Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 7)
Message-ID: <342@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 18:13:49 EST
Article-I.D.: cvl.342
Posted: Wed Apr 24 18:13:49 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 22:57:17 EST
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 60


>       16.  There are many single cell forms of life, but there are no
>            forms  of  animal  life  with  2,  3,..., or even 20 cells
>            [a,b]. If organic evolution happened, these forms of  life
>            should   exist   in   great   abundance.    None  do.  The
>            evolutionary tree has no trunk [c].
>
>            a)  E. Lendell Cockrum and William  J.  McCauley,  ZOOLOGY
>                (W. B. Saunders Company, 1965), p. 163.
>            b)  Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, FIVE  KINGDOMS:
>                AN  ILLUSTRATED  GUIDE  TO  THE PHYLA OF LIFE ON EARTH
>                (San Francisco: W.H.  Freeman and Company, 1982),  pp.
>                178-179.
>            c)  Actually, the form of life that has just over 20 cells
>                is  a very simple PARASITE called the mesozoa. It must
>                have a complex animal as a host in order to provide it
>                with  such functions as digestion and respiration. The
>                mesozoa could not be the evolutionary predecessors  of
>                any  so  called  higher  animals  since  it requires a
>                higher animal as its  host.  Sponges,  the  next  most
>                complex  form  of multicellular life, are so different
>                from higher forms of life that even  evolutionists  do
>                not  consider  them  as  ancestral  to  anything. (For
>                example see Cockrum, above, p. 167.)

Not true.

Take for example the family Volvocaceae. It contains species with
4, 8, 16 , and 32 cells as well as Volvox which has thousands.

There may be two reasons for these flagllates not being included in the
references you gave.

One is that they contain cloroplasts and are therefore sometimes
clasified as plants.  This is an entirely arbitrary clasification and
is certianly argueable since the life forms can move under their own
power.

The other is that they are often clasified not as multi-celular
organisms but as colonies of protozooa.  This is an even more
arbitrary.  (It is due to the fact that there is a close resemblance to
other protozooa.) There is no really sharp line between a colony of
geneticaly identical organisms and a single multi-cellular organism.
One criterion might be based on the number of cells, but then it becomes
impsible BY DEFINITION to have an organism with just a few cells.

Note that these organisms are free living (not parisites) and can be
found in any pond.

Why aren't there more organisms with small numbers of cells? (if
hundreds of species aren't enough) Well, dividing an organism up into
cells is not without cost. The cells must be bound together and
organized etc.. On the other hand there are disadvantages to having
very large cells. It is not obvious that there is any organism size for
which 2 cells are optimal.

_Pytoflagellates_, E. Cox Ed., Elsevier/North-Holland, 1980

				Ralph Hartley
				rlh@cvl