Notices
Results 1 to 59 of 59
Like Tree13Likes
  • 1 Post By marnixR
  • 1 Post By sigurdV
  • 1 Post By sigurdV
  • 1 Post By uday yadav
  • 2 Post By pineapples
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By icewendigo
  • 1 Post By Neverfly
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By marnixR
  • 1 Post By Zwirko

Thread: What caused single celled organisms to evolve into complex multi-cellular organisms?

  1. #1 What caused single celled organisms to evolve into complex multi-cellular organisms? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    4
    What were the original conditions that made single celled organisms come together into more complex forms?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    maybe you're asking the wrong question

    imo, the question should be : what caused the two parts of a cell division to stick together rather than go their separate ways ?


    uday yadav likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Is this the same as the animated life question? Maybe, if so, the threads can be merged?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by ZachJadon View Post
    What were the original conditions that made single celled organisms come together into more complex forms?
    Hi! Where do you get your questions from? They are heavy!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    maybe you're asking the wrong question

    imo, the question should be : what caused the two parts of a cell division to stick together rather than go their separate ways ?
    Yes its a good reformulation of the question in question.
    If we stick to the story ive been told
    then single cells were there instantly (in geological terms)
    as soon as the Earth was cool enough to sustain life.

    Then Earth had to wait two billion years
    until two cells decided to join company.
    IF I was told the truth then the question is:
    Why wait so long?
    uday yadav likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Why wait so long?
    Why use the word, "Waiting?"
    It's not as though those two protein clumps were waiting for the command to join together.

    That's like asking a mountain why it waited so long to erode.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Why wait so long?
    Why use the word, "Waiting?"
    It's not as though those two protein clumps were waiting for the command to join together.

    That's like asking a mountain why it waited so long to erode.
    Ill try to make this simple for you:

    Theres more to science than observation!
    You must fit the observed facts into a theory.

    Suppose it takes 2 years for blind chance to make one airoplane...
    Why then should it take a billion times longer to make two airoplanes joined together?

    "Blind chance" is not a convincing theory for fitting the facts in this case... Do you see what I mean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Ill try to make this simple for you:

    Theres more to science than observation!
    You must fit the observed facts into a theory.
    Frankly, I have a better understanding of the scientific method than you do. Do not try- just post your ideas.
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Suppose it takes 2 years for blind chance to make one airoplane...
    Why then should it take a billion times longer to make two airoplanes joined together?

    "Blind chance" is not a convincing theory for fitting the facts in this case... Do you see what I mean?
    No, because your analogy doesn't fit at all.
    It's absolute nonsense.
    It's not "blind chance."
    It's chemistry. That's thing one. It's not intelligently driven- but neither is it "blind chance." It's the properties involved.
    An airplane wasn't invented and then a billion years went by and another one made.
    It follows clear stages of development - there is no strange gap in life-emergence theory as you describe.

    Rather, it's like finding bits and pieces to make an airplane, and banging them together until certain pieces fit- and continuing this process until the entire object is assembled.
    Which supports why it would take a very long time and shows the fallacy of your claims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Ill try to make this simple for you:

    Theres more to science than observation!
    You must fit the observed facts into a theory.
    Frankly, I have a better understanding of the scientific method than you do. Do not try- just post your ideas.
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Suppose it takes 2 years for blind chance to make one airoplane...
    Why then should it take a billion times longer to make two airoplanes joined together?

    "Blind chance" is not a convincing theory for fitting the facts in this case... Do you see what I mean?
    No, because your analogy doesn't fit at all.
    It's absolute nonsense.
    It's not "blind chance."
    It's chemistry. That's thing one. It's not intelligently driven- but neither is it "blind chance." It's the properties involved.
    An airplane wasn't invented and then a billion years went by and another one made.
    It follows clear stages of development - there is no strange gap in life-emergence theory as you describe.

    Rather, it's like finding bits and pieces to make an airplane, and banging them together until certain pieces fit- and continuing this process until the entire object is assembled.
    Which supports why it would take a very long time and shows the fallacy of your claims.
    IF the facts are that it takes two workers to build one thing of a kind,
    and approximatley two billion workers to make two adjoining things of the first kind.

