Multicellular evolution vs Intelligent Design

ARTICLE FOLLOWS MY COMMENTS…………….

The problem is the "Intelligent Design" supporters have no clue who the God revealed in the "flesh" 2000 years ago in the Incarnation of Yeshua ben Joseph (Jesus the Christ) IS.....if they did they would realize that there is a huge difference between micro vs macro evolution.   Division of Labor is the basic process that lead to the multicellular state.   Natural Selection is the basic process that lead to most of the multicellular phylums.   The diversity within each phylum is where the evidence of "Intelligent Design" appears. The rejection of the Scientific Principle of Darwinian Natural Selection by Intelligent Design Creationists is because they assumed that "man" was created by Natural Selection which IS incompatible with the Genesis account of the creation of Adam.  There is no question that Adam was created in God's Image from the "dust" of the Earth by "Intelligent Design." However... the difference between REAL Intelligent Design and Creationist Intelligent Design is that the REAL kind is based on God's PERFECT Laws and the Creationist kind is based on "magic."

 Adam DID NOT evolve from apes and he was not created by "magic" either!  If Creationists could actually understand the "Elohim" God revealed first to the Jews and to the world in the flesh as Jesus, they would realize Science HAS discovered how God Created Adam from the "dust"  and if Science accepted that the Bible is the absolute TRUTH they  would realize that they HAVE discovered how God did it. "Let Us Create man in Our Image from the dust of the Earth."  (Note: the Trinity Doctrine does not resolve the Hebrew plural problem because God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are NOT three separate Gods...they are three manifestations of ONE GOD. Knowing who God is does resolve "Elohim.")

  The "dust" referred to in Genesis is carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorous....the "elements" that make up the genetic data recording molecule of life ..deoxyribonucleic acid...DNA.  Adam was Created by "Elohim" via Recombinant DNA.   Because Creationists will never accept this  "Biblical Truth" they will never know the True God revealed by Jesus and they will forever be "enslaved" in believing the wonderful diversity of life on Earth (and I might add throughout God's Cosmic Kingdom.") was created my "magic."  Sadly...Science will never accept the reality of God inspite of discovering His PERFECT Laws revealed in the Bible and the Scientific Method.

THE ARTICLE…………..

5.1.2016 11:14PM

The Evolution of Multicellularity, Explained? Not So Fast

Evolution News & Views April 27, 2016 6:02 PM | Permalink

This from researchers at the University of the Witwatersrand certainly sounds promising: "How and why single cell organisms evolved into multicellular life." We read:

Throughout the history of life on Earth, multicellular life evolved from single cells numerous times, but explaining how this happened is one of the major evolutionary puzzles of our time. However, scientists have now completed a study of the complete DNA of one of the most important model organisms, Gonium pectorale, a simple green algae that comprises only 16 cells.

This microscopic organism is helping to fill the evolutionary gap in our understanding.

How so? Well, in the original paper in Nature Communications, there are three different types of algae discussed:

·         Gonium pectorale, a colonial algae where each cell is identical;

·         Chlamydomonas, a non-colonial algae (i.e., the cells don't live together in colonies);

·         Volvox, another type of colonial algae that, however, does have differentiated cells.

Of these three, only the last might arguably be considered a multicellular organism. Gonium pectorale is not a multicellular organism. Rather, each cell is an identical organism and they just live together in colonies. As the paper notes, the cells are "undifferentiated." It's just a colony of a bunch of identical cells.

The raw data is this: They sequenced the genome of Gonium pectorale and found that it has genes for cell regulation found in the non-colonial Chlamydomonas, but with a few differences. They put the Gonium pectorale versions of the genes back into Chlamydomonas and it grew into colonies. Not surprising.

So this is basically an exercise in comparative genetics. Think of it in machine-terms: Put a part that causes colonial growth into a non-colonial organism that's otherwise nearly identical, and big shock: you get colonial growth. To claim it shows how multicellular life evolved would require demostrating that these genes could evolve from one another, which of course they haven't even tried to discuss.

Then there's Volvox, another type of colonial algae that does have differentiated cells, and might be considered a "multicellular organism." But it's not known how it got that way, as the paper states: "The transition to multicellularity in the Volvocales was thought to involve at least 12 steps though the genetic basis of these steps remains enigmatic." So after this paper was published, it all remains enigmatic.

Note that the authors acknowledge multicellularity has evolved "numerous times in all domains of life." So one doubts that this example explains how it occurred in other cases. Therefore, all this really amounts to is a study in comparative genomics. And if their story is correct, it almost sounds teleological:

Interestingly, an emerging theme throughout the evolution of multicellularity is that the genetic basis for the evolutionary transition emerges much earlier than anticipated. In plants and animals, RB proteins are important for regulating both cell proliferation and differentiation by highly complex locus interactions with chromatin and chromatin remodeling factors. Our finding that the RB pathway was co-opted early for multicellularity in undifferentiated colonies suggests that the template for subsequent evolutionary innovations in developmental programs was laid out during the transition to undifferentiated multicellularity via RB and cell cycle modifications, rather than with emergence of germ and somatic cellular differentiation. Interestingly, RB has been further coopted for a role in sexual differentiation in Volvox, where there are male- and female-specific isoforms of RB24. This suggests that the evolution of multicellular cell cycle regulation was a critical step for the evolution of multicellularity. By comparing the genomes of these three volvocine green algae, we have determined that the mechanism of multicellular evolution is primarily cooption and regulatory modification of existing genetic pathways. Gene duplication forms the basis of subsequent multicellular innovations.

Notice three things in the foregoing paragraph. First, apparently early stages of this evolution gave exactly what you needed (the "template" was "laid out") for multicellularity. Isn't that lucky! It sounds like front-loaded intelligent design.

Second, they say they are "comparing the genomes" -- and indeed, that's all they're really doing. They know these forms of algae behave differently, so they're comparing the genetic bases for that behavior. That is good genetic science and it's interesting in that it helps us understand what these genes do. But the evolutionary spin is all narrative gloss.

Thus, and finally, when they say, "Gene duplication forms the basis of subsequent multicellular innovations," they haven't actually shown that gene duplication and subsequent innovations did anything here. They haven't determined the likelihood of the genetic changes occurring, or whether there are multimutation features involved, or anything like that.

They merely assert that these genes evolved. Sound familiar? But the raw data are simply three different types of algae with slightly different genetics that cause those species to behave differently. Is this a case of "evolution" or "designed differences"? After reading this paper, we're none the wiser.