Jump to content


Photo

Single Cellular --> Multi Cellular?


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#61 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 - 04:12 PM

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.

View Post

A little off the thread, but good thinking. Yeah, it's all well funded, politically correct propaganda. It passed MEDIA REVIEW. Find an old orangutan skull, get an artist and you,re on NBC Nightly News.

The majority of blacks are with the liberal camp--I work in the hood. They don't care about evolution--just Bush's war and suddenly health care.

The beast was given a great mouth to speak blasphemies--Revelation--kapish!

#62 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 18 April 2010 - 05:07 PM

This past post fits perfectly in this thread

View Post

Adam, in response to that past post: you don’t go from bacteria to annelids! No evolution ever claimed that was possible. Worms are (relatively) complex protostomes, and bacteria are some of the most primitive unicellular organisms.

I try my best to represent creationism fairly when I write on this forum, which means I try not to oversimplify your beliefs so that they’re easier for me to refute. Please don’t oversimplify evolution just because you don’t agree with it.

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?

View Post

Blended? They would already be living in a colony and adhered by some sort of gel. This gel matrix organization of choanoflagellates has been observed. And yes, I’m suggesting that some of the asexual offspring didn’t develop the flagellum and collar, making them amoeba-like.

And I’m not saying the parent genome “branched” to form different cellular species. All the cells would have the same genome, but would be expressing different parts of it. That’s what differentiation is.

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.

View Post

I realize we will never agree on that. But I thought I would try to present evolution’s mechanism for multicellularity, nevertheless. What I’m suggesting is not impossible. To suggest that a bacterium “turned into” a worm would be impossible. At the very least, I hope I clarified that this is not what evolution claims.

#63 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 18 April 2010 - 05:35 PM

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.

View Post


Choanocytes/choanoflagellates use their flagellum and collar for suspension feeding. So an amoeboid cell that doesn’t grow those parts could focus on, well, pretty much everything else: energy storage, intracellular digestion, reproduction, toxin production, mucus/collagen production, the synthesis of certain macromolecules and proteins... all kinds of things.

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.

View Post

I said colonial organizations can be more efficient, they don’t always have to be. The choanoflagellates that live individually obviously have other features that make them successful.
Look at siphonophores, like the Man of War jellyfish. It’s not a jellyfish at all, but a colonial organization of individual polyps. These polyps thrive in a colonial organization. However a similar polyp, the hydra, does not form colonies and seems to have no trouble living independently. So it really just depends, in some cases colonies work and in other cases they are unnecessary.

Really ? This site does not agree with you

View Post

That site deals only with terrestrial snails and slugs. When I mentioned that some slugs have bright colors and produce dangerous toxins, I was thinking more of the marine variety.
That being said, I’m sure terrestrial slugs also have various defence mechanism that snails lack. And slug behaviours also differ from snails in many ways, which would affect their chances of being eaten.

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

View Post

There’s a lot of dispute about how to classify hominids like Ardi. But I can tell you for sure that it’s not a monkey. Classification is based on more than superficial appearance. The skull, teeth, and overall skeletal structure are taken into account and I think even creationists would agree with me when I say that not everything that looks like a monkey can be called a monkey. Dolphins look more like fish than they look like mammals, should we start calling them fish?

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

View Post

No, I only said that because you resorted to the use of a word like “lazy” when refuting natural selection. I generally try to avoid attaching derogatory terms to other people’s beliefs.

#64 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 18 April 2010 - 07:11 PM

Choanocytes/choanoflagellates use their flagellum and collar for suspension feeding. So an amoeboid cell that doesn’t grow those parts could focus on, well, pretty much everything else: energy storage, intracellular digestion, reproduction, toxin production, mucus/collagen production, the synthesis of certain macromolecules and proteins... all kinds of things.


All those things the adult form can do too. So, explain me how a lost of some features in some individuals will help the colony as a whole.

