Scientists from the University of Minnesota succeeded in reproducing the same evolutionary step in the laboratory and causing a single-celled creature to evolve into a complex multicellular creature
One of the greatest mysteries of evolution is the question of the development of multicellular organisms, that is, those whose bodies are made up of a large number of cells. This group of creatures includes all animals, from the rat to the giraffe - and of course also humans. Multicellular organisms are inevitably more complex than unicellular organisms consisting of one tiny cell, such as bacteria, amoeba and yeast.
How, then, did the step in evolution occur which caused the individual cells to form a larger organism, composed of a greater number of cells? Scientists from the University of Minnesota recently tried to answer the question - and along the way they succeeded in reproducing the same evolutionary step in the laboratory and causing a single-celled creature to evolve into a complex multicellular creature.
The researchers decided to concentrate on a single-celled creature that is well known to everyone. This is baker's yeast - a type of single-celled fungus capable of multiplying quickly inside the dough and excreting carbon dioxide that adds airiness and lightness to the bread. His whole 'body' is made of only one cell, so small that it cannot be seen without the use of a microscope. Despite its simplicity, the scientists believed that they could make it become a multicellular creature by simulating evolutionary processes in the laboratory.
The evolution process requires two steps. In the first, random mutations occur that cause the offspring to be different from their parents. In the second stage, the offspring have to deal with the environmental conditions. Those of them who became more adapted to the environmental conditions thanks to the mutations they acquired, will thrive and multiply and pass on their new features to their many descendants.
What is the mutation, then, that causes single-celled creatures to abandon their individual ways and grow into a multi-celled creature? The researchers, surprisingly, decided not to test this question. They took a different approach, which states that since the descendants of each yeast are slightly different from it, then by creating environmental conditions that will encourage the survival of multicellular organisms, evolution will occur in this direction. To this end, they grew the yeast in test tubes, and every day they collected the yeast that sank to the bottom due to their weight and transferred them to a clean and new growth test tube where they could reproduce and pass on their properties to their many descendants. They sorted out the yeast, in effect, and allowed only those that bonded together to breed and pass their traits on to future generations.
This method is not new. Humans have been using it for many years to create new breeds of dogs, by selecting the canine parents with the most suitable traits for their needs and mating them. But no one had previously tried - and succeeded - to make single-celled creatures change their ways of life so drastically.
The results exceeded all expectations. Within sixty days, or 350 generations, some of the yeasts stopped moving around on their own in the solution and assumed a larger and more complex form. A closer inspection showed that these were groups of yeasts. Each of the groups was created from one guard that divided many times, and its descendants remained attached to it, similar to the way in which the human embryo was also created. All the cells in the group cooperated together for the benefit of the superorganism: the whole group.
Is it a multicellular organism? It can certainly be defined as such, since this is a group of genetically identical cells working together to achieve the most important common goal: survival. And if this were the end of the experiment, we would be sued. But the researchers continued to clarify the groups, and discovered that after several hundred more generations, some of the yeast groups began to acquire a new and surprising feature: the individual yeasts within them became specialists in certain roles.
The division of roles within the body is a critical part of the complexity of most multicellular organisms. Even in the simple jellyfish there is a division of functions: some cells make up the flexible surface of the jellyfish, others make up its tentacles, and they are able to kill other creatures that the jellyfish will use as food. And of course, a third type of cells will digest those creatures inside the body of the jellyfish. The human body is also a work of thought, consisting of liver cells, heart muscle cells, nerve cells and many other types of cells, each of which is located in exactly the right place to do its job. Is it possible for such a complex arrangement to be created by the forces of evolution and natural selection?
The results from the current study prove that this is indeed possible, at least in the tiny-enfin. Within the complex yeast groups, some yeasts began to undergo a 'division of labor'. Those individual yeasts underwent a pre-planned death - actually committed suicide - thus creating weak points from which the daughter cells could break away from the group. Those daughter cells, which can be considered as seeds of plants, were released into the solution, grew and formed new multicellular groups of yeast - in which the same phenomenon was also observed. These findings were described last week, at a meeting of the Association for the Study of Evolution in Oklahoma.
Does this mean that any single-celled organism - bacteria or yeast - can turn into a multicellular organism within a few hundred generations, under the right constraints? The answer is probably negative. Many strains of yeast form colonies naturally, and the ancestors of the original yeast were themselves multicellular hundreds of millions of years ago. Since then they have undergone an evolution that made them separate into single-celled creatures, but apparently the mechanisms that allow them to live in colonies remain hidden within the genetic code. Those genetic mechanisms have undergone many mutations and disruptions throughout the hundreds of millions of years that have passed since then, but the basis for their existence still remains within the cells, and could be recreated with a relatively small number of random mutations.
