Microscopic life/ © sinhyu / Adobe Stock
And did not likely evolve from a “single-celled ancestor resembling a modern sponge cell known as a choanocyte.” From ScienceDaily:
“We’ve found that the first multicellular animals probably weren’t like the modern-day sponge cells, but were more like a collection of convertible cells,” Professor Degnan said.
“The great-great-great-grandmother of all cells in the animal kingdom, so to speak, was probably quite similar to a stem cell.
“This is somewhat intuitive as, compared to plants and fungi, animals have many more cell types, used in very different ways — from neurons to muscles — and cell-flexibility has been critical to animal evolution from the start.”
The findings disprove a long-standing idea: that multi-celled animals evolved from a single-celled ancestor resembling a modern sponge cell known as a choanocyte.
“Scattered throughout the history of evolution are major transitions, including the leap from a world of microscopic single-cells to a world of multi-celled animals,” Professor Degnan said.
“With multicellularity came incredible complexity, creating the animal, plant, fungi and algae kingdoms we see today.
“These large organisms differ from the other more-than-99-per-cent of biodiversity that can only be seen under a microscope.” … “We’re taking a core theory of evolutionary biology and turning it on its head,” she said. Paper. (paywall) – Shunsuke Sogabe, William L. Hatleberg, Kevin M. Kocot, Tahsha E. Say, Daniel Stoupin, Kathrein E. Roper, Selene L. Fernandez-Valverde, Sandie M. Degnan, Bernard M. Degnan. Pluripotency and the origin of animal multicellularity. Nature, 2019; DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1290-4 More.
The first cell was “quite similar to a stem cell”? This sounds like a case for intelligent design, lacking only the career suicide of saying so.
See also: How Do Cells Interpret The “Dizzying” Communications Pathways In Multicellular Life Forms?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Given that every multi-cellular animal develops from a single totipotent cell (AKA fertilized egg), as a “super-stem cell”, isn’t the finding of this paper obvious? What am I missing?
“It has recently become clear that ribosomes are much more heterogeneous than previously thought, with diversity arising from rRNA sequence and modifications, ribosomal protein (RP) content and posttranslational modifications (PTMs), as well as bound nonribosomal proteins.”
Does functional specialization of ribosomes really exist?
Ferretti MB, Karbstein K
RNA. 2019 May;25(5):521-538. doi: 10.1261/rna.069823.118. Epub 2019 Feb 7.
Dlg1 activates beta-catenin signaling to regulate retinal angiogenesis and the blood-retina and blood-brain barriers
Chris Cho, Yanshu Wang, Philip M Smallwood, John Williams, Jeremy Nathans
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.45542
Beta-catenin (i.e., canonical Wnt) signaling controls CNS angiogenesis and the blood-brain and blood-retina barriers.
These data expand the repertoire of Dlg/MAGUK family functions to include a role in beta-catenin signaling, and they suggest that proteins other than Frizzled receptors interact with Dlg1 to enhance beta-catenin signaling.
In light of the evidence presented here that Dlg1 enhances beta-catenin signaling in CNS ECs, it seems reasonable to suggest that Dlg1 enhances beta-catenin signaling in other biological contexts and that part of the Dlg1-/- phenotype reflects this activity.
Drosophila FGF cleavage is required for efficient intracellular sorting and intercellular dispersal.
Sohr A1, Du L1, Wang R1, Lin L2, Roy S3.
J Cell Biol. 2019 May 6;218(5):1653-1669. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201810138. Epub 2019 Feb 26.
How morphogenetic signals are prepared for intercellular dispersal and signaling is fundamental to the understanding of tissue morphogenesis. We discovered an intracellular mechanism that prepares Drosophila melanogaster FGF Branchless (Bnl) for cytoneme-mediated intercellular dispersal during the development of the larval Air-Sac-Primordium (ASP). Wing-disc cells express Bnl as a proprotein that is cleaved by Furin1 in the Golgi. Truncated Bnl sorts asymmetrically to the basal surface, where it is received by cytonemes that extend from the recipient ASP cells. Uncleavable mutant Bnl has signaling activity but is mistargeted to the apical side, reducing its bioavailability. Since Bnl signaling levels feedback control cytoneme production in the ASP, the reduced availability of mutant Bnl on the source basal surface decreases ASP cytoneme numbers, leading to a reduced range of signal/signaling gradient and impaired ASP growth. Thus, enzymatic cleavage ensures polarized intracellular sorting and availability of Bnl to its signaling site, thereby determining its tissue-specific intercellular dispersal and signaling range.
