Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Muscle cell myosin developed in unicellular organisms long before animals


From “Searching for the Origin of Muscles” (ScienceDaily, June 28, 2012), we learn:

Phylogenetic comparisons showed that one of the crucial structural proteins of striated muscles of vertebrates, a “myosin” motor protein, originated by gene duplication. “As this specific myosin has so far only been found in muscle cells, we expected that its origin coincided with the evolution of muscle cells. We were very surprised to see that the ‘muscle myosin’ evolved probably in unicellular organisms, long before the first animals lived,” explains Ulrich Technau who led the study.

In sponges, the “muscle myosin” plays a role in regulating water flow.

Jellyfish are over 600 million years old, and

… possess striated muscles. Due to the striking similarities between striated muscles of vertebrates and jellyfish, it was so far assumed both striated muscle types share a common origin. In fact, jellyfish striated muscles also express the ancient “muscle myosin,” but they lack several essential components that are characteristic for the structure and function of striated muscles of “higher animals.”

This indicates that despite their striking similarities, striated muscles of jellyfish and “higher animals” have evolved independently.

The significance of convergent evolution for Darwinism is this: Life forms usually do not randomly evolve a complex trait and pass it on (natural selection acting on random mutation, as Darwin taught). They do not create a great, tidy, and non-goal directed “tree of life”.

They are goal directed in seeking solutions to mutual problems, and creatures only distantly related often converge on the same solution – a possible solution  in a wilderness of non-solutions. The materials used were there long before the need arose in many cases; they were not “evolved” for the purpose.

Showing how Darwinism could have explained how it could have happened is a waste of time if it didn’t happen that way.

Some form of intelligence, perhaps internal, seems to be at work, but we have only begun to grasp the significance of the pattern, hindered by a century of Darwin’s dead idea.

See also: Convergent evolution: Separate development of the genetic patterns of intelligence?

Convergent evolution: 359 million year old eel fossil had spine like land-dwellers

Nature (journal): “Tearing apart” the traditional animal family tree

>but we have only begun to grasp the significance of the pattern,begun to grasp the significance of the pattern, hindered by a century of Darwin’s dead idea. But if you're discussing it in this article, it's not really a 'dead' idea as such. I guess an idea is only really 'dead' if no-one really talks about it because they've all forgotten it. The idea I had for selling drainpipes to eskimoes for their igloos is a silly one, and I've given up on starting an enterprise with it, but nevertheless it's only a dead idea if I dont tell anyone about it, and I forget it. I've been told that the more we think about something, or hum a tune or something, the stronger our synapses that encode it get, and the less likely we are to forget it. I wonder if the more we talk (and argue) about Darwinism, the less its likely to die as an idea. Have you forgotten about the drainpipes for igloos yet? meh1234

Leave a Reply