Evolution of multi-cellular organisms

The origin of multi-cellular human parasites

  • None evolved from single-cell organisms.

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Some evolved from single-cell organisms.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • All evolved from single-cell organisms.

    Votes: 13 86.7%

  • Total voters
    15

HawgJawl

Senior Member
Human parasites such as pinworms and tapeworms are fairly advanced and complex multi-cellular animals that possess digestive, circulatory, nervous, excretory, and reproductive systems.

Do you believe that pinworms have existed as long as humans have existed or do you believe that they developed or evolved at some later time?
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
Necessity. Changes occur out of necessity and creatures evolve out of necessity.
 

Tim L

Senior Member
Much longer; similar parasites tormented the dino's and the big amphibians before that..
 

TheBishop

Senior Member
Human parasites such as pinworms and tapeworms are fairly advanced and complex multi-cellular animals that possess digestive, circulatory, nervous, excretory, and reproductive systems.

Do you believe that pinworms have existed as long as humans have existed or do you believe that they developed or evolved at some later time?

You left out other human parasites that are cuasing our species to de-evolve. Democrats, liberals, progessives, enviromentalist, american idol worshipers, welfare recepients, and Obama supporters. I would call them complex cellular animals but not advanced. I'm pretty sure they've have exsisted since the discovery of the ability to mooch off the working mans labor.
 

HawgJawl

Senior Member
You left out other human parasites that are cuasing our species to de-evolve. Democrats, liberals, progessives, enviromentalist, american idol worshipers, welfare recepients, and Obama supporters. I would call them complex cellular animals but not advanced. I'm pretty sure they've have exsisted since the discovery of the ability to mooch off the working mans labor.

Yeah, I was trying to focus more on advanced animals that serve some type of purpose in life.
 

vowell462

Senior Member
:
You left out other human parasites that are cuasing our species to de-evolve. Democrats, liberals, progessives, enviromentalist, american idol worshipers, welfare recepients, and Obama supporters. I would call them complex cellular animals but not advanced. I'm pretty sure they've have exsisted since the discovery of the ability to mooch off the working mans labor.

:rofl: American Idol Worshipers are the worst!
 

stringmusic

To Be Determined
You left out other human parasites that are cuasing our species to de-evolve. Democrats, liberals, progessives, enviromentalist, american idol worshipers, welfare recepients, and Obama supporters. I would call them complex cellular animals but not advanced. I'm pretty sure they've have exsisted since the discovery of the ability to mooch off the working mans labor.

:rofl:
 

GunslingerG20

Senior Member
You left out other human parasites that are cuasing our species to de-evolve. Democrats, liberals, progessives, enviromentalist, american idol worshipers, welfare recepients, and Obama supporters. I would call them complex cellular animals but not advanced. I'm pretty sure they've have exsisted since the discovery of the ability to mooch off the working mans labor.

I nominate this one for "Post of the year"!!!:cheers:
 

HawgJawl

Senior Member
So, no one believes that all multi-cellular, complex animals were created on the 5th and/or 6th day?
 

BANDERSNATCH

Senior Member
I'll bite. lol

I believe that every living thing was created...including worms, skeeters, gnats, ticks, fleas, etc I believe they all have their place. Really want to ask God about the skeeters, though. :)

Anyway, I don't believe anything 'evolves' (and by 'evolve' I mean the "gaining" of genetic information) What we see in nature is 'de-evolution'....the loss of genetic information.

Look forward to the discussion.... :pop:

Bandy
 

atlashunter

Senior Member
Bandy how would you define genetic information?
 

atlashunter

Senior Member
Here is a response that gives some different definitions of what genetic information could mean and cites observed cases of each.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
 

BANDERSNATCH

Senior Member
Well, I hope you haven't started a back-and-forth cut-and-paste session between talk.origins and true.origins. lol Here's one exert of their's on Dawkins attempt to explain the appearance of information...

http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp


‘One mystery is how one virus has DNA which codes for more proteins than it has space to store the necessary coded information.

