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

[Dan From Smithville]

And natural selection always, always favored complexity over simplicity?

No. Complexity is a consequence and not demanded by the theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

What do you mean by simple? How do you know they havent? What evidence are you using to test your hypothesis? Can you provide any prior work that you are basing your claim on? Do you feel that simply claiming the simple should exist is some sort of evidence to confound the theory of evolution?

 

[Deeje]

@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?

Grabs popcorn and other supplies.......

I hope the same rules apply @leroy....no 'maybe's' or 'might have's' or 'could have's'.... OK?
Start with the first premise.....

This should be good....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Grabs popcorn and other supplies.......

I hope the same rules apply @leroy....no 'maybe's' or 'might have's' or 'could have's'.... OK?
Start with the first premise.....

This should be good....

If by "good" you mean that you have dropped any pretext that you are here for a serious, civil, adult discussion, then yes, it is "good".

Is the first premise you refer to an actual premise or the fake one you made up and keep repeating? You know. The one with the fictional, fully formed and pre-programmed cell you claim magically pops into existence. Not really worth the popcorn, but so little, if anything you have posted on this subject is.

 

[exchemist]

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?

Neither, obviously. You can see from the frubals my post attracted that what I said about your motives on this forum is a commonly shared view, and I have produced evidence in support of it.

 

[Heyo]

Grabs popcorn and other supplies.......

I hope the same rules apply @leroy....no 'maybe's' or 'might have's' or 'could have's'.... OK?
Start with the first premise.....

This should be good....

You think @leroy has the guts (and stamina) to accept the offer you declined? If so, you'll need a lot of popcorn because it will be a long process and a bit slow in the beginning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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….

No, abiogenesis doesn't say anything about what happens or happened to life after it existed. Abiogenesis doesn't address evolution and evolution doesn't address abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis only deals with the origins of first life. When the life exists, the abiogenesis chapter is closed and the evolution chapter begins.

Yes, abiogenesis research focusses on what kind of chemistry can result in simple life.
For 2 reasons:
- evolution predicts first life must have been simple
- if life is the result of chemistry, it's more likely that such chemistry results in simple life as opposed to complex life.

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.

And americans come from europe and yet there are still europeans.

Nevertheless, the single celled lifeforms you see today, are the result of some 4 billion years of evolution.

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.

Modern cells are the result of some 4 billion years of evolution.
They are "simple" compared to complex multi-cellular life forms, sure.
They are however also complex compared to their 3 billion year old ancestors.

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?

Why would it be "perfectly reasonable" to say such? Instead of just claiming it, how about you point out such environments or give *something* other then your mere opinion (which I dare say, you merely want to be true so that you can make this argument)?

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

There's no reason to think that such life is still around today. And in fact, it's quite unlikely that such life still can be around today, as the planet today is VERY VERY different from the planet on which this chemistry must have taken place. The composition of the atmosphere and water alone is already a HUGE difference.
The vast VAST majority of life that exists today, wouldn't be able to survive in the environment that existed on earth 4 billion years ago. It's very likely that the same is true in the other direction... that life that existed in the environment of 4 billion years ago, wouldn't be able to survive in the environment that exists today.

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.

Off course ancient life was simpler.
3.8 billion years of evolution is bound to add complexity. It's pretty much inevitable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How would you represent evolution?

Survive, reproduce, mutate, repeat.

It is the inevitable process that all life is necessarily subject to, by virtue of how reproduction works.

When you have systems that reproduce with modification, that pass on their slightly modified DNA to offspring and which are in competition with peers over limited resources.... then evolution is inevitable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Not sure what you mean by "dictate", but if you mean "predict", then the answer is "no".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

And I assume you know and understand very little about both subjects.
Why else would you suddenly, out of nowhere and completely out of context, suddenly start yapping about cosmology when the subject is biology?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If human beings are the ultimate evolved form of apes.

Who said anything about "ultimate forms"?
Did you just make that up?

There's no such thing in evolution as an "ultimate form".
At best, there is a "local optimum" - which is a concept in the evolution process where a species is so well adapted to the niche it inhabits, that there are no more easy evolutionary paths possible towards further improvement. This is when evolutionary change slows down. When the environment changes again, the local optimum will shift - the selection pressures will change. Now evolutionary change will speed up again (or the species will go extinct).

This is essentially what punctuated equilibrium is all about: when the environment (and thus selection pressures) stays stable, the natural selection favours the status quo (= the local optimum is reached). When the environment change, shifts in the local optimum occur and natural selection no longer favours the status quo.

Wouldn't that mean that apes should be extinct?

If apes would be extinct, then humans wouldn't exist - because humans ARE apes.
So if apes go extinct, then that would mean that there would be no more chimps, gorilla's, bonobo's, humans,... left alive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Apes should be extinct if we evolved from them

Should there still be Europeans if Americans come from europe?

The theory of cosmology also seems to have holes.

Cosmology is a field, not a theory.
The only "holes" here, seem to be in your scientific literacy. And it seems to be a pretty huge hole.

Something just doesn't appear out of no where. It had to be created.

Your ignorance on the subject, is not an argument against it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course they are gone, but why?

Evolution. In case you didn't notice... the world today is a VASTLY different place as compared to 4 billion years ago, around which abiogenesis would have occured. Any animal or plant you can think of, would not be able to survive that ancient environment. So it stands to reason that life from that time also wouldn't be able to survive today's environment.

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?

1. who says none survived? Did you search all possible corners of the world?
2. if such survived, wouldn't you expect 4 billion years of evolution to have altered those life forms quite a bit???
3. the world today is VASTLY different from the world 4 billion years ago.

