiation doesn’t typically involve changing a DNA sequence.


Of course, every cell in your body has the same DNA. It reads different parts of it.

The thing is, for a cell to differentiate, it must become differentiated from a less differentiated state. So that means it must change form, not just task.

It involves changing the genes that are expressed. The cells in a sponge take on new tasks, and change physically in order to do so which implies that certain genes are turned on while others are off. The choanocytes grow a collar to feed. The amoebocytes shuttle nutrients to cells deeper in the sponge. Pinacocytes become flat and make an “epidermis” of sorts on the outside. Rhabdiferous cells secrete mucus. And I’m beginning to wonder why I can list so many random facts about sponges off the top of my head. I guess I really absorbed all the information... excuse the pun  :) .


Thank you, you answered my question. However, how does a colony of a differentiated cell type become another sponge? Or are you referring to the least differentiated type that can be separated and grow another sponge?

#47 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 13 April 2010 - 04:10 PM

However, how does a colony of a differentiated cell type become another sponge? Or are you referring to the least differentiated type that can be separated and grow another sponge?

View Post


Archaeocytes are the stem cells that produce new sponges, either by S@xual or asexual reproduction.

#48 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 13 April 2010 - 04:13 PM

Archaeocytes are the stem cells that produce new sponges, either by S@xual or asexual reproduction.

View Post


That makes sense, they are stem cells which are differentiated into other cells.

As I said, I don't know enough about differentiation to argue any further.

#49 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 14 April 2010 - 06:06 AM

The mutation that might cause this could be similar to the ones which cause neoteny, in which a cell is “suppressed” before it reaches its adult form (that was the whole point of using neoteny as an example, to show that it does happen and it’s not that uncommon).


if the critter is unicellular then it has no gene to be suppressed which cause neoteny.

And the selective pressure would be energetic efficiency. Cells are responsible for many tasks, and dividing up those tasks is beneficial to its survival when resources are limited.


If that was true the unicellular species would not be well succeeded and they already would had gone extint.

Or that they are similar because of convergent/divergent evolution. I really don’t see much evidence of design in nature. When something is designed, the signs of planning are apparent.


Convergent evolution is only a euphemism for coincidence.Any person with a minimun of math knowledge can see this.

Snails have a digestive tract that forms a “U” shape, so they basically defecate right next to their head. Slugs have a similar situation, with their anus right beside their pneumostome (the hole they breathe from). The animals have learned to deal with this inconvenience by carefully timing their excretion with their breathing, but in terms of “design” it would be much better to have the anus at the posterior end of the body, like a worm.


1 - Bad design is a Theological argument.
2 - Life is complex, we dont have enough knowledge to criticize the design of life.Remenber about vestigial organs and junk Dna ?
3 - In terms of “Natural Selection” it would be much better to have the anus at the posterior end of the body, like a worm.

Evolution can explain why slugs and snails adapted this way. It has to do with the phenomenon of torsion in the larval stage, which ultimately helps the adult snail get into its shell faster (and doesn’t really serve any purpose in the slug, which has no shell).


So, Natural selection should have removed it.;

This is because the common ancestor of a snail was an aquatic mollusc that didn’t have a snail-shell to get into, and the larva still reflects this. If the larva had been “planned”, it shouldn’t need torsion and shouldn’t have a twisted digestive tract.


If the larva had evolved, Natural selection would have select a twisted digestive tract.

What do you mean? Single cells have genes.


Not genes involved with multicellular trait, neoteny and differentiation.

#50 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 14 April 2010 - 11:28 AM

if the critter is unicellular then it has no gene to be suppressed which cause neoteny.

View Post

Not genes involved with multicellular trait, neoteny and differentiation.

View Post


Sub-cellular traits are still affected by genes. When an archaeocyte to differentiates into a choanocyte, it grows a flagellum and collar. In that sense, the flagellum and collar are the adult traits.
Unicellular organisms also reproduce asexually, so there can be mutations present in the copies they make of themselves.

If that was true the unicellular species would not be well succeeded and they already would had gone extint.

