Agnostic.com

51 3

Maybe I'm looking for the impossible.

Over the last 5 or 6 years, I have made a serious effort to better understand evolutionary theory. I know - that's a HUGE thing to tackle, but I feel like I have mostly been taking the science on faith.

I have taken a fair number of science courses at the undergraduate level during my lifetime (biochemistry, organic chemistry, microbiology, cellular biology, human anatomy & physiology, pathophysiology, and even a course titled "Major Ideas in Biology" which spent considerable time on the basics of evolutionary theory). However, I am still having some difficulty getting my head around how all of the various chemical, physical, and biological concepts have combined to produce something as complex and intricate as the DNA molecule.

My limited science education is pathetically insufficient to grasp how molecular coding for specifically folded proteins can give rise to an entire, complex organism such as Homo sapiens. Going beyond that, to try to understand how a few basic elements combined under just the right circumstances to create the earliest precursors for DNA, and then the eventual formation of the first rudimentary DNA molecule, is even further beyond my education.

I understand the concept of deep time, and enough fundamental chemistry, to have a basic foundation for understanding evolution, but I have realized that one really has to devote his life to the study of evolution to actually understand it at the molecular level.

Is anyone able to give a simplified explanation of how such a complex and intricate molecule was able to form from the "primordial soup" of early Earth, and the basic principles of how that single molecule, and all of its successive mutations, then led to the complex lifeforms we see today? I get the concept of cellular specialization, but the incredible coordination needed at the cellular and molecular levels almost seem like they had to have been purposefully designed. Obviously, I am missing something, as I do not believe in "Intelligent Design", but I just can't seem to work out the intricacy of complex life from my fragmented knowledge of the sciences.

Piratefish 7 June 28
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

51 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

You do not have a problem with the "theory" of evolution. You have a problem with how life itself exists.
When it comes right down to it, it is impossible to explain existence. How did carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen come into existence?
Sure, it's hard enough to figure out how the DNA molecule formed out of raw materials. But where did the raw materials come from? Where did everything come from?
This is a gigantic mystery and until some future date, if ever, it will remain a mystery.

6

You don't need to have a PhD in aerodynamics to know that planes can fly. Same with evolution.

You want a simplified explanation: Given trillions of stars in the universe with many planets each and billions of years (deep time) of chain reactions of cause and effect, everything that can possible happen, will eventually happen. Everything is a chain of cause and effect events. This causes variety and diversity. Eventually, the right conditions will cause molecules to form proteins and eventually, with generations of mutations, DNA. 🙂

4

Everyone makes that jump from zero to full on complex. But it's really a staggering amount of time and "the drunkards walk" evolution isn't smart, it just has a lot of time and a shitload of material to work with.

@Allamanda I'm not nearly as interested in the period between the first atom and the first complex molecule as I am the much shorter period between the first DNA molecule and the first of our species. That shrinks the time scale down to numbers my brain is used to dealing with.

3

I'm not certain and I'm not a scientist. What I do know for sure is that we did not get here because of the invisible man. Creation does not disprove evolution and I'm not sure the big bang had a sound. I was not there.

3

Evolution is really quite simple. Just read Darwin's "Origin of Species". It's really an easy read and explains it well.

Also, keep in mind that Evolution does not address the question of where life originally came from, just how it changes over time.