    AND you believe that the manufacturing method used in the first case.
    CAN be the same as the manufacturing method used in the second case.

    Then I advice you to seek psychiatric help elsewhere.
    (Case closed. Treatment impossible. Patient incurable.)

    Hmm ... Maybe your are under the delusion that the facts presented,
    and the question naturally arising out of those facts is my own idea?

    Oh no! I only report already existing knowledge. Look it up.
    Locate the author. Hit him in the head with the book. Good bye!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    You're not making any sense at all. Once single celled life established itself, it developed quickly. Once multi-cellular organisms established themselves, they developed quickly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by ZachJadon View Post
    What were the original conditions that made single celled organisms come together into more complex forms?
    Hi! ZachJadon.
    Tell me: Why do you ask?

    Are you doing a homework essay
    out of a series of questions from your teacher?

    If so then copy the answers given by Neverfly:

    1 The first cell did NOT come from god.
    2 The first complex cell was NOT gods bright idea.

    Im sure your marks will be excellent
    question for you likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Hi! You never give up do you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    You're not making any sense at all..
    Its easy once you know how!
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Once single celled life established itself, it developed quickly.
    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Once multi-cellular organisms established themselves, they developed quickly.
    Yes. Now please open the textbook again. Find the approximative dates and copy the theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZachJadon View Post
    What were the original conditions that made single celled organisms come together into more complex forms?
    Hi! ZachJadon.
    Tell me: Why do you ask?

    Are you doing a homework essay
    out of a series of questions from your teacher?

    If so then copy the answers given by Neverfly:

    1 The first cell did NOT come from god.
    2 The first complex cell was NOT gods bright idea.

    Im sure your marks will be excellent
    Your emotional reaction to your faith has a remarkable effect on the abuse you dish out. Might want to look into that.

    Logical arguments would serve you much better than absurd assumptions and claims that when refuted, leads to ad hom attacks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    maybe you're asking the wrong question

    imo, the question should be : what caused the two parts of a cell division to stick together rather than go their separate ways ?

    Thank you marnixR. For years I thought about the possible reasons for two separate cells joining together. I never could bring myself to look the way you saw it.

    Why should they separate when already together? Thanks ahain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZachJadon View Post
    What were the original conditions that made single celled organisms come together into more complex forms?
    Hi! ZachJadon.
    Tell me: Why do you ask?

    Are you doing a homework essay
    out of a series of questions from your teacher?

    If so then copy the answers given by Neverfly:

    1 The first cell did NOT come from god.
    2 The first complex cell was NOT gods bright idea.

    Im sure your marks will be excellent
    Your emotional reaction to your faith has a remarkable effect on the abuse you dish out. Might want to look into that.

    Logical arguments would serve you much better than absurd assumptions and claims that when refuted, leads to ad hom attacks.
    Lol. Nah its clear from the forum rules we shouldnt do ppls homework for them. Stimulating their minds yes... but cheating their teachers? Oh no! Not me. Also: I didnt accuse him of cheating...I politely ASKED if he is cheating. If he tells me he is not I will believe him and help him as I see fit.

    BTW What ad hom are you referring to?
    When it comes to the rest then all I see is conclusions from non existing premisses.
    Do you understand the difference between belief and proof?
    You present no argument...You are only preaching...once xian always xian in the core!
    I have no interest in examining your beliefs! I want scientific,logical or at least philosophical ARGUMENTS!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    maybe you're asking the wrong question

    imo, the question should be : what caused the two parts of a cell division to stick together rather than go their separate ways ?
    Yes its a good reformulation of the question in question.
    If we stick to the story ive been told
    then single cells were there instantly (in geological terms)
    as soon as the Earth was cool enough to sustain life.

