• 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!

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

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We are talking about thausands of environments, did complex cells outperformed simples cells allllll the time?
No, I borrowed the "complex" from you. ;)
Evolution simplifies all the time. Whatever confers an advantage tends to be selected for.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That's not how evolution by natural selection works.

Natural selection has no intrinsic direction towards higher ("more complex) organisms.
I wasn't implying that it did.
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?
Couldn't compete; couldn't maintain adequate environmental fit.
Extinct, like most organisms that have ever existed.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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?
Better....
So has religion posited a mechanism, or even looked for one?
Or has it discouraged any such inquiry?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
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.
Which country are you from? Do you have schools there?
 

epronovost

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

Once something disapears, it cannot come back in an identical form. These proto-bacteria, at some point in biological history, disapeared as did the conditions that saw them arise in the first place (the Earth climate and environment has changed tremendously in 3 billion years). Now, the only thing close to those proto-bacteria are extremophile bacteria as well as protein chains that arise naturally. Both those things survive in deep sea volcanic vents where conditions are similar to that of the primeval Earth. Note that some substructures of those proto-bacteria still exist today within more complex bacteria and unicellular organisms.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
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.

If really there were Mammoths, where are they now?

Ciao

- viole
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Really? And none of these simple cells lived in the deep ocean or underground or in any ecosystem free of oxigen?
Oxygen is a small molecule and very pervasive. There are few places on earth, underground or in the deep ocean that aren't oxygenated or were at some time in the past.
None of these cells evolved tolerance to oxigen?
Of course they did. We are here. We wouldn't be without that evolution.
But the evolved cells aren't primitive any longer. Duh.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
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?
That is like saying that dinosaurs were overwhelmed by mammals.

So where are the dinosaurs?

Extinctions happen. 99% of all species are extinct, sometime whole orders disappeared. simple cells just happen to be within the 99%.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
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?
Because there are no environments that have been free of oxygen for the last 500 million years, together with the right temperature, pressure, availability of nutrients, lack of predators, etc.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
Why should they be extinct? Where in the theory of evolution does it say ancestral groups have to go extinct?

Why throw in cosmology in a discussion about biology?

Do you know what an argument from incredulity is?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
@leroy, I make you the offer @Deeje gracefully declined to teach you about evolution, from the ground up. You seem to lack reasoning skills (evidenced by questions you could have answered yourself by thinking about it for a minute) but you also seem to be less indoctrinated.
All your questions will be answered to your satisfaction but we will have to build up from the ground. You got to learn to walk before you start to run.
Your gain would be to understand evolutionary biology but the risk is that that knowledge may destroy your dearly held religious beliefs.
My gain would be to improve my teaching skills.

Deal?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Are you serious? o_O 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.
we already know you do not understand, but thank you for the additional evidence.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Since you asked.....:D

Our scenario goes back to the creation of the universe itself as the single act of an energy source that is incomprehensible even to science.
Since the Creator takes credit for that act, it stands to reason that he had a purpose in its creation, since highly intelligent minds never do anything for no good reason.

The Creator tells us that he prepared a “formless and waste” planet in one small galaxy, in one small solar system, to further his project. (which I believe will result in the eventual population of the whole universe with many diverse life forms that we already see here on earth. If its one thing that Creator relishes, its variety.)

He altered this planet's atmosphere and divided its waters in order to support life. Genesis describes in simple terms (for an uneducated people) what he did, and the order in which living things appeared in the periods of time he allotted for each creative period, which he simply called “days”. In describing “evening and morning” for each of those creative periods, he gave away the fact that they were not 24 hour days but possibly eons of undetermined time. A literal “day” would have gone from evening to evening, not evening to morning. As one "day" concluded, the dawn of another "day" began. With each period was a closing declaration that all was going to plan. On the final day, God changed his declaration to "very good".....he was well pleased with his accomplishments. The seventh "day" began, but there is no concluding declaration because we believe that it is still running, sorting out all the difficult problems that would have arisen if free willed beings decided to misuse their gift. It too will end well as God's purpose for his universe will proceed as he wills it to.

So first of all we remove the 24 hour nonsense. Science knows that the earth and the universe are ancient...but they also know that it all had a beginning. We see the Creator as the ‘Beginner’.

The order of creation in Genesis also shows remarkable accuracy in the fact that living things began to exist in the ocean. So marine creatures and flying creatures were our first animate organisms.
The one thing that Genesis does not tell us is when microscopic life began, but science can fill in those blanks.

“Light” was the first thing that Genesis states as being there from the beginning. All life requires light and what light produces....so light and water were there at the beginning and what followed next was vegetation...also a living organism, but not classed by Genesis with animate creatures which came a very long time later. Vegetation requires soil and we know that soil is teeming with bacteria in large variety.....all there for a purpose....a very important purpose since vegetation was to support all life in one way or another.

I see a pattern emerge here that gels with my logic as a 'spiritual' person.
The first life, invisible and inanimate was there long before the animate creatures, who all had their habitats prepared well in advance of their creation. No "flukes" or suggestions are necessary. Those first cells, needed to promote the lives of other living things, were created like everything else...with a purpose and with sustainability and adaptability already built in.

Everything meshes with what Genesis says...you just have to study what it actually says rather than what you think it says in a cursory reading. I find no difficulty meshing what the Bible says with what science knows. (not what it assumes to fit a theory)
If it is incomprehensible, then how do you know what it is?

You haven't the first clue about science, so how can you mesh it with anything? You desperately create straw man arguments in an attempt to just keep up. You are good at ignoring though.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
That is up to all of you...but remember that Jesus said "few" are on the road to life (Matthew 7:13-14)....that means that the "many" are on the wrong road, which is a dead end....but its up to us what road we choose. Its a cramped and narrow road with obstacles and restrictions, verses a multi-laned super highway where you can do whatever you wish. What do you think the majority would choose? o_O



This world is the battleground with two gods vying for our worship....no matter what we choose to believe, only one is the true God, offering the truth (often an inconvenient one because it challenges our perception of freedom) and the other is a pretender, whose MO is clever deception designed to entrap even those who consider themselves to be well educated and beyond any attempt to manipulate their thinking. (1 Corinthians 1:18-21; 1 Corinthians 3:18-20)

What we are witnessing right now is a dramatic shift in the way the world will be governed. We are being set up for a new form of rulership. Democracy is showing itself to be yet another failed system of humans ruling other humans, but the old adage, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" has never been far from all the failed systems that have gone before.

The Bible predicted all of these world powers from Babylon through to the present day.....this is the "time of the end", prophesied by Daniel 500 years before Christ was even born. There are no more human rulerships in his prophesy beyond the present world powers. The biggest battle is not far away and it will involve every nation on earth (Daniel 2:44).....you can believe it or not...but this is what the Bible foretells.
Remind me. How many times have you all declared the end?
 
Top