Evolution Intelligent Design

A hint as to how unicellular life forms grew to be multicellular?

Spread the love

We are told, “When facing a predator, single cells sometimes unite to defend themselves, paving the way for more complex multicellular life forms to evolve:

One theory posits that single-celled organisms evolved multicellularity through a specific series of adaptations. First, cells began adhering to each other, creating cell groups that have a higher survival rate, partly because it’s harder for predators to kill a group of cells than a single cell. But this defensive adaptation comes at the price of a lowered reproduction rate; only through adaptations acquired over generations do cell groups become better at reproducing than single cells.

Stephen Johnson, “How evolution shifts from unicellular to multicellular life” at BigThink (July 14, 2021)

The theory was tested on algae:

After six months, all the algae strains that faced the predator had evolved into cell groups. Meanwhile, only four of the 10 algae strains without predators evolved into groups. Surprisingly, this transition toward simple multicellularity occurred relatively quickly, over just 500 generations or six months. (The algae replicated about once every 9 hours.) …

After cell groups boosted their defenses against predators, they were able to increase their reproductive rates. The researchers noted that these adaptations occurred on the genome level and were heritable, suggesting that with enough exposure to a selection pressure, like predation, the evolution toward multicellularity might be inevitable.

Stephen Johnson, “How evolution shifts from unicellular to multicellular life” at BigThink (July 14, 2021)

The paper is open access.

But wait. Before we get carried away, botanist Margaret Helder writes to say,

Lots of algae exhibit clumping together in groups. This is not the definition of multicellularity. There are quite a number of colonial relatives of Chlamydomonas, for example like Eudorina, Pandorina and Volvox. They are not evolving into anything.

Multicellularity, by definition, involves differentiation of cells into different tissues with different roles.

This study seems very simplistic. One wonders if the referees knew anything about algae.

The referees do know that claiming a breakthrough is good for business.

Generally, a colony of cells is not a multicellular body, even if the cells co-operate. It takes more than that. They must be obligate members of a system.

Here are the study’s vids:

and

Here’s a Volvox colony:

9 Replies to “A hint as to how unicellular life forms grew to be multicellular?

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    just another example of Darwinian misleading interpretation of reality … we have seen this so many times in the past … a misinterpretation after a misinterpretation after a misinterpretation …

    Most lay people are not aware of, but according to Darwinian theory, multicellularity should have evolved repeatedly, many times independently … the funny thing is, today, it somehow stopped evolving :))) These things always happen in deep past :))))) These things are so tricky :)))))

    Darwinian clowns….

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bies.201200143

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    Opening the lens a bit, the basic distinction is essentially meaningless. A beehive or a human family has division of labor and obligate roles. Each personality type is born with its talents and limitations, just as each cell type is born with its talents and limitations. Drones and workers and queens move into their assigned places, just as skin cells and neurons and eggs move into their assigned places. The structure is the same, only the size and complexity of the members changes.

    Emerson said it:

    The world globes itself in a drop of dew. The microscope cannot find the animalcule which is less perfect for being little. Eyes, ears, taste, smell, motion, resistance, appetite, and organs of reproduction that take hold on eternity — all find room to consist in the smallest creature. So do we put all our life into every act. The true doctrine of omnipresence is, that God reappears with all his parts in every moss and cobweb. The value of the universe contrives to throw itself into every point.

  3. 3
    Bob O'H says:

    Margeret Helder –

    Multicellularity, by definition, involves differentiation of cells into different tissues with different roles.

    This study seems very simplistic. One wonders if the referees knew anything about algae.

    First line of abstract:

    The evolutionary transition towards multicellular life often involves growth in groups of undifferentiated cells followed by differentiation into soma and germ-like cells.

    So yes they do know about cell differentiation.

    Before anyone argues that they don’t show evolution of multicellularity, the title of the paper is “The evolution of convex trade-offs enables the transition towards multicellularity”.

  4. 4
    Fasteddious says:

    Bob @3: The phrase, “enables the transition towards multicellularity” is just an assumption – an evolutionary gloss based on wishful thinking and materialistic presuppositions. It was not seen in the actual experiment, therefore it is merely another evolutionary “just-so story”.
    Moreover, if this transition to multicellularity is so easy and quick to get started (only 500 generations?), then why were there only single-cell life forms on Earth for almost 3 billion years?

