Jump to content


Photo

Single Cellular --> Multi Cellular?


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#1 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 08 April 2010 - 09:01 PM

Evolution claims that single celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms. However, this simply can not happen.

First of all... how would an organism made up of multiple cells reproduce? It is very unlikely that a cell would somehow develop a system to lay eggs at the exact same time that it would somehow become multicellular with another cell.

Second of all... there would have to be drastic changes in the DNA in order to allow specialization of cells, some way to bond the cells together, a method of reproduction, etc, all happening at the same time.

Third of all... how would the cells form together? Would multiple cells somehow bond? Well, the DNA would need to change to have a cell adhesive. Except that they would simply become stuck together and possibly die. Look at Siamese twins today.

Fourth of all... if two cells stick together, how would they reproduce in the same state? If the cells had to reproduce independently and attach again they would just be two different organisms stuck together, "evolving" in different ways. They would have to be interlinked somehow.

Fifth of all... I read an article about this, and the evolutionists claimed that cell division could have failed, or two cells could have been stuck together by chance. How would this be genetic? How would it reproduce exactly the same form? Wouldn't two cells stuck together interfere with mitosis?

Sixth of all... Why? Smaller cells can reproduce much faster and have more reproductive success. And take less energy to produce.

Seventh of all... how/why would genders evolve afterwards if an assexual system of reproduction would be required as gender, multicellular-ity, reproduction, and other things are already so unlikely to happen together?

There are many problems with the claim that single celled organisms became multi celled. So many things would have to happen at once that it is absurd to think that multicellular organisms evolved.

#2 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 09 April 2010 - 04:54 AM

Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity

Can't happen huh?

#3 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 09 April 2010 - 05:27 AM

Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity

Can't happen huh?

View Post


The link didn't work for me, it is asking for name and password.

#4 Guest_McStone_*

Guest_McStone_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2010 - 09:10 AM

this same discussion is happening on "evolution tested and falsified". Ive explained multicellularity there, so check it out. I suspect we are going to go a bit deeper in it yet though....

basically, it comes down to the reason why adam's cells contain these:

Posted Image

Posted Image

otherwise known as bacteria

#5 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 09 April 2010 - 09:15 AM

I do not understand what you are trying to say here.
A muticellular organism would need a drastic change in its DNA from a single-celled organism. the change is simply too great for one mutation, and it would be an extreme appeal to luck to say it would be likely to happen.

Jason78, I'm looking for something more original than words and a link. I spent the time writing my post, can't you write yours instead using someone else's writing?

#6 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 09 April 2010 - 12:24 PM

I do not understand what you are trying to say here.
A muticellular organism would need a drastic change in its DNA from a single-celled organism. the change is simply too great for one mutation, and it would be an extreme appeal to luck to say it would be likely to happen.

Jason78, I'm looking for something more original than words and a link. I spent the time writing my post, can't you write yours instead using someone else's writing?

View Post


You've said that "Evolution claims that single celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms. However, this simply can not happen". I've pointed you in the direction of original research showing that exact thing happening.

Here's a link that tells you a little more about the experiment.

#7 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 09 April 2010 - 12:31 PM

As I said, can you please stop giving me nothing but links? Don't be lazy.

#8 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 09 April 2010 - 12:44 PM

What more do you want? You've made eight big claims that a multicellular organism can't evolve. I've shown you the research showing that very thing happening.

In short, predator bacteria were introduced to a population of single celled green algae. Less than 100 generations later the population of algae had transformed from single celled organisms into multi-cellular organisms.

#9 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 09 April 2010 - 12:53 PM

Okay.
Heh, I was editing my previous post to refute the article, then I opened a new tab and forgot to submit the edited post.

The algae referred to in your article stick together. Your summary ignores the fact that the cells adhere to each other. Couldn't it mean that they simply have a mechanism to stick to each other? They are just a bunch of unicellular organisms stuck together.

Well, according to the horribly biased Wikipedia,

Multicellular organisms are organisms that consist of more than one cell, and have differentiated cells that perform specialized functions in the organism


Sorry, but those algae just don't cut it. They consist of more than one cell, but the cells can live independently of one another. They do not differentiate either.