I said colonial organizations can be more efficient, they don’t always have to be. The choanoflagellates that live individually obviously have other features that make them successful. Look at siphonophores, like the Man of War jellyfish. It’s not a jellyfish at all, but a colonial organization of individual polyps. These polyps thrive in a colonial organization. However a similar polyp, the hydra, does not form colonies and seems to have no trouble living independently. So it really just depends, in some cases colonies work and in other cases they are unnecessary.


I got it. Colonial organizations is an advantage except when it is not.

That site deals only with terrestrial snails and slugs. When I mentioned that some slugs have bright colors and produce dangerous toxins, I was thinking more of the marine variety. That being said, I’m sure terrestrial slugs also have various defence mechanism that snails lack. And slug behaviours also differ from snails in many ways, which would affect their chances of being eaten.


Terrestrial slugs dont have shell and that´s what matters. They have the same predators as terrestrial snails and they survive very well.

There’s a lot of dispute about how to classify hominids like Ardi. But I can tell you for sure that it’s not a monkey. Classification is based on more than superficial appearance. The skull, teeth, and overall skeletal structure are taken into account and I think even creationists would agree with me when I say that not everything that looks like a monkey can be called a monkey. Dolphins look more like fish than they look like mammals, should we start calling them fish?


So , tell us how to call it. If you find a creature like that in a forest, what would you
say ?

1 - Look that monkey !!!
2 - Look that thing which looks like a monkey, move like monkey but it´s not a monkey. :rolleyes:

No, I only said that because you resorted to the use of a word like “lazy” when refuting natural selection. I generally try to avoid attaching derogatory terms to other people’s beliefs.


It´s good to know you recognize evolution is a belief.But what could I say ? Evolution can turn a monkey into a human in only 10 million years, but it can´t remove a simple trait.Give me a scientific explanation if you can.Please, nothing like "Evolution is not obliged to" as if it was a person.

#65 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 18 April 2010 - 08:44 PM

All those things the adult form can do too. So, explain me how a lost of some features in some individuals will help the colony as a whole.

View Post

It’s the same reason an assembly line can get the job done faster than a single person. When a cell becomes specialized, it can devote all its energy to that specialization. There’s a certain type of sponge cell that produces mucus. That’s all it does. It doesn’t need to produce defensive toxins, or collect food, or reproduce. All its energy goes into producing mucus, and as a result a lot of mucus can be produced.

I got it. Colonial organizations is an advantage except when it is not.

View Post

Put simply, it depends on the animal. There is not a single factor which determines whether it’s advantageous.

Terrestrial slugs dont have shell and that´s what matters. They have the same predators as terrestrial snails and they survive very well.

View Post

And I already explained that compared to snails, they have different lifestyles and defence mechanisms. For example: some snails can survive dry conditions by staying in their shell. Slugs can’t, so they generally stay close to the ground where they’re less exposed and better camouflaged to the leaves and soil. It rains a lot here in Vancouver, and I see snails all the time on leaves and fences. I never see slugs, unless I start looking under rocks or logs.

So , tell us how to call it. If you find a creature like that in a forest, what would you
say ?

1 - Look that monkey !!!
2 - Look that thing which looks like a monkey, move like monkey but it´s not a monkey.

View Post

If I saw an animal that I had never seen before, I would not assume it’s a monkey simply because it looks like a monkey.

Monkeys have certain features that set them apart as a group. Apes are not monkeys, even though they resemble monkeys in many ways. Prosimians (lemurs) are not monkeys. They all look similar, but we don’t lump them into one group and call them the same thing.

Grouping animals according to similar features that go beyond visible similarities (like genetics and skeletal morphology) is not specific to evolution.

Evolution can turn a monkey into a human in only 10 million years, but it can´t remove a simple trait.Give me a scientific explanation if you can.Please, nothing like "Evolution is not obliged to" as if it was a person.

View Post

When have I ever personified evolution?! I’m not even going to answer this question, because you’ve set it up in a way that no matter what I say I will automatically be wrong.

#66 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 19 April 2010 - 05:39 PM

When have I ever personified evolution?! I’m not even going to answer this question, because you’ve set it up in a way that no matter what I say I will automatically be wrong.

View Post


Hmm... let's see...

