More about how evolution works: multicellularity (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, November 05, 2015, 20:11 (3304 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Multicellularity appeared independently a few times, but genetic studies suggest the genes for it were present in the single cells:-http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/30827/title/From-Simple-To-Complex/-David's comment: Very long and complex article. Looks like pre-planning to me. The discussion about supposed cooperation and conflict between cells as multicellularity develops makes me wonder what the author was smoking.-In my reply I quoted three passages about conflict and commented as follows:
Dhw: Sounds like individual intelligences to me. Why would your God preplan such conflicts if all he wanted to do was create humans? Ah, but you think the researchers have been smoking something, because how could cells possibly be individual and intelligent when the chances are only 50/50 and you happen to know which 50 is correct?
DAVID: All of the above quotes are suppositions. Please read them closely. Why do you think I asked what he was smoking? What conflict? Bad mutations result in death, and most mutations end up in loss of information. Now he wants cells fighting with each other as they become cooperative communities! I guess he was there watching as multicellularity developed.-As I understood it, he was basing his “suppositions” on his observation of volvocine algae: “Volvocine algae are aquatic, flagellated eukaryotes that range in complexity from unicellular species to a variety of colonial forms to multicellular Volvox, some of which boast up to 50,000 cells. This transition involved a series of key innovations, including cell-cell adhesion, inversion, and differentiation of somatic and germ cell lines. Two species in particular have become models for the evolution of multicellularity—the single-celled Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and the 2,000-or-so-celled Volvox carteri.” 
“These recurrent mutations in Volvox suggest that “the conflict between the individual cells and the interest of colony may still be going on,” he adds.-Of course it's conjecture, but why are your own “suppositions” more valid than his?-DAVID: Quote miner! You ignored this quote I presented which is the info that made the pre-planning point:-"These genes that we previously thought were associated with complex multicellular animals really have to do with basic multicellular functions—to get the simplest multicellular animals, you have to have these genes present,” says Srivastava, who coauthored the analysis.
"As some of the most ancient animals, sponges can provide information regarding the evolution of the metazoan lineage, but for true insights about the origin of multicellularity, scientists must look even further back on the evolutionary tree. Choanoflagellates, unicellular organisms that look remarkably similar to the feeding structures of sponges, are the closest living relatives of metazoans. It turns out that they also share a number of genes once thought to be unique to multicellular animals. Tyrosine kinases (TK), for example, enzymes that function in cell-cell interactions and regulation of development in animals, were identified in the choanoflagellates in the early part of this decade, and the first sequenced choanoflagellate genome, published in 2008, revealed that they have more TK genes than any animal—and many other components of the TK signaling pathway as well."-I did not ignore this, but cherry-picked the quote I have put in bold. For me this is evidence of common descent, and taken in conjunction with other quotes that you have ignored, I asked: “If multicellularity evolved 25 different times, which of these is more likely: 1) that the 25 times were all preprogrammed for the sake of producing one species (humans), or 2) different cellular communities interacted and cooperated autonomously to work out different combinations (the vast variety of species extant and extinct)?” Preprogramming = planning. You have not answered.