Evolution of single celled organisms

[Jack]

How did single celled orgainsims evolve into multicelular organisms because I just can't imagine them making that step. Evolution is due to mutations in organisms that makes them better at survival but how could such a large mutation have occured?

Also, does anyone know what they evolved into?

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by Jack
How did single celled orgainsims evolve into multicelular organisms because I just can't imagine them making that step. Evolution is due to mutations in organisms that makes them better at survival but how could such a large mutation have occured?

Also, does anyone know what they evolved into?

this is one of the all-time most interesting questions

I have no hard info for you, only that I share the curiosity

I've read that fossil evidence shows it happened around 600 million years ago

Like...in extremely crude terms singlecell began 3.6 billion and went on being single cell for 3 billion years (!) and then got
the idea Hey why don't we try cooperating! and...

A few years back I read an article by a "Snowball Earth" theorist who tried to argue from some geological evidence that 600 or 700 years ago there was a runaway freeze that completely froze the oceans. Go figure.
This runaway freeze created a high albedo so very little solar energy stuck to the Earth and so the iceball was stable
And the freezeover caused a mass extinction
(apparently there was one of those mass extinctions 600 or 700 million years ago, a major one)
And this mass extinction somehow triggered multicell life maybe by forcing cells to clump together for survival and clearing out a lot of ecological niches so that evolution could radiate and proceed rapidly when the ice finally melted.

Probably this "Snowball Earth" theory is unacceptable for some reason. most theories get shot down. but I thought it was cute.

Why, you may ask, did the ice eventually melt? because of
volcanos gradually building up CO2!
There wasnt much photosynthesis so the greenhouse gasses just stayed in the atmosphere until the greenhouse effect was so overwhelming that even despite the high albedo the ice melted.

Am I telling you old stuff? Did you know of this theory already?

BTW I have no trouble picturing the actual step itself because lots of singlecells form colonies that actually involve cooperation.

like mold, and lichen on rock, and plaque on your teeth and all that stuff. they work collectively to change the chemistry and even geometry around them to their collective benefit, and cooperate to build up spore spreading structures and send out filaments and all that.
so an active colony is not all that different from say a sponge, or coelenerate or jellyfish
which is also a sort of coalition of single cells.

the thing that is hard for me to imagine is how did we get stuck on the one-cell level (with singlecells occupying all the ecological niches) for almost 3 billion years?

and if that was so obviously stable, then what finally changed? how can there have been no decisive evolutionary advantage to coalescence for 3 billion years and then suddenly a very big
evolution-driving reproductive/survival advantage?

 

[Another God]

It's easy to imagine when you realize that a multicell organism is just a 'society' of single celled organisms. Just as animals may form societies, they may also be individuals. Humans are a collection of individual cells, organised into a complex society. In the begining, the societies weren't complex, they were just together. Over time, 'laws' evolved, where the societies of cells worked together to make more and more effective 'societies'.

It is accepted that the sponge style organism was pretty much the type of organism which first got on the of Multicellular life bandwagon
.

Originally posted by marcus
the thing that is hard for me to imagine is how did we get stuck on the one-cell level (with singlecells occupying all the ecological niches) for almost 3 billion years?

Chances are it was 'happening' over all that time. Seriously, 'fossil evidence' of single celled organisms isn't the most reliable of sources. Cells don't 'fossilize' very well at all, what with have no bones or anything, so if any can find out anything about early cels, then its impressive, but I doubt anyone can really say anything certain about them.

Chances are, those 3 billion years were spent clumping and unclumping, and different version of intercellular communications were being tried and aborted etc... all that time.

Unfortunately, evolution theory is so damn good at what it does, that it can really explain anything.

 

[iansmith]

Originally posted by Another God
It is accepted that the sponge style organism was pretty much the type of organism which first got on the of Multicellular life bandwagon.

What I remember from comparitve zoology course is that sponce and sea anemodes were not the first organism to have a basic multicellar structure. I remember some protozoan (i don't the familly or the name) could form a "society" were some individual would only reproduce sexually and asexually, and some would form the "outer wall" for protection. Some cells had other function.

