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

[TagliatelliMonster]

The issue is that "naturalists" predict that ancient cells where much simpler than modern cells
I am simply asking where are these simple cells

1. "scientists". Not "naturalists"

2. you'll find them some 3.8 billion years ago.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And natural selection always, always favored complexity over simplicity?

No.

It favors survival and reproductive succes.
It just so happens that in a lot of cases, this results in an increase of complexity.
Especially in the beginning of the process.

We see this in genetic algoritms also. The input starts simple and very quickly complexity rises at first.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sometimes complexity wins, sometimes simplicity wins and sometimes it's a draw....

And another thing evolution can't do, is go back to the drawing board. It can thus only move forward with what currently exists. It can't take steps back and "start over".

So............ Consider what you just said: sometimes it favors complexity, sometimes simplicity.
So for "first life" to still exist today in the same simple form as the original..............
Natural selection would have had to favor that original simplicity continously for 3.8 billion years.

So what you are demanding here, is basicly a scenario where natural selection did NOT favor complexity "sometimes" and simplicity "sometimes"... but rather ALWAYS simplicity and NEVER complexity, continously, without exception - as any exception would increase complexity.


So, how likely do you consider it to be, that a population remained the exact same for 3.8 billion years both in terms of complexity as in terms of overall anatomy and genetics?

What you are really asking here, is for an example where NO EVOLUTION AT ALL took place in a population for a period of 3.8 billion years.


I shouldn't have to explain to you why that is unreasonable.................

So given this at least some simple cells are expected to have survived to this date....

As I have just explained... no, not at all. The opposite... given this ( where "this" is that NS has no particular favor for complexity or simplicity, meaning that BOTH will thus occur) the original "first life" is exactly NOT expected to still exist today. Because over the course of 3.8 billion years -BOTH will have occured. Many, many times at that.

So where are the simple cells?

You'll find them 3.8 billion years ago, at the start of life on this planet.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is the first premise you refer to an actual premise or the fake one you made up and keep repeating?

The fake one she keeps repeating.
In fact, the last 5 posts of @Deeje that I responded to, all made that same strawman argument.
In every post I pointed it out to here and explained it.

In every subsequent post, she just repeated the same falsehoods.

She is a very serious case of willfull ignorance and for some reason, she insists on being wrong all the time about everything science related.

You know. The one with the fictional, fully formed and pre-programmed cell you claim magically pops into existence.

Yep, that one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.....

The beginning of evolution is a setting where life that reproduces with variation exists.

This is now subsequent post nr 6 where I have to inform you about this.

I'll bet a million dollars that there will be a 7. And 8. And 9. And....


So, when are you finally going to stop using this silly strawman?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"I informed you about a mistake you made"?...where?

In the last 7 posts I directed at you.
And I'll count this one as number 8.

...and who are you to correct anyone?

Someone who noticed your mistake. And I am by far not the only one. In this thread alone, I've seen at least 2 others point out the exact same mistake in your babbling.

You are an anonymous poster on an internet forum.....get a grip.

It doesn't matter who I am.
Strawmen are strawmen.

You are nobody here..... Your opinion is what you express like everyone else....all duly noted and dismissed....as rubbish.

That abiogenesis and evolution are two seperate fields, isn't an opinion.

Also quite interesting how you start to feel the need to engage in ad hominims.

 

[leroy]

No.

It favors survival and reproductive succes.
It just so happens that in a lot of cases, this results in an increase of complexity.
Especially in the beginning of the process.

We see this in genetic algoritms also. The input starts simple and very quickly complexity rises at first.

Sure, but usually when something simple evolves in something complex, the simple trait is kept

For example complex eyes evolved from simple eyes, but we still have simple eyes.

It is hard to belive that simple cells where never selected by natural selection nor genetic drift given the fact that presummibly there wher trillions and trilios of simple cells in all sorts of environments.

So should we call this a rere exception where the simple stuff was completely 100% overwhelmed by the complex stuff?

 

[exchemist]

In the last 7 posts I directed at you.
And I'll count this one as number 8.



Someone who noticed your mistake. And I am by far not the only one. In this thread alone, I've seen at least 2 others point out the exact same mistake in your babbling.



It doesn't matter who I am.
Strawmen are strawmen.



