A question about evolution

[MaxP]

If all life began with a single cell, what where the environmental conditions that would cause that cell to evolve into a multicelled organism?
And that multicelled organism into more complex organisms?

 

[consol]

If all life began with a single cell, what where the environmental conditions that would cause that cell to evolve into a multicelled organism?
And that multicelled organism into more complex organisms?

MaxP who are you trying to fool?
We ALL know where we came from, a thing (that will remain nameless for the moment)
made us all, the thing also made the universe that we live in, and it was ALL made just to impress us,
what a wonderful thing the thing is, he loves us more than he loves everything else he made,
are we lucky or are we lucky? and how do we know this is true? we can read about it in an old book,
admittedly the book was written a long long time ago and has changed ever so slightly since it was written,
but the people who wrote it (so it's said) were in direct touch with the thing, how wonderful is that?
so they knew exactly what happened (or what they thought happened) and they wrote it down,
so don't try and pull the wool over our eyes MaxP, because we're smarter than you think.

What's the thing called? why it's called the 'Giant Pink Spaghetti Monster', what else would he be called? God?

 

[smos]

Let me say that I'm very far from an expert here, and I'm just trying to make sense of it as best as I can...

First of all, even single cells are very complex, with many parts working together to synthesize input into usable energy, expel waste, etc. "All life" started when the first self-replicating molecule came to be (how self-replicating molecules came to be is a different topic). If you have anything that self-replicates and is subject to random mutations, you automatically have evolution. The mutations in further replications that lead to a greater rate of survival are more likely to be further replicated and help further generations of molecules/organisms to survive and reproduce. That the basic definition of evolution.

So eventually, enough surviving mutations led to those simple self-replicating molecules to develop into more and more complex organisms, with more and more "parts," and they began to look more and more like single-celled organisms.

The same process applied to the single-celled organisms. They didn't just "pop" from single cells to multiple cells in one step - it was a gradual process of natural selection following random mutations from generation to generation.

I guess one possible reason single celled organisms eventually developed into multi-celled organisms might be that the ability to "swim" using a cellular appendage was advantageous for escaping predator cells, or getting food, so the ability was selected into the population, and eventually led to the swimming appendages developing into separate "cells" or organs.

Again, I'm not at all an expert, and I would suggest asking somewhere like Talk Origins or something like that.

 

[Split Rock]

If all life began with a single cell, what where the environmental conditions that would cause that cell to evolve into a multicelled organism?
And that multicelled organism into more complex organisms?

There are benefits and detriments to being multicellular. I suspect that there where no special environemntal conditions that pushed multicellular evolution; rather, life started unicellular, and the evolution of multicellular organisms was inevitable. Keep in mind that most unicellular organisms are actually members of a colony. There are also colonial organisms whose menbers are specialized (for feeding or reproduction, etc.). Specialization allows for greater efficiency, though it requires a more complex system to maintain functions. It also allows for greater size, since a single cell is ultimately restricted in how big it can get. If you are big, it is hard to eat you.

 

[Hespera]

If all life began with a single cell, what where the environmental conditions that would cause that cell to evolve into a multicelled organism?
And that multicelled organism into more complex organisms?

All life did not begin as a single cell, and nobody claims this unless its you saying it now.

IF you are asking an honest question, there are any number of reference books on how / why life changes over time.

 

[MaxP]

IF you are asking an honest question, there are any number of reference books on how / why life changes over time.

i am?

 

[MaxP]

BTW, just so y'all don't think I've got an agenda, I'm trying to learn more about evolution to see if I can decide for myself whether it's logical or not. The Catholic Church does not disregard evolution as a valid theory in fitting with a more allegorical Bible interpretation, as many Protestant denoms do.
So yeah, I'm honestly trying to get a good picture. Gonna probably get some books.

 

[JBJoe]

If all life began with a single cell, what where the environmental conditions that would cause that cell to evolve into a multicelled organism?
And that multicelled organism into more complex organisms?

Since I don't frequent this forum enough to know why everyone is jumping on you I guess I'll bite.

All life is not supposed to have begun with a single cell. However all extant life of today is supposed to have begun from a single-celled species 3.5-3.8 billion years ago.

The transition from unicellular to multicellular life was a huge step and if you look at it in perspective, all life was single-celled for the vast majority of history. Multi-cellular life is a relatively recent adaptation. Still, most cells on this planet belong to single-celled life forms.

Edit: Here's a good page describing the multiple theories of how the unicellular to multicellular leap happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity

 

[MaxP]

So, why not stay single celled? Why the transition?

So the overriding theory is that the single celled organisms colonized, developed specialties, then became a single organism, gradually?

 

[JBJoe]

So, why not stay single celled? Why the transition?

