Evolution Intelligent Design News

Single cell animals were primed to go multicellular?

Spread the love

Well, that’s how Bob Grant puts it at Scientist:

Researchers studying an amoeba species have determined that some of its proteins bear a striking similarity to proteins in multicellular animals, suggesting that the leap from unicellularity to multicellularity may have been easier than previously suspected. The protist, Capsaspora owczarzaki, undergoes life-cycle transitions with the aid of phosphosignaling and proteome regulation in much the same way that multicellular animals direct the differentiation and role of cells performing different functions within an individual organism, the scientists reported last week (October 13) in Developmental Cell.

“Animals are regarded as this very special branch, as in, there had to be so many innovations to be an animal,” David Booth, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who wasn’t involved in the study, told Science News. The new work shows “a lot of the machinery was there millions of years before animals evolved.” More.

By accident, of course.

See also: Multicellulars arose by “long slow dance”? (a different story)

Magnetism enabled multicellular life? (another different story)

and

One random mutation powers multicellular life (a third story)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

 

5 Replies to “Single cell animals were primed to go multicellular?

  1. 1
    Vy says:

    Researchers studying an amoeba species have determined that some of its proteins bear a striking similarity to proteins in multicellular animals, suggesting that the leap from unicellularity to multicellularity may have been easier than previously suspected

    “Researchers studying [the spork] have determined that some of its [element]s bear a striking similarity to [element]s in [forks], suggesting that the leap from [sporkness] to [forkness] may have been easier than previously suspected.”

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    With research stories like that, who needs Harry Potter, Star Trek or Star Wars films? They should make movies of those pseudoscientific research stories.
    Some of those ‘research’ authors could have made fortunes as writers of bestselling fiction novels!
    They’re really endowed with prolific imaginations.
    What are they doing in biology? What a waste of talent!
    🙂

  3. 3
    Dionisio says:

    Still have no idea how we got unicellular, still poorly understand too many things in both unicellular and multicellular biology, but want to waste time trying to figure out how to go from uni- to multicellular?
    Would that have any potential medical benefit?
    We should assign more precious resources to serious research trying to answer many outstanding questions that could affect healthcare.
    That sickening obsession with OOL and evolution is pathetically sad.

  4. 4
    ppolish says:

    “a lot of the machinery was there millions of years before animals evolved”

    Oops, that sure is lucky. Convenient even. What will the amoeba of today become someday. Unicorn? Fingers crossed.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    There simply isn’t any evidence in the fossil record indicating that single cells ever formed anything other than ‘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

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    Excerpt: “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    “The order and complexity in which life appears in the fossil record does not prove the theory of evolution. No life…then life. Some simple life then more complex life with nothing to connect the two in between. What every paleontologist knows is that the basic phyla of all known current life forms, though primitive, just does suddenly appear. The term “explosion” for this phenomenon is not without meaning. The same happened in the Ediacaran layers: No life…then, biologically suddenly, organized complex (when compared to single cells) life just seemingly “exploding” into existence! From wikipedia: “Ediacara biota bear little resemblance to modern lifeforms, and their relationship even with the later lifeforms of the Cambrian explosion is rather difficult to interpret” meaning that there is no relationship or evidence of evolutionary progression. There is no empirical evidence showing any less evolved precursors that can prove evolution. Let’s take a look at any recognizable multicellular animal or plant in the fossil record from ferns, trilobites, and T.Rex just to name a few. They are just suddenly there, appearing in the fossil record, fully formed, without any precursors.”,,,
    Walter Mendoza – Engineer
    https://plus.google.com/111538792546901294971/posts/HNs56yw8QCZ

    Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD talks about the Case for Intelligent Design – video (excellent lecture on the Cambrian Explosion – Oct. 2015)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl802lHAk5Y

    Responding to Critics: Marshall, Part 1 –
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqYUoRVswRY&list=PL7Wwl5TzliiESzJlMgqCo6ogMIZWL7gmj

    Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Marshall, Part 2 (developmental Gene Regulatory Networks) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8Mhn2EKvQ

    Michael Behe demolished the idea that genetic regulatory networks could have arisen spontaneously, via unguided processes, in his 2007 bestseller, The Edge of Evolution (Free Press, New York). The following passage encapsulates Behe’s key argument:
    Figure 9.3
    http://prion.systemsbiology.ne.....gure_1.png
    (This) is an illustration of the genetic regulatory system that turns on the genes that control the construction of a tissue called the endomesoderm in sea urchins. Notice the obvious, impressive coherence of the drawing. The figure is intended to be strikingly reminiscent of a complex electronic or computer-logic circuit, because in essence that is what genetic circuits are. The system contains a core of six genes that code for master regulatory proteins that eventually switch on scores of proteins that boast many more DNA switches, very far beyond the criterion of three proteins or switches. We can thus conclude that this system is well beyond the edge of evolution. It was very likely purposely designed. (2007, p. 197.)

    How to Build a Worm – Paul Nelson – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDQ0NJQ_z3U

Leave a Reply