That abiogenesis and evolution are two seperate fields, isn't an opinion.

Also quite interesting how you start to feel the need to engage in ad hominims.

Shouldn't that be ad hominins?

 

[leroy]

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.



... 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.



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?



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....

Granted nobody is claiming that we should find the exact same specie of "simple cell" that emerged in the primordial soup


All I am saying is that given that there where presumably trillions of simple cells in all sorts of environments it seems unlikely than none survived

Even if there was selective pressure in every single environment, simple cells could have still evolved and adapted to the environment without adding complexity,

Sometimes organisms evolve complexity to adapt, sometimes they evolved simpler stuff to adapt and sometimes (usually) they simply change but without increasing nor decreasing complexity.

So statistically speaking it seems that atleast some simple cells should have survived to this date

 

[ChristineM]

Ok so do you belive that the first living things where as complex as modern E coli?.......if not then why did you even made that comment?

I believe is is a simple (single) cell and you know full well what i mean by that comment. But if you find it difficult, i meant exactly what i wrote.

 

[ChristineM]

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

I do understand, you at trying to put a spanner in the works (look it up) of evolution by dissing what you don't understand.

Can you provide evidence that prokaryotes of 3.5 billions years ago are any simpler than prokaryotes today?

Can you provide evidence that eukaryotes of 2 billion years ago are any simpler than prokaryotes today?

It is no good ignoring these single cell creatures

 

[ChristineM]

So the first cells where as complex as modern cells? Is that your claim? Answer yes or no

I will answer how i want to answer,

See my previous post, you made the OP, you prove your point

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, but...

I don't quite get how you can first acknowledge the point quoted and then follow it up with a "but...", in context of the subject, but whatever.

usually when something simple evolves in something complex, the simple trait is kept

"usually", so not always. Without even going in on the very very vague point you make here in order to have some clarity what exactly you mean... the use of the word "usually" implies "not always".

So after 3.8 billion years of evolution, it would be kind of strange that it would be "always"' instead.

For example complex eyes evolved from simple eyes, but we still have simple eyes.

Certainly "simple" in comparision with the complex.
But in any case, eyes, even simple eyes, are relatively complex as well.
And first life certainly didn't have eyes. To have eyes, even the simplest proto-eye you can think of, is ALREADY a rather major increase in complexity as compared to life's simple beginnings.

It's also rather disenginious of you to compare the selection pressure of a single trait with the selection pressure of a complete organism.

Life that is stuck for example in total darkness for some reason and continues to be so, will not have any change in selection pressures concerning the ability to see light.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't any other changes in that environment..... there's LOADS of factors here. Finding one thing that might remain the same for prolonged periods of time, doesn't say anything about the countless other variables.

It is hard to belive that simple cells where never selected by natural selection nor genetic drift given the fact that presummibly there wher trillions and trilios of simple cells in all sorts of environments.

Environments as they existed 4 billion years ago.
The earth has changed quite a lot since then, in case you weren't aware of that.

There is no place on the surface of the planet that still has the same environment as back then.
And the same pretty much goes for the oceans. I'm sure you can find some isolated volcanic vents on the ocean floor that are poor in free oxygen and which are similar to early earth conditions, but the exact same? Forget it!

It is simply unreasonable, not to say completely absurd, to assume that there is a place on this planet where a population lives which has been subject to identical and unchanged selection pressures for 3.8 billion years and where natural selection favoured the ultimate status quo and where evolution simply has NOT occured during all that time.

One would have to be quite ignorant to even suggest such an absurd idea.

So should we call this a rere exception where the simple stuff was completely 100% overwhelmed by the complex stuff?

This also gives a false idea of what really happens.

The way you phrase that, you make it look as if there is one "simple" species and then another "complex" species which overwhelms the first species.

That's what "overwhelming" means in such evolutionary context. Like homo sapiens moving into neanderthal territory "overwhelming" the already existing population of neanderthals, causing the latter's extinction.

But this is not always what happens. A species disappearing doesn't necessarily mean that the species went extinct. It can also mean that the lineage simply evolved and speciated further.

So, it's not necessarily the case that populations of "first life" were overwhelmed by populations of "further evolved life", causing the extinction of the first.

