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

[leroy]

You are positing an environment which could not exist, given the initial hypothesis. All organisms would be predators, given that the Stage 1 organism basically consists entirely of organic molecules which would be food for them. How did it manage to escape to an environment where they didn't exist? (Same question for your third scenario, in which you posit an environment in which "the predators are simply gone.")



You are positing an organism which has only slight differences in its genome from the absolutely simplest organism, which is entirely helpless against predators, in an environment which is full of them, but which is somehow able -- through one or two mutations -- to reproduce super-fast, faster than it can be eaten. And the Stage 3 organisms never catch up to this new development, never evolve better and faster methods of predation.

Even if my objections are not telling, I was not asking for a "scenario" in which organisms of entirely unspecified genotypes and phenotypes evolved through entire unspecified mutations into organisms far better adapted for survival. I was asking you, essentially, to show your work. What kinds of mutations would do that? Would an organism so simple even have the genetic material needed to make them possible? If so, would they be possible without creating greater drawbacks? (Similarly, in the case of the flying amphibian, if a biologist insisted that such an organism was possible, they would be obliged to show their work: "a mutation here, here and here could turn the webs of the front legs into..." or whatever.)

Now in a sense this is unfair, since biologists haven't yet described the hypothetical genome. The point is, given this fact, it makes no sense to say "but we know that such organisms could have evolved in directions X, Y and Z, if they needed to." We don't know anything of the sort. Mutations and natural selection can do a lot of things, but they cannot just give any organism everything they need. If they could, none would ever go extinct. So an argument like yours -- which depends on the assumption that of course they could have done it, and done it without increased complexity too! -- just doesn't get off the ground.




And here's the real breaking point, so far as I'm concerned, when it comes to this conversation. You are actually, literally saying there is no contradiction between

"Organisms of type 1 would have been too simple to have been capable of surviving at all," and
"Organisms of type 1 would have been capable of thriving and adapting, and doing so without increased complexity."

Well, it is just self-evident that this is a contradiction, that it is impossible for both statements to be true. And since your argument depends on adopting both horns of this contradiction, your argument fails.

Usually, in discussions like these, we get to the point where you say to me, "Ah, but if you were right about A, then B would follow, and B is obviously absurd," and my only recourse is to say that obvious absurdity B would not follow. If I just dug my heels in, however, and proclaimed "I stand by this absurdity!" then I think you would be entirely within your rights to say "OK, there's no point in trying further to refute an argument which has already refuted itself that effectively, so I don't see the point in continuing to argue."

Really? You can't imagine a little pond where stage 2 organisms lived happily where no predators ever finding them?

You can't imagine a scenario where an organism reproduces fast enough such that predators would only eat a small portion of the population?

You can't imagine a scenario where the shield was useless anyway, such that it would be better to loose such trait?

If these scenarios are realistic today and have been observed (or inferred) why assuming that none of this could have happened in the ancient past?

I was asking you, essentially, to show your work. What kinds of mutations would do that? Would an organism so simple even have the genetic material needed to make them possible? If so, would they be possible without creating greater drawbacks?

That request is unrealistic, nobody knows which mutations caused modern stuff like eyes, ears, etc. So asking "which mutations caused x and y within ancient hypothetical organisms seens to be an unrealistic request.

I could make the same request," show me exactly which mutations lead from simple life to modern-like life"



But let's say that in order to go from stage 1 to stage 2 you need 10 gene duplications + some point mutations

Is it really hard to imagine an organism in stage 2 that suffered from a few delations and that these delations happened to be benefitial or neutral in his particular environment ? What's so incredible and unrealistic about this scenario?

Well, it is just self-evident that this is a contradiction

Again, I don't think simple organisms ever existed, but if they existed then NS and genetic drift would affect them in the same way the affect modern organisms.