    Then Earth had to wait two billion years
    until two cells decided to join company.
    IF I was told the truth then the question is:
    Why wait so long?
    Your question obviously comes along. No one can deny that. Why so long?
    sigurdV likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Lol. Nah its clear from the forum rules we shouldnt do ppls homework for them. Stimulating their minds yes... but cheating their teachers? Oh no! Not me. Also: I didnt accuse him of cheating...I politely ASKED if he is cheating. If he tells me he is not I will believe him and help him as I see fit.
    Irrelevant. I wasn't referring to any of that.
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    BTW What ad hom are you referring to?
    Don't insult my intelligence.
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    When it comes to the rest then all I see is conclusions from non existing premisses.
    Do you understand the difference between belief and proof?
    You present no argument...You are only preaching...once xian always xian in the core!
    I have no interest in examining your beliefs! I want scientific,logical or at least philosophical ARGUMENTS!
    Nonsense. I'm going by emergence and the fossil record, while you make up a bunch of absurd analogies that have no bearing.
    The last thing you want is Science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    imo multicellularity could not happen when all that was around were non-nucleated prokaryotes
    so the first delay was the formation of the eukaryotic cell, which appears to have depended on

    (1) an increase in the oxygen content of the oceans - although nowhere near the levels that exists now, a rise in the oxygen levels around 2 billion years ago made it necessary for cells to have a defense mechanism against it
    (2) endosymbiotic absorption of purple bacteria which became mitochondria in the new nucleated eukaryotic cell - we're assuming an organism that tended to eat bacteria in amoeba-like fashion, which on a small number of occasions did not lead to the bacteria getting eaten - the fact that mitochondria help protect the cell against oxygen is an added bonus

    i seem to remember, but can't find the exact link to it, that further environmental changes made it more likely for cells to stick after division
    this would have led to a volvox type animal of similar cells joining together, which over time would have allowed individual cells to specialise into specific body functions

    so in short, the answer to the question "why did it take so long?" is very likely environmental triggers which only allowed certain steps in the development to proceed once a certain environmental cut-off point was reached
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    The thread is too long for the time I have to read, but if no one has pointed this out

    look into sponges it may provide insights, its quite interesting (if you are interested in primitive multi-cellular development).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    The thread is too long for the time I have to read, but if no one has pointed this out

    look into sponges it may provide insights, its quite interesting (if you are interested in primitive multi-cellular development).
    I agree...theres too many irrelevant postings in the thread...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Sponges... good point icewendigo, it hasn't been mentioned yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    i seem to remember, but can't find the exact link to it, that further environmental changes made it more likely for cells to stick after division
    this is driving me batty, but i seem to remember that it had something to do with environmental conditions that made it advantageous to minimise the amount of surface area exposed to the aqueous solution surrounding it - however, what exactly the factors involved were i can't figure out, even after an extensive google search
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55 N, 3 W
    Posts
    1,085
    The formation of colonies would seem to be an important first step, followed later by a division of labour amongst the cells of the colony.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    mind you their are plenty of fungi that switch between unicellularity and multicellularity at the drop of a hat - don't know if this could have any bearing on the development of multicellularity, or could it be a later evolutionary event ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Recall that slime moulds form multi-cellular bodies under conditions of environmental stress, but are unicellular the rest of the time. Clearly the adherence of cells requires both the suppresion of some proteins and the production of others.

    In short, Marnix, I believe you are correct that the 'delay' was a consequence of a base model on which to operate and key environmental triggers. I am not aware of this topic being tackled in any popular science work and your google searches seem to have failed to uncover any review paper on the topic. We have an opportunity to become famous authors!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Hi! You never give up do you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    You're not making any sense at all..
    Its easy once you know how!
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Once single celled life established itself, it developed quickly.
    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Once multi-cellular organisms established themselves, they developed quickly.
    Yes. Now please open the textbook again. Find the approximative dates and copy the theory.
    All I see in these posts of yours is an ignorance of the basic concepts of evolution and then because you can't fathom it, you seem to think everyone that professes some knowledge are simply parroting textbooks without any real understanding. Your analogies only demonstrate your lack of understanding. If you were really interested in understanding it, you would simply engage in the conversation without your usual sarcasm and snide remarks. This attitude will forever stand in the way of any real understanding on your part unless you confess your ignorance and make an objective attempt at understanding the basic concepts. Ignorance by itself is nothing to be ashamed of, but wilful ignorance is another story.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    mind you their are plenty of fungi that switch between unicellularity and multicellularity at the drop of a hat - don't know if this could have any bearing on the development of multicellularity, or could it be a later evolutionary event ?
    My completely uneducated guess would be that it happened later, as with spponges... I personally find it hard to imagine that any early bacteria resembled bacteria we see today.