Instead, the population of the "further evolved life", is simply the evolved offspring of the population of "first life".


Consider the "americans come from europe, but there are still europeans".
What if ALL europeans moved to america?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Granted nobody is claiming that we should find the exact same specie of "simple cell" that emerged in the primordial soup

Eum.... it seems to me that you have been doing exactly that for 8 pages now.

All I am saying is that given that there where presumably trillions of simple cells in all sorts of environments

Were there? In "all sorts of environments"?
How did you conclude this?

Sounds like an assumption to me...
I for one wouldn't expect ancient earth to have been crawling with first life in every corner of the world.
In fact, I would rather expect that initially only the environment in which life could / did originate, to have been populated. That would be a single environment. Life then slowly spread around the world. But moving to such other environments, would necessarily come with evolutionary challenges, as those population would have needed to adapt to those new habitats. Selection pressures in those environments would be different from the environment where they came from.

it seems unlikely than none survived

All life that exists today, are descendends of those that survived.

Even if there was selective pressure in every single environment, simple cells could have still evolved and adapted to the environment without adding complexity,

And they probably did for a while left and right.
But we are talking about a timeframe of 3.8 billion years here......................

That's quite a LOOOONG time to remain "the same" and not have any selective pressures change.
An absurdly long time. So absurdly long that it's a claim that can't really be taken seriously - especially if we also consider just how much our planet has changed since then (and ironically, how much of this change was actually the result of life's activity....)

Sometimes organisms evolve complexity to adapt, sometimes they evolved simpler stuff to adapt and sometimes (usually) they simply change but without increasing nor decreasing complexity.

But your OP point requires complexity to NEVER increase for BILLIONS of years!

Consider how absurd that is............

Let's take a look at the Lenski experiment with E coli.
12 isolated populations. The combination of 2 mutations in 1 population enabled a trait that allowed them to metabolise citrate, giving them a clear competitive advantage over their peers as they now had more food resources. Within only a handfull of generations, there was a population explosion. The trait completely dominated the population in a relatively short time. That's how it goes when you have simple organisms with a short generation time.

Such things would have happened COUNTLESS times in life's 3.8 billion year history.

So statistically speaking it seems that atleast some simple cells should have survived to this date

No. Statistically speaking, the exact opposite.

 

[Heyo]

Shouldn't that be ad hominins?

Or ad hominids?

 

[ajarntham]

So should we call this a rere exception where the simple stuff was completely 100% overwhelmed by the complex stuff?

If you're talking about the first things which could reasonably be called living, then such cells would presumably not have had the ability to pursue prey or evade predators; those capacities would require quite a bit of further evolution. When such more complex cells did evolve, capable of sensing the presence of a good meal and ingesting it, why wouldn't they completely overwhelm the simplest cells? The simplest cells pretty much by definition would not have evolved the capacity to escape or defend themselves against such threats.

 

[leroy]

I do understand, you at trying to put a spanner in the works (look it up) of evolution by dissing what you don't understand.

Can you provide evidence that prokaryotes of 3.5 billions years ago are any simpler than prokaryotes today?

Can you provide evidence that eukaryotes of 2 billion years ago are any simpler than prokaryotes today?

It is no good ignoring these single cell creatures

Noooooooo I cant provide evidence......

That is exactly my point, there is no evidence that simple cells ever lived, so any model that predicts that life was simple in the past (much simpler than modern microbes) should be taken with skepticism and doubt. This thread is directed for those who support that kind of model.

If you don’t support such kind of models then we both agree, this thread is not for you, the answer would be simple we don’t see simple cells because there has never been such thing as a simple cell.


The question that you asked (in red) should be answered by those who claim that life was simpler in the past…………and I bet that nobody will answer it successfully.

 

[leroy]

I will answer how i want to answer,

See my previous post, you made the OP, you prove your point

What a surprise, another atheist unable to answer with a simple yes or no

Do you claim that ancient life was simple? (simpler than modern microbes) answer yes or no

Just kitting, we both know that you will find creative ways to avoid a direct answer.

 

[leroy]

I don't quite get how you can first acknowledge the point quoted and then follow it up with a "but...", in context of the subject, but whatever.



"usually", so not always. Without even going in on the very very vague point you make here in order to have some clarity what exactly you mean... the use of the word "usually" implies "not always".