View Post

That’s exactly how evolution works. Choanoflagellatea is a Class, not a species. Look at all the diversity within our own class, Mammalia.
I’m suggesting that one species of a choanoflagellate-like organism experienced a selective pressure towards multicellularity, not every single species. Why only one? Either because it lived in a different habitat than its relatives, or because it has some sort of feature that the other organisms lacked which increased the positive benefits of colonial living. The members of this particular species that didn’t adopt the multicellular configuration presumably went extinct.

1 - Bad design is a Theological argument.
2 - Life is complex, we dont have enough knowledge to criticize the design of life.Remenber about vestigial organs and junk Dna ?

View Post

Putting the sewage system right next to the ventilation system is illogical under the assumption that snails and slugs were planned. But we already know the purpose of this, in terms of natural selection. Pooping on your head may be inconvenient, but it’s not likely to kill you. Being eaten because you can’t get into your shell fast enough sure will, and torsion is what prevents that from happening.

So, Natural selection should have removed it.;

View Post

It’s already half-removed it, through a process called de-torsion. The anus in slugs is not right by the head like in a snail, it’s located laterally.

#51 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 15 April 2010 - 05:08 PM

Isabella,

Have done a little skimming. But to be honest this subject is new to me. Found out that sponges don't have organs. Amoebocytes and choanocytes are really the only cells. The gel you referred to earlier is not made up of cells. So do you know if the the two have seperate genomes, or do they contain a complete set of information like our cells do?

My point on the sperm and white blood cells is that resemblance is not necessarily a justification for common descent.

Also because unicells live in colonies does not give evidence, nor explanation for the jump to multicellular animals with separate organs.

And I still contend that geology (i.e. Cambrian explosion) gives us a 'sudden' showing of not only sponges, but even fish together with sponges. No evidence of any evolutionary development.

#52 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 16 April 2010 - 11:15 AM

So do you know if the the two have seperate genomes, or do they contain a complete set of information like our cells do?

View Post

I think all the cells contain the same genome. Sponge reproduction can be S@xual or asexual, but the entire thing grows from a small cluster of stem cells.

Also because unicells live in colonies does not give evidence, nor explanation for the jump to multicellular animals with separate organs.

View Post

Sponges are technically multicellular animals despite their lack of organs. They resemble a colony of unicellular organisms, but that’s not what they are.

Another good example of an intermediate between multicellular and unicellular are Placozoans. They’re literally just multicellular, microscopic pancakes. Like sponges, they have cell differentiation but no organs. I really don’t know much about them which is why I haven’t brought them up until now, but they’re another example of the blurry line between unicellular and multicellular.

And I still contend that geology (i.e. Cambrian explosion) gives us a 'sudden' showing of not only sponges, but even fish together with sponges. No evidence of any evolutionary development.

View Post

It’s pretty uncommon to find a fossil of a single cell. Since they lack a skeleton, they don’t preserve very well. Sponges have a better chance of fossilizing, since they have a skeletal elements (called spicules) made out of calcium carbonate or glass. And the fact that they’re usually big enough to see without a microscope makes them easier to find.

#53 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 17 April 2010 - 03:08 PM

Sub-cellular traits are still affected by genes. When an archaeocyte to differentiates into a choanocyte, it grows a flagellum and collar. In that sense, the flagellum and collar are the adult traits.


ArcheoType is part of a critter which is already multicellular, which already have the Dna code to grow flagellum and collar.So, that´s irrelevant.
What you must do to make a point is explain how an unicellular critter like E.coli can turn into a multicellular critter.

Unicellular organisms also reproduce asexually, so there can be mutations present in the copies they make of themselves.


So, what is the mutations needed to turn an Unicellular organism into a Multicellular one ? What is the Odds ? Give me some scientific reasoning instead of wishful thinking.

That’s exactly how evolution works. Choanoflagellatea is a Class, not a species. Look at all the diversity within our own class, Mammalia.
I’m suggesting that one species of a choanoflagellate-like organism experienced a selective pressure towards multicellularity, not every single species. Why only one? Either because it lived in a different habitat than its relatives, or because it has some sort of feature that the other organisms lacked which increased the positive benefits of colonial living. The members of this particular species that didn’t adopt the multicellular configuration presumably went extinct.