Edit: the microorganism I talking about is not a protozoan it is a unicellular green algae

Originally posted by Jack
Evolution is due to mutations in organism that makes them better at survival

There is other factor than enviromental pressure and mutation. Single cell organism can acquire genetic information in the environment such as transposon and plasmid.

Originally posted by Another God
Chances are, those 3 billion years were spent clumping and unclumping, and different version of intercellular communications were being tried and aborted etc... all that time.

Unfortunately, evolution theory is so damn good at what it does, that it can really explain anything.

You rigth but mother nature is a b***h, so migth come kick us in the ass and proves us wrong.

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by Another God
It's easy to imagine when you realize that a multicell organism is just a 'society' of single celled organisms. Just as animals may form societies, they may also be individuals. Humans are a collection of individual cells, organised into a complex society. In the begining, the societies weren't complex, they were just together. Over time, 'laws' evolved, where the societies of cells worked together to make more and more effective 'societies'.

...SNIP...

Chances are, those 3 billion years were spent clumping and unclumping, and different version of intercellular communications were being tried and aborted etc... all that time.

Unfortunately, evolution theory is so damn good at what it does, that it can really explain anything.

Much truth to what you say about all these things but this may be a case where evolution theory has so far failed to explain the fossil record.

As I understand it, the record is very peculiar. There are a great many multicell fossils after 6 or 700, and none before!

As I understand it (and I'm not well informed) there is at present no explanation, from evolution theory or any other widely accepted model, why this should be.

I suppose that under some circumstances permanent fossils *can* form from multicell beasties, as shown by the record after 700. But apparently as yet no earliers have been found.

Plus there was a great extinction around 700-600 which was then followed by a great radiation of multicell species.

It seems to me that what you imagine happening---a wealth of earlier experiments with multicell life---is exactly what there is no evidence for!

 

[iansmith]

Originally posted by marcus
It seems to me that what you imagine happening---a wealth of earlier experiments with multicell life---is exactly what there is no evidence for!

Having no proof that a wealth of earlier experiments with multicell life does not mean that it did not happen. There is also no proof that only unicellular life happen. We are taking about microscopic fossil, and it can easily be overlook. There also specicial condition for fossil to be creat. Number of multicellular organism migth of not be significant to leave traces. We could argue for long how to prove or disprove any theory but I don't think multicellular organism arise overnigth and some earlier ewxperiment could have happen but there were not successfull. Fossils only show the successfull experiment maybe multicellular organism became extremely successfull at around 700 Million years ago. its only a theory and it will be debated until proven rigth or wrong.

 

[O Great One]

They didn't

How did single celled orgainsims evolve into multicelular organisms because I just can't imagine them making that step.

The answer is, they didn't. It's sad that in 2003, we still have people believing in the fairy tale of evolution. Eventually evolution will be discarded just like the theories of phlogiston and the Earth being flat.

 

[Another God]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

OH LOL...LOL..LOL...HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

*sniff*

hehe..hahah.

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

That line cracks me up everytime...
hehehee

 

[enigma]

LOL,

I'm with AG...

so what will the "fairy tale" of evolution be replaced by?

fairy tales written by 4000 year old goat-herders, I suppose...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by O Great One
The answer is, they didn't. It's sad that in 2003, we still have people believing in the fairy tale of evolution. Eventually evolution will be discarded just like the theories of phlogiston and the Earth being flat.

And what fairy tale do you prefer to Evolution?

 

[Mentat]

Unfortunately, evolution theory is so damn good at what it does, that it can really explain anything.

By that you mean that a new hypothesis can be devised to explain each new concept? If so, I agree, and I say the previous sentence in no derogatory sense. Evolutionary theories can probably answer all of those questions: such as "where did the first cell come from?", or "what caused single-celled organisms to evolve into multicellular organisms?

 

[sage]

i think evolution of multicellar societies were caused by decreasing nutrition density in the oceans. as Earth became more tectonically stable amount of nutrition belching in the form of minerals decreased a lot. this coupled with the worst global cooling in Earth's history were impetus enough enough for a radical evolutionary innovation. by the way edicarian fauna have shown that multicellular life had began in precambrian itself,no doubt discoveries in future will show that such a radical step was not as sudden as made out to be.

