Thread: A Paradox in evolution?

When the first brain came out of the sea the first thing it grew was a pair of lungs.



Wait a second... DO they teach evolution in school? Jeez.

I suggest you read a book or two, you don't seem to know much about evolution.

It works differently in real life than it does in Pokemon btw.

As mentioned before, the brain evolved first, and the appendages evolved from older appendages used for something else. Srsly, buy a book.

EDIT: That's not a paradox.

The brain. It's not a guess either, it's easily shown in the fossil record. The first fish, looked like this:


Fish have brains. Not very complex ones, but they need one to move that "tail." Fins came later, fins evolved into legs. Actually, there are plenty of fish that can use their fins as legs on dry land.

you guys suck. Your answer is "read a book"... the guy's asking a question here.

The precursors to both the brain and the sense organs were extremely simple versions of both. If you define them as being separate, than think of them as both growing out of the same original nervous system in different, mutually beneficial directions.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

you guys suck. Your answer is "read a book"... the guy's asking a question here.

The precursors to both the brain and the sense organs were extremely simple versions of both. If you define them as being separate, than think of them as both growing out of the same original nervous system in different, mutually beneficial directions.

The theory of evolution does not say that an animal just suddenly grew arms and legs, or suddenly grew a brain. That's what creationists think that the theory states.
Indie is right, and I will really just be repeating what he just said.
There was some sort of creature with some sort of mode of transportation. This is needed in order to live. It also had some sort of thinking aparatus. This is needed in order to utilize said mode of transportation. If the animal did not have these things it would be like a sponge.
A sperm cell has a whiplike tail for moving around, and has some sort of intelligence in order to move that tail. It may not have a brain, or a foot, but it has the basic concepts of these things.
As the creature evolves, this thinking aparatus, and mode of transportation become more and more complex.

It's true that simultaneous emergence of brain and motor capabilities is not realistically possible. As is always the case of evolution, a feature must exist in some useful capacity beforehand, and a change gives that feature a new and very useful function.

In the case of nervous systems, there is a likely solution. Organisms do not need nervous systems to perform motor functions; they can happen autonomously (in fact our heart still largely works like this). For instance, imagine an early simple sea creature that constantly automatically wriggles its body to produce forward motion. This will allow it to eat a lot more food and so would have evolved in the usual manner. Now, all cells have a voltage across their membranes (due to constantly pumping ions in and out). It is extremely telling that this accidental feature of all simple life happened to become the mechanism by which the nervous system worked: there were very few new components used; they were just changed. All that has to happen is for these pumps to go wrong somehow so that they leak some ion or other, and this could cause a wave of depolarisation across the organism. This in turn could produce a jerky movement which could again be advantageous because it makes the organism harder for prey to catch. Now you could have a mutation that causes this to happen when a shadow falls across the creature, and now we already have the rudimentary seed of a responsive nervous system. The rest we can see in existing animals. Jellyfish have no brain but rather a decentralised nervous system used for coordinating motion. This would then have become more and more centralised and specialised until you have a simple brain, and then it's just a matter of the thing gradually increasing complexity. The acquiring of new sensory organs and limbs can easily happen by a similar process of the nervous system expanding into a feature of the organism and altering its function. For a good example of this, look up the evolution of the eye. Another good example is that of bird wings, which were initially evolved not for a motor function but for thermoregulation.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

I suggest you read a book or two, you don't seem to know much about evolution.

It works differently in real life than it does in Pokemon btw.

If you can't answer the question then it's a good idea to show some humility and be quiet, not make an immature and hypocritical accusation of ignorance. The OP shows no ignorance of evolution and his question is completely valid and interesting. Same for Indeed and Solarflare. Not sure what Mark is talking about.

I'll keep that in mind.

Darwin's theory of evolution would state that the correct answer is neither. both would have evolved together as you need the brain to augment the movement of limbs as well as to learn new skills.

Wow. Welcome, amy!