You supposed, you guessed , you presumed.Dont you have any scientific information ? Only wishful thinking and imagination ?

Putting the sewage system right next to the ventilation system is illogical under the assumption that snails and slugs were planned.


Why do you think is illogical ?

But we already know the purpose of this, in terms of natural selection. Pooping on your head may be inconvenient, but it’s not likely to kill you. Being eaten because you can’t get into your shell fast enough sure will, and torsion is what prevents that from happening.


Really ? So why do slugs still exist ? They seemed very well without shells.

It’s already half-removed it, through a process called de-torsion. The anus in slugs is not right by the head like in a snail, it’s located laterally.


I think that in this case Evolution is very lazy. It turned a monkey into Human being in only 10 million years, and it can´t remove so simple trait. ;)

#54 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 17 April 2010 - 06:01 PM

I think all the cells contain the same genome. Sponge reproduction can be S@xual or asexual, but the entire thing grows from a small cluster of stem cells.

View Post

Okay, here is my problem then. If you are saying that colonies of amoebas and and choanoflagellates somehow combined and evolved into sponges, how did they recieve each other's entire genetic material in order to become a new genome?

Remember that you have to have all the new enzymes and regulatory proteins to constuct the new organism. You can't just stick two genomes together and expect everything to build right.

Also, you can't just go inserting any old DNA into another organism. There are restriction enzymes in cells which eat foreign DNA.

Also what selective pressure would have caused this massive gene transfer to happen? And if it was done in small steps according to Darwinian doctrine, why would the two phenotypes be retained? A parital change in the genetic material should have changed the phenotype.

I still prefer, on science alone, the common design theory, because of these very reasons. There is no empirical evidence that something like what you are stating can happen.



It’s pretty uncommon to find a fossil of a single cell. Since they lack a skeleton, they don’t preserve very well. Sponges have a better chance of fossilizing, since they have a skeletal elements (called spicules) made out of calcium carbonate or glass. And the fact that they’re usually big enough to see without a microscope makes them easier to find.

View Post

Cyanobacteria are considered to be the oldest fossils.

My point is it's called the Cambrian Explosion because you have more than several finds in 'cambrian strata' which show fully formed marine life in a full scenario. Before that, the only finds are bacteria. SO it jumps from bacteria to more phylla (all marine) than exist now--many of which are extinct. But many living fossils included.

Why no evidence of geologic activity between cyanobacteria (which exist today) and all the major phylla in single scenarios?

#55 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 17 April 2010 - 11:03 PM

What you must do to make a point is explain how an unicellular critter like E.coli can turn into a multicellular critter.

View Post

The difference is that choanoflagellates are similar to animals genetically and morphologically, while a bacterium like E coli is not. I’m not claiming that bacteria became multicellular animals.

So, what is the mutations needed to turn an Unicellular organism into a Multicellular one ? What is the Odds ? Give me some scientific reasoning instead of wishful thinking.

View Post

The mutation would be similar to neoteny. A protist like a choanoflagellate, living in a colony, would give rise to offspring that didn’t fully develop into the “adult” form. This new cell could take on a different function.
If the odds of such a mutation were impossibly low, we would never see neotenic organisms. But we do, and therefore we know it’s possible.

You supposed, you guessed , you presumed.Dont you have any scientific information ? Only wishful thinking and imagination ?

View Post

If you want detailed scientific information, I suggest you search for an article which deals with metazoan evolution. I’m not here to write a research paper, so I’m sorry if not everything I say is backed up directly with scientific sources. But we know that choanoflagellates are genetically similar to choanocytes, we know that choanoflagellates live colonially, and we know that colonial organizations can be much more efficient in terms of energy use. Those are scientific facts.

Why do you think is illogical ?

View Post

Um, let’s see... because generally lungs function better when they don’t have poop in them. The waste an animal excretes in just that—waste. In many cases, it contains toxic by-products of digestion, like ammonia. This is why slugs don’t defecate while breathing. They must carefully time it so that their pneumostome is closed.

Really ? So why do slugs still exist ? They seemed very well without shells.

View Post

Because they have different lifestyles and different defence mechanisms than snails. They are not necessarily exposed to the same predators, and if they are they most likely have some other way to deal with it. For example, many slugs are brightly colored to tell their predators that they’re poisonous.