 

[FZ+]

Interesting hypothesis...

However, didn't the evolution of multicellular life appear after the cyanobacteria started emmiting oxygen? Then, the ecosystem would already have shifted out of reliance on mineral nutrition...

 

[drag]

Greetings !

I know these quotes are completely out of context,
but that's REALLY funny !

Originally posted by Another God
It's easy to imagine when you realize that a
multicell organism is just a 'society' of
single celled organisms.

Originally posted by Another God
That line cracks me up everytime...

Anyway, Jack I got this thread on this
forum called "evolution of complex life"
and I got a link there to a recent spaceref
article with a relevant to this subject
recent discovery that you may be interested in.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Another God]

I dont' get it Drag

 

[sage]

two things to find out.first compared to today how vigorous was geothermal activity on the seafloor.it is true that cyanobacter had opened up a new way of living but that does not mean the old way had been completely overwhelmed.it is possible(if the ocean floor was active enough of course)that the former way was still dominant.its a little like divergence between marine and terrestrial life.emergence of terrestrial life did not mean the end of marine ways of existing did it?it may be that a crisis in the unicellular life dependant on geothermal energy may have accentuated the need for mass cooperation.if that was what actually happened the first multicells would be of a distict stock from cyanobacters.so this is the second thing that needs investigation.one thing going for this theory(if you can call this wild surmise that)is in pockets of geothermal energy great densities of living things subsisting in similar ways must live together giving rise to fierce competition and fruitful liasions.but one needs proof and i have none to offer.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by O Great One
The answer is, they didn't. It's sad that in 2003, we still have people believing in the fairy tale of evolution. Eventually evolution will be discarded just like the theories of phlogiston and the Earth being flat.

Ah, c'mon. Give us more to work with. Tell us why you think evolution is a fairy tale. I'm up for a good debate. Are we talking in the line of Morris? Ham? Johnson? Behe?

(mentor: better start a new topic for that, unless you want to discuss it in light of single celled organisms only)

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Another God
I dont' get it Drag

Com'mon ! At least some of my
jokes ain't that bad...

 

[O Great One]

Any examples of evolution?

Can anyone give a specific example of evolution occurring?
I am excluding polyploidy in plants, of course, since that's not really the production of new genetic information. If one copies a book and makes it twice as long, nobody considers that person to be an author.

 

[iansmith]

Originally posted by O Great One
Can anyone give a specific example of evolution occurring?
I am excluding polyploidy in plants of course, since that's not really the production of new genetic information. If one copies a book and makes it twice as long, nobody considers that person to be an author.

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria would be one example of evolution. Bacteria that have mutation in the targeted gene/protein have been selected for by the use of antibiotics. Bacteria can obtain gene that give then resistance. This can be done by mating, transposon acquisition, acqusiition of enviromental DNA, ...


There is also the classic example of finches on the galapagos islands.

Taking comparative zoology and comparative plant biology also help at understanding and seeing evolution

 

[O Great One]

Start with bacteria, end with bacteria

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria would be one example of evolution.

Let's see, we start out with bacteria. We end up with bacteria. That's evolution huh? Any other examples?

 

[damgo]

^^^ OGO, you really oughtta start a new thread for this...

 

[FZ+]

OGO: What did you expect? An arm to appear overnight? (actually, that does happen and we call it mutation. If we kill everybody with two arms and allow the very small minority with 3 arms to breed, viola, homo multiarmus) Genetic changes change one by one. In the case of gaining immunity, a whole string of dna is changed. Accumulate gives larger evolutionary changes.

And for you, any observable examples of creationism in action? Any recent developments in this field? Say in the last 100 years?

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by O Great One
Let's see, we start out with bacteria. We end up with bacteria. That's evolution huh? Any other examples?

Obviously, you have a misunderstanding about evolution. It's a slow process that takes countless generations to add up to what you would consider a significant change. I suppose we're talking micro- vs. macro-evolution here. You seem to be thinking that evolution is only fins-to-feet whereas, actually, any small change in the overall gene pool of a species from generation to generation qualifies as evolution. If a fish fin is on average 10 cm one generation and then 10.1 cm the next generation due to hereditary causes...that qualifies.