Single cell organisms don't have brains but they are still capable of moving around. Moving really isn't all that difficult, and you don't need a brain for it. If you are in water, you don't even have to move, you will float around with water currents.

Also you might not even need a brain for things like seeing. A primitive eye might not be able to see like we can today, but maybe it just sensed light. It senses light then sends a chemical response to the body to move towards or away from the light. You wouldn't need a brain for that, just a sensitive area that releases a chemical when light touches it. Then you could imagine such an sense organ possibly evolving to pick up more information and as it becomes more complex the brain evolves with it.

Think for a moment about trees. Trees can sense light without having a brain. They can also draw food and water from the ground and spread it through its body without having a brain. Not everything needs a brain. You can also have simple nerves systems that transmit singles around the body, without having a brain as well.

Your problem is you are thinking of complex fully created body parts, and complex fully created brains. When you picture very primitive systems, it makes more sense, and of course that is how things started, very simple.

Thank you for the guys who replied with some valuable information, especially xei.
I understand it now but I find it hard to just believe that all of this happened , but that is for another time.
But if those sea creatures just randomly wriggle in the sea, couldn't we also look at it as a disadvantage and say that this sea creature
could of also just been wriggling inside it's preys mouth :s

There is also one other thing that doesn't make sense, before this random wriggling could of mutated in one of these creatures, they were
probably just stationary, but than how could they have survived without any movement? Unless some wriggling creature comes into there mouth? (I think I'am
taking a little too far with this last statement).

Amoebas are single cell creatures that can move. They just kind of like stretch out and drag them self along. Then when they encounter something them wrap their body around whatever and pull it inside them. Can't get any more simple than that.

Originally Posted by WhiteWolf

Thank you for the guys who replied with some valuable information, especially xei.
I understand it now but I find it hard to just believe that all of this happened , but that is for another time.
But if those sea creatures just randomly wriggle in the sea, couldn't we also look at it as a disadvantage and say that this sea creature
could of also just been wriggling inside it's preys mouth :s

There is also one other thing that doesn't make sense, before this random wriggling could of mutated in one of these creatures, they were
probably just stationary, but than how could they have survived without any movement? Unless some wriggling creature comes into there mouth? (I think I'am
taking a little too far with this last statement).

The reason u don't understand is because you think consiousness is in the brain. It's not. Just because a jellyfish doesn't have a brain doesn't mean it has no sense where it's going. It's in the water so some senses aren't needed. A jellyfish has an electrical defense system. And probably when it gets close to something it senses it and flees/attacks.

Originally Posted by Alric

Single cell organisms don't have brains but they are still capable of moving around. Moving really isn't all that difficult, and you don't need a brain for it. If you are in water, you don't even have to move, you will float around with water currents.

Also you might not even need a brain for things like seeing. A primitive eye might not be able to see like we can today, but maybe it just sensed light. It senses light then sends a chemical response to the body to move towards or away from the light. You wouldn't need a brain for that, just a sensitive area that releases a chemical when light touches it. Then you could imagine such an sense organ possibly evolving to pick up more information and as it becomes more complex the brain evolves with it.

Think for a moment about trees. Trees can sense light without having a brain. They can also draw food and water from the ground and spread it through its body without having a brain. Not everything needs a brain. You can also have simple nerves systems that transmit singles around the body, without having a brain as well.

Your problem is you are thinking of complex fully created body parts, and complex fully created brains. When you picture very primitive systems, it makes more sense, and of course that is how things started, very simple.

The question required that we think about complex organisms, an amoeba has no senses as such so therefore wouldn't fit the original description given in the proposed question leading the thread.

Hiya Sloth!! thanks for the warm welcome, it was my first post, figured id see who else was hanging around in here!

Well that is the problem, you can't think about it in complex organisms. Once you have a complex organism, you already have all the pieces. If you already have a basic brain and a basic sensory organ and basic modes of movement, then it is easy to imagine how it all evolved together at the same time, because really they are just all improving at the same time. Which is entirely possible and makes sense.

