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

[Deeje]

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

Are you serious? Who in their right mind wants to prove that the beloved theory of evolution is false? They would be run out of every institution of science as heretics! The only thing they seek to disprove is the other fella’s scenario on ‘how’ it happened...not ‘that’ it happened.

Creationists come in many colours and many of them fly in the face of real science. There is a way to mesh science and the Bible with the same method that science uses....observation and interpretation of evidence. It’s all in the way we interpret Genesis.
The Creation account meshes quote comfortably with what science knows, as opposed to what science assumes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So basically what current abiogenesis hypothesis tell us is that life was originally “simple”(simpler than modern unicellular organisms) and evolved to become the complex life forms that we see today….

So my question is: where is the “simple life” supposedly eukaryotes evolve from prokaryotes but we still have prokaryotes today, multicellular organisms evolved from unicellular organisms but we still have unicellular organisms today, land animals evolved from marine animals but we still have marine animals today, complex eyes/brains/feathers etc. evolved from simpler organs, but we still have simple organs today.

So if complex cells evolved from simpler cells, where are these simple cells? Modern cells have all sorts of complex systems and molecular machinery inside, but supposedly the first cell was too simple and had none of this complex stuff.

Note that natural selection doesn’t “what” to increase complexity, NS what’s to optimize the viability of an organism, it is perfectly reasonable and likely to say that at least in some environments “simple cells” didn’t had any selective pressure to become more complex so shouldn’t there be some populations of simple cells all over the world?

With simple I mean “simple enough to have come in to existence by chance and/or by natural mechanisms.

I am assuming that your view is that ancient cells where much simpler than any modern cell if this is not your view, then you don’t have to answer.

It has to do with RNA and DNA.

Prokaryotes would be what you're looking for.

 

[ChristineM]

Are you serious? Who in their right mind wants to prove that the beloved theory of evolution is false? They would be run out of every institution of science as heretics! The only thing they seek to disprove is the other fella’s scenario on ‘how’ it happened...not ‘that’ it happened.

Creationists come in many colours and many of them fly in the face of real science. There is a way to mesh science and the Bible with the same method that science uses....observation and interpretation of evidence. It’s all in the way we interpret Genesis.
The Creation account meshes quote comfortably with what science knows, as opposed to what science assumes.

You dont seem to get the idea of peer review. The are no end of upcoming young scientists eager to make a name for themselves and earn a nobel prize by providing this or that hypothesis wrong.

And science is about evidence, not interpretation

 

[Heyo]

Are you serious? Who in their right mind wants to prove that the beloved theory of evolution is false? They would be run out of every institution of science as heretics! The only thing they seek to disprove is the other fella’s scenario on ‘how’ it happened...not ‘that’ it happened.

Creationists come in many colours and many of them fly in the face of real science. There is a way to mesh science and the Bible with the same method that science uses....observation and interpretation of evidence. It’s all in the way we interpret Genesis.
The Creation account meshes quote comfortably with what science knows, as opposed to what science assumes.

So, what is creationisms answer to @leroy 's questions?

 

[Deeje]

You dont seem to get the idea of peer review. The are no end of upcoming young scientists eager to make a name for themselves and earn a nobel prize by providing this or that hypothesis wrong.

And science is about evidence, not interpretation

LOL...sorry, you have to forgive my muffled laughter here....

Someone else mentioned peer review as a way to verify scientific authenticity and when I checked how reliable peer review is, this is what I found.....

“Here is something from a respected Medical Journal.....
It begins by saying....
"Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have."

"Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.

And these.....
"The Lancet editor Richard Horton has called the process "unjust, unaccountable ... often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." Not to mention that identifying peer reviewers and getting their comments slows down the progress of science — papers can be held up for months or years — and costs society a lot of money. Scientists and professors, after all, need to take time away from their research to edit, unpaid, the work of others."

"Richard Smith, the former editor of the BMJ, summed up: "We have little or no evidence that peer review 'works,' but we have lots of evidence of its downside." Another former editor of the Lancet, Robbie Fox, used to joke that his journal "had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom."
Not exactly reassuring comments from the editors of the world's leading medical journals......is it?

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems
Yep...peer review.....such a trusted and unbiased process....

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

How would you represent evolution?

You can find that out for yourself -- there are entire libraries full of material. It's just not mentioned in that one book that too many people think is the only book that ever mattered. (And then, when things go wrong, they go to the doctor or surgeon who actually studied other books, and cure what their own book has zero power over).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So I'm curious, can evolution dictate the future?

In some respects, evolution will certainly dictate the future. And it will be possible for those in the future to read the history -- but not for those of us now to read that future. That's not how it works...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Translation, “I don’t know the answer, I know that this is a good objection against naturalism, but I don’t what to admit it, therefore I will make a personal attack and try to sound smart. “

Actually, I think it's more a case of having written so much that demonstrates the truth of evolution (along with a lot of other people, me included), only to have it ignored over and over and over by those who either do not wish to learn, or have no ability to learn. That can get oddly frustrating, but I doubt you'll understand why.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You are talking suddenly about cosmology? That's off-topic, so I'll leave that to one side, if you don't mind.

Regarding human evolution, yes of course, I am an educated man. Humans not only evolved from apes but are apes. Every schoolchild knows this.

But sadly, a whole lot of adults are committed to not knowing it. Almost religiously committed, really...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Okay, let me explain why that is just plain ignorant. If you are your parents' best child, shouldn't your parents be extinct?