Rapid translocation of pluripotency-related transcription factors by external uniaxial forces.
Topal T1,2, Kim BC1,2,3, Villa-Diaz LG2,4,5, Deng CX1, Takayama S1,2,6, Krebsbach PH2,4,7.
Integr Biol (Camb). 2019 Feb 26. pii: zyz003. doi: 10.1093/intbio/zyz003
Human embryonic stem cells subjected to a one-time uniaxial stretch for as short as 30-min on a flexible substrate coated with Matrigel experienced rapid and irreversible nuclear-to-cytoplasmic translocation of NANOG and OCT4, but not Sox2. Translocations were directed by intracellular transmission of biophysical signals from cell surface integrins to nuclear CRM1 and were independent of exogenous soluble factors. On E-CADHERIN-coated substrates, presumably with minimal integrin engagement, mechanical strain-induced rapid nuclear-to-cytoplasmic translocation of the three transcription factors. These findings might provide fundamental insights into early developmental processes and may facilitate mechanotransduction-mediated bioengineering approaches to influencing stem cell fate determination.
Feedback regulation of cytoneme-mediated transport shapes a tissue-specific FGF morphogen gradient
eLife. 2018; 7: e38137.
doi: 10.7554/eLife.38137
Lijuan Du,1 Alex Sohr,1 Ge Yan,1 and Sougata Roy1
Gradients of signaling proteins are essential for inducing tissue morphogenesis. However, mechanisms of gradient formation remain controversial.
These results reveal a robust mechanism where morphogens self-generate precise tissue-specific gradient contours through feedback regulation of cytoneme-mediated dispersion.
When an embryo develops, its cells must work together and ‘talk’ with each other so they can build the tissues and organs of the body.
How morphogens move in tissues to create gradients is still poorly understood.
Yet, it is still unclear how cytonemes can help to form gradients.
Despite advances in our understanding of signal transduction pathways, how signals disperse and how the dispersion mechanism is dynamically modulated to shape gradients in three-dimensional tissue structures are poorly understood. Moreover, the formation of signal gradients is unexplored in most morphogenetic contexts, so we do not know how dispersion of the signals through extracellular space can generate the required diversity in gradient shapes and contours for a multitude of tissue architectures.
How morphogen gradients are produced in tissues is a long-standing central question.
Given the commonality of fundamental signaling events mediated by conserved signaling proteins, feedback regulation of cytoneme-mediated transport may offer an explanation for why signal gradients are so precise, yet adaptable and for how diverse tissue morphologies can result from just one signal transduction pathway.
Imaging Cytonemes in Drosophila Embryos
Lijuan Du, Sougata Roy
Methods Mol Biol. 2018; 1863: 29–45. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8772-6_3
Conserved morphogenetic signaling proteins disperse across tissues to generate signal and signaling gradients, which in turn are considered to assign positional coordinates to the recipient cells.
Recent imaging studies in Drosophila model have provided evidence for a “direct-delivery” mechanism of signal dispersion that is mediated by specialized actin-rich signaling filopodia, named cytonemes. Cytonemes establish contact between the signal-producing and target cells to directly exchange and transport the morphogenetic proteins.
the mechanisms by which signals disperse to form concentration gradients are poorly understood.
To the objectors asking about ID research:
Most biology-related discoveries published in serious research and review papers these days support ID.
OLV
“Most biology-related discoveries published in serious research and review papers these days support ID.”
It seems to me that so much research – even if undertaken by materialists or crypto-materialists – is an obvious exercise in reverse engineering..
Scientists and engineers could fully describe the composition, function, and dynamics of an early Ford motor engine without having to mention Henry Ford if his name were taboo.
SteveO,
That’s a valid point. Thanks.
