Where is the "simple life", where are the "simple cells"?

[exchemist]

If human beings are the ultimate evolved form of apes. Wouldn't that mean that apes should be extinct?

Of course not. It's a big family with many branches.

Did all your great grandfather's offspring have to die, in order for you to be alive today?

(By the way, there is no such thing as an "ultimate evolved form" of anything. Thinking that way is teleological and it is an error. Evolution does not have a goal.)

 

[BibleTales001]

Both evolution and cosmology don't make sense from an educated or uneducated stand point. Apes should be extinct if we evolved from them. The theory of cosmology also seems to have holes. Something just doesn't appear out of no where. It had to be created.

 

[leroy]

@leroy

The hypothesised first proto-bacteria are of course gone. The have been replaced by more performant organism like bacteria themselves who evolved from those first proto-bacteria in a fashion that is not unlike how our current species of scorpions have replaced other, more ancient species of scorpions.

Of course they are gone, but why? These simple cells were supposed to be swimming all over the ancient world for billions of years in all types of environments, why is it than none of this populations survived to this date?

As I said before, if there was no selective pressure for “more complexity” then these cells had no reason to evolve in to more complex stuff.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Both evolution and cosmology don't make sense from an educated or uneducated stand point. Apes should be extinct if we evolved from them. The theory of cosmology also seems to have holes. Something just doesn't appear out of no where. It had to be created.

Hmm...my ancestors are from Europe. Why aren't Europeans extinct?

 

[exchemist]

Both evolution and cosmology don't make sense from an educated or uneducated stand point. Apes should be extinct if we evolved from them. The theory of cosmology also seems to have holes. Something just doesn't appear out of no where. It had to be created.

No, that's wrong.

Biologically, we are apes. So are chimpanzees, gorillas and gibbons. We had a common ancestor, many hundreds of thousands of years ago and that ancestor was an ape. But it wasn't a human or a chimpanzee or a gorilla or a gibbon. It was an earlier form of ape. See? So there is no reason for apes to "die out" because we are here.

(Please leave cosmology out: it has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to talk about that, you are welcome to start a new thread on the subject.)

And I'm afraid evolution very much does make sense, just like Newton's Laws of Motion. That is why it is taught in all our schools.

 

[leroy]

1. 99% of all species don't exist any more. We lost all the non-avian dinosaurs. So extinction isn't unusual, it's the norm.
2. The environment in which the first primitive cells lived is most likely no longer existent on earth. The original atmosphere contained little to no free oxygen.

Ok, 99% are gone, so where is the remaining 1% of species of simple cells? I am not saying that we should find the exact type that emerge in the “primordial soup” all I am saying is that after abiogenesis there was a period of millions and millions of years where all cells where simple….., different “species” of simple cells happily swimming in all sorts of environments. Are we to believe that none of them survived?....why?

So are you saying that oxygen killed all these cells? Why would that be the case? What about those who lived underwater?

 

[leroy]

The process by which, once you have replication of inherited traits, natural selection causes populations of organisms to adapt, over many generations, to their environment. There are a lot more bells and whistles to it, but that is the core of it, I would say.

And in what way did I miss represent it? Did I said anything that contradicts what you represented?

 

[leroy]

Of course not. It's a big family with many branches.

Did all your great grandfather's offspring have to die, in order for you to be alive today?

(By the way, there is no such thing as an "ultimate evolved form" of anything. Thinking that way is teleological and it is an error. Evolution does not have a goal.)

Yes that is exactly my point, if complex cells evolved from simple cells, this wouldn’t imply that all the simple cells have to go extinct.

So where are the simple cells?

 

[exchemist]

And in what way did I miss represent it? Did I said anything that contradicts what you represented?

You have been doing your best to do that on numerous threads ever since I joined the forum.

Here is one instance, chosen at random: Of birds and men. Covergent evolution.

 

[exchemist]

Yes that is exactly my point, if complex cells evolved from simple cells, this wouldn’t imply that all the simple cells have to go extinct.

So where are the simple cells?

You've already had that answered.

 

[ChristineM]

So where are the simple cells?

Everywhere.