    Or else... why did some of the bacteria evolve into the plant and animal kingdoms etc... but the rest stay exactly the same? Niche consistency? I can't imagine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I personally find it hard to imagine that any early bacteria resembled bacteria we see today.
    read one of my earlier posts : multicellularity only occurs in eukaryotes, not prokaryotes, of which bacteria are a member
    think something like a sequence from amoeba to volvox to sponges to bilaterals - no bacteria involved at all
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I will look into that marnixR, cheers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    4
    Thanks everyone, for your responses. This question came from a conversation with my 8 yr old nephew. We appreciate your time and insight.

    @marnix: you cleared up a misconception we had, i think.

    "what caused the two parts of a cell division to stick together rather than go their separate ways ?"

    We were thinking that single celled organisms came together into organizations, instead of starting as a single cell that split apart and/or copied itself. I realize now what we were actually getting at is a 'general' understanding of evolutionary theory? What makes living organisms evolve at all? From the responses so far, and my own understanding, the short answer to this is "responses to environmental changes"? Which would lead us to search further in the direction of early forms of life. Sponges? Bacteria?

    @Neverfly: I agree this thread is essentially the same question as our other thread. Is there a way to consolidate the two?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by ZachJadon View Post
    @Neverfly: I agree this thread is essentially the same question as our other thread. Is there a way to consolidate the two?
    You can PM a Mod or Admin and ask.
    Quote Originally Posted by ZachJadon View Post
    the short answer to this is "responses to environmental changes"?
    I would word that a bit differently. Evolution is mutation or change and the success of a species is dependent on how well suited that change is to the environment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    These threads were separated because Sigurd was clouding the issue with his own brand of unsubstantiated speculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i think ZachJadon is referring to the other thread of his, entitled Where did animated life on Earth come from?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    "Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject.
    If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong,
    please don't hesitate to correct me.
    I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible."
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Once single celled life established itself, it developed quickly.
    Yes..
    Hmmm Kalster... are your words really as true and accurate as possible?
    Will you then kindly explain how the simple: "yes" shows my ignorance of the basic concepts of evolution?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    "Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject.
    If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong,
    please don't hesitate to correct me.
    I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible."
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Once single celled life established itself, it developed quickly.
    Yes..
    Hmmm Kalster... are your words really as true and accurate as possible?
    Will you then kindly explain how the simple: "yes" shows my ignorance of the basic concepts of evolution?
    Simple: It is not the "yes" I am referring to. It is the rest of it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    360
    Ok, I just started watching David Attenborough's ‘First Life’ that was mentioned in a previous post that’s related to this post from ZachJadon. I’ve not finished watching it myself but he gets to Sponges! They squeezed the sponge into tiny little cellular pieces and then with a microscope watched the single cells all move towards each other, forming clumps and then eventually in 3 weeks to form a new sponge! Thought that was cool

    Apparently when oxygen became readily available on the planet, this oxygen allowed some single cells to start sticking together just like Sponges do.

    So what I’ve learnt is, single cells got their energy from the sun. These single cells released oxygen as a byproduct (like plants do today). The buildup of oxygen in the planet caused some cells to start sticking together. So we have Sponges.

    Anyway, if interested, here’s the whole movie but just to see the demonstration of the cells clumping together just skip 9 min: 40 sec into the movie, after snowball earth.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfbGFKrKb1Q
    John Galt and ZachJadon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    mumbai
    Posts
    378
    Environmental changes had to be drastic enough to have occurred after undisturbed 2 billion years of LIVELY environment for individual cells that compelled them not to detach. It seems unlikely to my uneducated me.

    Except addition of oxygen in atmosphere.