I think that in this case Evolution is very lazy. It turned a monkey into Human being in only 10 million years, and it can´t remove so simple trait.

View Post

First of all, evolution does not claim monkeys turn into humans. Either you know very little about the theory you’re so strongly opposed to, or you’re being purposefully ignorant.

And you know what? I think creationism is lazy too. You believe in a god that sat around for eternity before he finally decided he wanted to create the universe a few thousand years ago.

#56 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 17 April 2010 - 11:34 PM

Okay, here is my problem then. If you are saying that colonies of amoebas and and choanoflagellates somehow combined and evolved into sponges, how did they recieve each other's entire genetic material in order to become a new genome?

View Post


They can divide asexually, so a colony of choanoflagellates and amoebocytes may have arisen from a single “parent” cell. I guess it would be more correct if I used the term clonal instead of colonial.

Why no evidence of geologic activity between cyanobacteria (which exist today) and all the major phylla in single scenarios?

View Post

I know very little about geology and I can’t answer that off the top of my head. I’m sure there are several hypotheses out there which are consistent with evolution, and I have no doubt that creationists have some sort of explanation for the gap too. If I have a chance I’ll do some more research.

#57 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 April 2010 - 04:35 AM

This past post fits perfectly in this thread:


A flagellate is an organism that possesses a flagellum.  The experiment took a culture of single celled alga and then introduced a predator organism.  The alga responded to the new selection pressure by becoming multicellular in less than 100 generations.  The evolution that occurred made them virtually immune to their predator.

View Post

Wait a second... Did they colonize and cooperate or did they actually become a multi-celled invertabrate?

I want to know how you get from this:

Posted Image

To this...

Posted Image

Independent cells cooperating is a far cry from a colony of single celled bacteria having a function meeting:

Head Bacteria: I would like to call this meeting to order. I will now have the secretary bacteria read the minutes from the last meeting…

Secretary Bacteria: As per the continuation of our last meeting we are discussing how to become a multi-celled organism. We know the task is daunting and some freedom will be lost for the good of everyone. Flagellum motors will be sacrificed and function will be specialized. The meeting for today will be a presentation and request for volunteers chaired by the Function Assignment Bacteria.

Head Bacteria: Will the Function Assignment Bacteria please come forward to address the colony.

(Colony applauds)

Function Assignment Bacteria: Thank you. Thank you. Now that we have completed our “Interim Mutation Progression Or Selective Station Identification Blueprint Liaison Endeavour” aka the IMPOSSIBLE. We are confident that; if we move quickly and efficiently into our new roles, our goal can be completed. In order to achieve the IMPOSSIBLE we must all be aware of our new position and please, ladies and gentlemen (Oops, I mean asexuals) do not forget that you must have the building code and function in your DNA for all other bacteria’s new specialized roles. I don’t want to go over this again but please just remember you must take with you the entire blueprint not just your own. I promise it will all make sense when we divide to make a new organism.

Function Assignment Bacteria: Now there is one last order of business that must be taken care of. We seem to be missing some key cells. If you have not volunteered yet please raise your hand, I mean raise your flagellum if you can commit to one of the following positions. Please hurry we don’t have millions of years here:

Function Assignment Bacteria: We need a muscle tissue cell.

Volunteer Bacteria #1: I’ll do it!

Function Assignment Bacteria: Very Good! We need some blood cells.

Volunteer Bacteria #2 thru #200: We’ll do it!

Function Assignment Bacteria: Excellent! We need an epidermis cell.

Volunteer Bacteria #201: I’ll do it.

Function Assignment Bacteria: Okay, last but certainly not least (no pun intended) we need an anal sphincter cell.

(Cricket chirps)

Function Assignment Bacteria: Anyone?

(More cricket chirps)

Function Assignment Bacteria: Please, this is very important for project IMPOSSIBLE!

Homeless Bacteria: Fine! I’ll do it, but all of you owe me! I’m getting sick and tired of getting messed on all the time!