That would be my position and I see no contradiction

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The supposed part of the link that supposedly does not agree with me are simply a bunch of hypothesis

No. It was a statement of fact. Here it is again:

Genome complexity has generally increased since the beginning of the life on Earth

Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life
Relationship between genome size and organismal complexity in the lineage leading from prokaryotes to mammals

that try to explain why complexity evolved, Those are very interesting hypothesis, but they are also irrelevant, nobody is claiming that complexity can't evolve.

But the fact that hypothesis to try and explain it exist, does prove that the simplest lifeforms an earth are still rather complex and only "simple" in contrast to large, complex multicellular organisms. And since the evidence also shows that life achieved quite a high level of complexity rather fast, that too requires an explanation.

And that explanation is that in the beginning there's a bias towards more complexity which flattens out after a while.

All I am sayining is that organism do not always become more complex

The extremely simple will grow more complex rather fast, after which it flattens out.

, sometimes they become simpler, sometimes the keep complexity more less the same........... Is this really so hard to accept this?

Distribution of this bias to grow more complex is non-linear. Is this really so hard to accept?
Your "rule" of "sometimes they do and sometimes they don't", simply does not apply accross the entire spectrum of levels of complexity.

Sheesh....
So yes, it is kind of impossible to accept because we already know that this is not accurate as stated.

Why is it hard to accept my modest simple, testable and uncontrovertial claim?

Because it's wrong.
Your rule only applies as written once a certain level of complexity has already been reached.
You like to pretend as if it also applies as written to first life. It doesn't. Just like it doesn't apply to the other end of the spectrum: the extremely complex. The extremely complex will rather simplify as opposed to become even more complex. Just like the extremely simple will rather become more complex.

And this is why we do not expect the extremely simple to still exist after 3.8 billion years of evolution.
How many times must it be repeated?

The only leap that I am making is assuming that this was also true in the very ancient past, (given that this is true today and has always been true as far back as we can look)......

... and that the rule applies universally throughout the entire spectrum of levels of complexity. Which simply is not the case. As you have been told so many times now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And your suggestion is that this would apply for every single organism?.... Simplicity would have not been selected over complexity in any environment?

I'm saying this would apply to any sufficiently simple organism.

I'm saying your "rule" of "sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't", only applies to the middle section of the spectrum of complexity - not across the board like you keep pretending.

Just for clarification, aren't you suppose to be a neutralist? Aren't you suppose to belive that selection plays a minor role?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[gnostic]

Really? You can't imagine a little pond where stage 2 organisms lived happily where no predators ever finding them?

You can't imagine a scenario where an organism reproduces fast enough such that predators would only eat a small portion of the population?

There is a lot more to Evolution than about predators killing and eating their preys.

Natural Selection isn’t about the “survival of the strongest” or about predator vs preys.

The survival of the fittest isn’t about strength or intelligence, although they are factors for individual situations, but we are not talking about individual organism killing another individual organism.

No, survival of the fittest - in the context of Natural Selection and Evolution - have more to do with population survival and more to do with passing on genes to generations that could give them better chance of survival through their physical and genetic changes, allowing the population to adapt to changed environments.

Do you understand this?

 

[leroy]

There is a lot more to Evolution than about predators killing and eating their preys.

Natural Selection isn’t about the “survival of the strongest” or about predator vs preys.

The survival of the fittest isn’t about strength or intelligence, although they are factors for individual situations, but we are not talking about individual organism killing another individual organism.

No, survival of the fittest - in the context of Natural Selection and Evolution - have more to do with population survival and more to do with passing on genes to generations that could give them better chance of survival through their physical and genetic changes, allowing the population to adapt to changed environments.

Do you understand this?

Yes, what made you think that I didn’t understand? How does your comment invalidates any of the points that I have made?

 

[gnostic]

Yes, what made you think that I didn’t understand? How does your comment invalidates any of the points that I have made?

Your comment showed that you have misunderstood what Natural Selection is.

Predators vs preys have nothing to do with Natural Selection; it doesn’t affect populations.