Try thinking ... it's not actually painful, you know.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

LOL...sorry, you have to forgive my muffled laughter here....

Someone else mentioned peer review as a way to verify scientific authenticity and when I checked how reliable peer review is, this is what I found.....

“Here is something from a respected Medical Journal.....
It begins by saying....
"Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. Yet it is hard to define. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away. Famously, it is compared with democracy: a system full of problems but the least worst we have."

"Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.

And these.....
"The Lancet editor Richard Horton has called the process "unjust, unaccountable ... often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." Not to mention that identifying peer reviewers and getting their comments slows down the progress of science — papers can be held up for months or years — and costs society a lot of money. Scientists and professors, after all, need to take time away from their research to edit, unpaid, the work of others."

"Richard Smith, the former editor of the BMJ, summed up: "We have little or no evidence that peer review 'works,' but we have lots of evidence of its downside." Another former editor of the Lancet, Robbie Fox, used to joke that his journal "had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom."
Not exactly reassuring comments from the editors of the world's leading medical journals......is it?

https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems
Yep...peer review.....such a trusted and unbiased process....

"Yep...peer review.....such a trusted and unbiased process....

"

Yes, one can see that it's so much better to rely on trusted processes, like the promulgations of "prophets" of all these gods from human history:

Sutekh, once the high god of the whole Nile Valley
Resheph
Anath
Ashtoreth
El
Nergal
Nebo
Ninib
Melek
Ahijah
Isis
Ptah
Anubis
Baal
Astarte
Hadad
Addu
Shalem
Dagon
Sharrab
Yau
Amon-Re
Osiris
Sebek
Molech?

All these were once gods of the highest eminence. Many of them are mentioned with fear and trembling in the Old Testament. They ranked, five or six thousand years ago, with Jahveh himself; the worst of them stood far higher than Thor. Yet they have all gone down the chute.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Had to be created by what? Something that just appeared out of nowhere?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Again, I urge thinking. Creatures that consume and excrete (whether food, oxygen, carbon, whatever) by the very fact that they do so change the environment in which they live. Change that environment enough, and the creatures that caused that change can no longer survive in it. (You'll see this yourself one day, as we change the climate of this planet enough for to finally ditch us.)

So the creature that thrived in a low-oxygen, high-ammonia atmosphere that excreted oxygen as part of its lifecycle will eventually be confronted with a high-oxygen environment in which it can no longer survive? See? Think a little.

 

[Valjean]

So basically what current abiogenesis hypothesis tell us is that life was originally “simple”(simpler than modern unicellular organisms) and evolved to become the complex life forms that we see today….

So my question is: where is the “simple life” supposedly eukaryotes evolve from prokaryotes but we still have prokaryotes today, multicellular organisms evolved from unicellular organisms but we still have unicellular organisms today, land animals evolved from marine animals but we still have marine animals today, complex eyes/brains/feathers etc. evolved from simpler organs, but we still have simple organs today.

First, we don't know that this "simple life" isn't still being formed today, it's not something that would be readily apparent. It would, though, be something unable to compete with current life forms, and would be unlikely to persist long.

So if complex cells evolved from simpler cells, where are these simple cells? Modern cells have all sorts of complex systems and molecular machinery inside, but supposedly the first cell was too simple and had none of this complex stuff.

Which is why these simple proto-cells would be quickly overwhelmed by the more competitive complex cells.

Note that natural selection doesn’t “what” to increase complexity, NS what’s to optimize the viability of an organism, it is perfectly reasonable and likely to say that at least in some environments “simple cells” didn’t had any selective pressure to become more complex so shouldn’t there be some populations of simple cells all over the world?

As long as there is reproductive variation within a population, there is selective pressure. Selective ''complexity' would have arisen by chance.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is endless, and it is useless. There must come a time when we admit to ourselves that we can teach nothing to those who adamantly refuse to learn. So why on earth do we keep trying? Religion -- I say this and I mean it -- cherishes unquestioning minds.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is a way to mesh science and the Bible with the same method that science uses....observation and interpretation of evidence. It’s all in the way we interpret Genesis.
The Creation account meshes quote comfortably with what science knows, as opposed to what science assumes.

That is pure nonsense. To say that the creation as given in Genesis "meshes quote [sic] comfortably with what science knows" means you have to strip science down of everything it actually DOES know -- because Genesis knows absolutely nothing about any of it, without a word massaging that would be illegal in 150 countries!

 

[Valjean]

I assume you believe that everything started with a small singularity and expandad and that humans evolved from apes.

What's your hypothesis, Magic?
There is evidence pointing to a "big bang." What do you make of it? Do you have contrary evidence?

I assume you believe humans just popped into existence by magic. But there is a great deal of evidence supporting gradual evolution from previous forms.

So what is your hypothesis? What alternate mechanism do you propose?

 

[Valjean]

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

"Ultimate evolved?" That implies direction. Please explain.

As long as an organism fits its environment and reproduces, it persists. Change the environment or out-compete an organism though, and it may not persist.

Currently we are not directly competing with other apes. We are, however, altering their environment into one they cannot utilize, which is why they're endangered.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So what is your hypothesis? What alternate mechanism do you propose?

Adam created from dirt (with or without a navel, I'm not sure), and Eve created from Adam's penis bone (baculum), certainly without a penis herself.

(For more info on that Eve creation thing, see this post The Believabliltiy of Evolution)

 

[leroy]

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.

Red herring fallacy nice try

you failed to proof that I have misrepresented evolution in this thread

So are you going to justify your accusation, or are you going to apologize for your false accusation?