3

You have clearly thought about this a great deal and that is commendable. I think the key is evolutionary biology is time...time beyond our ability to imagine. Millions and millions of years.
However, we see evolution in real terms every day. Sit a group of 20 years olds in front of a 30 page academic paper and they have no idea how to get through it. Bullet point the same paper on PPt or better still condense into a 'twitter' sized paragraph and they've got it.
Time and miniscule changes through each generation (even cellular and molecular generations) gives us what we have today. We know it wasn't a god or intelligent design because of the errors. We would not accept the amount of flaws if the human body was a car. We are an evolutionary work in progess. The majority of adults 40+ have some problems with eyesight. Backs are notoriously dodgy. The upright thing was never meant to be permanent.
If you see evolution as a straight line from A-B. From the primodial soup to you, then with respect, you will get in a muddle.
Teaching anatomy and physiology reminds me daily how complex the human body is but also how flawed it is.
Let me put it this way. I sew, I buy bits of fabric, needles, pins, zips, etc etc..then I make a pattern. Its invariably wrong. I remake it. Then I cut out...might make a mistake, back to the drawing board, lots in the bin. Then I make something up. First fitting, lots of alterations. Back to my sewing table...more alterations. Finally I create something wearable. Except, I am never quite sure. Will it hold up...will the fabric take the first wash, etc etc...
Given time the process of creating the flawed muddled disasterous life we have is possible and certainly not requiring divine intervention. If it was, I want my money back!

Amisja Level 8 June 29, 2019
3

For me the concept is not that difficult to comprehend. It seems to be the mathematics of chaos and probability working together. It is really not a question of how could it happen but given the conditions and a significant number of attempts - it had to happen and it could come out no other way. Had the conditions been different in any step along the way the results would not be as they are today.

I passed that level of of satisfaction years ago. It just keeps pulling me further and further in, with each new discovery raising more questions than answers. And I feel more than a little hypocritical for taking much of what scientists tell us on simple faith. I have enormous faith in the scientific process and brilliant minds, but certain major concepts feel important for me to understand. Evolution at the molecular level is one them. But molecular biology isn't exactly a subject one can dabble in.

@Piratefish - I don't think you are embracing the nearly infinite random attempts it takes to reach perfection - remember the analogy of a monkey with a typewriter will write War and Peace if it is given enough attempts to randomly hammer away at the keyboard - yet evolution involves that which adapts to the conditions will replicate and pass on it's genetic advantage - however small - yet many small genetic advantages add up to the only result that the conditions can allow. This works for all steps - including pre-biological organic chemistry.

@Piratefish - it is not easy to embrace the near infinite yet geologic time requires that we do...

@Piratefish , @FrostyJim -- Plus it's not an entirely random process -- successes accumulate.

I've seen it compared to playing Yahtzee. Turns start out as random rolls then the player keeps the most beneficial dice and re-rolls the rest. If the player just randomly re-rolled, they wouldn't score very well but the selection mechanism makes a huge difference.

Another similar process can be 'Simulated Annealing' in problem solving. Very subtle 'insoluble' problems can be 'solved'.
The classic example is the traveling salesperson trying to find the shortest or fastest route to cover all their stops. To 'solve' the problem, the person starts with any old route that covers the stops (even if it's far from optimal). Then they introduce 'random' changes. Each time a change improves the outcome they keep it. (Computers happen to be great at this.)
Eventually the route will approach an optimal solution. Will they find the absolute best solution? Likely not -- it can be very difficult to tell. Maybe they just settled on a local max/min. But the point is they found a 'solution'.

Do these processes sound familiar? They find workable solutions to very difficult problems using autonomous or semi-autonomous methods without worrying about absolute optimums. It reminds me an awful lot of what we see in 'Evolution'(tm).

Update Additional: BTW... I left out a nuance in my description of Simulated Annealing. One way to discourage getting trapped in local min/max outcomes is to every now and then arbitrarily accept changes even when they don't immediately improve the outcome. That gives the process a way to sometimes escape locals and try again. Maybe the new 'solution' will beat what was possible with the local.

3

IMO your lack of understanding is totally rational. My college training in biology is limited to a single class in botany where evolution was presented as a cut and dried, fully understood theory, not subject to further arguments. The DNA molecule had recently been discovered and biologists were brimming with confidence. It was all a simple matter of random mutations in the DNA strands followed by natural selection. I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

About fifteen years ago I read “What Darwin Got Wrong”, a book which challenges that simplistic view of evolution, and which is backed by hard evidence. Since then the topic of epigenetics has crept out of the closet and is occasionally brought out from under the rug, even in polite company.