OLV
I have heard this claim made before, just as I have seen the list of peer-reviewed papers that the DI claim support ID. However, since ID refuses to acknowledge any limits to DI (limitations, constraints, etc.), it can be argued that all research supports ID. Science progresses by proposing hypotheses (mechanisms, processes, etc.) based on specified assumptions, limitations and constraints. These are then tested and, if necessary, the hypothesis is modified or discarded. Wash, rinse, repeat. But since ID does not propose any mechanisms or processes, or propose any limitations or constraints on its power, it cannot be studied scientifically.
That is just stupid talk. We have said exactly what would falsify ID and science agrees. So only an ignorant troll on an agenda would say that all research supports ID.
Then your side is not engage with science.
LoL! The DESIGN can be studied scientifically. And we know the limitations and capabilities of the designers by what the left behind.
Your side doesn’t even have a method to test its claims. It doesn’t posit any testable hypotheses using the proposed mechanisms. It cannot be studied scientifically
That said, where is the blind watchmaker, ie unguided evolutionary research and supporting papers?
ET
And people wonder why nobody interacts with you.
BB, who defends Darwinian evolution tooth and nail as if his life depended on it, claims that ID is not science. That statement is just plain delusional.
By any reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether a theory is scientific, Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a scientific theory:
Whether or not a scientific theory is potentially falsifiable or not is considered the gold standard by which to judge whether a theory is scientific. As Popper himself stated,
In regards to that standard, it is not that Darwinism is not falsifiable, it is that Darwinists simply to refuse to accept the fact that their theory has been falsified by numerous lines of evidence. In the minds of Darwinists, empirical evidence is simply never allowed to falsify Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. Here are a few falsifications of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory:
In short, Darwinian evolution, since its practitioners refuse to accept falsification of their theory, is much more realistically classified as a falsifiable pseudoscientific religion for atheists.
Verse:
And whereas Darwinists simply refuse to accept any empirical falsification of their theory, on the hand Intelligent Design is easily falsifiable. Just demonstrate that Darwinian and/or material processes can generate information. In fact there is a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who is able to meet that falsification criteria:
On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality, to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’.
Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
at 13, ED says of ET, “And people wonder why nobody interacts with you.”
No, I don’t believe anyone wonders about that at all.
A few years ago a distinguished scientist from a North American university embarrassingly contradicted what the research literature states. For example see the papers quoted @ 6 & 7 here in this thread.
That’s an example of the numbing effect the neo-Darwinian ideas can have on scientists and the damages they may cause in science.
It’s pathetically sad.
And we see it in the discussions in this website.
Actually in this thread.
Brother Ed:
That is not true so no one wonders that. Geez, Ed, why are you such a pathetic liar?
hazel:
The only reason people interact with you, hazel, is too correct all of your misconceptions and nonsense. Well, that is why I interact with evos and people like you and Ed. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
Being tag-teamed by the moron twins means I am hitting some nerves of the willfully ignorant.
BA77
I’m not the one who picked a moniker that broadcasts his evangelical worldview.
boranagain77:
Wow. Brother Brainless can’t even form a coherent response. And it had to quote-mine.
Very telling, that…
Brother Brian, I indeed am a Christian and am very happy to be one since it, from multiple lines of reasoning, is indeed “The Truth”. Whereas you, as a Darwinist, are forced to make false claims over and over again to defend your false worldview. Why you choose to do as such is beyond me. In fact I consider such actions on your part to be sheer insanity.
In fact, you did not even honestly address the meat of post 14 which unequivocally shows your worldview to be basically a unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific religion for atheists, but instead chose to pick on my handle “bornagain77” as if that somehow addresses the abject failure of your worldview as to being coherent in any way, shape, or form.
But in spite of your knee jerk reaction to resort to what you imagine to be some sort of ad hominem attack against me, instead of honestly and logically addressing the issues that I laid out in my post, my handle actually comes from the passage that illustrates the root of your hatred against God. Namely, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” and “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.”
And Brother Brian, the kicker it that Christianity is not merely one truth among many truths, but is “The Truth”:
Brother Brian, I encourage you to grow a pair and follow the evidence wherever it leads instead of hiding in the dark, apparently cowering in fear of the God you do not understand.