Origin of species is traced to pond life

The Times of London ^ | TUESDAY DECEMBER 18 2001 | BY MARK HENDERSON, SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT

[Map Kernow]

LONG-LOST relatives of the human race have been traced for the first time. They live at the bottom of puddles. A family of humble microbes has been found to carry a special signalling gene that was previously known only in the animal kingdom. The discovery suggests that the single-celled creatures represent a vital staging post in evolution and that all animal life on Earth descended from something very like them.

The survivor from our ancient ancestors is the collar flagellate or choanoflagellate — a microscopic organism that uses a sperm-like tail to swim through shallow water, grazing on bacteria that lodge in its feeding “collars”.

Its remarkable evolutionary legacy, which stretches back at least 600 million years, has been identified by researchers in the US. Today 150 species of collar flagellates exist around the world, but evolution also gave rise to a more complex lineage that eventually led to the animal kingdom.

“They are the closest nonanimal organism to animals,” said Sean Carroll, Professor of Genetics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who led the research. “They are to animals what chimps are to humans, and by studying some of their genetic characteristics, we can begin to make some strong inferences.”

In the study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Professor Carroll and his colleague Nicole King analysed proteins from a species of collar flagellate called Monosiga brevicollis. They located a type of signalling gene, receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK), which sends messages to other genes telling them to become active or making them dormant. It is almost identical to similar version found in animals as diverse as humans and sponges.

The findings support strongly the idea that many genes that animals use today were already in place and available on the eve of animal evolution, but changed in function with the step forward to multicellular organisms with distinct body plans and systems of organs.

The microbes, which measure five thousandths of a millimetre in diameter, are protazoans — simple organisms that were once regarded as animals but are now generally considered to be part of a separate kingdom, the single-celled protists.

Scientists consider the moment at which multi-celled animals, or metazoa, evolved from the protozoans to be one of the turning points in the history of life on Earth. The process is thought to have taken place about 600 million years ago.

“The question is, who were the ancestors of animals and what genetic tools did they pass down to the original animals,” Professor Carroll said. The evolution of the metazoa from the protozoans is one of the milestones in the history of life. To build a multicellular organism compatible with a multicellular lifestyle is something that is very difficult. It takes a lot of genetic machinery to do that, and you have to ask the question, did it all arise when the animals came along, or was some of it in place earlier? “We’re starting to get a glimpse of the genetic tool kit we have in common. In choanoflagellates, we’ve found genes that previously were believed only to exist in animals. It’s a confirmation of the idea that the genes come first, before their exploitation by organisms.”

The study concludes: “We have discovered in M. brevicollis the first RTK, to our knowledge, identified outside the metazoa. The architecture . . . resembles that of RTKs in sponges and humans and suggests the ability to receive and transduce signals. Thus, choanoflagellates express genes involved in animal development that are not found in other eukaryotes (complex organisms), and that may be linked to the origin of the metazoa.”

[dubyagee]

But only one side uses a logical process

How, scientifically, does one go about proving the supernatural logically. Scientists, due to their preconcieved notions, automatically reject the supernatural. Therefore, even if the supernatural slapped them in the face, they would deny it and look elsewhere for the source of their pain.

[from occupied ga]

One only has to look at either of the Clintons, Rosie O'donnel, Geraldo Rivera, Henry Waxman, Teddy Kennedy, Peter Jennings, Shirley Jackson Lee, Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Maxine Waters, upChuck Schumer etc to realize that humanity is indeed very closely related to pond scum. (Some closer than others)

[medved]

The Silver Lining...

They say that the darkest gloom clouds sometimes have a silver lining, and that April showers bring May flowers. In the case of science and technology, it sometimes turns out that a project which utterly fails in its original intent or application, is useful for something else.

If evolution cannot rationally be viewed as a way to get from ape-like creatures to man, then cannot the use of evolutionism as an ideological belief system get us from man to an ape-like creature? Such a capability would be of enormous value in politics and a number of other fields in which IQ reduction is known to be a positive advantage, but in which drugs, alcohol, and the normal means of achieving this are increasingly in disfavor for social and political reasons. The following testimonial pretty much sums it all up:

Testimonial

BEFORE and AFTER

---

Marty Z. Renfield writes: "I'd tried everything; drugs, narcotics, weeklong drinking bouts; I'd listened to rap music at ear-splitting levels for days on end; I'd taken all of the yuppie science courses at our local community college, and I'd worked for years at becoming both politically and scientifically correct, but nothing helped. Nothing I could think of or do was making me STUPID enough to get that big government grant. As you can see in the before picture, I had achieved some noticable results, but I just wasn't where I needed to be.

The after picture shows me today, after the brain-deadening effects of the AIBS evolutionary indoctrination program on the WWW. This program has turned my whole life around. I now drive a BMW and can take my pick of government grants and research projects.

Thank you, Judith!!!

[week 71]

Your conversation with week 71 was interesting. The field you are discussing is called Quantum Cosmology. If you search the web for the term you will find the good doctor has the right idea. Something does come from nothing.