Function Assignment Bacteria: Very good. I’ll do my best to make your function enjoyable (psst, yeah right :rolleyes: ). Three cheers for project IMPOSSIBLE! Hip! Hip! Hooray!

All Bacteria: Hip! Hip! Hooray! Hip! Hip! Hooray!

View Post



#58 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 April 2010 - 06:11 AM

They can divide asexually, so a colony of choanoflagellates and amoebocytes may have arisen from a single “parent” cell. I guess it would be more correct if I used the term clonal instead of colonial.

View Post


So a parent cell genome "branched" and made amoebas and choanoflagellates and then over time "blended together" to make a sponge? Please excuse me, but you all mock creationist belief in God, and you believe this?

I'm sorry Isabella--I'm not getting a clear picture of the model here. It seems that earlier you implied that multicellular sponges emerged from colonies of choanoflagellates and amoeba like creatures.

Since much of evolutionary 'evidence' is based, even since the days of Darwin, on homologous features, it would seem from an evolutionary perspective--this is what would have happened.

However, if you begin to look at it from an engineering perspective, it is not hard to use the very tenants of evolutionary principle--natural selection, and slow gradual change to deny that this could ever happen.



I know very little about geology and I can’t answer that off the top of my head. I’m sure there are several hypotheses out there which are consistent with evolution, and I have no doubt that creationists have some sort of explanation for the gap too. If I have a chance I’ll do some more research.

View Post


The Cambrian explosion is "shrouded in mystery" because it is basically above basement rock where nothing biological is found except bacteria. Then suddenly you have all the major "body plans" from an evolutionary "radiation." No mechanism can be imagined for this radiation, so it remains a key word that sounds really good, but is devoid of any scientific content.

These soft bodied organisms, along with sponges and vertebrate fish :rolleyes: resided in ocean bottoms which have now risen above the water. They were once the lowest points on earth and were covered quickly by sediment which would be indicative of a catastrophe, not slow gradual sedimentation.

The Chengjiang fossils are covered by 50 meters of mudstone, which means a single deposition of mud covered these soft bodies quickly.

Early Cambrian Chengjiang China Fossils - "A Window to the Cambrian Explosion"

"The Chengjiang lagerstatte in the Yunning Province of China, also known as the Chengjiang Biota or the Maotianshan shales, is an extraordinary fossil site providing the oldest Cambrian occurrence of diverse and well-preserved soft-bodied metazoan fossils...these are impression ichnofossils of soft-bodied organisms...."

"While the Cambrian Explosion may always be shrouded in some mystery, it is clear that it represents a profound period for the evolution of life on Earth, where the basic body plans of the major animal phyla appear by the fossil record to have been established over a brief 10 million year span. All the major animal phyla that exist today -- about three dozen -- evolved from these early Cambrian fauna."

"The fossils of the Maotianshan shale and Burgess Shale Fauna of Field, British Columbia provide a lens to view the appearance on earth of all the major phyla in existence today, organisms that remain of enigmatic origin, as well as forms that did not persist. The Chengjiang Biota's diversity suggests a stable ecosystem occuring after the Cambrian Explosion when life's major phyla appeared in what seems like the blink of the eye compared to preceding four billion years of geological time on earth."

"The diversity of soft-tissue fossils at Chengjiang is astonishing: algae, medusiforms, sponges, priapulids, annelid-like worms, echinoderms, arthropods (including trilobites), hemichordates...

...chordates [FISH:o--That's some radiation!! Even got some vertebrates with endoskeltons there!! ] , and the first agnathan fish make up just a small fraction of the total -- see an up to date list of Chengjiang Biota here."

"As of June 2006, some 185 species of organisms were described in the scientific literature. Of these, 45% are arthropods and 13 % are enigmatic. Approximately 65% of all fossils preserved are arthropods of exceptional diversity among which the most abundant forms are small bivalved animals known as bradoriids that had pliable exoskeletons. Few arthropods from Chengjiang had the hard, mineral-reinforced exoskeletons as found in trilobites."



#59 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 18 April 2010 - 07:38 AM

The difference is that choanoflagellates are similar to animals genetically and morphologically, while a bacterium like E coli is not. I’m not claiming that bacteria became multicellular animals.