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob quotes the first line of the paper

    The evolution of convex trade-offs enables the transition towards multicellularity – 2021
    Excerpt: The evolutionary transition towards multicellular life often involves growth in groups of undifferentiated cells followed by differentiation into soma and germ-like cells.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24503-z

    of note: “Somatic cells” is a fairly general term which refers to essentially all the cells of the body except for the germ line; the germ line being the cells in the sexual organs that produce sperm and eggs. So anything that doesn’t have the job of producing sperm or eggs is a somatic cell.
    – per National Human Genome Research Institute

    Bob then states, “Before anyone argues that they don’t show evolution of multicellularity, the title of the paper is “The evolution of convex trade-offs enables the transition towards multicellularity”.

    Golly gee whiz, and I guess, following this line of reasoning, that this also proves that Bunny Rabbits that jump higher than other Bunny Rabbits will one day jump to the moon?

    What this really shows evidence for, is not that single cell organisms may someday become “dinosaurs to human beings”, (as was stated in the press release), but instead it is evidence for just how gullible Darwinists are in that Darwinists imagine that they can see evidence for Darwinian evolution within every passing cloud.

    “Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel?
    Polonius: By the mass, and ‘tis like a camel, indeed.
    Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel.
    Polonius: It is backed like a weasel.
    Hamlet: Or like a whale?
    Polonius: Very like a whale.”

    There are a few ‘minor’ problems with their claim that this provides empirical evidence for the Darwinian claim that algae may someday become “dinosaurs to human beings”.

    First off, as the authors themselves admitted, the “algal clones that were selected under rotifer predation were more likely to grow as cell groups and displayed a decrease in growth rate”

    And a “decrease in growth rate” strongly suggests loss of function mutations were involved in getting the single cells to group together.

    And indeed, the authors admit as much when they say that the subsequent compensatory mutations that increased the reproduction rate somewhere close to where it was before, “are likely involved in mitigating the consequences of growth in cell groups.”

    So, If anything, at the molecular level, this is most likely a ‘two steps backwards’ process. (in other words, this experiment is actually evidence AGAINST Darwinian evolution, not for it),

    The first ‘backwards step’ was the loss of function mutations that were involved involved in getting the single cells to group together,,,, As Behe commented on a similar experiment back in 2012, “the results can be regarded as the loss of two pre-existing abilities: 1) the loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division; and 2) the loss of control of apoptosis.”

    More Darwinian Degradation – M. Behe – January 2012
    Excerpt: Recently a paper appeared by Ratcliff et al. (2012) entitled “Experimental evolution of mulitcellularity” and received a fair amount of press attention, including a story in the New York Times.,,,
    It seems to me that Richard Lenski, who knows how to get the most publicity out of exceedingly modest laboratory results, has taught his student well. In fact, the results can be regarded as the loss of two pre-existing abilities: 1) the loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division; and 2) the loss of control of apoptosis.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....gradation/

    And the second ‘backwards step’ was that the ‘mitigating’ mutations, (as the authors themselves termed the subsequent ‘compensatory’ mutations), were, in all likelihood, also loss of function mutations.

    As Dr. Behe has shown (from his study of all the evolution experiments going back over 5 decades now), “Loss of function mutations that give an adaptive advantage are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations”

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,,
    The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,,
    I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Biological Information – Loss-of-Function Mutations (Michael Behe) by Paul Giem 2015 – video
    (Behe – Loss of function mutations that give an adaptive advantage are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ

    Getting There First: An Evolutionary Rate Advantage for Adaptive Loss-of-Function Mutations
    Michael J. Behe – 2013
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0020

    The authors themselves did not get into the nitty-gritty of the molecular details of exactly what the ‘mitigating’ mutations were doing, (i.e. the mutations that increased the reproductive rate back to near what it was before), so they themselves don’t really know if new functionality was created, (i.e. if any new proteins or genes were created in order to compensate for the loss in the reproduction rate), but they only speculated that these ‘mitigating’ mutations might involve “certain metabolism processes and regulative control of cellular processes.”

    Call me very unimpressed with their experiment.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Besides the researchers failing to demonstrate that any new functional proteins or genes were created, and even failing to demonstrate that the mutations were ‘gain of function’ mutations and that they were not, in fact, ‘loss of function’ mutations. The researchers did not even really demonstrate anything new that has not already been known about for a long time.

