The Logical Pathway From "Evolution is wrong" to "Therefore God"

[Oncedeceived]

Two major hints:
1. From basic chemical compounds, you couldn't get much more than an incredibly basic nucleotide factory in a lipid layer

Why?

2. As creatures evolve, they tend to get more and more complex, so extrapolating backwards, at some point they must have been considerably more simple.

Unless they don't. We have Cyanobacteria that go back to at least as early as 3.5 billion years ago that are basically the same now. Cyanobacteria are not incredibly simple. There are very complex life including a complex brain in the Cambrian Explosion.

As for modern mono-cellular life being complex, well, yeah. As Thunderf00t so excellently put it, "What you are looking at is the most successful organism on earth; a grizzled heavyweight champion of evolution." Modern mono-cellular eukaryotes are often very complex organisms. There is simply no reason to believe the earliest life forms were anything like that.

No reason to believe is not evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unless they don't. We have Cyanobacteria that go back to at least as early as 3.5 billion years ago that are basically the same now.

Please show us the genome and proteome from these 3.5 billion year old cyanobacteria.

 

[Armoured]

I am not asking you to compare anything. I am wanting this evidence that the first cell was incredibly simple.

That comparison is evidence. Stop being contrary. And go look at stromatolites.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not asking you to compare anything. I am wanting this evidence that the first cell was incredibly simple.

As stated above, the comparison is the evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please show us the genome and proteome from these 3.5 billion year old cyanobacteria.

Nice. Ok. I'll play. We have fossils that show the similarity; we don't have the genome or proteome from them as you are well aware.

Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize. Morphologies in the group have remained much the same for billions of years, and they may leave chemical fossils behind as well, in the form of breakdown products from pigments. Small fossilized cyanobacteria have been extracted from Precambrian rock, and studied through the use of SEM and TEM (scanning and transmission electron microscopy).

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html

 

[Loudmouth]

Nice. Ok. I'll play. We have fossils that show the similarity; we don't have the genome or proteome from them as you are well aware.

Cyanobacteria are among the easiest microfossils to recognize. Morphologies in the group have remained much the same for billions of years, and they may leave chemical fossils behind as well, in the form of breakdown products from pigments. Small fossilized cyanobacteria have been extracted from Precambrian rock, and studied through the use of SEM and TEM (scanning and transmission electron microscopy).

Now you need to demonstrate that those pigments and cellular morphology require a genome that is as complex as that seen in modern cyanobacteria.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As stated above, the comparison is the evidence.

So in comparing the Cyanobacteria of 3.5 billion years ago to those today what are you comparing?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now you need to demonstrate that those pigments and cellular morphology require a genome that is as complex as that seen in modern cyanobacteria.

No, you need to show that they were not. The claim was that the cell was incredibly simple, the burden is on the person who made the claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

So in comparing the Cyanobacteria of 3.5 billion years ago to those today what are you comparing?

The relative complexity of life.

What would you expect to see if life started out simple and grew more complex over time? Wouldn't you expect to see examples of the simplest life early in the fossil record, and then examples of more complex life over time?

At the same time, we would expect that complexity would increase even in the least derived lineages. Modern cyanobacteria are as evolved as humans are since they have gone through billions of years of evolution to reach this point.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you need to show that they were not. The claim was that the cell was incredibly simple, the burden is on the person who made the claim.

The evidence is that life was simpler and simpler the farther we look back in the fossil record, just as we would expect to see if the first life was simple.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That comparison is evidence. Stop being contrary. And go look at stromatolites.

The comparison tells us nothing about the first cell and how simple or complex it would be. We know the first life form in fossilized form are the cyanobacteria which are not incredibly simple but complex in their own right.

 

[Loudmouth]

The comparison tells us nothing about the first cell and how simple or complex it would be. We know the first life form in fossilized form are the cyanobacteria which are not incredibly simple but complex in their own right.

You are only speaking of modern cyanobacteria which have gone through billions of years of evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The evidence is that life was simpler and simpler the farther we look back in the fossil record, just as we would expect to see if the first life was simple.

Can you prove that evolution always increases complexity and does not lose complexity?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are only speaking of modern cyanobacteria which have gone through billions of years of evolution.

What evidence do you cite that modern Cyanobacteria are not as simple as they were 3.5 billion years ago?

 

[Armoured]

Ugh. And this stupidity is the reason I don't generally take part in crevo discussions.

Rather than rehashing the same;

"there's no evidence!

-Here's a bunch of evidence, actually

But there's no evidence!

-Here's a bunch more evidence

But there's still no evidence! Why won't you people show me the evidence?!"

Merry-go-round, how about we try to actually address the OP, which I think is an interesting question, and one I'd like to see answered.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ugh. And this stupidity is the reason I don't generally take part in crevo discussions.

Rather than rehashing the same;

"there's no evidence!

Here's a bunch of evidence, actually

But there's no evidence!

Here's a bunch more evidence

You haven't given evidence. You claim that the comparison is the evidence but then it has been implied that we have no genome to compare. You haven't supplied any actual evidence that the first cell was incredibly simple.

But there's still no evidence! Why won't you people show me the evidence?!"

Merry-go-round, how about we try to actually address the OP, which I think is an interesting question, and one I'd like to see answered.

I think the OP is fine but that was claim that was made and it hasn't been shown by any evidence.

 

[Armoured]

 

[Loudmouth]

You haven't given evidence. You claim that the comparison is the evidence but then it has been implied that we have no genome to compare.

In science, you use the observations you do have, not the observations you don't have. The observation is that the earliest fossils are of the simplest life we know of which is what we would expect to see if life started out simple and grew in complexity over time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ah, feeling violent are we?

 

[Oncedeceived]

In science, you use the observations you do have, not the observations you don't have. The observation is that the earliest fossils are of the simplest life we know of which is what we would expect to see if life started out simple and grew in complexity over time.

So? We have life with complex features that lose those features as well.