• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Primordial Soup

Dan From Smithville

Monsters! Monsters from the id! Forbidden Planet
Staff member
Premium Member
Yeah, me too. I get the impression the rest of the paper would be difficult for me to follow.

The abstract does seem to say that multicellular life was evolved from a eukaryote in lab conditions. That's neato.



I wonder how much of a factor this is. Does a modern eukaryote have a better chance of evolving into a multicellular organism than an ancient one?

Regardless, the authors of the paper conclude that the single-celled organisms can "readily evolve" into multicellular life.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
I think it is an incredible piece of work for it's simplicity as well as for its results.

I'm not a cellular or molecular biologist and have had only the briefest surveys of those disciplines along with some connected work, but from what little I know of those fields, I would think it does make a difference on the rate. Modern organisms have the benefit of 3 billion years worth of biological, chemical and physical infrastructure to take advantage of what earlier lifeforms could not. I could be wrong, and may be, but with what I do know, I would not be surprised that it is the case.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I think this quote bout sums up this thread

"Scientists are not close to knowing the exact processes that took place on the earth which led to the origins of life. They may never know the exact answer because the evidence for this very primitive life has probably been destroyed by the more efficient life which evolved from it
That is moving the goal posts without a knowledge of science. 'Exact' here is your key agenda word.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Then after dna first came on the scene it took 5 billion years for humans to develop. One would think the evolution of DNA is more complex and time consuming than the evolution of the rest. ie. Plants, animals, and humans

Life formed on this planet pretty much around the time that earth was in such a state that it could sustain it, around 4 billion years ago.

For a good 3 billion years that followed, life was single-celled. During this period, all the cell-machinery (incl DNA) developed.
Then multicellular organisms entered the scene.
The first multicellular animals then evolved around 600 million years ago only.

So yes: plants, animals and humans evolved a lot faster (=hundreds of millions of years) then the first eukaryotic cells that bonded together into the first multicellular organism (= billions of years).


All you are doing in this thread, btw, is presenting an argument from personal incredulity.

ie: "My evidence against abiogenesis, is that I don't believe it"
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Maybe the scientists who hypothesis that the earth was seeded by DNA from another planet are correct. Cuz I think it would take a lot longer than a billion years for DNA to come to be after the formation of a planet.

Just out of interest...

On what do you base this claim that DNA development would take more then X amount of years?
How long would it take in your opinion and how did you arrive at that conclusion?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Did life spring forth from this soup? I'm having difficulty believing that.
The most valuable take-home lesson here is not all of the science, but an exploration of why you think that when the people who know more about the subject disagree with you. I suggest that it is because you prefer to believe something contradictory, something that you believe by faith. Belief by faith frequently leads to the generation of a confirmation bias in defense of that belief when it is challenged by evidence and reason. Something is preventing you from seeing what others who are credible not only say they can see, but can also show any prepared mind. What's a prepared mind? One capable of dispassionately evaluating an evidenced argument for soundness who is also willing to change his mind following the recognition of a compelling argument. For those unwilling or unable to do that, nothing can be taught.

The power of a faith-based confirmation bias was the topic of an article by a former Young Earth creationists named Glenn Morton, who became an Old Earth creationist after obtaining a degree in geology. In the following article, he uses the same device Maxwell and Descartes used - an imaginary demon - but this time, making decisions at the portal of his mind about what could enter and what would be filtered out in defense of a belief held by faith once shown contradictory evidence. It's pretty interesting, and I find the author very credible. Could this be relevant to you? :

 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Oh I see the problem. I was including the origin of life in the evolution of it.
The difference between abiogenesis and evolution is a bi vague and both are environmentally driven beginning around the ideal environment of the vents in the spreading zone environment of continental drift.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The origin of dna is complex
So . . . ? It did not begin as DNA as in the simpler RNA viruses that still exists today. Nothing suddenly appeared complex. This is a relect of the old and moldy Creationist argument of complexity, and a lack of basic genetic science.

DNA is not complex. Yes DNA is different between species, subspecies and varieties, but these difference can be clealy and specifically traced through the history of life. .It is the lack of basic knowledge of science that makes things confusing and complex. Like people who cannot see, because they won't put on their glasses.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
[URL='https://www.religiousforums.com/goto/post?id=8083713' said:
Moon[/URL]]
Did life spring forth from this soup? I'm having difficulty believing that.

Me too, because life does not have 'springs.'
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
So . . . ? It did not begin as DNA as in the simpler RNA viruses that still exists today. Nothing suddenly appeared complex. This is a relect of the old and moldy Creationist argument of complexity, and a lack of basic genetic science.

DNA is not complex. Yes DNA is different between species, subspecies and varieties, but these difference can be clealy and specifically traced through the history of life. .It is the lack of basic knowledge of science that makes things confusing and complex. Like people who cannot see, because they won't put on their glasses.
The origin and evolution of DNA was complex in my opinion. You can think however you want.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The origin and evolution of DNA was complex in my opinion. You can think however you want.

Two problems here with the stonewall Creationist response: 'in my opinion' and 'you can think however you want.'

You do not have the science background not expressed independent references to explain what you mean by 'the origin and evolution was complex,' based on science. Opinion nor 'what I want,' means nothing. We need to communicate in foundation basic science. DNA did not suddenly 'appear.' Simpler RNA life came first, as previously mentioned. In the beginning the forst pre-life and earliest forms of life were much simpler.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
Two problems here with the stonewall Creationist response: 'in my opinion' and 'you can think however you want.'