 

[leroy]

No. It was a statement of fact. Here it is again:

Genome complexity has generally increased since the beginning of the life on Earth

Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life
Relationship between genome size and organismal complexity in the lineage leading from prokaryotes to mammals

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0031030110040015

Did you even read your own sources?

A strong version of the exponential hypothesis is that the rate of complexity increase in early (pre-prokaryotic) evolution of life was at most the same (or even slower) than observed in the evolution of prokaryotes and eukaryotes
Genome increase as a clock for the origin and evolution of life
.

If anything what your own sources suggest is that ancient “pre prokaryotic” life evolved slower than modern microbes.

But don’t worry for the sake of simplicity, lets simple assume that evolution was faster in the ancient past. And that complexity increased relatively fast.

And that explanation is that in the beginning there's a bias towards more complexity which flattens out after a while.

Or maybe life has always been complex, nearly as complex as modern day microbes, do you have any good reason to dispute these explanation?

Distribution of this bias to grow more complex is non-linear. Is this really so hard to accept?

Because you haven’t provide any source that supports (what you call) a non linear evolution.tah is why itis hard to accept

Nonlinear simply means that organisms tend towards an average, but there would still be sparks of complexity and sparks of simplicity, if you have a different understanding on what linear means then provide a source that supports your view

Your "rule" of "sometimes they do and sometimes they don't", simply does not apply accross the entire spectrum of levels of complexity.

It applies everywhere we can look, if you think that things where different tin the past (where nobody can look) the burden proof is no you

Because it's wrong.
Your rule only applies as written once a certain level of complexity has already been reached.
You like to pretend as if it also applies as written to first life. It doesn't. Just like it doesn't apply to the other end of the spectrum: the extremely complex. The extremely complex will rather simplify as opposed to become even more complex. Just like the extremely simple will rather become more complex.

Again that at most would show that there is a bias towatds the middle, but there would still be sparks of complexity and sparks of simplicity, but feel free to provide a source that suggests otherwise.

And this is why we do not expect the extremely simple to still exist after 3.8 billion years of evolution.
How many times must it be repeated?

If we find “extremely complex” why wouldnt we find “extremely simple”?

... and that the rule applies universally throughout the entire spectrum of levels of complexity. Which simply is not the case. As you have been told so many times now.

Yes you have asserted many times that the rule doesn’t apply to the very ancient past, ……. But you haven’t supported your assertion.

 

[leroy]

Your comment showed that you have misunderstood what Natural Selection is.

Predators vs preys have nothing to do with Natural Selection; it doesn’t affect populations.

If anything the mistake was made by ajarntham


Who believes that an arm race between prays and predators is a necessary consequence in all possible environments.

 

[leroy]

I'm saying this would apply to any sufficiently simple organism.

I'm saying your "rule" of "sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't", only applies to the middle section of the spectrum of complexity - not across the board like you keep pretending

I would say that the rule would not apply just for the simples possible organism, once you are a little bit more complex (say 10% more complex) there would always be a possibility of decreasing simplicity and beneficiating form it, or a decrease could also be neutral

Why wouldn’t this be true? If an organism has extra stuff that is increasing the energy requirements why wouldn’t there be selective pressures to simple loose that stuff?

]I have no idea what you are talking about.

I am almost sure that you have claimed to be a neutralist in the past, so are you? Or perhaps I am confusing you with another user

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did you even read your own sources?

Yes.

If anything what your own sources suggest is that ancient “pre prokaryotic” life evolved slower than modern microbes.

That is the author's paper hypothesis, yes. And he concludes from this hypothetical that life is 10 billion years old and that life must have arrived here through panspermia after it originated elsewhere in the univere. And the reason he concludes that, is because he otherwise cannot account for the complexity of early life. But the Koonin hypothesis, which is supported by computer simulations using genetic algorithms and which we also see trends of in experiments like Lenski's E.coli, is that life achieved that complexity relatively fast.

And as you can see below the paper, none of the reviewers actually agree with his hypothesis and even accuse him of using data poorly.