    If additional Oxygen was responsible for multi cellular bodies, why did it take 2 billion years?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    "Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject.
    If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong,
    please don't hesitate to correct me.
    I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible."
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Once single celled life established itself, it developed quickly.
    Yes..
    Hmmm Kalster... are your words really as true and accurate as possible?
    Will you then kindly explain how the simple: "yes" shows my ignorance of the basic concepts of evolution?
    Simple: It is not the "yes" I am referring to. It is the rest of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    [December 19th, 2012, 05:58 AM

    Originally Posted by sigurdV
    Hi! You never give up do you?

    Originally Posted by Neverfly
    You're not making any sense at all..



    Its easy once you know how!
    Originally Posted by Neverfly
    Once single celled life established itself, it developed quickly.



    Yes.
    Originally Posted by Neverfly
    Once multi-cellular organisms established themselves, they developed quickly.



    Yes. Now please open the textbook again. Find the approximative dates and copy the theory.



    All I see in these posts of yours is an ignorance of the basic concepts of evolution and then because you can't fathom it, you seem to think everyone that professes some knowledge are simply parroting textbooks without any real understanding. Your analogies only demonstrate your lack of understanding. If you were really interested in understanding it, you would simply engage in the conversation without your usual sarcasm and snide remarks. This attitude will forever stand in the way of any real understanding on your part unless you confess your ignorance and make an objective attempt at understanding the basic concepts. Ignorance by itself is nothing to be ashamed of, but wilful ignorance is another story.


    So when you say " these posts of yours " You dont refer to what I say in your quotes above???

    You refere to what I say elsewhere. Why cant you be reasonable and quote what you object to?

    I suspect that is because what you claim to object to isnt there for you to quote!
    Thats why you dont prove your point. Isnt it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Here:
    now please open the textbook again. Find the approximative dates and copy the theory.
    sigurdV likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Sponges... good point icewendigo, it hasn't been mentioned yet.
    Thought i'd share some of the things I found about sponges incase anybody else is interested in some of the basics, nothing too technical:

    Sponge genome goes deep : Nature News

    Genome of ancient sponge reveals origins of first animals, cancer

    SPONGE LARVAE COULD BE GUIDED BY CRYPTOCHROME

    Sponges are Separate

    Porifera

    Humans and sponges may share a slimy ancestor : Nature News

    Another evolutionary puzzle I stumbled aross:

    Getting to the bottom of evolution : Nature News
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    but the rest stay exactly the same? Niche consistency? I can't imagine
    Im not saying modern bacteria are the same an ancient ones, but it makes sense to have paralell systems coexisting because the environment is diverse. (theres free oxygen even if my body has integrated oxygen in complex molecules, and there is free floating hydrogen in the universe even if some of it is assembled in planets or packed in stars)

    If you dig a hole in the ground, throw an elephant, and bury it, the elephant will die, but some of the bacteria will survive, the bacteria can survive on molecules that we cant even see, but the elephant requires massive amounts of food. 34 monkeys cant live on my back or on my keyboard, but millions of bacteria can.

    The most complex of molecular dynamic systems (complex lifeforms) exist all he while, in parallel, a lot of the universe is composed of the most simple atom that's not even in a molecule(low complexity/low structural interaction).

    But I would not be surprised if most modern bacteria are different, both because of mutations/etc, and because their presence itself makes the environment different from what it was when they first started to spread and there was not yet that many of them.
    Last edited by icewendigo; December 20th, 2012 at 02:29 PM.
    ZachJadon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Here:
    now please open the textbook again. Find the approximative dates and copy the theory.
    Thank you for enabling conversation.

    Did you ever do as suggested? Or did my underlined formulation cause you distress and paralysis?
    Compare: "Now please access your source again. Find the approximative dates and copy the theory"
    Had you done as requested conversation could have continued.

    I dont understand the cause of your paralysis.
    Are you ashamed in consulting a textbook?
    They are not bad sources for basic facts are they?