If you want to understand how eyes and arms and brains all evolved together, you can't look at eyes arms and brains. You have to look at their precursors, which were far simpler organs.

Some things to keep in mind: before the brain we had clumps of cells that told other cells what to do. Or ganglion. You can even find ganglia in plants. So the evolution of clumps of cells telling other cells what to do happened early on in evolution. Very early on. Single cells can be extremely complex, with thousands of micro-parts. They may not have brains, but like plants, they can still sense their environment and react. Even if their reactions are only binary.

To really answer this question though, you gotta go way back in time. Actually you gotta go back to the single cells living as a cellular colony. Like a clump of algae.

This is the part that I find so mind bobbling its magical. In these early clumps of cells, all the cells were the same. Like the clump of algea. Some how the cells differentiated, but remained living in the mass. It turns out a clump of cells with diversity is pretty effective for surviving. Some cells mutate and become the first epidermis. And with an epidermis holding a mass inside, that's really all you needed to create the first multicellular organism. The evolutions of arms and legs was underway.

The reason why I call it magical, is because this evolutionary process is more than just random mutations. The single cells had to have been communicating to each other.

Going back to the colony of cells, if a single cell mutated and become the first epidermis, how did it know to be the epidermis, as in, how did it know to move itself to the outside of the mass to protect the rest? How did the rest of the mass know that it belonged inside of the epidermis? What stopped the rest of the mass multiplying outside the epidermis defeating the whole purpose?

An organism is composed of multiple cells that form different organs. Despite all these organs being different, they all share the same DNA. And since they all share the same DNA, you only need one cell to copy that organism.

How did the first organism reproduce the second organism as an exact copy, when it was composed of different cells each with different DNA?

The single cells had to be sharing DNA code with each other. As a colony, they differentiated and probably tried out all sorts of configurations. Maybe the epidermis goes on top, maybe it goes on the side, maybe it goes all over, maybe it leaves a hole. If the colony of cells lived, well the configuration must be working. To maintain this configuration the cells needed to know where they *a specific organ* belonged. So they shared each others DNA to create one DNA detailing the different organs and where they go and what they do. Now you truly have the first organism with one DNA.

At least that's the only way it makes sense to me.

Also, the development of the fetus nicely parallels our own evolution. While a clump of nerve cells develops early on, technically its the heart that forms first!

Actual answer to the 'paradox': you're wrong and there is no paradox, just a set of assumptions and misunderstandings. Alric's post is spot on; you're looking at a very complicated end product instead of the simple beginnings.

Originally Posted by Amyl33

both would have evolved together as you need the brain to augment the movement of limbs as well as to learn new skills.

Nein. Well, yes, they would have evolved together over time because there are clear advantages to that, but you do not need a brain to have evolved before the evolution of early limbs or senses.

Originally Posted by juroara

You can even find ganglia in plants.

...

No you can't! Fail! Plants do not have nervous systems. You know, that's why the hormonal-based communication systems found in plants are such an underlying and major component of plant physiology.

if a single cell mutated and become the first epidermis, how did it know to be the epidermis, as in, how did it know to move itself to the outside of the mass to protect the rest?

Fail. That's not how cells work, like they move house to take up residence near their place of work. Cell differentiation in modern organisms is a complex process, but fundamentally related to gene expression, which itself is triggered by certain chemical environments.

It's no wonder you think evolution is magical if you believe that's how it works.

Let's say the first epidermal cell was caused by a one-off mutation in a multicellular organism for the sake of argument (it wasn't). Assuming it would magically migrate to the outside where it 'should' be is nonsensical. It could easily have formed in the 'wrong' place, at best serving no productive use, or at worst causing the death of the organism. Such negative mutations are removed by evolution.

How did the first organism reproduce the second organism as an exact copy, when it was composed of different cells each with different DNA?

Fail. Aside from the obvious fact that this is wouldn't actually be reproduction of a single organism because it would be several organisms in a symbiotic relationship, if a 2 cluster set of cells A-B undergoes binary fission then it has reproduced despite both cells being different.