There are single celled eukaryotes

E coli is single celled

Many alga are single celled

As are yeasts

 

[Heyo]

Ok, 99% are gone, so where is the remaining 1% of species of simple cells? I am not saying that we should find the exact type that emerge in the “primordial soup” all I am saying is that after abiogenesis there was a period of millions and millions of years where all cells where simple….., different “species” of simple cells happily swimming in all sorts of environments. Are we to believe that none of them survived?....why?

So are you saying that oxygen killed all these cells? Why would that be the case? What about those who lived underwater?

Here's a short intro to the Great Oxidation Event.
The oxygen would have been first in the ocean, of course, because all life was water based then. Oceans and atmosphere exchange gases so that the oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere eventually and exchanged for carbon dioxide. The loss of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused an ice age. The poisonous oxygen, the cold and sinking sea levels killed about 75% of all species including all primitive cells that couldn't handle oxygen.

 

[Deeje]

@leroy we already know that this question will be dodged in a variety of ways....brushed off....ridiculed....with accusations of ignorance and even lying......but there will never be a substantiated answer to your OP.....because they have no real evidence for their first premise. It is a “best guess” and they know it....no matter how much they protest, their house of cards has no real foundations. They actually have a bigger fairy story than those who believe in an Intelligent Creator.

Their ‘education’ is as much of an ‘indoctrination’ as they believe we have.....but how dare we insult their ‘gods’ and their ‘scripture’! LOL

 

[ChristineM]

@leroy we already know that this question will be dodged in a variety of ways....brushed off....ridiculed....with accusations of ignorance and even lying......but there will never be a substantiated answer to your OP.....because they have no real evidence for their first premise. It is a “best guess” and they know it....no matter how much they protest, their house of cards has no real foundations. They actually have a bigger fairy story than those who believe in an Intelligent Creator.

Their ‘education’ is as much of an ‘indoctrination’ as they believe we have.....but how dare we insult their ‘gods’ and their ‘scripture’! LOL

yet despite the cry
Where is the "simple life", where are the "simple cells"?
It seems he didn't actually bother to check whether any exist or not, they do and are more numerous than multicellular life

 

[Deeje]

Here's a short intro to the Great Oxidation Event.
The oxygen would have been first in the ocean, of course, because all life was water based then. Oceans and atmosphere exchange gases so that the oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere eventually and exchanged for carbon dioxide. The loss of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused an ice age. The poisonous oxygen, the cold and sinking sea levels killed about 75% of all species including all primitive cells that couldn't handle oxygen.

That article admits that its premise is based on “suggestion”. That means that all that follows is also nothing but assumption...educated guessing. Guesses are not facts.

Science can only see the world through its own lens. That rigid view colours everything they believe. It must of necessity fit inside that one box, otherwise the whole theory falls apart.

 

[Heyo]

yet despite the cry
Where is the "simple life", where are the "simple cells"?
It seems he didn't actually bother to check whether any exist or not, they do and are more numerous than multicellular life

Actually, even the most simple cell living today is way more evolved than the first cells. The question is justified.

 

[Heyo]

Science can only see the world through its own lens. That rigid view colours everything they believe. It must of necessity fit inside that one box, otherwise the whole theory falls apart.

Yes, but scientists are working to disprove their hypothesis, creationists don't.

 

[Deeje]

yet despite the cry
Where is the "simple life", where are the "simple cells"?
It seems he didn't actually bother to check whether any exist or not, they do and are more numerous than multicellular life

How simple was the first living cell? How can science possibly “know” what the situation was on earth millions or billions of years ago? It’s all best guesswork....based on suggestion and assumption about what “might have” taken place in the dim dark past. All its assumptions must of necessity fit the box that they have created. So all evidence must be interpreted to fit that first premise. The first premise has no real foundations.

Challenge the first premise and that is when the insults start.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually, even the most simple cell living today is way more evolved than the first cells. The question is justified.

I dont think @Deeje actually asked a question but rather just made a statement.

As for single celled species, prokaryotes are estimated to have shown up 3.8 billion years ago and have evolved little
Single celled eukaryotes are only about a billion years younger

 

[ChristineM]

How simple was the first living cell? How can science possibly “know” what the situation was on earth millions or billions of years ago? It’s all best guesswork....based on suggestion and assumption about what “might have” taken place in the dim dark past. All its assumptions must of necessity fit the box that they have created. So all evidence must be interpreted to fit that first premise. The first premise has no real foundations.

Challenge the first premise and that is when the insults start.

See my previous post # 39