[google.com]

IMO life is a profound mystery and anyone who claims to fully understand it is blowing smoke. The idea of intelligent design is certainly a possibility and should not be rejected out of hand. Breeders direct the course of evolution all the time. Isn’t that intelligent design? The concept of Universal Consciousness, entertained by various physicists, fits the intelligent design idea well. Those physicists were not talking about some magical, supernatural thing, but a real part of nature not yet understood by humans.

Not only is evolution a confusing mystery. All of reality is an overwhelming mystery, a miracle of the first order. The only rational response that I can see is one of deep awe, appreciation and reverence.

It's not so much about understanding life, or even its origin. It's about understanding how a specific molecule has single-handedly determined the entire physical process we have termed "evolution". I want to better understand evolution from a molecular and cellular level. How it started is incidental, but I am interested in also knowing how a few basic elements combined with increasing complexity, following very strict mathematical and physical principles, to eventually evolve into a complex, self-aware, highly intelligent organism that is able to contemplate how it originated, and even the idea of existence itself.

@Piratefish It does seem very complex and mysterious. You have a living cell with the dna molecule lying there all coiled up, encoded with all these instructions. It seems improbable that those complex instructions could be obeyed by the cell mechanistically. It would be like a city building itself based on a set of plans rolled up in a construction shack somewhere. It almost seems necessary that a conscious mind read those plans. I doubt it can be understood in mechanistic terms.

Rupert Sheldrake has some ideas on the subject but of course he is ridiculed by the science establishment.

@WilliamFleming What I have a difficult time with is how perfectly many trillions of things have to line up and cooperate for the DNA "instructions" to actually produce such a complex organism. Then, going a step further, how that symbiosis made consciousness possible. It's all so much to grasp; one needs quite a bit of knowledge and education to put all the various pieces together. Understanding the mechanics behind evolution is a very deep endeavor which requires a sound, multidisciplinary approach.

@Piratefish I’m sure that I’ll never understand it, and I doubt if anyone in the world understands it.

I don’t see how it’s possible for conscious awareness to be produced by matter. The very idea seems absurd to me. I lean toward thinking that consciousness is primary, and everything else has to be understood in terms of consciousness. Have you read about the conscious realism of cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman?

3

Try to wrap your head around this: the Theory of Evolution has nothing ( nada, zero, empty set) to do with the origin of life. You claim you have studied evolution for 5-6 year and you still don't know this?

Now you have to prove that you are not a troll.

Just what aspect of life appears designed that could not have evolved, as every bit of biochemical data confirms?

What is bizarre is how Christians (et al) always make the argument by incredulity, but never apply even a fraction of the same skepticism toward their idiotic dogma. Dogma which is readily disproved by science, and just as quickly trashed by basic philosophical inquiry.

Hey, thanks for being a dick about this.

I'm not questioning the origin of life. I'm questioning how a specific molecule is able to single-handedly determine the entire evolutionary process. How that molecule formed is only incidental to what I am trying to understand: the chemical and cellular basis of evolution.

But thanks again for being such a penis. At least you cleared up for me what kind of person you are.

I'm always happy to help. Of course, adding ad hominem to ignorant incredulity defines who you are too.

Maybe you could have shown you are not a troll by answering my question ( what you think is designed?). It truly is the tragedy of our time that folks like yourself either don't care about the implications of evolution or are unable to understand it. Or is it unwilling to understand it.

Some aspects of reality will always elude our comprehension. How life works will retain mysteries we'll never solve, but that evolution happened is not up for debate.

Maybe, on a personal level, you should ask what gap you want to fill and why.

@racocn8 I'm not the one who called someone a troll and tried to insult their intelligence. I told you what I am looking for, all you want to do is act superior. In my book, that makes you an asshole. Not blocking you, but I have zero respect for you.