You do not have the science background not expressed independent references to explain what you mean by 'the origin and evolution was complex,' based on science. Opinion nor 'what I want,' means nothing. We need to communicate in foundation basic science. DNA did not suddenly 'appear.' Simpler RNA life came first, as previously mentioned. In the beginning the forst pre-life and earliest forms of life were much simpler.
Never said god did it. Anyway, It took less time for dna to show up on the scene since the earth formed than it did for the evolutionary timeline between terrestrial plants and humans. I find that strange. The only thing I can think of is that the origin of life must’ve started evolving right after the Big Bang. This could make sense. That would put DNA’s evolutionary formation time to 10 billion years instead of 1 billion. 10 billion seems more plausible. You mention rna and things before but I’ve only been talking about dna and when it first showed up.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
@ChristineM you said that evolution has been proven in the laboratory. Would you say that the necessary equipment or enough time wasn't there to show that these things grew to viable matter, by that I mean like plants and animals out of the testtube?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Two problems here with the stonewall Creationist response: 'in my opinion' and 'you can think however you want.'

You do not have the science background not expressed independent references to explain what you mean by 'the origin and evolution was complex,' based on science. Opinion nor 'what I want,' means nothing. We need to communicate in foundation basic science. DNA did not suddenly 'appear.' Simpler RNA life came first, as previously mentioned. In the beginning the forst pre-life and earliest forms of life were much simpler.
There we go with the "you do not have the science background," etc. So back to "natural selection," perhaps? Or perhaps it wasn't natural selection since that is evolution and not, of course, abiogenesis? Which may or may not be natural selection, right?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The origin of life is still cloaked in mystery. There is too little information available to fully test any hypothesis for abiogenesis, let alone determine how quickly or how frequently life may have arisen on the early Earth. All of these changes in living thing were driven by conditions and the addition of life was a contributing factor in those conditions. The very atmosphere we have is the result of the existence of living things.

I don't agree that there is evidence available to allow us to make sound claims about how quickly or how surprising the speed of change (slow or fast) in the evolution subsequent to the appearance of living things is. We know one way that multicellularity could form based on experiments with modern yeast, but this does not tell us about the conditions that multicellularity actually formed under or if it was through the same mechanisms.

I combined into a single timeline one containing some major geological events and one containing biological events with rough times of occurrence based on the evidence to provide a perspective of the occurrence of these events. Keeping in mind that dates are best estimates depending on when the lists were devised and by whom. The list is comprised of major events in the history of the Earth and living things on it.

4600 mya (million years ago) - planet Earth formed.
4500 mya - Earth's core and crust formed.
4400 mya - the Earth's first oceans formed.
3850 mya - the first life appeared on Earth. It was very simple single-celled organisms. Prokaryotes. Exactly how life first arose is a mystery.
3,000 mya - photosynthesis.
2,000 mya - the first complex cells. Eukaryotes.
1500 mya - oxygen began to accumulate in the Earth's atmosphere.
700 mya - the first animals evolved. These were simple single-celled animals.
570 mya - arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans).
550 mya - complex animals.
500 mya - fish and proto-amphibians.
475 mya - land plants.
400 mya - insects and seeds.
350 mya - the first land vertebrates evolved. With plants present on the land to provide a food
360 mya - amphibians.
300 mya - reptiles.
225 mya - the first dinosaurs evolved from lizards.
200 mya - mammals.
150 mya - birds.
130 mya - flowers.
65 mya - non-avian dinosaur extinction
2.5 mya - origin of the genus Homo.
200,000-300,000 years ago - appearance of modern humans.
25,000 years ago - Neanderthal extinction.

This list shows a gradual progression of changes, each leading to next steps in that progression. What we do not see are finer details that may have had significant impacts on the rates of change. The origin of mitochondria for instance, would be a critical step in the evolution of eukaryotes, for instance. Or plate tectonics and the impact of that on practically everything. It can also be noted that there is nothing in this to indicate that some more idealized rate should be expected either.

Based on evidence not immediately or at all evident in this list is that some events were dependent on preceding events in order that they take place. The accumulation of an oxygen atmosphere would be a significant event effecting both geochemistry and living things.

I'm not really sure how a particular expectation of rate can be devised from this evidence or that we shouldn't expect it faster due to some condition. In my opinion, you really can't say much for early events. However, for later events the rate does seem to move more rapidly and this is likely the result of established and much more stable natural infrastructure.
I'm leavin' you alone for a while, Dan. :)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There we go with the "you do not have the science background," etc. So back to "natural selection," perhaps? Or perhaps it wasn't natural selection since that is evolution and not, of course, abiogenesis? Which may or may not be natural selection, right?
It is nice to see that I am not the only one that notices this.

But as to natural selection and abiogenesis. There may have been a different sort of natural selection involved in abiogenesis. There are competing hypotheses of what events happened when and how. It turns out some of the proposed chemicals may have competed with each other for the raw materials that were present. No intent behind it at all, but it can sometimes be shown that with limited resources some chemicals react more quickly and easily than others leading to them being selected over others as possible materials that eventually became life.
 
Top