As with all of evolution, becoming a multicellular colony offered that group of that species a survival advantage. EDIT: Make that a reproductive advantage. It isn't enough to merely survive.

So the overriding theory is that the single celled organisms colonized, developed specialties, then became a single organism, gradually?

Yes. But be careful how you use "colonized." Here it just refers to cells that had a "stick-together" mentality.

 

[Split Rock]

BTW, just so y'all don't think I've got an agenda, I'm trying to learn more about evolution to see if I can decide for myself whether it's logical or not. The Catholic Church does not disregard evolution as a valid theory in fitting with a more allegorical Bible interpretation, as many Protestant denoms do.
So yeah, I'm honestly trying to get a good picture. Gonna probably get some books.

Here is a good website I recommend: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Here is a good book (companion to the PBS series): Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, Carl Zimmer, 2001, HarperCollins Publishers Inc, NY.

So, why not stay single celled? Why the transition?

So the overriding theory is that the single celled organisms colonized, developed specialties, then became a single organism, gradually?

In a nutshell.

 

[Chalnoth]

So, why not stay single celled? Why the transition?

Efficiency. Specialization makes for more efficient management of resources. There are drawbacks as well, of course, which is why all organisms are not multicellular.

So the overriding theory is that the single celled organisms colonized, developed specialties, then became a single organism, gradually?

Yup, pretty much. It's not *quite* this simple, though, as the specialized cells have exactly the same DNA. They have to be "told" by their neighboring cells which specialization to take up. They also have to be able to stick together. The proteins required for the cells to stick to one another can even be seen in single-celled organisms like choanoflagellates.

PZ Myers put up an interesting post on the subject of Choanoflagellates and the evolution of multicellularity a little while back:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/the_choanoflagellate_genome_an.php

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW, just so y'all don't think I've got an agenda, I'm trying to learn more about evolution to see if I can decide for myself whether it's logical or not. The Catholic Church does not disregard evolution as a valid theory in fitting with a more allegorical Bible interpretation, as many Protestant denoms do.
So yeah, I'm honestly trying to get a good picture. Gonna probably get some books.

1

 

[MoonLancer]

all that and not one shred of evidence?

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW, just so y'all don't think I've got an agenda, I'm trying to learn more about evolution to see if I can decide for myself whether it's logical or not. The Catholic Church does not disregard evolution as a valid theory in fitting with a more allegorical Bible interpretation, as many Protestant denoms do.
So yeah, I'm honestly trying to get a good picture. Gonna probably get some books.

If you want to learn more about the Church's take on it, you might want to read what Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) wrote about it:

Report of the International Theological Commission:
Communion and Stewardship
Human Beings Created in the Image of God
"While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage."
http://www.vatican.edu/roman_curia/...th_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

(see section 63)

As you might know, John Paul II also alluded to the great amount of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. As a Catholic, you are not required to any particular idea about evolution, only to accept that God is behind creation and it is His work.

 

[70x7]

Let me say that I'm very far from an expert here, and I'm just trying to make sense of it as best as I can...

First of all, even single cells are very complex, with many parts working together to synthesize input into usable energy, expel waste, etc. "All life" started when the first self-replicating molecule came to be (how self-replicating molecules came to be is a different topic). If you have anything that self-replicates and is subject to random mutations, you automatically have evolution. The mutations in further replications that lead to a greater rate of survival are more likely to be further replicated and help further generations of molecules/organisms to survive and reproduce. That the basic definition of evolution.

So eventually, enough surviving mutations led to those simple self-replicating molecules to develop into more and more complex organisms, with more and more "parts," and they began to look more and more like single-celled organisms.

The same process applied to the single-celled organisms. They didn't just "pop" from single cells to multiple cells in one step - it was a gradual process of natural selection following random mutations from generation to generation.

I guess one possible reason single celled organisms eventually developed into multi-celled organisms might be that the ability to "swim" using a cellular appendage was advantageous for escaping predator cells, or getting food, so the ability was selected into the population, and eventually led to the swimming appendages developing into separate "cells" or organs.

Again, I'm not at all an expert, and I would suggest asking somewhere like Talk Origins or something like that.

I highlighted the part that needs clarification. Are molecules and organisms really the same thing and should they be grouped together here? There is a huge gap between the "/" as molecules are non-living parts and well, obviously, organisms are. The biggest question that seems to never be answered is in fact the original "creation" of life. That is the part that always seems to be taken for granted, or faith if you will, in a world that is solely based on hard core re-creative facts.

Honest question.

 

[Tenka]

I highlighted the part that needs clarification. Are molecules and organisms really the same thing and should they be grouped together here?

It wasn't said that they are the same thing, it says they are subject to the same principles that drive evolution.