    Which is to say, single celled organisms living in groups is certainly not something new, but is something that has, most likely, been present since life was first created on earth. (And is therefore something that, in and of itself, presents its own insurmountable difficulties for Darwinists).

    Specifically, we now have evidence for ‘microbial mats’ dating back through the ages that were “present as life was beginning on Earth”

    Geobiologist Noffke Reports Signs of Life that Are 3.48 Billion Years Old – 11/11/13
    Excerpt: the mats woven of tiny microbes we see today covering tidal flats were also present as life was beginning on Earth. The mats, which are colonies of cyanobacteria, can cause unusual textures and formations in the sand beneath them. Noffke has identified 17 main groups of such textures caused by present-day microbial mats, and has found corresponding structures in geological formations dating back through the ages.
    http://www.odu.edu/about/odu-p...../topstory1

    3.5 billion-year-old ecosystem found – November 12, 2013
    Excerpt: “Mound-like deposits created by ancient bacteria, called stromatolites, and microfossils of bacteria have previously been discovered in this region. However, a phenomenon called microbially induced sedimentary structures, or MISS, had not previously been seen in rocks of this great age.”?MISS were created by microbial mats as the microbial communities responded to changes in physical sediment dynamics, Professor Wacey said. “A common example would be the binding together of sediment grains by microbes to prevent their erosion by water currents,” he said. “The significance of MISS is that they not only demonstrate the presence of life, but also the presence of whole microbial ecosystems that could co-ordinate with one another to respond to changes in their environment.”,,,
    The team described the various MISS from the ancient coastal flats preserved in the Dresser Formation and found close similarities in both form and preservation style to MISS in younger rocks.
    http://www.sciencealert.com.au.....25003.html

    This following site has an illustration that shows some of the interdependent biogeochemical complexity involved in ancient ‘Microbial Mats’ ,,,

    Microbial mat ecosystems: Structure types, functional diversity, and biotechnological application – 2018
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0717345817300738

    Please note, that if even one major type of bacteria group did not exist in these ancient microbial mats, in this complex environmental cycle of biogeochemical interdependence, that was illustrated on the preceding site, then all of the different bacteria would soon die out. This essential biogeochemical interdependence, of the most primitive different types of bacteria that we have evidence of on ancient earth, makes the origin of life ‘problem’ for neo-Darwinists that much worse. For now not only do neo-Darwinists have to explain how the ‘miracle of life’ happened once with the origin of photosynthetic bacteria, but now they must also explain how all these different types bacteria, that photosynthetic bacteria are dependent on, in this irreducibly complex biogeochemical web, miraculously arose just in time to supply the necessary nutrients, in their biogeochemical link in the chain, for photosynthetic bacteria to continue to survive for any extended period of time.

    And also note the tectonic activity of the earth must also be fine-tuned to some degree in order to maintain the proper biogeochemical balance on the surface of the earth in order for the bacterial groups to continue to survive.

    Moreover, as if all this was not bad enough for Darwinists, there simply isn’t any evidence in the fossil record that Darwinists can appeal to that would indicate that bacterial cells ever formed anything other than these ‘simple aggregates’:

    “We go from single cell protozoa. Which would be ameoba and things like that. Then you get into some that are a little bit bigger, still single cell, and then you get aggregates, they’re still individual cells that aggregate together. They don’t seem to have much in the way of cooperation,,, but when you really talk about a functioning organism, that has more than just one type of cell, you are talking about a sponge and you can have hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of cells. So we don’t really have organisms that function with say two different types of cells, but there is only five total. We don’t have anything like that.”
    – Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin – quote taken from 31:00 minute mark of this following video
    – Natural Limits to Biological Change 2/2 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo3OKSGeFRQ?

    Moreover, to compare this experiment to what actually happens when a multicellular organism is created during sexual reproduction and embryogenesis, is to compare a wet safety match to the detonation of a nuclear bomb.

    In other words, the comparison is not even close.

