What is the origin of the idea of a two-celled organism? I am constantly asked to defend this.?

Question

In discussions about evolution, I have a persistant fundamentalist with masters level biology courses under his belt who insists that I demonstrate a two celled organism. I correct him by pointing out that his expectation is in error, and I direct him to several species of algae that demonstrate multicellularity. He refers to this as mere synergy.

What I cannot find is the origin of this question. What makes him believe that evolution must progress numerically? Usually demonstrating the origins of these people's ideas is sufficient to demonstrate the error, but I cannot locate this origin. I have only found tales of an edited debate feature Richard Dawkins wherin his answer to this question is removed and the footage, when presented to christians, shows him fumbling for an answer. Does anyone have a link to this or know of the origins of this question? I believe it is a programmed question that I am expected to be troubled by, but it is not having its intended effect. Instead, I am at a loss for why this man is so passionate that life must proceed as he has dictated.

Answer 1

Dawkins may have stumbled for an answer simply because the question is stupid. Stupid in the sense that there is no reason at all to presume the existence of a contemporary two-celled organism.

The are zillions of single celled organisms, what could a two celled organism do that would provide a selective advantage such that it would still exist today? I simply can't think of any task that would be better accomplished with two cells rather than one larger cell.

Another possible answer is that the world is currently loaded with two celled organisms as every fertilized egg becomes one shortly after conception.  

Answer 2

The intermediate stage between one-celled and multicelled life need not have been two-celled. The first requirement is for signals between cells, which is necessary if cells are to cooperate in division of labor to break down a food source. Many bacteria utilize a variety of different signals. The evolution of a signal for cooperative swarming has been observed in one bacterium (Velicer and Yu 2003).

The transition to multicellularity has been studied in experiments with Pseudomonas fluorescens, which showed that "transitions to higher orders of complexity are readily achievable" (Rainey and Rainey 2003, 72). Choanoflagellates, which are unicellular and colonial organisms related to multicelled animals, express several proteins similar to those used in cell interactions, showing that such proteins could arise in single-celled animals and be co-opted for multicellular development (King et al. 2003).

Desmidoideae is a class of conjugating green algae, phylum Gamophyta. Most desmids form pairs of cells whose cytoplasms are joined at an isthmus (Margulis and Schwartz 1982, 100). The bacterium Neisseria also tends to form two-celled arrangements. As noted above, this may not be relevant to the evolution of multicellularity.

Answer from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB...

Check it out...Talkorigins is a great reference for rebutting stupid creationist claims

PS...Also the current theories on the origins of the mitochondria and chloroplasts of eukaryotic cells is that they were once separate individual single celled organisms which formed a symbiotic relationship and then later became incorperated into the new organism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiot...

Answer 3

I'm guessing this is the every single gap must be filled type of argument.He'll want to see an example of every single fossil and organism with perfect consilience from one form to the next.You're right.When it comes to cells,there need not necessarily be an intermediary between one and three cells.He misses the point by his "mere synergy"remark.This mere synergy uses the same types of protein signals that multicellular organisms use.(see also conjugation,mere conjugation ha ha)But again,there need not be a perfect single jump every time.(here's a possible origin of this claim: http://www.creationscience.com/onlineboo... )                                                                                                                                                                                                                    As for Dawkins being stumped,the only one I'm aware of is where creationists ask him for an example of an increase of information in the genome.It's a question that only creationists tend to ask.So he was pondering how to continue with the interview.(There are many ways,and many of his books include them.) Anyway,let me introduce you to some of my friends.Go here http://talkrational.org/ and pose this question in the evolution origins section.A lot of these guys and gals actually write the papers and do the actual research on  this stuff.You may be able to talk your friend into going there.They are always looking for fresh creationist meat.

Answer 4

Hey give him some credit; he must wonder why you too, so passionately defend your idea of the origin of life (if you were so sure, you wouldn't care to debate him otherwise, no?).