So we can learn several things from this paper:

- life was relatively complex early on in life's history
- his "steady increase of complexity" requires him to push back abiogenesis 10 billion years.
- he is being loose with the data because he doesn't take into account an environment with little to no competition and pre-prokaryote-only lifeforms

The main point however, is that you need to remember in support of what point the reference was provided... And that is that life was already complex relatively early on and that this requires an explanation.
There are many good reasons and good evidence to support the explanation that in the beginning, there's an evolutionary bias towards increasing complexity. And as you can see from the reviews from the paper above: alternative explanations aren't.

But don’t worry for the sake of simplicity, lets simple assume that evolution was faster in the ancient past.

This is a misrepresentation.
Evolution wasn't really "faster". There was rather a bias towards increasing complexity, due to the nature of the environment, the lack of competition and the fact that all existing was on the bottom end of the spectrum of complexity levels (which means that the only direction to go is "up"), etc.

Or maybe life has always been complex, nearly as complex as modern day microbes, do you have any good reason to dispute these explanation?

Phylogenetics, the nature of evolution (as concluded from experiments with both life as well as with computer simulations) and chemistry.

Because you haven’t provide any source that supports (what you call) a non linear evolution.tah is why itis hard to accept

Nonlinear simply means that organisms tend towards an average, but there would still be sparks of complexity and sparks of simplicity, if you have a different understanding on what linear means then provide a source that supports your view

Sure, but here's the thing... we're talking about evolution. A gradual progression which can't simply take steps back and "go back to the drawing board". At some point you are going to end up with what your ilk has labeled "irreducible complexity".

This would be achieved by, as what the paper above called, a "selection period" followed by a "purification period".

Evolution can't easily simply "simplify" such structures - if at all.
Imagine the concept of humans reverting back to unicellular stage. No matter how many billions of years you have at your disposal, it simply is not going to happen.

So certainly, at some point a level of complexity is going to be reached from which it can't revert back to a simpler form.

It applies everywhere we can look, if you think that things where different tin the past (where nobody can look) the burden proof is no you

Computers simulations support this as well as stastical data from a wide variety of experiments. There is no "one piece of evidence" for this. It rather is a trend that is concluded from large amounts of data coming from various sources.

It is actually quite comparable to Punctuated Equilibrium.
First life would have found itself in an environment with no competition and PLENTY of niches just waiting to be populated. This new life would not have been optimally adapted to these niches. First life in fact never would have been subject to a rigorous selection process for a nice set of generations.....

So, just like we see in PE, when environments change and new niches open up, the same would have happened in first life. ie, a big set of potentially beneficial mutations and a rapid succession of positive selections. And since first life is already as simple as it gets, the only way was "up" in terms of complexity.

Again that at most would show that there is a bias towatds the middle, but there would still be sparks of complexity and sparks of simplicity, but feel free to provide a source that suggests otherwise.

Well, it's your ilk that came up with this "irreducible complexity" stuff. So be glad you finally have a proper use for that term. You can take it as defined by the cdesign proponentsists, with as only difference that it is not "impossible" to evolve (and actually rather common for such to evolve).

If we find “extremely complex” why wouldnt we find “extremely simple”?

Because once past a threshold into the level of the "irreducibly complex", evolution can't take it back down.

Yes you have asserted many times that the rule doesn’t apply to the very ancient past, ……. But you haven’t supported your assertion.

I, and others, have explained it multiple times now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would say that the rule would not apply just for the simples possible organism, once you are a little bit more complex (say 10% more complex) there would always be a possibility of decreasing simplicity and beneficiating form it, or a decrease could also be neutral

Except when that increase of 10% results in structures that are irreducibly complex, which is almost always the case.

Why wouldn’t this be true? If an organism has extra stuff that is increasing the energy requirements why wouldn’t there be selective pressures to simple loose that stuff?

Because it probably is there for a reason.

I am almost sure that you have claimed to be a neutralist in the past, so are you? Or perhaps I am confusing you with another user

I don't even know what a "neutralist" is.

 

[leroy]

Yes.