If you're only interested in examples of macroevolution...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by O Great One
If one copies a book and makes it twice as long, nobody considers that person to be an author.

No, but the 2nd generation book is different than the 1st generation book. It evolved (not due to natural causes in your example though). There would probably be a selection pressure against the mutation in the 2nd generation because people would prefer the first generation copy. Publishers would make more 1st generation copies and the 2nd generation would die out. The mutation failed. Not really a biological equivolent (i.e., not a fair comparison), but fun to think about.

If a segment of DNA is copied, that does result in new information for the organism, even though it's a repetition of existing information. Personally, the "no new info" argument doesn't hold water for me.

Consider...there are 26 letters in the alphabet. Does that mean human language is limited to 26 ideas? No, the letters can be recombined and repeated to form something new.
Dick sees Jane.
Jane sees Dick.
Dick sees Jane see Dick.
Same words, different meaning.
(no jokes please! )

Perhaps a copied gene adds an extra segment (and an extra set of legs) to a centipede. Might be useful, might not...might be neutral. Natural selection test it.

Or, increasing the size of skin folds bit by bit can eventually result in webbed feet or wings (something you might consider macroevolution).

The copied gene might double the amount of a hormone produced. Useful? Depends on the circumstances.

 

[damgo]

You know, I haven't seen any valleys carved out by glaciers recently. Or fertile islands rising out of the sea by volcanic eruption. Those theories must be bunk too!

Those volcanic islands that get bigger from eruptions, well that's micro-volcanic-island-formation, not macro-volcanic-island-formation. Volcanic-island-formationists are just deluding themselves because they can't let themselves believe the clear fact that God created all those islands fully formed!

 

[O Great One]

I guess the answer is "no".

I guess a simple "no" would have sufficed.

 

[damgo]

^^^ Why don't you define criteria for exactly what you mean by 'evolution,' if the examples above do not suffice? There are examples of speciation, as well as examples of dramatic phenotypic change -- compare a Dalmation, Chihuahua, and a wolf, for example.

If you expect to see a big evolutionary change that takes ~1,000,000 years done within the last 100 or so, it's obviously not going to happen...

 

[Mike H]

M.E. Boraas, D.B. Seale, and J.E. Boxhorn. (1998) "Phagotrophy by a flagellate selects for colonial prey: A possible origin of multicellularity." Evolutionary Ecology. 12(2): 153-164.

Abstract:

Predation was a powerful selective force promoting increased morphological complexity in a unicellular prey held in constant environmental conditions. The green alga,Chlorella vulgaris, is a well-studied eukaryote, which has retained its normal unicellular form in cultures in our laboratories for thousands of generations. For the experiments reported here, steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris continuous cultures were inoculated with the predator Ochromonas vallescia, a phagotrophic flagellated protist (’flagellate‘). Within less than 100 generations of the prey, a multicellular Chlorella growth form became dominant in the culture (subsequently repeated in other cultures). The prey Chlorella first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After about 10–20 generations in the presence of the phagotroph, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium.

Hmm...a unicellular organism suddenly forming a multicellular system upon a change in its condition (introduction of a predatory species).

Let us not forget differentiation in one of my favorite organisms, cyanobacteria, where certain bacteria will differentiate from the rest of the colony to carry out nitrogen fixation. Seems like something a multicellular organism might do (selecting certain cells to carry out specific tasks).

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by damgo
^^^ Why don't you define criteria for exactly what you mean by 'evolution,' if the examples above do not suffice? There are examples of speciation, as well as examples of dramatic phenotypic change -- compare a Dalmation, Chihuahua, and a wolf, for example.

If you expect to see a big evolutionary change that takes ~1,000,000 years done within the last 100 or so, it's obviously not going to happen...

Yes, OGO, it will be difficult to claim that the process of natural selection doesn't work or that instances of it cannot be found. By it's very definition it must work given our laws of physics. But I will agree that this does not necessarily mean that it is the "full" explanation for the variation we see. Just because A leads to B doesn't mean that all instances of B came from A.

So I think there is room to challenge but I don't think your current approach is the right one.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by O Great One
I guess a simple "no" would have sufficed.

Did you check out those links I provided? The answer was yes.