3

You say you understand the concept of deep time but like everyone else in the world the sheer size of the numbers are incomprehensible to our brains. There's no reason for us to be able to distinguish between 10,000 and 10,000,000,000 on a practical level. - so we really have issues comprehending the sheer size difference between numbers we can visualize and those we can't. I think that's where you're running into issues.

Add in the rapidity that chemical reactions can happen with and the sheer scale of those reactions on the surface of a planet (combined with different levels of energy input) and you get an unimaginably high number of "dice rolls" to find a system that actually works. Quintillions, since that's the highest number I can think of ATM, but even higher in reality.

Fairly complex organic molecules have been found in space and appear to form relatively easily, so the basic blocks are there. It's not actually starting from scratch, so there's that.

Hope this helps.

1of5 Level 8 June 28, 2019

Thanks for bringing up the clouds of space.. Formaldehyde has been found drifting between the stars, a fairly complex molecule, lots of other complex and organic stuff between the stars. Carbon too, How the hell did they get there, it's the same question as the original question of piratefish.

@starwatcher-al seems silly to say all you have to do is add energy and these complex molecules form, but that seems to be the case. Life itself is just another way that excess energy is used and stored, when you get down to it.

@1of5 I suspect that you are right on, altho we really do not have an understanding of the minute process

@starwatcher-al it's the ultimate in navel gazing - we're the universe trying to understand itself. Pretty cool, really.

@1of5 Yup, and when we all get back to the "force" we'll understand again. ??

2

I would suggest you step back from the deeper biological sciences for a bit. They tend to get very detailed into how small microcosms of biology work. You could learn them all and still not have a satisfactory answer. I would suggest you start taking a look into physics and cosmology. Not so much the math in them but the theoretical concepts. I suggest this because as you learn to understand them you will be able to start to draw parallels into biology. At least I did. It might assuage your frustration of not being able to completely wrap your head around evolution as well. For one thing you must get comfortable with as a physicist is knowing that what you know is such a finite amount of knowledge compared with the amount of knowledge to be learned.

Science is an infinte puzzle. Sometimes we can get a good idea of parts of the picture even when we haven't pulled the right pieces out of the pile yet.

I agree that science understanding is not a linear and completely dependable process -dependable that is upon the amount of effort put in. Often you have to go through agonies before something clicks into place. Best aid of all is an overview of the kind of processes you are trying to understand preferably on one page or field of view. Only certain 'giants' can compile these.

2

As a few others have pointed out, you are moving from evolution to abiogenesis. A decent starting point would probably be the Miller-Urey experiment and following the trail from there. Of course, the next step you will probably run into after you feel comfortable enough with abiogenesis (ok, you probably won't as we are still hashing out this area) is "how did we get molecules," followed by "how did we get atoms," and "how did we get anything," and probably even "what are virtual particles and why does that matter (pun intended)." While these things are often treated as separate fields, they all run into each other. We keep them in silos on the same farm so we don't become overwhelmed by the pure mass of knowledge they cover. It's like eating a whale, you have to do it bite by bite. I know, not what you are after, but wanted to prepare you for the road ahead.
To be quick, you might want to try the book: "Abiogenesis: How Life Began. The Origins and Search for Life" It covers a lot of ground in small bites to whet your appetite.

Not at all. Either I haven't explained myself well enough, or a few people got it twisted. I am interested in knowing the connection between molecular and cellular biology, and how that literally is the entire driving force behind evolution.

@Piratefish Technically speaking, molecular and cellular biology (or the aspects talked about therein) are not literally the entire driving force behind evolution. There are many factors that drive evolution, e.g. weather, climate, geology, topography, natural disasters, impact of species on each other, even dumb luck can play a part (though usually not as prominent across a species, more for recessive features that pop up as a breeze that would carry pheromones from A to B instead of from C to B, thus propagating the genetics from AB instead of CB and an assumption of their offspring being successful in passing on their genetics as well as that combo being well suited for the environment that any successive generations face). So the driving forces behind evolution happen from the micro environment to the macro environment (as far as factors go, e.g. resistance to diseases to resistance against the elements).
If you are talking about going from "chemical soup" (my not-so eloquent way of saying it) to primitive life, that is one field. If you are looking at how we have gone from simple organisms to complex organisms, that will be another field (or few, depending on how the academics carve up the territory). I assume you are likely looking for how DNA is expressed differently in different organisms that cause speciation. You might try this video from UC Berkley,