 

[Chalnoth]

I highlighted the part that needs clarification. Are molecules and organisms really the same thing and should they be grouped together here? There is a huge gap between the "/" as molecules are non-living parts and well, obviously, organisms are. The biggest question that seems to never be answered is in fact the original "creation" of life. That is the part that always seems to be taken for granted, or faith if you will, in a world that is solely based on hard core re-creative facts.

Honest question.

The main reason why I think he did not distinguish between molecules and organisms is that there is no hard distinction.

The very first self-replicators would have been single molecules, probably small strands of RNA. Since these small strands of RNA were capable of imperfect replication, they could evolve. But were they alive? Well, that depends upon who you talk to. They were single molecules, after all. And they could only self replicate in an environment where they were continually heated and cooled within a bath with lots of nucleotides (such as a hydrothermal vent).

Eventually, as these little RNA molecules evolved, they'd add more and more functionality. Over time, they added enough to be called "alive" by everybody. But at what point did that happen? Was it the addition of this sort of protein or that? Was it the transition from RNA-based storage to DNA-based storage? Well, the exact transition point is pretty much arbitrary. So that's why it makes little sense to draw much of a distinction between life and self-replicating molecules. One is just more simple. That is all.

Anyway, if you want to know more about what scientists are doing to fill in the gap between primitive self-replicators and what most people call life, look up abiogenesis some time. There's a lot of info out there.

 

[Hespera]

i am?

A person could very easily get tangled up in details, claims and counter claims.

Here is what i think is a good way to start thinking about it.

Since what can be called "natural selection" is at the heart of what makes evolution go, ask yourself this-

Do you think that natural selection could cause any kind of plant or animal to change in any way?

Do you think that there is some limit to how much an organism might change over time?

Then ask yourself why / why not to the above.

 

[Gracchus]

1

Surely, AV1611VET is not trying to mislead us by linking to only his own post, and ignoring the thorough refutations to his arguments posted later in the thread.

For those interested what he posted was:

Here are my Four Biblical Refutations Against Evolution:

1. NOT ENOUGH TIME.

• The Bible portrays this universe as having been in existence for approximately 6100 years. This is much too short a time for evolution to work.

2. GOD'S CREATION LEFT NO ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT.

• Six times in Genesis 1, God pronounces his Creation "good". Then He steps back and pronounces the whole thing "very good".
• Evolution, on the other hand, demands room for improvement.

3. THERE WAS NO DEATH IN GENESIS ONE.

• The Bible portrays death as an enemy of God.
• [bible]1 Corinthians 15:26[/bible]
• Evolution, on the other hand, works by leaving a trail of death behind.

4. JESUS TAUGHT CREATION.

• [bible]Mark 10:6[/bible][bible]Mark 13:19[/bible]
• Jesus takes Genesis One literally --- in fact --- He wrote it.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=38838641#post38838641

He would not be so dishonest as to do that, nor so stupid as to think anyone would fall for it.

The whole thread is here:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=38838641#post38838641

My reply was:

(Following your link: )

The Bible is wrong. According to Jesus, Moses, who he says wrote the Torah, got it wrong! (See below.)

Someone wrote that God said it was very good. Later on, though, he wiped almost all of it out in a flood. Sounds like faulty design.

Scoring in the 98%tile on the SAT is very good, but there is room for improvement. And, if trilobites were so great, why aren't there any around anymore?

And yet, everything that lives, dies. Your god is apparently not very effective against his enemies. But then, as H.L. Mencken observed, “God created man in his own image, and man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment.”

KJV Mark 10:
"1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

He wasn’t teaching about creation, he was teaching about marriage and divorce. And notice, that he is disagreeing with Moses, who he believed wrote the Torah.

It was commonly accepted, that Moses wrote the Torah, and Jesus apparently accepted this. Obviously, Jesus didn't think that he wrote it himself. And if he did, then he is saying that he, himself, was wrong to allow divorce. And yet, he says Moses got it wrong! It would seem that Jesus, unlike you AV1611VET, did not even pretend to bow down and worship words on paper.



Astrology, phrenology, Tarot reading, and palmistry also require some mental effort. Schizophrenics also must take great trouble to support their delusions. Many things that are hard to believe just aren't so. Difficulty is not evidence of pertinence.


You make all sorts of claims, AV1611VET, based or your singularly quirky interpretation of a collection of texts written over a period of several hundred years, by people living in cultures you don’t understand. And by simple observation, we see that the world does not work as you say it does.

That’s why I can’t take you seriously. Your god is even smaller than you are, and if he doesn't do things your way, he can take a hike!

I found his fourth point particularly interesting. He claims Jesus wrote the Bible but using own reference shows Jesus saying that Moses wrote the Torah, and that Moses got it wrong!

But of course, AV1611VET's, position is that if facts do not support his position then facts can take a hike, and truth can take a hike, and reality can take a hike.