If evolution is true please explain how a single cell organism morphed into a multi cell organism?

Also explain how a single cell that reproduced asexually became a multi cell organism that developed as male and female and reproduces sexually.If evolution is true please explain how a single cell organism morphed into a multi cell organism?
Evolution is not true. Now you have to define what is meant by evolution. Evolutionists will use a bait and switch technique in arguing the validity of evolution. They will show you a very minor change within a kind of creature and when you believe that (because it is a fact, you can see it) they will then try to get you to believe that the first supposed self replicating molecule has ';Evolved'; to form every other creature in the biosphere. They use the little evidence of variation to support the idea of macro evolution. I think that you already understood this, but I wanted to make it clear again, because I saw other people doing this in their answers. They say that scientists see evolution or ';descent with modification'; all the time, every day in the lab. Well I have lived it, I am different than my father. Big deal, that is not ';Evolution';. The Evolution they are trying to make you believe in, is said (falsely) to occur because of random single point mutations in the DNA. Whereas the variation I am talking about is due to a mixing and matching, because of a very complex and intricately DESIGNED mechanism, where different supplied genes are brought in and out of expression. So the variation they observe is brought about through the already supplied genes, and the evolution they want you to believe is said to be brought about through random single point mutations.


Random chance mutations will not take a single celled creature and bring it up through the evolutionary stages into a human. I realize that people have lots of good sounding stories of how this is possible. But these stories are grossly oversimplified, subjective, and misleading.


I think that if you study each and every stage of the supposed evolution, including the stuff that would have to happen before even these single cells that you are talking about, you would see that there is not one shred of objective evidence for any evolution. How did the DNA form to begin with? DNA will not form by itself. It does no good unless it has a very complex system of molecular machinery to ';decode'; it and take that information and form proteins out of it. But the machines to do this are made of proteins themselves. So how did the initial system form? You have a very bad chicken and egg problem. Even the simplest, scientifically known, (not imagined) living system has many hundreds of necessary parts to it. (about 500)


And without each and every one of them, the organism dies. And each single part is itself complex, containing many complexities that all need to be there, without which the organism would die.


The theory of evolution is a fairy tale. It is sad to see so many people fooled into thinking that raw material and natural forces can create life and carry that life into the formation of humans. I believed it for 28 years, until I was educated, (not just indoctrinated). After I learned about all sides of the argument, I cannot believe that I or anyone else actually believes evolution. I understand the reasons, but they are just so obvious now, that it saddens me.


But, one thing people should be able to understand, if they believe in evolution and natural selection, is how the institutions will ';evolve'; because of ';natural selection'; to teach and promote only what the ';official powers'; want them to. The grant money, which controls all evolutionary study, is only given by people with an agenda.


So it is understandable to notice how ';official science'; is swayed into whatever area of thought and philosophy that is dictated by the governing powers and the supplying of monies.


If the opposition to evolution was as well funded and given as much media and educational exposure, the notion of Darwinian evolution would die out forever. It cannot stand up the scientific scrutiny.


It only lives because of men's philosophy, not the science.


And remember, science is not a philosopy, it is merely a method.


It is the philosophy of materialism and naturalism that dictates evolutionary ideas. These ideas would not stand, if not for the money and power given to them by like minded men in powerful positions and with their hands on the billions in government grant monies.If evolution is true please explain how a single cell organism morphed into a multi cell organism?
%26lt;%26lt;If evolution is true please explain how a single cell organism morphed into a multi cell organism?%26gt;%26gt;





A likely scenario involves symbiosis of two single-celled organisms. As has been observed, small single-cellers can end up merrily residing within larger ones, and both may profit from such an arrangement.





%26lt;%26lt;Also explain how a single cell that reproduced asexually became a multi cell organism that developed as male and female and reproduces sexually.%26gt;%26gt;





As has also been plentifully observed, non-sexually reproducing organisms frequently indulge in genetic-swaps with other non-sexually reproducing organisms. You can even get half-a-dozen of the randy beggars going at it with each other simultaneously, and they don't have to belong to the same species or genus. The origins of sex lie in just such behaviour, and required incremental specialisation.