There are also courses on edX (one from MIT that I think fits what you are after, maybe) that you can go through. I am tempted to think that you are asking a big question and hoping for a simple answer, and that ain't gonna happen.
2

You might find these of interest and they may provide impetus for further study. Forgive the simplistic nature of the first two, but what is said there is important to understanding of mRNA structuring.

2

Abiogenesis is not evolution. Your problem is with the beginnings of life and not the mechanism of speciation through natural selection.

Not what I am talking about at all. The DNA molecule is imperative to evolution. You cannot have evolution without it. Period. Understanding the molecule, and how it formed is a necessary first step in setting the stage for understanding evolution at the molecular and cellular level. These are the very basis on which evolution is built. Maybe you are comfortable with compartmentalizing these inextricably linked concepts, but the way my mind works does not allow me to do the same.

2

There is a great book called "Biology" by Miller and Levine.
it's one of the best up to date on that subject.
Kennith R Miller is a renowned professor of Biology at Brown University.
Miller is also one of the main people at the Dover trials, where his testimony was key in showing irreducible complexity to be a load of BS, and just another word used by creationists to try and say intelligent design is an actual alt to modern Science.

With a bit of irony, Miller is also a Roman Catholic. But he really knows his stuff about cellular biology and Evolution.

2

It seems to me that your problem is in understanding the origin of life rather than the evolution. Religious organizations have claimed divine origin followed by biological evolution. Origin of life on earth is not scientifically settled.

Not what I am talking about at all. The DNA molecule is imperative to evolution. You cannot have evolution without it. Period. Understanding the molecule, and how it formed is a necessary first step in setting the stage for understanding evolution at the molecular and cellular level. These are the very basis on which evolution is built. Maybe you are comfortable with compartmentalizing these inextricably linked concepts, but the way my mind works does not allow me to do the same.

2

There's a big difference in accepting the conclusions or teachings of science, and the type of blind, willfully unquestioning faith of religion. There are actually good, logical reasons to trust scientists, and you don't have to rely on absurdities to do so.

Of course, anyone is better off learning more about evolution or any other theory, and you are more knowledgeable if you do so. I don't mean we shouldn't try to do that as best we can. But I'm just saying that your "faith" in science is grounded in reason.

2

Science does not discount the theory that the first dna (or precursor to dna) came from a meteorite from space (or some other external force) .. there is just no proof of it.

Regardless of the origin, it still formed somewhere. And how it functions to direct all of the complex systems by simply coding for how to fold proteins is absolutely mind boggling to someone with an inquisitive mind and a limited science education.

@irascible Just want to better understand two linked concepts:

  1. How a very specific molecule single-handedly determines the entire physical process we call evolution. So, basically, the molecular and cellular basis for evolution, and

  2. How a few basic elements combined in increasingly complex ways to eventually produce a very complex, self-aware, highly intelligent organism capable of contemplating all of existence. Or, as some people have put it "hydrogen becoming aware of itself". Except I want to understand as much of that process as I can, at least beginning at the molecular and cellular levels. Afterall, these are the very basis for evolution (see number 1 above).

2

Not impossible just very complex and explainable the kind and educated people here will gladly help it's why I love this place

bobwjr Level 10 June 28, 2019
2

This is the god of the gaps reasoning. If you do not know what this means look it up .

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I want to understand the chemical and cellular basis for evolution. I am mystified by how a specific molecule can single-handedly direct the process which we termed "evolution". There is no "god of the gaps" there.

I'm also curious as to how basic elements have organized in increasing complexity to eventually become a sentient organism that adapts to its physical environment and contemplates things like infinity and existence. But that goes well beyond the theory of evolution.