I'm glad you enjoyed the discussion.The problem with the above is it is terrible philosophy! To say that nothing does something is a nonsense statement. Science that allows uncaused effects is akin to speaking of square circles. It is one thing to say ELECTRONS (not the univers, for as even Hawking must concede,quatum mechanical actions apply only to the micro, not to macro systems. The relative uncertainty approaches zero as the number of quantum particles in the system increases) behave in certain ways for uncertain reasons, and quite another to say they behave in certain ways for no reason at all.

Logic, which is the "supreme court of science" dictates that we can not have something that is here and not here at the same time and in the same relationship. If an atomic particle can do that, it can do something that not even God can do.

[week 71]

One more thing, if some theologian declared that God can be in New York and not be in New York at the same time and in the same relationship, he would be laughed to scorn by the scientists. Sometimes I can't help for laughing at the attribution of this same ability to an electron.

[OWK]

How did something come from nothing-nothing, as in no forces, no matter, no energy, just nothing.

A question to which I have no answer. But I am content to simply say, "I don't know". I feel no compelling need to suggest that it must have all been the result of some giant supernatural bearded guy. (and yet fail to explain where he came from)

[OWK]

I contest this, and the origin of life, needs something beyond observable science-indeed, we can never prove the exact origin of the universe. We can try, and accumulate evidence to support various theory's, but we can not prove it (or do you disagree?).

We certainly can't prove anything in regards to this question, with the evidence currently available to us.

[OWK]

Presumably, science should look for the best possible answer in such a scenrio, correct?

Correct. But it should not simply invent an answer in the absence of evidence (supernatural bearded guy), and then state that he is beyond the capacity to test. While that may be convenient, it is remarkably unsatisfying.

[OWK]

Why then should science not at least allow for the existence of an Intelligent Creator beyond the natural sphere?

Science does allow for it. But there is no evidence to support it. And certainly the assertion of a supernatural creator begs the question, "well where did HE come from"?

There wer scientists in years past (still are some around) that did not believe in Darwin's Theory, and incredibly, they made important discoveries quite well.

Without question.

[nimdoc]

placemark

[Chipper]

Right now it still comes down to a difference of faith. Faith in only what can be explained through science, and Faith in something that cannot be explained through science.

The track record of science is not the greatest, as we see paradigm after paradigm go by the wayside. What was once true is not anymore even though it was considered "science" at the time. We can sit here now and say "bloodletting" or "leeches" were not scientific when at the time it was considered as such.

It is one thing to criticize those who say God does all things all the time, and another to criticize those who say God created the universe and it follows the laws he created.

[dubyagee]

But it should not simply invent an answer in the absence of evidence (supernatural bearded guy)

The supernatural bearded guy is invented only if you completely disregard the bible. Archeology has proven much of the historical information in the bible is fact. In that respect, even if you wish to write off the supernatural aspects of it, you're left with a book that in many ways is accurate. IMHO, anyone wishing to discredit the bible as legitimate in any way, is simply running from the answers that the bible does provide. Whether quoted scripture disturbs one or not, the fact remains most "intellectuals" only reject it because of the supernatural elements or because it presents an ethical dilemma present in their lives.

[Chipper]

Some much for repeatable and testable science then heh? Maybe cold fusion did happen it's just that those darn uncaused events didn't repeat themselves.

Maybe the creator just is.

[OWK]

Archeology has proven much of the historical information in the bible is fact.

And so the fact that much of the Bible is a historically accurate depiction of ancient events, is supposed to somehow prove the veracity of it's supernatural claims?

It doesn't follow.

[Lev]

The track record of science is not the greatest, as we see paradigm after paradigm go by the wayside.

Well, this IS how scientific method works! Why do we reject paradigm after paradigm? Because we find better ones as demonstrated by evidence. Seems like a great track record to me: we have better gadgets, medicine, cars, etc, etc, etc.

[Chipper]

My point is that evolutionists hang on to their "religion" as fervently as a Muslim or Christian. When it may not be true a few years from now. Problem is that any view not conforming to theirs is instantly ridiculed. I know how academia works.

[dubyagee]

It should certainly make them worth looking in to. If the entire book is not fiction, why should any of it be assumed fiction. It should not be automatically written off because scientists say supernatural events do not take place. No one has proven supernatural events do not happen.

[Lev]

My point is that evolutionists hang on to their "religion" as fervently as a Muslim or Christian.

I think you are wrong in identifying evolutionists' religion. It's NOT a particular interpretation of the evidence. It's the scientific method.
Here's the difference:
Christian says "What's written in the Bible is true regardless of any evidence to the contrary."
'Evolutionist' says "Theory which fits best currently available evidence is true. If there is evidence contradicting it the theory is either updated or thrown away."

Regards.

[OWK]

It should certainly make them worth looking in to.

Looking in to how?

By definition the supernatural aspects are untestable, and must be held on faith.

[Chipper]

It all comes down to faith for both sides. Science presently believes all things started from an uncaused "singular". Religion believes in an uncaused creator.