To test the point, the University of Oklahoma researchers plan to conduct similar experiments on other single-celled creatures whose ancestors were never multicellular. At the same time, they plan to continue growing and elucidating their multicellular yeast groups, hoping to find another division of labor within the group. We will know the final results for sure only when the full study is published.
Despite the reservations, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the researchers were able to take a single-celled creature and turn it into a multicellular creature with an internal order, through evolutionary mechanisms that occur in nature incessantly. This development provides a new answer to the challenge that creationists (people who do not accept the theory of evolution, usually for religious reasons) used to pose to scientists for many years: demonstrate to us truly complex evolution in the laboratory!
there she is.
28 תגובות
Stop bringing in every time the creation religion is a process, that's the whole story. Both in the description of the act of Genesis and in the chapters of Avot about 2000 years ago
"In ten words the world was created. And what does the Talmud say, and it is not possible to create in one article, but to get rid of the wicked who are destroying the world that was created in ten articles, and to give a good reward to Righteous who establish the world that was created in ten sayings"
Friends, you are fooling yourself when you believe that the creationists can be convinced that evolution works and exists, and it is already a fact that it is impossible if the creationist accepts the theory of evolution, he must cancel his belief in creation
: )
Michael and Menacheh Hikom have made a big mistake in your hands
After all, every religious person knows why there are no kangaroos in Italy, when the kangaroos saw the Italian pizza restaurants they ran away as long as they could, because they already knew in advance that the Italians would take advantage of the innate qualities of the kangaroos and turn them into pizza messengers.
You will find another claim...
Host of the Universe:
The argument with the kangaroo is not simplistic. I think this is a really excellent argument!
It is true that they will evade it in all the exercises they take against other arguments, but it will be a stupid evasion like the other evasions.
I guess I will also use this argument in the future.
By the way, they say "all the water".
to Gershon Yes, you have to argue with people like Doron, because the alternative is to retreat before them.
But regardless of this article, I think the mistake of most of the commenters here is that they try to argue with the creationists in their own language and not in the language of the creationists who usually do not trust rational thinking.
For example, I discovered in several debates that completely simplistic arguments work really well: for example, if Noah took all the animals to the ark two by two, and when the waters receded, they came out of Mount Ararat and scattered for fun, why don't we see any kangaroos in Italy?
In my opinion there is no need to argue with people like Doron because their ignorance is already well entrenched.
You can try to explain to someone the logic and the process of drawing scientific conclusions, but if it doesn't work you should stop trying.
What is important is not to let people like Doron educate children in ignorance and perpetuate the problem.
In class you have to study science. Theological discussions that people will have in kollels and in the midrash.
David (10)
What is really amazing and tragic about people like you is that it doesn't matter how much knowledge science adds, you will always focus on what hasn't been discovered yet (and sometimes it will even be something you don't know out of your own ignorance). The tragedy is that this silly situation is made possible by that versatile filler that can be used to fill any hole, no matter how big. Of course, when the consumers of the filler compare where the "cup" is fuller, they will always come to the stupid conclusion (which does not stand the test of reality) that their cup is fuller. Why? digestion!
Can you point to even one area where they have reached a detailed description and a deep understanding of phenomena in our world that goes beyond vague and anecdotal descriptions that can be adapted retrospectively through mental violence to fit what science provides? An understanding that can be reproduced and examined, an understanding that allows predicting results with a given level of certainty time and time again? An understanding that enables technological developments that your world is full of from all sides. I experience the contribution of science to humanity every day and hour, in technology, in medicine, in the precise explanations of natural phenomena, in the form of scientific thought that I use in all areas of life and not just in my research, and more and more, can you remind me what the contribution of religion is to humanity? I'll present it another way: if there was a button that could make the concept of religion disappear (for example Judaism, Christianity or Islam) starting from this moment I'm sure the world would be much better even though in the first period we wouldn't feel any difference in our day-to-day life at all. Do you think the same can be said about everything based on scientific knowledge, even if we only take the technological developments, imagine what the world would look like if all of these disappeared right now. Will there be anyone, religious or secular, who will not feel the change in a very short time? Can you imagine what our lives would look like in such a situation? I know quite a few secular people who live very well without religion. I don't know a single religious person who doesn't use the abundance that science has given and continues to give us. The disdain you showed in your response well reflects your level of hypocrisy as one who has been enjoying the fruits of science for years and still allows himself to spit into the well from which he drinks.
contract (12)
It seems you don't really understand what evolution is and how it works as a process so it doesn't really matter what other names you call it. The sentence you wrote:
"When a certain species in nature finds itself in a sense of distress, it naturally unites into a strong and cohesive group in order to preserve itself from extinction, each species would create such a protective tissue for its survival."