2

So the most basic step is the most important (I have to leave out the details because some I don't know myself and some are unknown at the moment). At first you have some "random" molecules some of which are stable some of which not that form in the right circumstances. Nothing special so far. Now as more complex molecules form there is a certain probability that one of those is a molecule that reproduces itself with other atoms/molecules from that environment. The probability might be very tiny but with enough time such a molecule is going to form. And when that takes place it "infests" the environment like a virus forming multiple copies of itself. Through "random" mutations some of those copies change for the better (changes that make it survive easier), some changes don't have a great effect and some are bad changes (makes the "survival" of those molecules less likely).
This is basically the start. From that on the molecules just become more complex until we reach cells, organisms, animals and so on where the same process is repeated again and again only on a much bigger scale.
I think the mistake you make is that you discount how probabilities and time interact with each other. I would inform myself on some of the following topics. The mathematical basis of probability: things like the Galton board (which is a good example how certain environments favor a certain outcome), John Conway's game of life and maybe read Satan Cantor and Infinity by Raymond Smullyan. Also worth checking out is entropy. How it works relating to probabilities of certain particle states.
What is also important to consider is that the exact details might never be known. We know THAT life formed and we want to know why. But this might be a question that is out of reach for us. We don't know yet. The best we might hope to get one day is a simulation that gives us a plausible scenario even though the rough principles behind the process are understood.

Dietl Level 7 June 28, 2019

I don't see why simple molecules would necessarily evolve to form entire organs and complex systems that have many trillions of cells working in harmony to nurture and protect a single organism capable of contemplating its own origins.

Mathematics and probability theory are not a problem for me. I studied finite and discrete mathematics in college, working with vectors and matrices, Markov chains, the whole shooting match. I've had stats courses at both the undergrad and graduate levels. But these do nothing to explain the WHY it works, and barely address the HOW. And when I refer to "why", it is not in some esoteric or even philosophical sense. I literally am trying to understand why a certain, highly specific, complex molecule is able single-handedly direct all evolution simply by instructing certain organelles to fold special proteins in very precise ways and link them together. And then how something like that can lead to all of the different forms of life the planet has hosted, and to at least one that is highly intelligent, self aware, and capable of contemplating existence.

@Piratefish It all starts with self replication which you get with RNA and DNA. Once you have this complexity gets added through mutations and selection processes that favour better survival strategies given enough time. Then there are the aspects of competition like the predator-prey dynamic. No one life form gets too dominant because different niches favour different strategies. Then the environment changes all the time to which further adaptions help survival. At the root of all this is a molecule that strives to make copies of itself. That is the answer to your why question. How I can not tell you in detail because again, I don't know and we might only ever construct plausible theories. Conscousness is a whole other can of worms. I would concentrate on small "simple" steps like from non complex molecules to complex ones, from complex ones to selfreplicating ones, from those to cells, from those to multiple celled organisms and so on.

2

I don't think you are looking for the impossible, you are simply not willing to accept the science. Hey, if you can't accept the science, just go with god did it. I don't see any other choice.

I will sooner take scientists on faith than I will the words of "holy" men.

I guess the short way of saying it is that I want to understand the chemical and cellular basis of evolution.

@Piratefish When will you start working on your Phd in Evolutionary Biology?

1

First you have to realize what vast eons of time are available for the processes to go from raw (Big Bang produced) materials to arrive at complex life forms. Then you need to realize what looks like one big complex change is actually a simple series of individual steps that are controlled by what is inside each atom as soon as it is formed. I am talking about the affinities between different atoms. Affinities are a measure of attraction or ' liking ' between two atoms. The measure is a result of interactions involving electrons within the atom. Oxygen atoms for example have probably the greatest attraction of any element for any other element, neon argon and a few others are not attracted to any other element's atoms. Carbon likes to form chains and rings more than any other atom and forms the basis of life partly for this reason.

