Notices
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: CELLULAR EVOLUTION ENDED WHEN MULTI-CELL BEINGS DEVELOPED

  1. #1 CELLULAR EVOLUTION ENDED WHEN MULTI-CELL BEINGS DEVELOPED 
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    At least evolution ceased among cells WITHIN the multi-cellular systems when they evolved into being. So, the nature of the cells and systems within us, for example, have remained virtually unchanged for the some 200,000 years of our existence.

    Note also that we as multicellular organisms have remained biologically, phsiological, anatomically and behaviorally much the the same for all of those 200,000 some years. Our evolution came before that and made us what we are.

    But our culture has certainly changed in all that time! That, however, takes us out of the field of biology, out of the field of anthropology, out of the field of historians and into the field of social evolution.

    For sure, it is all evolution---not creationism.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com


    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Him
    Him is offline
    Forum Sophomore Him's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    181
    Why did evolution stop among cells, in different cells different signallings pathways have developed, different immunity cells (the evolution is quite rapid here), Just look at the proteins sequences and one can see the evolutionary differences.
    I am not good with date’s but 200,000 is evolutionary peanuts and certainly doesn’t show any link with the creation of multicelllar systems.

    But you’re saying that evolution between the cells of the same species that there is no competition, and no evolution present. But I also do not agree, some species have developed more evolved muscle tissue compared to brain tissue (many cellular specialisation are present our multi cellular species). This can be regarded as an evolution within the cells of a multicellular organism. Okay in combination with the evolutoin of the species by larges. But the one does not rule out the other.


    he who forgets...will be destined to remember (Nothing Man - Pearl Jam)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    I was obviously not clear. You do understand that this IS a difficult subject to deal intellectually with and as difficult to get across in words. The meaning of each world has to be concentrated on.

    Cells are very primitive organisms. They can exist for millions of years without evolving. When they originally combined and the first multi-cellular systems ("animals") developed, the individual cells remained the same primitive organisms, but the whole new multicellular system had then acquired great flexibility to evolve. What that means is that the organs and organ systems in the animals changed, evolved---not the nature of the cells themselves.

    When the animals evolve enough, we tend to arbitrarily classify them as new species. That happened to us. Some 200,000 years ago, the primate family evolved the first human beings. When we are classified this way, the inferrence is that we have not changed. Were we to have changed since then, what we were before that change would be something else from us, a more primitive primate than ourselves. So, then we would not be 200,000 years old!

    Or, perhaps we have changed but in such little way as to make no difference. Certainly, the incidence of genetic disorders rises as medical science keeps those who have them alive to reproduce. We develop better immune systems to diseases that have plagued us, and so on. These changes can possibly be considered as "health changes" that come and go as a society expriences good times and then hard times, for example. They can be considered to vary from culture to culture and be classified as minute system changes that have not accumulated into anything that would isolate us biologically from our 200,000 year old breatherin. Certainly, we know of no change that would enable us to account for the tremendous change in culture since then.

    Since then, what has happened is that social evolution has occured. In other words, we human multi-cellular beings are now the primitive building block just like the cell was to us, and we ourselves now make up social organising systems that change and help evolve our societies. (Our present societies can be said to be quite sick and people are unhappy with them!)

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    A hugely misleading analogy Charles.

    On the superficial meaning of the thread title you are simply wrong.

    The first multi-cellular creatures had little or no cell differentiation.
    There was huge amounts of cell evolution had to occur to lead to the thirty five (?)principal animal phyla. Further evolution of cells has been ongoing since that time, on both a large and a small scale. Your opening premise is flawed. Abandon it as an analogy. It weakens your thesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •