# Evolution of multi-cellular organisms



## HawgJawl (Jun 1, 2011)

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?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 1, 2011)

Evolution just makes sense to me.


----------



## pnome (Jun 1, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> 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?



Neither.  I would say they evolved along with us.

Like lice..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3142488.stm


----------



## bullethead (Jun 1, 2011)

Necessity. Changes occur out of necessity and creatures evolve out of necessity.


----------



## Tim L (Jun 1, 2011)

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


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 2, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> 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 (Jun 2, 2011)

:





TheBishop said:


> 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.



 American Idol Worshipers are the worst!


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 2, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> 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.


----------



## GunslingerG20 (Jun 3, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> 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"!!!


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 7, 2011)

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


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 29, 2011)

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....    

Bandy


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

Bandy how would you define genetic information?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 29, 2011)

For our discussion here, we will stick with the number of genes in an organism's genome.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

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)
> ...


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 29, 2011)

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 (Jul 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> 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.




BANDERSNATCH said:


> 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 (Aug 1, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> 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 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Is this where it was addressed?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Aug 1, 2011)

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.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> 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.



I'm still waiting for the evidence that points to design and who designed it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

first, let me ask you this....

what would you consider 'evidence of design' in biology?   Let me guess.....nothing?    

Irreducible complexity is evidence.
Probability beyond impossible is evidence.

Even though scientist (your scientists) put the odds the life originated from nothing at 1 in 10 to the bazillionth power, you're still holding out!   

The lottery thrives on thinking like that!


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> first, let me ask you this....
> 
> what would you consider 'evidence of design' in biology?   Let me guess.....nothing?
> 
> ...



I do not see the "WHO" in the evidence of design. Who is the designer?

Irreducible complexity:

One of my favorites:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM&feature=player_embedded#at=48

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Here is something about the "odds" 
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/behe2.cfm


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> first, let me ask you this....
> 
> what would you consider 'evidence of design' in biology?   Let me guess.....nothing?
> 
> ...



Lets talk about Irreducible complexity.  Have you seen any arguments that demonstrate why it is a flawed notion?  Woulds you like to?  

As far as the lottery goes, people win it regularly, despite the odds.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Lest talk about Irreducible complexity.  Have you seen any arguments that demonstrate why it is a flawed notion?  Woulds you like to?
> 
> As far as the lottery goes, people win it regularly, despite the odds.




but the odds of winning the lottery are such not listed as impossible.    the odds of abiogenesis are statistically impossible.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I do not see the "WHO" in the evidence of design. Who is the designer?




Who is irrelevant.    If something was designed has nothing to do with who or what did it.     SETI (lol) is running on the assumption of design.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

What are the odds of intelligent design?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Who is irrelevant.    If something was designed has nothing to do with who or what did it.     SETI (lol) is running on the assumption of design.



Oh, I think a bunch of Christians might disagree with you there.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What are the odds of intelligent design?



It depends on how complex the system.   

The odds that a self-replicating cell came about by chance are 'impossible' as stated by many scientists.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Oh, I think a bunch of Christians might disagree with you there.



Christians, and I, have an opinion....but 'if' something was designed or not has nothing to do with who/what did it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> It depends on how complex the system.
> 
> The odds that a self-replicating cell came about by chance are 'impossible' as stated by many scientists.



I am curious to the odds of an invisible being creating everything.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Christians, and I, have an opinion....but 'if' something was designed or not has nothing to do with who/what did it.



If it was designed then it must have a designer. I'd like to know who or what that is. It would greatly help me understand the whole Intelligent Design concept.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> It depends on how complex the system.
> 
> The odds that a self-replicating cell came about by chance are 'impossible' as stated by many scientists.



Those scientists or Creationists that came up with the ODDS of 1 in 10 to the Bazillion against life forming from nothing must have also made odds to favor their line of thought. Does anyone know what they are? Are they more favorable like 1 in 10 to the Bazillion minus 1?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If it was designed then it must have a designer. I'd like to know who or what that is. It would greatly help me understand the whole Intelligent Design concept.



Here's how the concept works.     Not long ago there was this image floating around the web of a martian mountain which looked like a human face from space.   The media ran with this because people thought that some ancient martians (unknown/unseen/invisible) had built some monument or something.   Its a natural response to ordered complexity.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Those scientists or Creationists that came up with the ODDS of 1 in 10 to the Bazillion against life forming from nothing must have also made odds to favor their line of thought. Does anyone know what they are? Are they more favorable like 1 in 10 to the Bazillion minus 1?



who said creationists came up with those numbers?   non-creationists scientists agree on those odds.   If the odds of life coming from nothing are statistically impossible, then what else could explain its origin?  I, and many others, believe that design is the only other alternative


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> who said creationists came up with those numbers?   non-creationists scientists agree on those odds.   If the odds of life coming from nothing are statistically impossible, then what else could explain its origin?  I, and many others, believe that design is the only other alternative



Ok, for the sake of this conversation lets say it is impossible for nothing to become something. ( even though that no one knows that there was never nothing anywhere ever...) but we will go with that.

The idea is then because something could not just exist, then it had to be created? Am I following?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> The idea is then because something could not just exist, then it had to be created? Am I following?



No...I'm saying that if it has been shown that life could not have miraculously came about by chance, then the only other alternative is that it was designed...even if space aliens did it.    For the purpose of this discussion, I could care less who the designer is.    Life either came about by chance against all odds, or someone/something put it together.

Let me add....I don't believe that our universe has existed forever.   I believe it had a beginning.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

Well whether it is space aliens or whatever, something had to design life and then something had to design those aleins. Something had to design the planet, the solar system, the universe the everything right?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Well whether it is space aliens or whatever, something had to design life and then something had to design those aleins. Something had to design the planet, the solar system, the universe the everything right?