Now, in return, if evolution isn't true, then how come descent with modification is seen in laboratories on a daily basis, and the rates of change spreading across successive generations are so routinely predictable? In short, if evolution isn't true, then how come researchers observe it occurring as a routine part of their daily work?
Ben Wolfe thinks that being Christian means not thinking evolution is true: I am Christian and I don't think God built the world in 6 days. Why? The Bible speaks in riddles and images. Even if God did not build the world in 6 days, I still think that there is an Intelligent Design hidden beneath evolution, for the evolution theory means that ALL happened per coincidence. But that's not the question.





The answer provided Zach is completely right. It is by no means PROVEN that it happened like this, but it is the most likely scenario and the one I think happened. I just want to explain it with simpler words!





Life first started in the deep sea, for life was not possible on the surface at that time. Cells of different types then began to live together, providing each other with supplies they could not produce themselves. That is called symbiosis. Men still live in symbiosis with bacteria; the best example is the gut flora, which helps us to digest. When that was not possible anymore for different reasons, cells began to divide themselves as they did before to proliferate, without completely dissociating. The cells stuck together and floated together in the water. Because the more they were, the stronger they were. But they still were unicellular organisms, just living together. When cells began to dissociate, which means that each cell has a task that other ones can't perform, but EVERY cell has the same genome, scientists begin to talk about organisms.





When the first complicated organisms developed, proliferation became a problem. U just couldn't develop a new organism just by detaching a new cell. Evolution (or god, what it was does not matter in this question) found an intelligent way to solve that problem: There are some cells in the organism, that divide in a certain way, so that they lose half of their genetic information. When two of these cells from 2 individuals of a different gender meet and the conditions are ideal, then they merge and a new organism can rise. This way of proliferation ensured that species can evolve much faster, since everyone mixes their genetic information and therefore ensures diversity.





As a response to Jim and Zac:





Here is a little resume of a conference on the 150th anniversary of Darwin鈥檚 ';On the Origin of Species';. Here is an extract of the Times:





';Vatican officials joined biologists, paleontologists, molecular geneticists and philosophers for the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, which ends tomorrow. Rafael Martinez, professor of the Philosophy of Science at the Santa Croce Pontifical University in Rome, said although the reaction of Catholic theologians, intellectuals and priests to Darwinian theory had been ';generally negative'; in the 19th century, ';recent declarations by Popes have asserted the full accordance of Catholic doctrine and evolutionary biology';.





He said, however, that this was not widely known, and the false impression had arisen ';that the Holy See is opposed to evolution';. Monsignor Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, which co-organized the conference with Notre Dame University in Indiana and support from the John Templeton Foundation, said there was ';no a priori incompatibility between evolution and the message of the Bible';.





He noted that Darwin had never been condemned by the Catholic Church, and that On the Origin of the Species had never been placed on the Index of forbidden books. Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the assertion by Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God was ';absurd';. ';





What I want to show is that both theories are NOT incompatible. the only small change is, that evolutionists claim evolution is due to coincidental mutations, whereas religious people (not just Christians) say it is intelligent design, a plan of an almighty being we call God (@ Zach: it is not proven that God doesn't exist either, so you just have to choose an option, for science CAN'T know if god exists.). My faith has no place in this conversation. The question was IF evolution is true ... (the rest has already been answered)?





Well there are 3 sides as you see:





- Evolution is true, there is no intelligent design beneath it, all happened per coincidence.





- Evolution is true, but there is an intelligent design beneath all that happened (God)





-Evolution is NOT true. It all happened like it is written in the bible. (Pls correct me if I鈥檓 wrong, but that鈥檚 what I heard from some ppl)





At this point I have to say that it is proven that evolution is TRUE. Not the origin of evolution but the evolution in terms of ';we descend from monkeys'; etc. The origin of evolution is a complex theme and it leaves much room for speculation, but I described the most promising answer to that problem as Zac did.