It’s the same reason an assembly line can get the job done faster than a single person. When a cell becomes specialized, it can devote all its energy to that specialization...


Doesn't that sound like you're personifying evolution to you? You're using human constructs to describe a "mindless" process that has "no" direction or "purpose".

#67 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 19 April 2010 - 06:48 PM

(Isabella @ Apr 18 2010, 09:44 PM)

When have I ever personified evolution?! I’m not even going to answer this question, because you’ve set it up in a way that no matter what I say I will automatically be wrong.


Hmm... let's see...

(Isabella) It’s the same reason an assembly line can get the job done faster than a single person. When a cell becomes specialized, it can devote all its energy to that specialization...

Doesn't that sound like you're personifying evolution to you? You're using human constructs to describe a "mindless" process that has "no" direction or "purpose".

View Post


Kind of like the show on plants I watched last night. They used so many verbs for what the plants do. Verbs like 'think up' 'figured out' 'patiently wait' 'uses.' I was waiting for them to show their brains, as much as they attributed intelligence and will to them. Of course evos make excuse for this that it's just the way science speaks.

One thing for sure--they recognize intelligence.

#68 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 19 April 2010 - 10:44 PM

Doesn't that sound like you're personifying evolution to you? You're using human constructs to describe a "mindless" process that has "no" direction or "purpose".

View Post

No, that’s called an analogy. I was not comparing natural selection to people. I was using an assembly line as an example of how dividing up work can result in more efficient production.

#69 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 April 2010 - 04:36 AM

Kind of like the show on plants I watched last night.  They used so many verbs for what the plants do.  Verbs like 'think up' 'figured out' 'patiently wait'  'uses.'  I was waiting for them to show their brains, as much as they attributed intelligence and will to them.  Of course evos make excuse for this that it's just the way science speaks.

One thing for sure--they recognize intelligence.

Interestingly enough, they can't help but use this terminology and claim it as their own. The problem with true science , biology and even nature itself is that they in reality are totally unaware of the philosophy called "Theory of Evolution".

Plants are interesting and it is this field in which I belong to. For many years in the southwest I collected numerous specimans for my property which was about 4500' elevation. The area I lived in was bordering semi-arid high desert and Montane mix of tree/chaparral forest ecosystems. In this part of the southwest a species of tree many here might be familiar with is the White Alder (Alnus rhombifolia) grows only where there is plenty of water for their roots to practically bathe in. Hence they are usually only found in streams with permanent water sources. I always wanted some speciman examples for my landscape because I've found them to be a beautiful tree, but never wanted to spend the time and money on constantly watering them the way they prefer water's continued availablity. Hence I put in a grey water line from both showers and bath, kitchen sink and laundry source.

After location the line in what originally was a dry wash, I then went to the town of Idyllwild, CA which is several miles north of where I lived and found three dormant seedlings of White Alder on my friend's property to transplant back on my property. Later I decided I needed three more, but rather than going back to my friend's property, I went south in the opposite direction to the twon of Warner Springs down in San Diego Co. I actually collect four 5' high dormant seedlings. Without ever thinking about it for a couple of years, it dawned on me one spring that the Idyllwild Alders I collected didn't start their bud bloom until very late April, while the Warner Springs Alders bloomed in late February/early March. So why the difference in the same exact species of tree ? It was because of difference in elevation which also translated in differences in climate and ecosystem. Clearly in the 6700' elevation trees collected had to deal with late snows and spring frosts which were common. The Warner Springs trees were at 3000' elevation and the surrounding countryside is at the edge of the desert and often experiences spring wildflower displays in open country at this time of year. The genetic mechanism for bud break timing had simply been adjusted for the surrounding environment. The informational programming inside the plant simply re-engineered itself for the plants survival.