    Post Scriptum: This reminds me of the "discovery" that there are secret teachings in the bible.
    If you apply extreme decryption methods to the text then new text is "revealed". Its insane of course but arent you doing something similar with whatever I write? IF there is a way to interprete my sentence as an insult you WILL find it and use it as the proper description of its sense wont you?
    Last edited by sigurdV; December 20th, 2012 at 02:48 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by uday yadav View Post
    Environmental changes had to be drastic enough to have occurred after undisturbed 2 billion years of LIVELY environment for individual cells that compelled them not to detach. It seems unlikely to my uneducated me.
    not necessarily so - you can have a gradual change in environmental conditions which still lead to a point where organisms change very fast once a certain trigger point is reached
    a typical example is the Milankovich cycles which, although in themselves quite regular, can cause abrupt climate changes : http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...Climate Change

    something similar can happen to living creatures : once a minimum level of oxygen and/or nutrients and/or skeleton building elements are available, things can change very rapidly indeed, like they did in the Cambrian explosion
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    What a bunch of gibberish. Do you think that debates are best one with intellectual dishonesty, rather than evidence and sound reasoning?
    How pathetic.

    Your intent is clear: You're trying to "disprove" anything that contradicts your pet theory with clear absurdities in order to promote your pet theory.
    I don't have to jump to your snapping of the fingers; if you wish to promote a pet theory, it's on you to support it- and believe me, all that wild speculation and imaginative gobbledygook needs support.
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    IF there is a way to interprete my sentence as an insult
    Your presence is an insult to the intelligence of everyone here.
    sigurdV likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Neverfly and sigurdV : could you lay off slagging each other off in this thread ? it's got perfectly good content without the distractions caused by the 2 of you

    thank you
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Neverfly and sigurdV : could you lay off slagging each other off in this thread ? it's got perfectly good content without the distractions caused by the 2 of you

    thank you
    Oh, I'm sorry- I'll just shut up and let gibberish and pseudo-science go unchallenged- got it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Moderator Warning:

    sigurdV, your posts are loaded with provocative words, supercilious tone, passive-aggressive style, snide remarks and are generally calculated to incite emotional reactions from your readers. You are using cheap parlour tricks to divert attention from the core of your argument and its attendant weakness.

    Enough is enough. From this point forward your posts will lack those characteristics or you will face a suspension. I do not wish to hear that you do not understand what I mean. Wounded innocence is not going to work here. If you don't like the tenor and intent of this warning then contact another mod or admin by pm. Do not challenge this ruling within this or any other thread. If you do you will receive a suspension.

    This ruling applies to all threads you participate in on this forum.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    So when you say " these posts of yours " You dont refer to what I say in your quotes above???

    You refere to what I say elsewhere. Why cant you be reasonable and quote what you object to?

    I suspect that is because what you claim to object to isnt there for you to quote!
    Thats why you dont prove your point. Isnt it?[/INDENT]
    Let's put those quote of yours in context, shall we?

    First, you ask a legitimate question: Why did it take so long for multicellularity to develop? Neverfly answered reasonably:

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly
    Why use the word, "Waiting?"
    It's not as though those two protein clumps were waiting for the command to join together.

    That's like asking a mountain why it waited so long to erode.
    Then that condescending/sarcastic tone of yours start up again, where you also make classic evolutionary science ignoramus mistakes like talking about "blind chance" and the coming up with a bogus analogy. Neverfly responded:

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Ill try to make this simple for you:

    Theres more to science than observation!
    You must fit the observed facts into a theory.
    Frankly, I have a better understanding of the scientific method than you do. Do not try- just post your ideas.
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Suppose it takes 2 years for blind chance to make one airoplane...
    Why then should it take a billion times longer to make two airoplanes joined together?

    "Blind chance" is not a convincing theory for fitting the facts in this case... Do you see what I mean?
    No, because your analogy doesn't fit at all.
    It's absolute nonsense.
    It's not "blind chance."
    It's chemistry. That's thing one. It's not intelligently driven- but neither is it "blind chance." It's the properties involved.
    An airplane wasn't invented and then a billion years went by and another one made.
    It follows clear stages of development - there is no strange gap in life-emergence theory as you describe.