Originally Posted by Xei

For instance, imagine an early simple sea creature that constantly automatically wriggles its body to produce forward motion.

Even more basic example: the flagellum.

The OP shows no ignorance of evolution

Well, if it's what he thinks actually occurred, it does. It's not a paradox because it's not how evolution works. It's just plain wrong.

Though some of the answers have gone off onto interesting tangents.

Originally Posted by Xei

Not sure what Mark is talking about.

Do we ever?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Even more basic example: the flagellum.

I have one of these.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The brain. It's not a guess either, it's easily shown in the fossil record. The first fish, looked like this:


Fish have brains. Not very complex ones, but they need one to move that "tail." Fins came later, fins evolved into legs. Actually, there are plenty of fish that can use their fins as legs on dry land.

I believe that this fish's "tail" is classified, in this inquiry, as "group 1", which disproves what you are saying.

Okay I see what I did wrong, I explained it very badly (just like I said I'am bad at explaing)

Let's go back all the way where movement of some sort just came in, what I want to know is
how can a uncontrolled movement (moving for the sake of moving) be beneficial?

A creature constantly roaming will patently spread out much faster. If they're just moved by the tide then overpopulation will cause a lack of food and the creatures will be stuck with that for a while. If they're moving all over the place this isn't a problem.

No you can't

! Fail! Plants do not have nervous systems. You know, that's why the hormonal-based communication systems found in plants are such an underlying and major component of plant physiology.

The point that I was getting at was, a clump of cells telling other cells what to do happened way early on in evolution because we can find examples even in plants. Lets try to stay in thread context!

But if you wanna get word anal, look up ganglion again: "a biological tissue mass, most commonly a mass of nerve cell bodies." This means its not necessary for a ganglion to be composed of nerve cells, its just commonly associated with nerve cells.

Plants don't have nervous system like ours, true. But they do have clumps of cells that tell other cells what to do, functioning like an animal ganglion. That's probably why some biologist referred to this clump of cells as ganglia (I didn't start the trend). We tend to have different words to describe the plant versus the animal kingdom. But sometimes people use the different plant-animal terms interchangeably.

In my horticulture book I can find pollen, sperm, seed and egg.

Fail. That's not how cells work, like they move house to take up residence near their place of work. Cell differentiation in modern organisms

Cell differentiation in modern organisms happens with one DNA code.

It's no wonder you think evolution is magical if you believe that's how it works.

The earth turning to meet the sun everyday is magical!!

Let's say the first epidermal cell was caused by a one-off mutation in a multicellular organism for the sake of argument (it wasn't). Assuming it would magically migrate to the outside where it 'should' be is nonsensical. It could easily have formed in the 'wrong' place, at best serving no productive use, or at worst causing the death of the organism. Such negative mutations are removed by evolution.

Yes..I sorta said that!! I just use my words differently.

Fail.

FAILURE IS ABUNDANT! Were not done studying the evolution of microbiology. Some biologists believe that viruses are remnants of a time when single cells literally tossed their DNA code around at each other. You then have to ask what was the purpose of single cells sharing DNA with each other.

Aside from the obvious fact that this is wouldn't actually be reproduction of a single organism because it would be several organisms in a symbiotic relationship, if a 2 cluster set of cells A-B undergoes binary fission then it has reproduced despite both cells being different.

I don't think you understand what I was getting at. Those different cells reproducing still wouldn't give us a modern organism. You would just end up with a replica of the colony, but you still wouldn't have a multi-cellular organism with one DNA code.

I remember learning years ago that single-celled organisms were brewing up in colonies. First they were all the same. Then mutation occurs and you've got new species living in the colony. Symbiotic relationships are created. And eventually this colony of different types of single-celled organisms became the first multi-cellular organisms.

Has the picture of microbiology evolution already changed?

How do we go from these different DNA codes to one DNA code?