The algae colonies do not have one genome that codes for the entire colony. Another colony is started by one cell simply splitting off from the rest (If I understand correctly) and dividing. There is no central system of reproduction, which is present in all true multicellular organisms. And without differentiation there cannot be. But differentiation would require drastic changes in each cell's DNA, and that would just be too unlikely to happen to logically believe it did happen.

#10 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 09 April 2010 - 01:31 PM

The algae referred to in your article stick together. Your summary ignores the fact that the cells adhere to each other. Couldn't it mean that they simply have a mechanism to stick to each other? They are just a bunch of unicellular organisms stuck together.

View Post


They aren't just a bunch of cells that stick together. Each of the eight cells in the multicellular organism is genetically identical to the mother cell and reside within the mother cell's envelope.

Sorry, but those algae just don't cut it. They consist of more than one cell, but the cells can live independently of one another. They do not differentiate either.

View Post


The cells of a carrot can live independently of the original organism. How different do the cells have to be to count as a true multicellular organism?

The algae colonies do not have one genome that codes for the entire colony. Another colony is started by one cell simply splitting off from the rest (If I understand correctly) and dividing. There is no central system of reproduction, which is present in all true multicellular organisms. And without differentiation there cannot be.

View Post


Where are you getting your information from? There are plenty of plants that reproduce simply by cloning themselves.

But differentiation would require drastic changes in each cell's DNA, and that would just be too unlikely to happen to logically believe it did happen.

View Post


You do realise that each cell within your body has exactly the same DNA as the rest of your cells?

#11 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 09 April 2010 - 01:48 PM

They aren't just a bunch of cells that stick together.  Each of the eight cells in the multicellular organism is genetically identical to the mother cell and reside within the mother cell's envelope.


Mother cell?
Nowhere in the article does it mention a mother cell.

The cells of a carrot can live independently of the original organism.  How different do the cells have to be to count as a true multicellular organism?


Which cells, the ones used for storing food?

I meant that the cells can all live alone just fine. The cells do not need to be together to grow, live, reproduce, etc. Carrots need to be together to grow properly. One carrot cell will not produce a carrot alone.

And about how different, I do not know, but it would obviously have to be more different than being the same. :huh:

Where are you getting your information from?  There are plenty of plants that reproduce simply by cloning themselves.


Plants that use bulbs reproduce asexually from a quick google search. They still have cells differentiated for producing the bulb.
Even asexually reproducing plants have systems of reproduction developed so that certain cells are used for reproducing. I admit that "a central system of reproduction" is not clear. But all multicellular organisms that reproduce have cells differentiated for reproduction.


You do realise that each cell within your body has exactly the same DNA as the rest of your cells?


Yes I do, but they produce different parts of it. Sorry, I was typing quickly.
The system that each cell uses to differentiate would have to evolve at the same time as the new genes, as well. They would have to evolve different activators at the same time as the differentiated genes.

#12 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 April 2010 - 03:08 PM

this same discussion is happening on "evolution tested and falsified". Ive explained multicellularity there, so check it out. I suspect we are going to go a bit deeper in it yet though....

basically, it comes down to the reason why adam's cells contain these:

Posted Image

Posted Image

otherwise known as bacteria

View Post


And your point is????????????? Bacteria exist on and in the human Body. Most actually help the human body.

Are you saying that God could not have done this? I'm sorry but you aren't making any sense at all here.

Oh wait, are you trying to say that Evolution randomly placed the bacteria there... oh I see.

Upon Further inspection, it seems as though you are proposing that a Mitochondrion located within the Cell is in fact a bacteria. No it isn't McStone. It may share some traits of a Bacteria, but it is not in reality a bacteria, it is an organelle. I know that unfortunately Evolutionist would like to think otherwise.

#13 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 09 April 2010 - 03:27 PM

Sponges are a perfect example of the evolutionary intermediate between unicellular and multicellular. They have characteristics of both.

#14 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 09 April 2010 - 04:23 PM

Characteristics of both? What is that supposed to mean? It has one cell but it also has multiple cells?

Sorry but I don't get what that is supposed to mean. A multicellular organism has multiple differentiated cells. A single celled organism has... one cell.


Anyway, can an evolutionist please answer me directly here: Cell differentiation would require too many mutations at the same time. The activators would have to change, the genes would have to change, and a system of having certain cells use different activators would have to change. Too many things would have to change at once for differentiation to evolve.