'The mystery arose when scientists counted the number of three-letter codons in the DNA of the virus, QX174. They found that the proteins produced by the virus required many more code words than the DNA in the chromosome contains. How could this be? Careful research revealed the amazing answer. A portion of a chain of code letters in the gene, say -A-C-T-G-T-C-C-A-G-, could contain three three-letter genetic words as follows: -A-C-T*G-T-C*C-A-G-. But if the reading frame is shifted to the right one or two letters, two other genetic words are found in the middle of this portion, as follows: -A*C-T-G*T-C-C*A-G- and -A-C*T-G-T*C-C-A*G-. And this is just what the virus does. A string of 390 code letters in its DNA is read in two different reading frames to get two different proteins from the same portion of DNA. [69] Could this have happened by chance? Try to compose an English sentence of 390 letters from which you can get another good sentence by shifting the framing of the words one letter to the right. It simply can’t be done. The probability of getting sense is effectively zero.’

I know this information isn't gene-specific, but it does address the impossibility of a protein-coding gene coming into existence on its own. did the process of getting that first gene have 'direction' or 'purpose'? No. How did it know when it got it right?

Also, when it comes to getting a man with ~20000 genes in his genome from a simple organism with, say, 400+ genes, you have to ADD genes over time.....something that is not seen....or at best RARELY....and that only in a lab. You can breed dogs all you want....fine tune them to purebreds, and you will still be left with a canine. Same amount of information.
 

atlashunter

Senior Member
I know this information isn't gene-specific, but it does address the impossibility of a protein-coding gene coming into existence on its own. did the process of getting that first gene have 'direction' or 'purpose'? No. How did it know when it got it right?

How does that address the impossibility of a protein coding gene coming into existence on its own? Did you not read the part in my post about gene duplication and protein coding genes coming from this process?

It doesn't "know" that it got it right. Maybe the effect was neutral and it had no impact on survivability. Maybe it was harmful in which case it dies and is eliminated or its survivability is reduced and so the gene is accordingly reduced in the gene pool. If it got it right that means survivability is improved and the gene becomes more prevalent in the gene pool.


Also, when it comes to getting a man with ~20000 genes in his genome from a simple organism with, say, 400+ genes, you have to ADD genes over time.....something that is not seen....or at best RARELY....and that only in a lab. You can breed dogs all you want....fine tune them to purebreds, and you will still be left with a canine. Same amount of information.

Observed cases of this happening were in my post.
 

BANDERSNATCH

Senior Member
Observed cases of this happening were in my post.

Is this where it was addressed?


increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

Do these articles (surely I wasn't expected to read these?) describe how one protein-coding gene could come about by chance...one base pair at a time? mindlessly...without a goal....with no 'desire' to improve...

From what I read in your post these reported 'incidents' of 'novel genetic' information seem to be rare. It's as if these scientists are celebrating something that should be seen everywhere...when, instead, what we see overall in species today is 'stasis'.

I also find it interesting that, with all the information in the talkorigins site, that Stephen Hawking (a celebrated atheist that I'm sure you're aware of) still finds it hard to explain the origin of information. He, like others, grasp for answers to this and the origin of life.

Coelacanth... "56 million years" of genetic stasis....yet, it was supposedly the ancestor of one of the first sea creature to crawl out on land. 56 million. That's a lot of replication. Of course, the Coelacanth is just one of many examples of living 'dinosaurs'. Unchanged through time. Miraculously.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
Is this where it was addressed?




Do these articles (surely I wasn't expected to read these?) describe how one protein-coding gene could come about by chance...one base pair at a time? mindlessly...without a goal....with no 'desire' to improve...

From what I read in your post these reported 'incidents' of 'novel genetic' information seem to be rare. It's as if these scientists are celebrating something that should be seen everywhere...when, instead, what we see overall in species today is 'stasis'.

I also find it interesting that, with all the information in the talkorigins site, that Stephen Hawking (a celebrated atheist that I'm sure you're aware of) still finds it hard to explain the origin of information. He, like others, grasp for answers to this and the origin of life.

Coelacanth... "56 million years" of genetic stasis....yet, it was supposedly the ancestor of one of the first sea creature to crawl out on land. 56 million. That's a lot of replication. Of course, the Coelacanth is just one of many examples of living 'dinosaurs'. Unchanged through time. Miraculously.

The deal with Hawking and the like is that at least they are constantly looking. No one said it was simple but they are trying to figure it all out and the things that they have found out in the process is mind numbingly deep. Compared to the no thought, God did it, we can't understand it so I won't even try attitudes.....I'll stick with Hawking and the boys for now.
 

BANDERSNATCH

Senior Member
i read the other day where some scientist (i'm sorry, I didn't catch or write down their name) said that they may never know how life originated. I agree. Since the evidence points to design, I'll stick with that.
 
Top