Well, when it comes to life, yes, logic would dictate that, even if space aliens brought life here, it would only move the OOL 'problem' somewhere else. 

when it comes to planets, and stars, meteors, etc...i don't think those show anywhere NEAR the evidence of design that life does.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

What designed the designer? What created the creator? The scientists show that the odds of nothing becoming something is virtually impossible, so then the odds that a creator that always was must be equally impossible. 

On one hand I am supposed to believe that we could go back to a point where there was just nothing but a creator sitting in a white room alone and he/it/she started it all. The reason is that everything had a point of origin.
Then on the other hand I ask myself how could that creator ALWAYS BE if nothing else could ALWAYS BE? What is it's point of origin?
On yet another hand I am NOT supposed to believe that something came from nothing because the odds say it is impossible.
Yet on ANOTHER  hand I am supposed to believe that something came from a force that always existed, despite being told that what I believe to have always existed didn't??

It is a chicken/egg round and round.
If one argument is that something could not always be something HAD to create it, then what created the creator as he could not always have been? IF the argument is that the creator has always been then the same argument for something else to have always been is just as legitimate.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

I agree with you, Bullet.    If something had a beginning, it had a cause.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I agree with you, Bullet.    If something had a beginning, it had a cause.



What was/is the cause?
Who is God's God and his before him?

I have a hard time when people tell me that no way could something have always existed( like the Universe or something much bigger) then proceed to tell me God has always existed.
If one can so then can the other. If one cannot then the same applies to the other all for the same reasons.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What was/is the cause?
> Who is God's God and his before him?



Well....what we do know is that everything in our universe had a beginning.  When scientists look at space -- galaxies, novas, etc -- they estimate their age.    It's a natural response we have to everything.

Whatever this 'cause' of the beginning of the universe is -- you mention 'God' -- "it" would have been outside of the physical properties/laws of our universe, (time, space, etc) wouldn't you agree?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Whatever this 'cause' of the beginning of the universe is -- you mention 'God' -- "it" would have been outside of the physical properties/laws of our universe, (time, space, etc) wouldn't you agree?



No, I do not agree. Because we cannot understand it(yet) does make it outside of our properties and laws, but I do not equate it with "God" as in the bibles (or most of  mankinds) perception of "God".
I am more inclined to think of it as a force of the cosmos, an ever evolving non intelligent force that both creates and destroys using time as it's Ally.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

"force of the cosmos".    I'm good with that.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 1, 2011)

> I am more inclined to think of it as a force of the cosmos, an ever evolving non intelligent force that both creates and destroys using time as it's Ally.



I know this was all covered in the "don't think I'm atheist anymore" thread, but I have a few quesitons:

1. Why can't it be intelligent?
2. You have a system which is based on logic.  Couldn't somebody view the complexity and the existence of the universe and just as logically conclude intelligence behind it's existence?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I know this was all covered in the "don't think I'm atheist anymore" thread, but I have a few quesitons:
> 
> 1. Why can't it be intelligent?
> 2. You have a system which is based on logic.  Couldn't somebody view the complexity and the existence of the universe and just as logically conclude intelligence behind it's existence?



1. Intelligent like us? We can't even figure out if such a force even exists.
2. Sure, I guess it could but then if it is intelligent then it also would have had to have a beginning. When and where did it begin? How could this intelligent force exist forever when nothing else can?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

i believe eternity is in all of our brains.   it's impossible for me to think of a beginning to time.    Just like the edge of the universe (if there is one).....we'd ask, "what is on the other side of the edge?" and "how thick is the edge?"   Same with time.   If we could go back to the beginning of time, we'd naturally ask, "what was before now?"

ok, i admit...i'm rambling...


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 1, 2011)

> Intelligent like us?



No. I am not sure what it would be like.



> Sure, I guess it could but then if it is intelligent then it also would have had to have a beginning



Or we could say if matter exists it would have to have a beginning.  Which takes me back to the reason why I believe in a "prime mover."  Either matter is infinite or self creative, or an intelligent force is.  The intelligent force makes more sense to me.  That was my only point.  One cannot logically rule out the other.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

I see it that Matter is infinite or self creative. I think it is ever changing and ever evolving due to long periods of time where it is able to come in contact with other matter and within those almost infinite encounters the right concoctions meet and are able to create something. It is so vast and random that we have no idea if we are the only ones of our kind or are one of millions of examples of the right meeting resulting in beings just like us.........or one in a series of examples of vastly different lifeforms throughout infinity. We have such a vast multitude of different life throughout the history of earth, just on one little planet, that when "right" conditions are met , all kinds of life might prosper.

There could be many examples of this throughout the galaxy or beyond. Those odds....1 in 10 to the billionth are really not that great of you can imagine the amount of particles floating around in our galaxy and all the other galaxies for hundreds of billions of trillions of years.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I think it is ever changing and ever evolving due to long periods of time...



Infinite time....god of the atheist.



> There could be many examples of this throughout the galaxy or beyond. Those odds....1 in 10 to the billionth are really not that great of you can imagine the amount of particles floating around in our galaxy and all the other galaxies for hundreds of billions of trillions of years.



so, you're saying 1 in 10>10000th power is "really not that great"?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 1, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Infinite time....god of the atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> so, you're saying 1 in 10>10000th power is "really not that great"?



I know time exists or at least a method which we use to measure time. It makes better sense to me than an invisible being that always existed.

To you, me and darn near anyone I can think of, YES, it is a huge number. To the galaxy.....who knows.

Why is it all right to use math but not time?


----------