It does not really stand the test of reality as it is known to zoologists and also to just people who simply open their eyes and look at their surroundings. It is not clear on what basis you wrote this claim. Species do not feel distress collectively, polar bears, panda bears, orangutans and many other animals experience different and different distresses, as individuals. As a rule, such hardships do not cause animals to change their way of life in any particular way. Those who tend to live individually do so even in the face of the difficulties of life in nature, and of course there are also opposite cases in which stressful conditions actually cause group animals to disperse, as for example in certain aphids which live in groups and reproduce by virgin reproduction when the conditions are good (plenty of food, etc.) but switch to sexual reproduction which includes flying individuals that move to other areas when conditions deteriorate.
The last part of the quote from your words is really an incorrect and irrelevant statement. Can you explain what you wrote this based on?
Doron (8)
It's sad to see how far the thinking ability of Jews has deteriorated (yours in this case) until they hang with Christian criminals like that greedy crook and cheater - Kent Hobind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
, that the only positive thing that can be said about him is that he is a successful rhetorician. Did you really manage to miss the fact that the rabbi who did you, that criminal Hobind, denies not only evolution but also significant parts of the foundations of modern physics (cosmology for example) and chemistry (the structure of the elements and how they are formed) when he offers, sometimes, absurd explanations that have already been proven in the past When wrong and with an internal logical contradiction or just meaningless? Tell me, did you even see the video you linked to in your comment? After all, you inevitably managed to miss his main goal, which he explicitly presents, which is the strengthening of faith in God (of Christians of course, including Jesus and all that) among his poor listeners, this is actually the only thing that interests him and not any scientific truth. I understand how you cooperate with his ideas, especially in light of being Jewish.
But you know what, it's your right to jealously guard your ignorance in all things science, your right to agree to arguments that not only contradict what we know empirically but even contradict themselves due to logical failures. You have the right to even make this strange alliance with someone who clearly does not share and will never be able to share the principles of your Jewish faith. Explain to me just one thing, if not evolution, not chemistry, not cosmology, (because you agreed with the words of that crook) then what is the explanation you give for the huge variety of phenomena we experience around us? And if you have such an explanation that you are willing to put up for criticism, how do you explain the crazy success of those fields that you are deceiving, in giving humans the ability to control those phenomena (through the understanding that accompanies those scientific pillars), which made it possible to produce all the technological and spiritual wealth that science provided and provides To this day? If all those theories, which have in common the scientific method, were so wrong as Bach claims, it is inconceivable that they would be so successful in explanations and predictive ability. So please, offer an alternative explanation if you have one that is not of the type: Why? digestion!
Yehuda 14,
It exists and exists. Read a bit about biofilms of microorganisms and you will see how living together as one group increases the resistance to antibiotics approximately 1000 times. The proof is that if you take the biofilm and break it down into its individual cells, they will be sensitive again, so this is not genetic resistance but one that arises from multicellularity.
By the way, I also disagree with the populist title of the article, especially what: "For the first time", it's really not accurate that this is the first time a phenomenon of the transition from unicellular to multicellular has been observed.
Avi:
I guess you have nothing to expect from Doron before Shabbat ends.
Yehuda:
We all know that in nature there is usually no one who chooses the great ones.
Usually, therefore, you have to settle for something and not someone.
Something like that exists and exists and in this case the researchers used exactly the same thing.
It's called gravity.
Doron, evolution has billions of proofs, it's not a game of who is stronger in an argument, me or Amnon Yitzchak (or your doctor and the American equivalent of Amnon Yitzchak). This is not rhetoric, this is science. Solid science. Creationism, on the other hand, is a religion in the guise of science, and its main claim is also that there can't have been evolution because A.B. or c when usually they are also wrong in the argument. Especially the false claim that all evolution is based only on chance and is therefore impossible
http://www.hofesh.org.il/religion_merchants/claims/evolution_and_coincidence.html
to Zio
It is clear to you that in nature we will not find someone who chooses the great ones like it is done in a laboratory where humans are the choosers. What I want is for someone to show me a situation where two cells walking together, or several cells moving together, get a survival advantage because of that. So I believe this is what is done naturally.
I believe that such a situation exists in nature, but from the interesting laboratory experiment we did not see it
That was my intention
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
L 2 - Yehuda... you don't think this is contradictory.. on the one hand.. they showed us in the laboratory.. that this is a possible change, evolution.. on the other hand.. to say aaa it's only in the laboratory in reality it wouldn't happen..
According to this, it is never possible to prove that the process is possible.
For 12.. Evolution - change (or selection (natural is only the type of change) survival .. the reason for change .. species do not work together yeasts have no sense for this .. and this process of multi-generational difference is called evolution .. natural that is in nature and intentional that it is done by Y Adam but still evolution
I wouldn't call it evolution, it's more in the direction of survival,
When a certain species in nature is in distress it naturally unites into a strong and cohesive group in order to preserve itself from extinction, each species would create such a protective tissue for its survival.