Once these attractions are in place then small chemical reactions between a ' soup ' of atoms until gradually significant molecules which will eventually join with others are formed and produce life . It does not need a designer or ' master-plan ' It just happens - driven by the energy in the electron interactions when other atoms come close. It all takes time and patience to understand.

1

There's a video on YouTube titled "There Was No First Human" by "It's Ok To Be Smart". It's a PBS channel and the video explains how there was never a first human. The information in the video can be applied to all species.. and I personally believe it can be applied to all the steps of abiogenesis as well.

I never believed in the idea of the "first" cell that all life came from, nor do I believe there was a "first" complex molecule.

The way I envision life appearing is, as we all know, natural processes leading to the building blocks of life. We are pretty sure than certain building blocks (BB) could have only formed in space and brought to Earth through comets. BBs also formed on Earth through vents at the bottom of the ocean, lightning strikes on the surface of the ocean.. and plenty other processes that I didn't list nor am educated on.

Anyway, these processes churn out countless copies of their respective BBs.. which are then brought together through other processes. As they bump into one another, there are only a few select ways they naturally form a stable connection. There might be 1,000s of unstable connections that don't last to every 1 stable connection. As time goes on and countless unstable connections fail, the stable connections start to form chains and molecules. The molecules are still vulnerable, but when they bump into something like a lipid, they gain a lil extra protection and are more fit for survival.

Over time, any changes that make them more fit for survival give them a lasting leg up on the rest. Qualities like the ability to rob other molecules of necessary BBs, better protection from the elements, and so on.

Eventually, these changes lead to single cellular life forming.. but they likely don't have the ability to divide yet. That too is a trait that needs to evolve. It's likely these single cells (more akin to an organelle in a multicellular lifeforn) just consumed and eventually broke down from growing too big without the ability to divide. Once the ability to divide evolved, they were more fit and survived.

This process most likely happened numerous times, giving rise to more than one single cellular species. With at least two different types, one (or both) would evolve to consume the other.

Once again, over a period of time and countless changes and mutations, one of the consumers would evolve to not break down the consumee.. but rather form a relationship where they support one another. This would be the beginning stage of multicellular life. Of course it wasn't instant, both species would have to coevolve to where their biological and reproductive processes lined up over several generations.

After that, the bulk of what you know about evolution would take over.. leading us to where we are today.

1

Bravo for digging in to the science. I envy the understanding you've amassed.

As you know, the tricky words in "the incredible coordination needed at the cellular and molecular levels almost seem like they had to have been purposefully designed" are "seem" and "had to have been." If we reverse-engineer any event, the coordination needed to bring it to pass will look purposefully designed. Thing is, we usually only do that with big things. How about something mundane? Suppose you're in a strange place and in desperate need of a bathroom, and you find one in the nick of time. Now consider the incredible coordination that led to that bathroom's being at exactly the time and place you needed it. If someone had built a gazebo instead of a bathroom, if the colonies had lost the war, if an earthquake had swallowed it a week earlier, if no one had invented the toilet, if you'd twisted your ankle and couldn't walk the last 20 feet to get there ... Just look at all of the things had to come together to help you out in your time of need.

I believe in time humankind will solve the how-did-life-start puzzle. Until then, people like you and me have to live with "don’t know—yet." I"m with you in that it's frustrating not to know. But, as you've indicated, to leap from "don’t know" to "ergo God" is irresponsible. Better to live with the frustration of "I don't know yet." I just hope we're both still around when humankind finally figures it out. I bet we sooner or later will. If we don't blow up the world first.

1

Thank you for so eloquently pointing out the difficulty in understanding evolution. If an intelligent nonbeliever, such as yourself can have trouble with the concept, can you imagine the difficulty the average person with a religious influence would have. I suspect evolution is a major obstacle for believers just because it can be too difficult to understand, and seems kinda crazy. I have a degree in biology and would not attempt to explain it, at least not on the level you are looking for.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:367028
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.