Earlier this year evolutionistsgathered in Barcelona to discuss the evolution of multicellularity. It is yet another challenging topic because it contradicts the evolutionary model. The most obvious contradiction is that it requires a series profoundly sophisticated enhancements and changes to occur in a population of unicellular organisms. Such changes are unlikely to occur spontaneously and the evolutionary narrative inevitably relies on moves that are reminiscent of the proverbial “And then a miracle occurs.” As one paper admitted: Read more
5 Replies to “That Conference On The Evolution of Multicellularity Revealed The Usual Problems”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A few notes: There simply isn’t any evidence in the fossil record indicating that single cells have ever formed anything other than ‘simple aggregates’:
As well, Darwinists simply have no experimental evidence to suggest that such a transition from single cell aggregates to a multicellular organism is even possible.
And yet, Dr. Behe, on the important Table 7.1 on page 143 of Edge Of Evolution, finds that a typical ‘simple’ single cell might have some 10,000 protein-binding sites. Whereas a conservative estimate for protein-protein binding sites for a multicellular creature is found to be,,,
So taking into account that they only covered 2% of the full protein-protein “interactome”, then that gives us a number, for different protein-protein interactions, of 310,000. Thus, from my very rough, and very conservative, ‘back of the envelope’ calculations, we find that this is at least 30 times higher than Dr. Behe’s estimate of 10,000 different protein-protein binding sites for a typical single cell (Page 143; Edge of Evolution; Behe). Therefore, at least at first glance from my very rough calculations, it certainly appears to be a impossible step that evolution must somehow make, by purely unguided processes, to go from a ‘simple’ single cell to a multi-cellular creature.
As well, Dr Hunter, as he mentioned in this article, points out that this ‘miracle’ of multicellularity must have happened many different times:
Moreover, as if explaining the origination of just one body plan was not problematic enough for Darwinists, Jellyfish are found to undergo ‘complete metamorphosis’, (as do many other creatures in the Cambrian era), in which two different, and distinct, body plans are utilized within the life cycle of the Jellyfish:
Metamorphosis simply does not easily comport to any reasonable Darwinian explanation:
Verse and Music:
@bornagain77 speaking of fossil evidence I started studying the updated phylogenetic tree from this website here. Another good source of all evolutionists claims:
http://reptileevolution.com/index.htm
It has a new updated phylogenetic tree that I can laugh at and fossils that don’t even go in any order of sequence!
Merry Christmas to all. The work you guys are doing at UD, is “outstanding.” I look forward to a new year of brilliantly written articles… as well as learning about all the new discoveries and advancements in science that continue to loosen the grip of Neo Darwinism.
All the best.
Krock,
Just curious: for 2013, what for you are the top examples of “new discoveries and advancements in science that continue to loosen the grip of Neo Darwinism”?
For everyone else, I’d like to start a pool: what year will we finally see NeoDarwinism’s cold, arthritic hand loosed entirely off of whatever it’s holding (wink)? What event will trigger it?
I want to take 2022, please. The key event will be proof that Origin of Species was actually written as a clever ruse by Laurence Sterne.