The Shemer did exactly the same thing in order not to become extinct, he went through external constraints that caused him to react this way, if the Shemer had turned into Naomi Shemer then it would have been evolution.
When I started reading the article I was very enthusiastic, but when I saw that it is actually known that yeasts were once multicellular, my enthusiasm died down.
The experiment is still important - but less so than I understood from the beginning.
However - of course the opposing reactions are between absurd and ridiculous.
I particularly like the claim that "how do you know that hundreds of millions of years ago the yeast was multicellular" is a failure of the experiment and not a failure of the knowledge of the reader of the article.
It is also not clear to me what a "declared single-celled" is and what the person who complained that the cell did not declare that it was single-celled means if they had not been able to discover that the Shemer lived in the past also as a multi-celled cell.
It seems like he would have liked the experiment a lot more if others hadn't been able to deal with his first failure.
After all, there are really two transitions here and this shows that it is in the power of evolution both to turn a multicellular into a unicellular and a unicellular which is a descendant of a multicellular that lived many years ago into a multicellular.
I guess we all know that the experiment was done within the framework of the laws of nature and no supernatural action was done here.
The situation where heavy bodies sink to the bottom while light bodies remain in suspension is perhaps more common in nature than anything else.
If the nutrients also tend to accumulate on the bottom, a preference for the heavy bodies will be created in a completely natural way - even without it being an experiment by humans.
Doron's responses of course do not warrant reference.
Any experiment that does not constitute overwhelming proof of evolution when disconnected from all other existing knowledge is for him another reason to attack.
Fortunately, there are also experiments that provide such overwhelming evidence that no sane person can ignore it.
Doron ignores him, so we can infer something about him.
I mean experiments like this:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/far-beyond-reasonable-doubt-1912103/
After such a success, there is only one more tiny baby step left...
Create one cell from zero "0" cells.
Should be simple in induction
An interesting experiment.
withering
Molecular biology ?
Watch an orderly discussion between a Dr. of molecular biology and biochemistry and their creation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tJ-ryHrTrA
It is so clear that even when you bring a perfect, final proof of evolution, creation will come and say "you are wrong". And as obvious and predictable as it is, it's sad.
If you were to take someone who lived a hundred years ago (and most likely believed in one creator or another) and you would expose him to today's world, like this one day in New York (and Israel was also you, of course), and you would reveal to him all the information that has been accumulated to date on the subject Evolution (assuming he's attentive enough despite the shock he's likely to be in), I think..just think he would have relented.
Doron (5)
It is pathetic to selectively take a sentence that does not reflect the spirit of the article and its author, which despite his cautionary writing, it is clear from his words that although there are open questions on the subject, there is no doubt among scientists that evolution is the only explanation that can explain the variety of species and their observed geographical distribution. The main question raised there, as you can already read in the summary of the article
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v124/n3119/pdf/124231a0.pdf), is in connection with the certain mechanisms regarding which there were serious disagreements mainly due to limited knowledge.
It's especially pathetic when you get hung up on the quandaries that appear in a 1929 paper (!) that appeared before the molecular biology revolution, a revolution that advanced understanding of the mechanisms by which evolution works. As mentioned, no one had any doubts about the principles of evolution even then:
"While the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable."
Did you even read that article or are you just quoting quotes translated from Christian websites that have already proven many times that honesty, integrity and knowledge are not their strong points. You have the right to insist on continuing to be ignorant and dark but you will have to try a little harder if you want to contribute anything to the discussion here.
Let's put things on the table:
"The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(DMS Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 123 [sic Vol. 124] (1929), p. 233).
According to the description, I would not call what was created a multicellular creature
A multicellular organism should be composed of cells with different functions. Here it is written that the cells remain close together and in fact it sounds like creating embroidery
But this is not a multicellular creature.
The failures are in the experiment of course
Several failures in the article
A. How do you know that hundreds of millions of years ago the yeast was multicellular
B. Assuming this was the case, all we did was force the yeast to renew their remnant genes for life in groups
third. It is absolutely not to turn a "declared" unicellular into multicellular
d. It has not been explained how there can be natural selection of this kind in nature. It is possible that such a choice of choosing the great one can only be made in a laboratory by a creationist who will decide who lives and who dies, and this is a claim that can strengthen the creationists
God. Waiting to see an experiment that will be done in single cells that lack the history of multi-cells
and. The constraints in this case must be constraints that exist in nature
G. Only then will it convince that there is a natural evolutionary transition from unicellular to multicellular
I believe that will happen. The writer believes in evolution
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The last paragraph is idiotic and therefore not even a New Scientist wrote it.
After all, what did they prove? that yeast becomes..yeast
No one claims (creationists) that there are no changes in the same species/species.