I only use a bacteria as an example because it´s unicellular, but you can use any example you want.

The mutation would be similar to neoteny. A protist like a choanoflagellate, living in a colony, would give rise to offspring that didn’t fully develop into the “adult” form. This new cell could take on a different function. If the odds of such a mutation were impossibly low, we would never see neotenic organisms. But we do, and therefore we know it’s possible.


Neoteny has nothing to do with multicellularity. If choanoflagellate doesnt fully develop into the adult form, so we have a sick choanoflagellate with decrease in fitness.Explain to us what would be the new function that kind of choanoflagellate could assume which could favor multicellularity.

If you want detailed scientific information, I suggest you search for an article which deals with metazoan evolution. I’m not here to write a research paper, so I’m sorry if not everything I say is backed up directly with scientific sources.


What a convenient

But we know that choanoflagellates are genetically similar to choanocytes, we know that choanoflagellates live colonially, and we know that colonial organizations can be much more efficient in terms of energy use. Those are scientific facts.


Really ? So , in what place of the world a colonial organization cannot be more efficient in terms of energy use ? Because as you said not all choanoflagellate evolved to multicellularity.

Um, let’s see... because generally lungs function better when they don’t have poop in them. The waste an animal excretes in just that—waste. In many cases, it contains toxic by-products of digestion, like ammonia. This is why slugs don’t defecate while breathing. They must carefully time it so that their pneumostome is closed.


Saw it ? It was well planned , it has a mechanism which solves the problem.

Because they have different lifestyles and different defence mechanisms than snails. They are not necessarily exposed to the same predators, and if they are they most likely have some other way to deal with it. For example, many slugs are brightly colored to tell their predators that they’re poisonous.


Really ? This site does not agree with you

Slug and Snail Predators

First of all, evolution does not claim monkeys turn into humans. Either you know very little about the theory you’re so strongly opposed to, or you’re being purposefully ignorant.


Ardi, Oldest Human Ancestor

Posted Image


Ohh ! It was not a monkey ? :o It looks like a monkey to me. :rolleyes: What would it be ? A Primate ? What name would you give to it ?

And you know what? I think creationism is lazy too. You believe in a god that sat around for eternity before he finally decided he wanted to create the universe a few thousand years ago.


Is That your scientific answer ? Creationism is lazy so evolution can be too.

#60 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2010 - 12:33 PM

Ardi, Oldest Human Ancestor

Posted Image
Ohh ! It was not a monkey ? :o  It looks like a monkey to me.  :rolleyes:  What would it be ? A Primate ? What name would you give to it ?
Is That your scientific answer ? Creationism is lazy so evolution can be too.

View Post


Actually this the latest find from South Africa they are pushing, "
Australopithecus sediba" looks exactly like Apes or Monkeys.

The odd thing today is this so-called denial of apes or monkeys as being ancestors to the modern human beings when you get one of these folks backed into a corner.

Even a child gets from all the pics and illustrations that they are deliberately shove in everyone's face, that are indeed portraying humans as coming from Apes.

Here's the latest illustration I found in the article they had back in March of this year when releasing details of the two skeletons found in South African by some 9 year old kid and his paleoanthropogist dad, Lee Berger. The thing is being hales as yet another "missing link".

And here is the illustrated graph they used in the article to illustrate some imagined evolutionary succession which clearly shows various types of apes before an apeman, to a farely close to African looking male, to some kind of neantherthal and of course finally the superior of all evolutionary humans animals, the white European male.

Posted Image

I also find it interesting that modern man is always depicted as an athletic white European as opposed to someone of Chinese or Japanese decent, Indian, or Pakistani, etc, etc, etc.

I don't understand why blacks of African decent don't put up more of a fight on these illustrations which clearly are racist. Are they done this whay because the basic dogma of modern evolutionary thought was drafted for the most part by white Europeans ?

Are Africans listed in these illustrations as some kind of living transitional proof because perhaps the white intellectual materialists are only looking at the outside of the features and believe that the average African have similar ape-like features ?

A picture is worth a thousand words. Very few of these geniuses will ever have the guts to say publically what James Watson did about African intelligence. But I guarantee you they all think it behind the scenes because I work with many of them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users