That is the author's paper hypothesis, yes. And he concludes from this hypothetical that life is 10 billion years old and that life must have arrived here through panspermia after it originated elsewhere in the univere. And the reason he concludes that, is because he otherwise cannot account for the complexity of early life. But the Koonin hypothesis, which is supported by computer simulations using genetic algorithms and which we also see trends of in experiments like Lenski's E.coli, is that life achieved that complexity relatively fast.

And as you can see below the paper, none of the reviewers actually agree with his hypothesis and even accuse him of using data poorly.

So we can learn several things from this paper:

- life was relatively complex early on in life's history
- his "steady increase of complexity" requires him to push back abiogenesis 10 billion years.
- he is being loose with the data because he doesn't take into account an environment with little to no competition and pre-prokaryote-only lifeforms

The main point however, is that you need to remember in support of what point the reference was provided... And that is that life was already complex relatively early on and that this requires an explanation.
There are many good reasons and good evidence to support the explanation that in the beginning, there's an evolutionary bias towards increasing complexity. And as you can see from the reviews from the paper above: alternative explanations aren't.



This is a misrepresentation.
Evolution wasn't really "faster". There was rather a bias towards increasing complexity, due to the nature of the environment, the lack of competition and the fact that all existing was on the bottom end of the spectrum of complexity levels (which means that the only direction to go is "up"), etc.




Phylogenetics, the nature of evolution (as concluded from experiments with both life as well as with computer simulations) and chemistry.



Sure, but here's the thing... we're talking about evolution. A gradual progression which can't simply take steps back and "go back to the drawing board". At some point you are going to end up with what your ilk has labeled "irreducible complexity".

This would be achieved by, as what the paper above called, a "selection period" followed by a "purification period".

Evolution can't easily simply "simplify" such structures - if at all.
Imagine the concept of humans reverting back to unicellular stage. No matter how many billions of years you have at your disposal, it simply is not going to happen.

So certainly, at some point a level of complexity is going to be reached from which it can't revert back to a simpler form.



Computers simulations support this as well as stastical data from a wide variety of experiments. There is no "one piece of evidence" for this. It rather is a trend that is concluded from large amounts of data coming from various sources.

It is actually quite comparable to Punctuated Equilibrium.
First life would have found itself in an environment with no competition and PLENTY of niches just waiting to be populated. This new life would not have been optimally adapted to these niches. First life in fact never would have been subject to a rigorous selection process for a nice set of generations.....

So, just like we see in PE, when environments change and new niches open up, the same would have happened in first life. ie, a big set of potentially beneficial mutations and a rapid succession of positive selections. And since first life is already as simple as it gets, the only way was "up" in terms of complexity.



Well, it's your ilk that came up with this "irreducible complexity" stuff. So be glad you finally have a proper use for that term. You can take it as defined by the cdesign proponentsists, with as only difference that it is not "impossible" to evolve (and actually rather common for such to evolve).



Because once past a threshold into the level of the "irreducibly complex", evolution can't take it back down.



I, and others, have explained it multiple times now.

I don’t have much to add, you claim to have sources that support your claims, but you don’t quote any of them ….

Just try to imagine the simplest possible organism, and then imagine that it (their descendants) received 10 duplications + some point mutations, And populated the oceans (each population with different variants)

What would prevent these organisms to get positive (or neutral) deletions in at least some populations every once in a while, such that on average the amount of duplications and deletions stays more less constant? ……..

What is so extraordinary and hard to believe about this? We know that deletions are sometimes positive or neutral, why would things be different in the past?

Be honest do you have any good reason to thinks that things where different in the past? Can you provide a source (and quote the relevant stuff) ?.... or would you say that the only reason why you believe in the existence of simple organisms in the ancient past is because that’s what your world view needs?

 

[leroy]

I don't even know what a "neutralist" is.

A neutralist is someone who believes that neutral mutations play a major role in the evolution of life.. So is this you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don’t have much to add, you claim to have sources that support your claims, but you don’t quote any of them ….