#15 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 09 April 2010 - 04:41 PM

Characteristics of both? What is that supposed to mean? It has one cell but it also has multiple cells?

Sorry but I don't get what that is supposed to mean. A multicellular organism has multiple differentiated cells. A single celled organism has... one cell.

View Post

Sponges are (to the best of my knowledge) the only animals that don’t have tissues, which means their cells are not connected by a basement membrane. A sponge could be put into a blender and pureed until it was nothing but individual cells, and given enough time those cells would once again arrange themselves into sponge. All the cells of a sponge can be produced from a single celled called an amoebocyte. The cells specialized for feeding are virtually identical to the single-celled choanoflagellates, which, in my opinion, gives a clue to their evolutionary origin. The choanocyte feeding cells also double as sperm in S@xual reproduction.

#16 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 09 April 2010 - 09:26 PM

But they are still multicellular and not unicellular, no?

#17 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 09 April 2010 - 10:46 PM

Yes, they’re multicellular. But they still maintain many characteristics associated with unicellular life, as I explained. Because they lack tissues, the cells are not connected to one another in any way. They are suspended in a non-living gel matrix.

#18 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 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 10 April 2010 - 06:42 AM

You've said that "Evolution claims that single celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms. However, this simply can not happen".  I've pointed you in the direction of original research showing that exact thing happening.

Here's a link that tells you a little more about the experiment.

View Post


Recall that Chlorella is better able to utilize the nutrients in the environment when they are single cells. Thus, the colonies of tens to hundreds of cells soon disappeared, replaced by colonies of of only eight cells. This seems to be the optimal size for uptake of nutrients and defense against Ochromonas. When Boraas et al. removed the predator from the environment, Chlorella colonies continued to make multicellular offspring. However, with the selection pressure to be large gone, the unicellular Chlorella took over again.


This is from your article. Evolution rests on fixed traits. This is a demonstration of unfixed traits. The algae in this study can be classified as revertants. As soon as the pressure was gone they revert, showing that there is a "default" mechanism in the genes.

This lends support to an original design and adaptation within a creation model just as much, if not more than it does to macroevolution.

To add to that, there is nothing to show the evolution of organs, or a separating of specific interdependent bio-appurati which are indicative of true multicellular creatures.

This is another example of the wishful thinking of evolutionary thought. Notice how quickly the 8 cell organization came. Obviously, it would not have been the first time this happened, as there would have always been a predator. This response came not for the first time, but as a built in adaptation given by intelligence in the encoding genes of the chorella.

Finally, if evolution is true, when the scientists discovered this adaptation in the chorella, they should have been able to produce some kind of other selective pressure to produce further evolution until it became say a polyp. The fact is there is no selective pressure pathway in which to do this.

#19 Cata

Cata

    Member

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

Posted 10 April 2010 - 09:30 AM

Yes, they’re multicellular. But they still maintain many characteristics associated with unicellular life, as I explained. Because they lack tissues, the cells are not connected to one another in any way. They are suspended in a non-living gel matrix.

View Post


I'm not looking for this kind of "example." I want someone to answer my question.

Anyway, can an evolutionist please answer me directly here: Cell differentiation would require too many mutations at the same time. The activators would have to change, the genes would have to change, and a system of having certain cells use different activators would have to change. Too many things would have to change at once for differentiation to evolve.



#20 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 10 April 2010 - 02:10 PM

I'm not looking for this kind of "example." I want someone to answer my question.

View Post

Well I thought I’d give you one anyways, because quite frankly your original post shows that you don’t understand many aspects of cellular biology. Questions like “...if two cells stick together, how would they reproduce in the same state?” have nothing to do with refuting evolution. It just shows me you haven’t really studied this in detail.

Cell differentiation would require too many mutations at the same time. The activators would have to change, the genes would have to change, and a system of having certain cells use different activators would have to change. Too many things would have to change at once for differentiation to evolve.


The choanocytes in a sponge develop from specific amoebocytes called archaeocytes. In that sense, choanocytes can be thought of as part of a cellular lifecycle of sorts, with archaeocytes serving as a kind of larval state. At the most basic level, differentiation is really no different than a pre-existing developmental cycle and wouldn’t require any complex mutation.

Sponge evolution may have involved a group of colonial choanoflagellates, some of which never fully developed into their “adult” form and instead remained amoeboid.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users