So after 3.8 billion years of evolution, it would be kind of strange that it would be "always"' instead.



Certainly "simple" in comparision with the complex.
But in any case, eyes, even simple eyes, are relatively complex as well.
And first life certainly didn't have eyes. To have eyes, even the simplest proto-eye you can think of, is ALREADY a rather major increase in complexity as compared to life's simple beginnings.

It's also rather disenginious of you to compare the selection pressure of a single trait with the selection pressure of a complete organism.

Life that is stuck for example in total darkness for some reason and continues to be so, will not have any change in selection pressures concerning the ability to see light.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't any other changes in that environment..... there's LOADS of factors here. Finding one thing that might remain the same for prolonged periods of time, doesn't say anything about the countless other variables.



Environments as they existed 4 billion years ago.
The earth has changed quite a lot since then, in case you weren't aware of that.

There is no place on the surface of the planet that still has the same environment as back then.
And the same pretty much goes for the oceans. I'm sure you can find some isolated volcanic vents on the ocean floor that are poor in free oxygen and which are similar to early earth conditions, but the exact same? Forget it!

It is simply unreasonable, not to say completely absurd, to assume that there is a place on this planet where a population lives which has been subject to identical and unchanged selection pressures for 3.8 billion years and where natural selection favoured the ultimate status quo and where evolution simply has NOT occured during all that time.

One would have to be quite ignorant to even suggest such an absurd idea.



This also gives a false idea of what really happens.

The way you phrase that, you make it look as if there is one "simple" species and then another "complex" species which overwhelms the first species.

That's what "overwhelming" means in such evolutionary context. Like homo sapiens moving into neanderthal territory "overwhelming" the already existing population of neanderthals, causing the latter's extinction.

But this is not always what happens. A species disappearing doesn't necessarily mean that the species went extinct. It can also mean that the lineage simply evolved and speciated further.

So, it's not necessarily the case that populations of "first life" were overwhelmed by populations of "further evolved life", causing the extinction of the first.

Instead, the population of the "further evolved life", is simply the evolved offspring of the population of "first life".


Consider the "americans come from europe, but there are still europeans".
What if ALL europeans moved to america?

Granted, “usually” doesn’t means always, the point is that we are talking about many populations of simple cells.

Given how evolution is supposed to work, we would expect that “sometimes” the complex microbes would have been selected by NS, sometimes natural selection would prefer simple organism and sometimes it would be a draw where both could survive and coexist happily. …this is what we actually observe and this is how selection works, (agree yes or no)

Sure some organisms Europe died because of humans (neantherdals for example) but others flourished because of humans, and others (most of them) didn’t really care…so shouldn’t the same happened with simple life?.......

So can we end this conversation and conclude that the lack of simple cells is something unexpected? (given current naturalistic models of abiogenesis and evolution) you don’t have to drop your naturalism, you don’t have to drop any of your favorite theories all you have to do is admit that your “theories” have a small incorrect prediction.

I mean honestly all I am saying is that:

In some environments simple cells would have died because of complex microbes, in some environments they would have flourished over complex microbes, and in some environments they would have coexisted happily. ¿what is so extraordinary and hard to accept about this?

 

[leroy]

Sounds like an assumption to me...
I for one wouldn't expect ancient earth to have been crawling with first life in every corner of the world.
In fact, I would rather expect that initially only the environment in which life could / did originate, to have been populated. That would be a single environment. Life then slowly spread around the world. But moving to such other environments, would necessarily come with evolutionary challenges, as those population would have needed to adapt to those new habitats. Selection pressures in those environments would be different from the environment where they came from.
.

Sure granted, but organisms can evolve (adapt to other environments) without adding complexity, these simple cells likely changed and adapted to other environments, and at least in some cases they were capable of adapting without adding complexity……and even in some cases adaptation could have been achieved by reducing complexity. ¿why is this so hard to believe?

Again this is how adaptation works, sometimes organisms adapt by increasing complexity sometimes they adapt by reducing complexity and sometimes they simple change but without any increase nor decrease in complexity……..this is what we actually observe today.

So why assuming that things were different in the past? Why not simply admitting that something unexpected and unusually happened to simple cells?