I explained to you that there is no single piece of evidence for it and that it rather is a conclusion from a great many pieces of evidence. I also explained to you how the process works (analogous to punctuated equilibrium, the lack of competition, a great number of different niches / habitats with different pressures that became populated as early life spread, etc)

Next to that, I quote you two papers that supported the idea that life turned relatively complex early on.

Just try to imagine the simplest possible organism, and then imagine that it (their descendants) received 10 duplications + some point mutations, And populated the oceans (each population with different variants)

With different variants, due to different selection pressures. The deep sea for example is vastly different from the undeep shore lines.

What would prevent these organisms to get positive (or neutral) deletions in at least some populations every once in a while, such that on average the amount of duplications and deletions stays more less constant?

The evolutionary trend that complexity rises relatively fast in the extremely simple, while stabilizing at "medium" complexity.

What is so extraordinary and hard to believe about this? We know that deletions are sometimes positive or neutral, why would things be different in the past?

Because the very ancient past was a vastly different kind of environment as the present or the not so ancient past in terms of competition and selection pressures. And evolution is closely related to the environment.

Be honest do you have any good reason to thinks that things where different in the past?

Euh... yes.
The earth on which life appeared is vastly different from the earth after life spread to all its corners.
A world where life first appears also has vastly different types of selection pressures as a world where life already exists and is settled in their respective niches.

Can you provide a source (and quote the relevant stuff) ?

I already did.

.... or would you say that the only reason why you believe in the existence of simple organisms in the ancient past is because that’s what your world view needs?

No. The reason I accept it, is because it is supported by the evidence, computer models and experiment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A neutralist is someone who believes that neutral mutations play a major role in the evolution of life.. So is this you?

I don't think I would call it a "major" role. But they certainly can and do play a role, sure.

There are plenty of examples where a certain trait is the result of say 2-3 mutations.
The last mutation "activates" the trait, while the mutations that came before it were neutral.
So without those neutral mutations, the last mutation wouldn't be able to consolidate those genetic sequences to "activate" the trait.

In this case, the neutral mutations were just as important as the last mutation, in the journey towards "activating" that trait.
As in: if the neutral mutations didn't occur, or didn't spread into the genepool, then the last mutation wouldn't have resulted in the activation of the trait.

So sure, neutral mutations demonstrably can play a role in the evolution of some trait.

If that is what you mean, then sure, I'm a "neutralist". And along with me, every other person that understands how such processes work.

 

[leroy]

I explained to you that there is no single piece of evidence for it and that it rather is a conclusion from a great many pieces of evidence. I also explained to you how the process works (analogous to punctuated equilibrium, the lack of competition, a great number of different niches / habitats with different pressures that became populated as early life spread, etc)

Next to that, I quote you two papers that supported the idea that life turned relatively complex early on.



With different variants, due to different selection pressures. The deep sea for example is vastly different from the undeep shore lines.



The evolutionary trend that complexity rises relatively fast in the extremely simple, while stabilizing at "medium" complexity.




Because the very ancient past was a vastly different kind of environment as the present or the not so ancient past in terms of competition and selection pressures. And evolution is closely related to the environment.




Euh... yes.
The earth on which life appeared is vastly different from the earth after life spread to all its corners.
A world where life first appears also has vastly different types of selection pressures as a world where life already exists and is settled in their respective niches.



I already did.



No. The reason I accept it, is because it is supported by the evidence, computer models and experiment.

Yes, you have explained to me lots of stuff but you haven’t supported any of your claims.

The evolutionary trend that complexity rises relatively fast in the extremely simple, while stabilizing at "medium" complexity.

That’s interesting, but proving that “sparks of complexity” could have evolved relatively fast (as your sources explain) is not enough, your burden is to show that all (or most) organism would have evolved towards an increase of the average complexity. ….particularly you would have to show that positive and neutral deletions where much more uncommon than in modern times


Care to provide a source? Please quote the relevant portions