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

[Valjean]

Creationism don't require the existance of "simple cells"

No, it requires magic.

 

[leroy]

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.
Which is why these simple proto-cells would be quickly overwhelmed by the more competitive complex cells.
As long as there is reproductive variation within a population, there is selective pressure. Selective ''complexity' would have arisen by chance.

That's like saying that simple eyes where overwhelmed complex eyes, that simply is not true, there are still creatures with simple eyes.

So why aren't there simple cells?

I understand that in some environments simple cells would have been unsuccessful, but other populations in different environments would have survived... So where are the simple cells?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The question is justified.

This, I thought as well when reading the OP. The question is justified.

What of viruses? Are these not even simpler forms of "life" (dependent on the definition of such), that are closer to the fundamental molecule-chain replication (seen in abiogenesis research) than they are close to what we deem as obvious "life?"

 

[Valjean]

Really? And none of these simple cells lived in the deep ocean or underground or in any ecosystem free of oxigen?

None of these cells evolved tolerance to oxigen?

The oxygen came from the deep ocean cells. It was excreted into the water.
Almost all the populations developed a tolerance for oxygen, which is why you find anaerobes today only in sheltered, oxygen free environments.

 

[Valjean]

You dont understand...


The issue is that "naturalists" predict that ancient cells where much simpler than modern cells

I am simply asking where are these simple cells

Didn't I already answer that?

 

[leroy]

Not all types of environments. They persisted only until selective pressure from their better adapted offspring overwhelmed them.
They reproduced with variation. and some 'varieties' were better adapted to the environment than the originals. That generated the selective pressure.

And natural selection always, always favored complexity over simplicity?

 

[Deeje]

Scientists would.
Attempting to disprove a hypothesis is part of the process. It's how science works.
Any hypothesis that isn't tested isn't going to be taken seriously.

Any hypothesis offered will be well within the bounds of "the evolutionary box".....otherwise it would be laughed out of existence and the credibility of the 'scientist' along with it.....it is a very ego driven part of academia. No one dares to question the "fact" of evolution.....but the truth is...it is not based on facts at all...it is based on speculation, assumption and assertion. Why else would it need to include "might have" and "could have" in its explanations of how it all took place? That is not the language of true science.

The biblical account does not mesh with the scientific account at all. Nor does it comport with everyday experience or even commonsense.

The Biblical accounts mesh perfectly with what science "knows".....not necessarily with what science "believes". What science "believes" forms the major part of evolution....what it "knows" is embellished and added to by imagination not facts. This is demonstrated in the fact that science almost boasts about the fact that it needs no "proof".....that, to me is laughable.

 

[leroy]

Unless they had to compete with their more complex, better adapted progeny.

What is there in a chimp or gorilla environment to out-compete them?

We are talking about thausands of environments, did complex cells outperformed simples cells allllll the time?

 

[Deeje]

No, it requires magic.

Don't look now but abiogenesis hasn't figured out how life began either......creation requires no more "magic" than assuming that life popped into existence from nothing for no apparent reason, fully equipped to become every life form that has ever existed on this planet.....

 

[leroy]

The oxygen came from the deep ocean cells. It was excreted into the water.
Almost all the populations developed a tolerance for oxygen, which is why you find anaerobes today only in sheltered, oxygen free environments.

Ok so even assuming that oxigen would have been toxic for every simple cell.... there are environments free of oxygen where simple cells could have survived... So why aren't there simple cells today?

 

[Valjean]

That's like saying that simple eyes where overwhelmed complex eyes, that simply is not true, there are still creatures with simple eyes.

The simple eyes still work well enough to keep their possessors alive and reproducing. The development of "improved" features won't threaten the simpler predecessors as long as the original design still confers an adequate fit. It's only when those with the new feature outcompete the original for food, space, oxygen tolerance &c that the original is in danger of extinction.

So why aren't there simple cells?

There may be, as I said, but they'd likely be hard to notice and too poorly adapted to persist.
Keep in mind that the first "life" may have been more molecular than cellular. "Life" is a spectrum, where you draw the boundary is somewhat arbitrary.

I understand that in some environments simple cells would have been unsuccessful, but other populations in different environments would have survived... So where are the simple cells?

Maybe they're in environments unoccupied by more competitive complex cells.
Wait -- where would that be?

 

[Valjean]

This, I thought as well when reading the OP. The question is justified.

What of viruses? Are these not even simpler forms of "life" (dependent on the definition of such), that are closer to the fundamental molecule-chain replication (seen in abiogenesis research) than they are close to what we deem as obvious "life?"

But they don't replicate, and wouldn't have evolved until there was an existing population of cells to replicate them. They're post cellular particles.

 

[Valjean]

Don't look now but abiogenesis hasn't figured out how life began either......creation requires no more "magic" than assuming that life popped into existence from nothing for no apparent reason, fully equipped to become every life form that has ever existed on this planet.....

No-one claims life popped into existence -- except the religious, of course. Life developed in natural, understandable, observable steps, by simple, everyday chemistry. Just because the mechanism isn't yet known doesn't mean we claim no mechanism.

I say magic because religion posits no mechanism, just an agent. Effect without mechanism is magic.

 

[Valjean]

Ok so even assuming that oxigen would have been toxic for every simple cell.... there are environments free of oxygen where simple cells could have survived... So why aren't there simple cells today?

The simple anaerobes evolved into more complex anaerobes that could out-compete the originals for resources, just as I said before.

 

[epronovost]

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?

Because each and every single one of those proto-bacteria were in competition with one another for resources to survive and spread and that, by becoming more complex, they could exploit resources more efficiently or even exploit new types of resources.

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.

There is always some selective pressure since resources on Earth are limited and necessary. The climatic condition of Earth are also always changing on the geological scale, creating more selective pressure. Nature creates a wide variety of pressures to drive evolution even in times of relative stability. Evolution is only much faster following periods of radical changes.

 

[epronovost]

And natural selection always, always favored complexity over simplicity?

Not always. It favors both, simultaneously.

 

[leroy]

Not always. It favors both, simultaneously.

Granted, that's my point..... Atleast sometimes natural selection (or genetic drift) would have favored simple cells........ So where are the simple cells?

 

[leroy]

The simple anaerobes evolved into more complex anaerobes that could out-compete the originals for resources, just as I said before.

That's not how evolution by natural selection works.

Natural selection has no intrinsic direction towards higher ("more complex) organisms.

Sometimes complexity wins, sometimes simplicity wins and sometimes it's a draw.... So given this at least some simple cells are expected to have survived to this date.... So where are the simple cells?

 

[leroy]

No-one claims life popped into existence -- except the religious, of course. Life developed in natural, understandable, observable steps, by simple, everyday chemistry. Just because the mechanism isn't yet known doesn't mean we claim no mechanism.

I say magic because religion posits no mechanism, just an agent. Effect without mechanism is magic.

Ok we don't know the mechanism ether. Just because the mechanism used by the designer is unknown doesn't mean that there was no mechanism......

Happy?

 

[Valjean]

And natural selection always, always favored complexity over simplicity?

Of course not. Evolution can work both ways.
Evolution favors fitness.