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.

2 seconds worth of thinking would instantly inform you that the selection pressures today on this planet are VASTLY different from selection pressures 4 billion years ago.

 

[Deeje]

You think @leroy has the guts (and stamina) to accept the offer you declined? If so, you'll need a lot of popcorn because it will be a long process and a bit slow in the beginning.

If you can supply what I asked for then by all means go for it......I will be very interested in your presentation.....its the beginning I am looking forward to....should be wild ride...

Or it could just be more of the same old boring guesswork....

Let's see.....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok, 99% are gone, so where is the remaining 1% of species of simple cells?

99% of ALL SPECIES that EVER lived.
If you wind back time 500 million years, you won't find a SINGLE species there that still exists today.

The 1% are species that exist today. And the vast majority of them evolved in the last couple million years.

People like to say that for example crockodiles are ancient creatures. And in a sense they are. But the crocks you find today really aren't the same as the crocks you'ld find 200 million years ago.

We would call them crockodiles if we would find them, but they are NOT the same species as those we have today.

Consider chimps and humans. 2 species alive today.
A common ancestor some 7 million years ago. At that point, no humans or chimps existed. The ancestral species did - which was not a chimp and not a human.

Now, 7 million years later, that ancestral species evolved into chimps, bonobo's and humans.
These are 3 extant species that all fall under that 1%, and none of them existed 10 million years ago.
The species that existed 10 million years ago from which all 3 evolved, does not exist today.

It's like you go out of your way to misrepresent everything to make a silly argument.

I am not saying that we should find the exact type that emerge in the “primordial soup” all I am saying is that after abiogenesis there was a period of millions and millions of years where all cells where simple….

... and their activity was pretty much transforming the planet AND the environment they found themselves in. They produced oxygen as a waste product and later on, over a loooong period of gradual atmospheric change as a result, these cells gradually evolved adapting to that changing environment.

And this continued for some 3 billion+ years until multi-cellular life finally appeared... on a planet VERY VERY VERY different from the planet on which their ancestors originally came into existance.

., different “species” of simple cells happily swimming in all sorts of environments. Are we to believe that none of them survived?....why?

Because this was 3.8 billion years ago.
Species that lived 400 million years ago would already no longer be able to survive today... why would you expect species 10x older to?

So are you saying that oxygen killed all these cells? Why would that be the case? What about those who lived underwater?

The composition of water changed as well.

But listen to yourself how stubborn you are....

You yourself opened this thread by insinuating that "no selection pressure changes" would ensure that no evolution would have taken place. First, this isn't actually true - evolutionary change can, and does, still occur even when selection pressures don't change.

Second, you yourself just recognised that the early earth had little to no free oxygen. How can you sit there and claim that selection pressures didn't change, when the entire composition of the atmosphere (and the waters) changed very drastically over the 3 billion years that only single celled life existed?

Sounds like an absolutely impossible position to clinge to....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@leroy we already know that this question will be dodged in a variety of ways....brushed off....ridiculed....with accusations of ignorance and even lying......

Yeah... that's usually what happens when one posts lies, strawmen and misrepresentations of a certain topic... It gets called out.

What usually also happens afterwards, is whining from the one being called out.

but there will never be a substantiated answer to your OP.....because they have no real evidence for their first premise. It is a “best guess” and they know it....no matter how much they protest, their house of cards has no real foundations. They actually have a bigger fairy story than those who believe in an Intelligent Creator.

See? Lying again.

In the last 5 posts of yours that I replied to, I had to address this exact same strawman.
So that's 5 times in a row that I informed you about a mistake you made.
And that's 5 times in a row that you ignored it and happily repeated the lie - and then complained about people accusing you of lying.


It's absolutely pathetic.

 

[Native]

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.

There are no such things as "simple cells" as they all are electromagnetically driven and the evolution of cells in generally just depends of the available gaseous and "metallic" elements.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you serious? Who in their right mind wants to prove that the beloved theory of evolution is false?

Someone who wants to win a nobel prize and have statues, schools, villages, boulevards etc dedicated to him/her.

Off course, it's kind of hard to disprove something when it's actually accurate.

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.

Because it is a genetic fact that it happened.
I have explained this to you multiple times.

Common ancestry is not the theory. Common ancestry is a genetic fact.
Genetic change + natural selection is the actual theory (or the crux of it, anyway)

The Creation account meshes quote comfortably with what science knows, as opposed to what science assumes.

It does not. But how would you know? You categorically refuse to inform yourself even on the basics of the basics of the science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

They were the ones that filled the world with oxygen as they produced it. If you produce it yourself, there is no escaping it in the long run..........

None of these cells evolved tolerance to oxigen?

Off course they did. And those went on to evolve into all life that came after them.
If all ancient life would have failed to evolve tolerance to oxygen, then the earth today would be a lifeless barren planet.

 

[Deeje]

Yeah... that's usually what happens when one posts lies, strawmen and misrepresentations of a certain topic... It gets called out.

What usually also happens afterwards, is whining from the one being called out.



See? Lying again.

In the last 5 posts of yours that I replied to, I had to address this exact same strawman.
So that's 5 times in a row that I informed you about a mistake you made.
And that's 5 times in a row that you ignored it and happily repeated the lie - and then complained about people accusing you of lying.


It's absolutely pathetic.

I seem to see a bit of an "I" problem here......who do you think you are?

"I informed you about a mistake you made"?...where?....and who are you to correct anyone? You are an anonymous poster on an internet forum.....get a grip. You are nobody here..... Your opinion is what you express like everyone else....all duly noted and dismissed....as rubbish.