    Sexual reproduction is just as enigmatic now as it was in Darwin’s day, (if not more so),

    How did the sexes originate? Why is it that the vast majority of living things require a “male and female” to reproduce? If evolution were true – doesn’t it make much more sense that EVERY living organism was self-replicating and required no useless energy expenditure? When did the first male get here? When did the first female get here? How? Why? Wouldn’t they have had to appear fully functional and at the same time in order for the next generation of organisms to arrive? Of course, they would. So, how is it that the first male and female for almost 2 million living organisms arrived together and fully functional so that reproduction could take place? “Sex is the QUEEN of evolutionary biology problems.”
    Dr. Graham Bell – In his book, ‘The Masterpiece of Nature’

    Another whack at the “sex paradox” – July 1, 2014
    Excerpt: The article is most informative about tests done on the various theses but in the end (they state). And so the paradox of sex lives on. “We still really don’t know the answer to this very most basic question,” says Mark Welch. “We don’t know why sex exists.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....x-paradox/

    And embryogenesis, in and of itself, makes the enigma of Sexual reproduction look mild in comparison.

    As Alexander Tsiaras states, “The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity.”

    “It’s a Mystery, It’s Magic, It’s Divinity” – Casey Luskin – March 22, 2012
    Excerpt: “The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity.”
    – Alexander Tsiaras
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....57741.html

    For Darwinists to play embryogenesis off as if it is no big deal is disingenuous to say the least.

    No one, (and I mean NO ONE to especially include Darwinists), has a realistic clue as to how a single fertilized egg can transform itself, via embryogenesis, into a multicellular creature with a distinct biological form.

    As the following recent article stated, “Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis as irrelevant.”,,, “At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved.”

    On the problem of biological form – Marta Linde-Medina – 2020
    Excerpt: Embryonic development, which inspired the first theories of biological form, was eventually excluded from the conceptual framework of the Modern Synthesis as irrelevant.,,, At present, the problem of biological form remains unsolved.
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32418121/

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    And there is a very good reason why “the problem of biological form remains unsolved” for Darwinists.

    It is ‘immaterial information’ that determines what form an organism may have. And yet, the materialistic processes of Darwinian evolution are grossly inadequate to explain the creation of immaterial information. Indeed, Darwinian materialism is not even in the same ballpark as immaterial information is.

    And just how much immaterial information is required to explain the ‘biological form’ of a multicellular organism?

    Well, the ‘immaterial’ information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.

    In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017
    Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,:
    [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/

    So just where is this massive amount of ‘positional’ information coming from in a developing embryo if it cannot possibly be contained within the 10^9 bits of the information in the DNA of the fertilized egg of a human?

    Well, at about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Wells, (who specializes in embryology), using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that, during embryological development, ‘positional information’ must somehow be added to the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, in order to explain the transdifferentiation of cells into multiple different states during embryological development.

    Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017
    https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484

    Moreover, as the following video highlights, there is now found to be a massive, ubiquitous, amount of non-local, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement and/or quantum information within the molecular biology of living organisms.

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    The thing about quantum entanglement that is so interesting is that it requires a ‘non-local’ cause that is beyond space and time. As the following article states, ““Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    In other words, Intelligent Design, and a direct inference to ‘beyond space and time’ God, as the Intelligence behind life, (via the non-locality of quantum information and/or the non-locality of quantum entanglement ), has, for all intents and purposes, finally achieved experimental confirmation.

    Darwinists simply have no beyond space and time cause to appeal to in order to be able to explain where this massive amount of positional and/or quantum information could possibly be coming from in a developing embryo. Whereas, on the other hand, Christians have postulated a beyond space and time cause for embryological development all along.

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    Psalm 139:13-16
    For you created my inmost being;
    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
    I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    your works are wonderful,
    I know that full well.
    My frame was not hidden from you
    when I was made in the secret place,
    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
    Your eyes saw my unformed body;
    all the days ordained for me were written in your book
    before one of them came to be.

    On top of all that, quantum information is physically conserved and therefore cannot be created nor destroyed,,,

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication is, of course, the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
    https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604

    All of these recent developments in quantum biology supporting the reality of the soul are, or should be, very exciting for people to learn about. Why Darwinists would fight tooth and nail against accepting such exciting evidence as this, I have no idea. Fighting against such a wondrous and exciting finding in science, (a finding that strongly supports the physical reality of a soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material, temporal, bodies), simply doesn’t make any sense to me.

    Verse:

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  8. 8
    Bob O'H says:

    Fasteddious – the authors don’t claim to get to full multicellularity, so they certainly don’t show it occurred in 500 generations.

  9. 9
    ET says:

    Evolutionary equivocation. These organisms were intelligently designed to form colonies when the need arises.

Leave a Reply