Concluding, I鈥檇 like to say that I wouldn't by any means want to anger you with the things I said. I respect all of your opinions and it is not my intention to judge.
Ben wolfe is 13 yrs old and doesn't yet possess critical thinking skills necessary to understand evolution and its relevance to a supposed god. But anyways...It is likely that single cell organisms became dependent upon one another for survival. This is to say that individual cells performed varying functions that were interdependent. This establishes a foundation and motive for single celled organisms to combine to become multicellular. Some mechanisms describe one cell engulfing another cell, however we don't have any definitive evidence or theories in place. We do know that this would be convenient for the individual cells and could increase biological fitness. This gives cells a reason to become multicellular. Once the organism became multicellular the organism would need to differentiate cells into diploid and haploid states for sexual reproduction to occur. The change form asexual to sexual was likely a response to a constantly changing environment. Sexual reproduction will propagate evolution and more genetic variation among the same species, which increases biological fitness. Haploid nuclei are necessary for sexual reproduction. This ensures that each sex contributes half the genetic material and that the diploid state remains constant throughout successive generations. For organisms such as humans we have differing sexes for myriad reasons. One has to do with copulatory organs. These organs provide a means by which the two sexes can exchange genetic material. Also, just for clarification...The formation of the first cell is often thought to be random....this is not true. It is not random. Elements in the periodic table are all unique and have specific characteristics. This means that the formation of DNA and actually nucleic acids even before DNA had to be favorable. Well, we know that the covalent interactions used to form nucleic acids would need energy because they are not spontaneous without energy. Early life conditions were thought to be crazy. Lots of lighting and thermal (from the earths core) energy that could certainly be used to drive the reactions necessary to create nucleic acids and ultimately DNA. Notice this is not random, but is actually thermodynamically favorable, so there is some order or predictability.





In response to Jim:


I understand where your difficulties lie in believing evolution, because the significant changes you're talking about are not likely through single point mutations. Although a single base mutation in the promoter region will alter reading frame and is likely to be lethal. let's say that for example this mutation is not lethal. The resulting proteins are sure to be completely different in their amino acid sequences. This doesn't necessarily mean that the changes in amino acids have different physical properties than the one's prior to mutation, but this only has to happen 1 time. 1, that's a small number. Nothing in science is proven, it is only a means of supporting or explaining theories that are models for describing current day phenomena. We will never have all the answers, and much will be speculation. This, however, doesn't prove that God intelligently designed humans. To date, evolution best explains subsequent changes in gene pools, and this is thought to be the best explanation for human origins based on actual evidence. Just because it doesn't explain everything (it never will), does not mean we can say that God did it. Especially because we have no observable evidence for a God. Also, by definition, (yes, I realize evolution is a human construct, but so is the language that you use to support your god) evolution is simply a change in gene pool frequencies form one generation to the next. There's just so much more evidence in favor of evolution, and the logic behind your reasoning is flawed and doesn't foster any progress in intellectual thought.





Portos: I never said that God didn't exist...I did say that using God to explain scientific phenomena does not foster any progress in intellectual thought. are u arguing that point? When I say that some scientific phenomena cannot be proven and that this doesn't provide evidence for a God, I'm not saying a God doesn't exist. God and his supposed presence is not within the realm of scientific reasoning. God and science are of separate domains. I would never use science to try to explain love, hate, good, evil or other intangible constructs. I also agree, to an extent, to what you're saying about religion and science being compatible. I, personally, would not term them compatible, but supplementary. This is just a matter of opinion of course. I feel like you think my remarks were very close minded, and they may have been without additional clarity. Hopefully this clarifies any confusion you had with my position.
This sounds like a homework question
ok?!!?!!?!!?!!?!!?!! evolution is not true. evolution is what scientists use to deny God. God is the all mighty Lord and He is the 1 and only God. i take it that you r not christian.