    Rather, it's like finding bits and pieces to make an airplane, and banging them together until certain pieces fit- and continuing this process until the entire object is assembled.
    Which supports why it would take a very long time and shows the fallacy of your claims.
    "Blind chance" is indeed not very convincing, since it isn't simply "blind chance". Your analogy doesn't make any sense, because it contains ignorant assumptions in them.

    You respond with some more sarcastic rhetoric:

    Quote Originally Posted by SGV
    IF the facts are that it takes two workers to build one thing of a kind,
    and approximatley two billion workers to make two adjoining things of the first kind.

    AND you believe that the manufacturing method used in the first case.
    CAN be the same as the manufacturing method used in the second case.

    Then I advice you to seek psychiatric help elsewhere.
    (Case closed. Treatment impossible. Patient incurable.)

    Hmm ... Maybe your are under the delusion that the facts presented,
    and the question naturally arising out of those facts is my own idea?

    Oh no! I only report already existing knowledge. Look it up.
    Locate the author. Hit him in the head with the book. Good bye!
    Very little of which makes any sense. Your analogy is gibberish and the rest is dripping with sarcasm and snide. You don't seem to understand what Neverfly is trying to tell you.

    Then you respond to the OP and make a sarcastic comment meant to imply that Neverfly is simply parroting textbooks and the consensus. THEN you post this comment, NOT to simply agree with him, as you are dishonestly trying to imply now:

    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Hi! You never give up do you?
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    You're not making any sense at all..
    Its easy once you know how!
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Once single celled life established itself, it developed quickly.
    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Once multi-cellular organisms established themselves, they developed quickly.
    Yes. Now please open the textbook again. Find the approximative dates and copy the theory.
    Finally, I comment on all of this:

    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    All I see in these posts of yours is an ignorance of the basic concepts of evolution and then because you can't fathom it, you seem to think everyone that professes some knowledge are simply parroting textbooks without any real understanding. Your analogies only demonstrate your lack of understanding. If you were really interested in understanding it, you would simply engage in the conversation without your usual sarcasm and snide remarks. This attitude will forever stand in the way of any real understanding on your part unless you confess your ignorance and make an objective attempt at understanding the basic concepts. Ignorance by itself is nothing to be ashamed of, but wilful ignorance is another story.
    What, are you going to claim innocence now? Are you going to claim you are being provoked? Just joking? Don't take me for a fool. This style of posting is seriously annoying, distracting, bating, inflamatory, etc, etc. You are little more than a disruption and not just because you are a dissenting voice, but because of the way you go about it. This has been your unchanging MO from the start and with two different usernames. Remember again that long post I wrote. NOTHING has changed. Tell me, what do you think I should do? Let you continue on, ignoring moderator requests and disrupting the forum?

    Edit: Thanks John.
    John Galt likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Oh, I'm sorry- I'll just shut up and let gibberish and pseudo-science go unchallenged- got it.
    challenging is fine - making it personal isn't
    and that goes for sigurdV as well
    sigurdV likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by ZachJadon View Post
    Thanks everyone, for your responses. This question came from a conversation with my 8 yr old nephew. We appreciate your time and insight.

    @marnix: you cleared up a misconception we had, i think.

    "what caused the two parts of a cell division to stick together rather than go their separate ways ?"

    We were thinking that single celled organisms came together into organizations, instead of starting as a single cell that split apart and/or copied itself. I realize now what we were actually getting at is a 'general' understanding of evolutionary theory? What makes living organisms evolve at all? From the responses so far, and my own understanding, the short answer to this is "responses to environmental changes"? Which would lead us to search further in the direction of early forms of life. Sponges? Bacteria?