This begs to ask further questions as to changes regarding the very slowed down and simple celled organisms into multi-cellular ones that is being speculated here in this thread. Admittedly a single celled bacteria is anything but simple. What we now know it is very complex. But it's still depicted as an easy target for evolutionists to focus on with their lucky random mutational copying errors for which the "Natural Selection" blind force intelligence chooses for success. What intrigues me is how a living thing such as a tree (plant) which as far as we know has no brain for communication and far more complex in it's structure and mass, but how does a random mutation take place in re-writting the software for the timing mechanism of bud break ? Especially since we must be talking about an massive organism with hundreds of thousands if not millions of cells already in place. Do all those millions cells randomly mutate the the same exact timing mechanism mutation all at once in each and every cell ? How is that new information suddenly blueprinted into the genetic information of each and every single cell throughout the tree ? How is it magically transfered to the reproductive regions for hereditary assignment for the success of it's future offspring through the manufacture of it's seed ?

Again, not picking on anyone, but how does such complex achievements result from nothing more than a natural world that is governed by nothing more than blind, pointless, pitiless indifference without purpose or intent ???????? :o

please forgive any spelling errors, but I'm always in a rush. :rolleyes:

#70 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 20 April 2010 - 11:40 AM

Kind of like the show on plants I watched last night. They used so many verbs for what the plants do. Verbs like 'think up' 'figured out' 'patiently wait' 'uses.' I was waiting for them to show their brains, as much as they attributed intelligence and will to them. Of course evos make excuse for this that it's just the way science speaks.

One thing for sure--they recognize intelligence.

View Post

I don’t think you should jump to conclusions about evolutionists “recognizing intelligence”. Things are easier to explain, and often easier to understand, when human motives are attached to them. Of course it’s incorrect, but it’s generally a pretty safe thing to do... expect in the context of evolution, that is.

Many of the processes in beginner-level chemistry and physics are personified as well. A teacher or textbook might explain cellular osmosis by saying something like, “The water wants to leave the cell because there’s a higher salt concentration on the outside”. We all know that water doesn’t “want” anything, but that statement still effectively conveys the idea behind osmosis. The alternative to using the word “want” is an in-depth analysis of why the water moves. This involves entropy and membrane potentials and osmotic pressure, concepts that go beyond a basic understanding of osmosis.

The show you watched really should have known better than to use the words they did when talking about plants though. I’ve seen that in books and on TV as well, and it’s very misleading in the context of evolution. But like I said, I wouldn’t read too much into it. It’s probably just an attempt on their part of keep the viewers interested.

#71 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 21 April 2010 - 07:22 PM

I don’t think you should jump to conclusions about evolutionists “recognizing intelligence”. Things are easier to explain, and often easier to understand, when human motives are attached to them. Of course it’s incorrect, but it’s generally a pretty safe thing to do... expect in the context of evolution, that is.

Many of the processes in beginner-level chemistry and physics are personified as well. A teacher or textbook might explain cellular osmosis by saying something like, “The water wants to leave the cell because there’s a higher salt concentration on the outside”. We all know that water doesn’t “want” anything, but that statement still effectively conveys the idea behind osmosis. The alternative to using the word “want” is an in-depth analysis of why the water moves. This involves entropy and membrane potentials and osmotic pressure, concepts that go beyond a basic understanding of osmosis.

The show you watched really should have known better than to use the words they did when talking about plants though. I’ve seen that in books and on TV as well, and it’s very misleading in the context of evolution. But like I said, I wouldn’t read too much into it. It’s probably just an attempt on their part of keep the viewers interested.

View Post

In chemistry there is no highly controversial issue involved. In evolution/creation there is an issue. I remember the philosophical cliche on Jurassic Park--"Life will find a way." The statement itself implies that life is predestined to happen by it's own will.

If God were not involved in this issue, it would make no difference. But whether you know it or not, 80% of Americans still believe in God. Many have attended church at one point in their life, and have acknowledged more than this life, even if they currently choose to live as though there is no God. There are many "wandering" believers--but I pray it will not always be that way.

#72 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 01 May 2010 - 08:13 AM

It’s the same reason an assembly line can get the job done faster than a single person. When a cell becomes specialized, it can devote all its energy to that specialization. There’s a certain type of sponge cell that produces mucus. That’s all it does. It doesn’t need to produce defensive toxins, or collect food, or reproduce. All its energy goes into producing mucus, and as a result a lot of mucus can be produced.


