The momentous transition to multicellular life may not have been so hard after all 

from what i can see, our estimate of when multicellular life began, is dependant on the first fossiles we can observe -> which were fungi. I suppose that since we can't travel back in time, scientists are cautious to make an estimate purely on how likely our current theories deem it, so instead we stick to what we can observe when creating a timeline.

Ya because Oxegen levels were so low that was the problem life needs energy.

Geoff Pullinger 😳 What you are asking is that life goes into reverse. There is absolutely no evidence of that happening. You wonder about ‘before’ multicellular life, yet the narration explains the status of early life as unicellular amoebas and similar. There is no evidence to suggest that the prevailing environment would require anything different. Today the only examples of ‘biological regression’ is where certain creatures no longer use sight as they now inhabit places in total darkness, or limbs because they slide through narrow crevices or burrow in soft ground.

Never mind, just read the article.

@@sirmeowthelibrarycat that is incorrect. Loss of multicellularity is a known concept, that has happened in quite some fungi species. Idk about this experiment though and whether it was just some reactivated genes, or whether those cells actually gained those functions completely de novo.

@@sirmeowthelibrarycat multiple beings have evolved from multi celled to single celled, like yeast and myxozoa

We already had cells living in cooperative communities before multicellular life was even a thing is it really that hard to think it would take the next leap when enough energy from the environment (oxygen) provided itself.

yaya esque son mas tontos

@@pocholoo tienes toda la razon

Far smaller leap than 'God did it'.

@tims5268 explain to me why do feel like it's far smaller than an intelligent designer? I'll respond as best as I can but I want to see if you have proper education on the topic

@@pound4pound380 Well as the video says, choanoflagellates whilst single celled resemble the cells that make up sponges (the most simple animal we know of and therefore likely the oldest). Genes have been found in said choanoflagellates that for a long time we thought were exclusive to multi cellular animals showing that this single celled organism is equipped for multicellular life. We can also witness clusters of single celled organisms behaving in a similar fashion to multicellular organisms. Experiments with Chlamydomonas have shown that multicellularity can arise quicker than we thought, now imagine that process over millions of years. Sure, we don’t have all the answers but what was once considered a big gap is getting smaller and smaller as we learn more. But to go beyond what is discussed in the video, we have 3.5 billion year old fossils of single celled organisms. The oldest fossils we have of multicellular organisms are 600 million years old. Which leaves us with two ‘leaps’ to consider. Either God created single celled organisms then hung around for billions of years before taking the next step and introducing multicellular organisms OR a change in environment or some other mechanism we do not yet understand led to single celled organisms evolving into multi cellular organisms. The ‘God leap’ explains nothing at all, literally nothing, if anything it is in opposition to what any holy book actually states - the ‘evolution leap’ isn’t that much of a leap as we have sound logic for why it happened, several hypotheses, and observable traits and behaviour in both single and multicellular organisms, cells that seem to be on their way to multicellularity and can witness cells forming a kind of multicellularity. As for my education, I have a bachelors in Forensic Science and a masters in toxicology. Not exactly the same as this subject but I am a student of science. Now your turn, why do I get the impression that your education on this topic is ‘watched some creationist youtube videos that claim to debunk evolution’ despite it still being regarded as one of the most proven theories in science by 98% of scientists (including Christian ones).

Check the description dipshit, every single claim is cited lmao

@@mmhoss lmao

You can read the full article by clicking the link in the description. Researchers and their studies are listed there.

Science disagrees

Okay hillbilly joe now run on back to your trailer park with your cousin wife and STFU.

But the Earth is flat because it's two sides are man and woman and there are only two genders therefore ergo Creationism wins and Tupac lives

Wait till someone examined it and discover the truth and as usual Nature and Science will publish it but without a video like this

@@SuviTuuliAllan you forgot to include Elvis in your model but otherwise correct.

In the study yeast became clumps of yeast. Not quite as amazing as some might think. Plus, as they said, the genetic material was already there. It was evidently not new genes.

No. That was just a concept to induce fear in the minds of primitive people who lived thousands of years ago, so that they can be controlled.

@@JonSnow-qi9ek primitive people have very little understanding of what the sun is, or why it rains, or many other powerful and natural phenomena. Seems natural to explain this by assigning a "god." I would say that is the origin, which was later abused at times to keep people under control by the threat of eternal damnation.

of course the one true GOD is real and so is heaven and hell!

Never was.

Your dunning Kruger effect is very strong. Origin of life research is actually very robust and has alot of evidence supporting it cope.