    @Neverfly: I agree this thread is essentially the same question as our other thread. Is there a way to consolidate the two?
    I believe that part of the mystery of cell division might be found in fractals. Apparently very early development of living organisms was in a fractal manner (ferns are a perfect example of an old species, with fractal DNA instructions).

    fractal ferns - Bing Images
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I believe that part of the mystery of cell division might be found in fractals. Apparently very early development of living organisms was in a fractal manner (ferns are a perfect example of an old species, with fractal DNA instructions).
    fractals may in part explain the geometry, however, for the underlying reason you probably need to try and understand the chemistry at the start of the epigenetic development
    i'm thinking in particular about the affinity of the cell membrane to associate or dissociate itself from a similar nearby membrane
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I believe that part of the mystery of cell division might be found in fractals. Apparently very early development of living organisms was in a fractal manner (ferns are a perfect example of an old species, with fractal DNA instructions).
    fractals may in part explain the geometry, however, for the underlying reason you probably need to try and understand the chemistry at the start of the epigenetic development
    i'm thinking in particular about the affinity of the cell membrane to associate or dissociate itself from a similar nearby membrane
    And of course the age old question of what came first , the chicken or the egg. It can be said with certainty that the egg existed long before the chicken and in fact is no more than a protective membrane filled with nutrients around a nucleus. Again, the ablity and obvious natural advantages of seperate functional parts, movement, camouflage, all which can be grown in a dedicated organ probably helped our survival also.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I'd guess that cells sticking together has been around from early on. After all, that is what many bacteria and algae do now. The key, I'd say, would have been for cell differentiation, where cells containing the same genes, fulfil different phenotypic roles. You get that with things like Volvox. It is not that big of a stretch to imagine vastly more of each differentiated cell to form more recognisable types of organs. I guess it would take a very long time for the kind of differentiation to develop that would make larger bodies be more efficient.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I believe that part of the mystery of cell division might be found in fractals. Apparently very early development of living organisms was in a fractal manner (ferns are a perfect example of an old species, with fractal DNA instructions).
    fractals may in part explain the geometry, however, for the underlying reason you probably need to try and understand the chemistry at the start of the epigenetic development
    i'm thinking in particular about the affinity of the cell membrane to associate or dissociate itself from a similar nearby membrane
    Your first post (i think it was) singled out the mechanisms of cell division. I point towards "the frame" of the beginning autocatalysis (i suppose there was one). Some think clay was involved in keeping the first "living" matter intact and separated from the environment (threatening to diffund and thereby "kill"). Id say (if i may) that the cell membrane is a very early "improvement" eliminating the need of the first frame: clay,drop or whatever it may have been,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55 N, 3 W
    Posts
    1,085
    Apparently, multicellular strains of yeast have been experimentally evolved in the lab from unicellular strains.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    Apparently, multicellular strains of yeast have been experimentally evolved in the lab from unicellular strains.
    That is cool. Do you have a link?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    i seem to remember, but can't find the exact link to it, that further environmental changes made it more likely for cells to stick after division
    this is driving me batty, but i seem to remember that it had something to do with environmental conditions that made it advantageous to minimise the amount of surface area exposed to the aqueous solution surrounding it - however, what exactly the factors involved were i can't figure out, even after an extensive google search
    I symphatize. Meanwile i think cells staying connected faces a "new environmental situation": "Friendly" prolonged "communication" between cells is now possible.(Division of labour,enslaving our neighbour and such things.)
    If the "joining together" is not too tight and maneuverability is not too much restricted the cell complex can survive...cells can "accidentally" get separated starting all over again and the cell complex propagates.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55 N, 3 W
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    Apparently, multicellular strains of yeast have been experimentally evolved in the lab from unicellular strains.
    That is cool. Do you have a link?
    Here's the paper: Experimental evolution of multicellularity from PNAS published earlier this year.
    There was also a flurry of popular science articles on this work at the same time, such as this one from Scientific American: Test Tube Yeast Evolve Multicellularity
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,245
    Evolution is a dynamic self-perfecting function. The occurrence of spontaneous natural variation and the ultimate selection of the most viable variations insures that eventually the good variations survive and the poor variations simply disappear.
    Hehe, its a mathematical formula governing complexity, based on dynamic uncertainty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. How did organisms become sentient
    By xToxicInferno in forum Biology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: December 24th, 2012, 01:44 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 9th, 2010, 03:44 PM
  3. Multi-regional v Single origin.
    By Cat1981(England) in forum Biology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 6th, 2007, 01:08 PM
  4. multicellular organisms into social organisms
    By charles brough in forum Biology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 12th, 2006, 09:05 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 7th, 2006, 11:45 AM
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
  •