Sponge is already multicellular, so you cannot use it as an example.An unicellular organims doesnt know it has to help other unicellular organism.So, if sponge was not a multicellular organism, that type of sponge cell would die because the others cells would not help it with food or defensive toxins.

Put simply, it depends on the animal. There is not a single factor which determines whether it’s advantageous.


So, tell us in what conditions living in a collony is advantageous and what conditions is not advantageous.

And I already explained that compared to snails, they have different lifestyles and defence mechanisms. For example: some snails can survive dry conditions by staying in their shell. Slugs can’t, so they generally stay close to the ground where they’re less exposed and better camouflaged to the leaves and soil. It rains a lot here in Vancouver, and I see snails all the time on leaves and fences. I never see slugs, unless I start looking under rocks or logs.


According to evolutionists slugs evolved from snails, so they evolved to lose their shells, what proves that their shells are not an advantage.

If I saw an animal that I had never seen before, I would not assume it’s a monkey simply because it looks like a monkey.
Monkeys have certain features that set them apart as a group. Apes are not monkeys, even though they resemble monkeys in many ways. Prosimians (lemurs) are not monkeys. They all look similar, but we don’t lump them into one group and call them the same thing.

Grouping animals according to similar features that go beyond visible similarities
(like genetics and skeletal morphology) is not specific to evolution. 


So, tell us what would you call it ?


When have I ever personified evolution?! I’m not even going to answer this question, because you’ve set it up in a way that no matter what I say I will automatically be wrong.


Of course you have. Look at colony example. You said that the colony can be useful but it´s possible to live without it.SO, where is the prediction ? How did evolution choose one or other ? You dont know. The only thing you know is that some unicellular organisms live in the same environment as multicellular organisms, some unicellular organisms build colonies and others dont. And somehow evolution choosed to transform some and not others.

If you want to make a scientific case for evolution of multicellularity, you must make some prediction.You must list in what conditions an unicellular organism would transform into a multicellular organism.In that condition you must explain why that organism would not survive if it stays as an unicellular organism.What mutations are necessary, what is the odds.

#73 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 04 May 2010 - 07:17 PM

Sponge is already multicellular, so you cannot use it as an example.An unicellular organims doesnt know it has to help other unicellular organism.So, if sponge was not a multicellular organism, that type of sponge cell would die because the others cells would not help it with food or defensive toxins.

View Post

Even in a multicellular organism like a sponge, the cells don’t “know” that they have to help one another. It’s not like cells have brains and motives. I said that multicellularity would likely stem from an already colonial group, which means that they are already living in close proximity. Cells within the colony that produce a defensive toxin don’t need to “know” their role. But the colony as a whole is less likely to be eaten because of them.

So, tell us in what conditions living in a collony is advantageous and what conditions is not advantageous.

View Post

It’s not like I can tell you the exact condition which may have promoted multicellularity. You seem to doubt my claim that sometimes organisms benefit from colonial lifestyles, yet this is something that is observed in both unicellular and multicellular species.
A food shortage may promote colonial growth, because it would allow for the sharing of nutrients. However a threat like predation may favour solitary living, to ensure greater dispersal.

According to evolutionists slugs evolved from snails, so they evolved to lose their shells, what proves that their shells are not an advantage.

View Post

That doesn’t prove anything. Shells are an advantage.

So, tell us what would you call it ?

View Post

What would I call an unknown creature I encountered in the forest? Well, seeing as how I’m not a zoologist I don’t think I would take the liberty of calling it anything. Several tests would need to be done before the mystery animal could be classified. I lack the resources and expertise to do that by myself.

Of course you have. Look at colony example. You said that the colony can be useful but it´s possible to live without it.SO, where is the prediction ? How did evolution choose one or other ? You dont know. The only thing you know is that some unicellular organisms live in the same environment as multicellular organisms, some unicellular organisms build colonies and others dont. And somehow evolution choosed to transform some and not others.

View Post

I still don’t see how I personified evolution. I never claimed that evolution “chose” to transform unicellular organisms into multicellular ones... those are your words, not mine.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users