Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Brain Components Found in Single-Celled Organisms; Evolutionary Expectations Fail Again

Cornelius Hunter
September 2, 2011
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
arroba Email

One of the themes of biology is the ubiquity of complexity. From microbes to humans, and everything in between, biology is chocked full of fantastic designs. For evolutionists, these roads lead to the unexpected conclusion of early complexity. If evolution is true, then it somehow produced incredible feats of engineering early on, even before they would have been useful. The DNA code, with its exquisite nuances, must have arisen before those nuances would be helpful. This early complexity is another example of the evolution’s massive serendipity—evolution somehow created designs that would be crucial down the line. One example of this is the human brain, as one science writer explains:  Read more

Comments
Not unexpected of evolution, but unexpected given the morphological simplicity, of Trichoplax, for example. Starbuck
The function of these proteins in single-celled organisms that definitely lack a nervous system can be experimentally demonstrated. It isn't an argument from lack of anywhere else to turn, it is an observation. What is the point you find quite clear here? DrREC
" If evolution is true, then it somehow produced incredible feats of engineering early on, even before they would have been useful." --Hunter seems to be suggesting that these protiens weren't useful to the microbes; but the microbes did use them: "Put together, these findings suggest that choanoflagellate cells have components for each of the three main functions of neurons: carrying electrical signals along their bodies, signalling to their neighbours with neurotransmitters, and receiving those signals." I also share DrREC’s confusion as to how this isn’t part of the “evolutionary expectation”. What has been the evolutionary explanation for how complex systems that use many interacting proteins (i.e “irreducible complex” systems) came about? The claim has been that in ancestors there were less complex systems using subsets of the same or similar proteins of the later more complex system being used for different jobs. Well, here ya go. goodusername
Of course your critics (here and on your blog) argue that the parts of the nervous system found in "tiny organisms" must have had some other functions there, and "evolved separately for different reasons." What else can they say? But rest assured that some of us do understand your point, it is quite clear. Granville Sewell
Maybe I'm missing what the "evolutionary expectation" would be. Design might predict the nervous system is irreducibly complex. But, In the words of the authors: "Today, says Zakon, the nervous system seems "unbelievably complex", but evidence from these tiny organisms suggests it was built up from several simple systems, which evolved separately for different reasons. For instance, Fasshauer suspects M. brevicollis uses Munc18/syntaxin1 to secrete chemicals, much like neurons use it to release neurotransmitters." Is that not the evolutionary prediction-a building up of complexity from simple yet functional systems? DrREC

Leave a Reply