Primordial Soup

[Jimmy]

Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is both a fact and theory. It is observed in the laboratory, and out in the wild.

Oh I see the problem. I was including the origin of life in the evolution of it.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh I see the problem. I was including the origin of life in the evolution of it.

They are 2 different things.

 

[Jimmy]

They are 2 different things.

Eh

 

[Heyo]

Because there are a lot of variations of a very simple mechanism. That is quantity not complexity.

"Complexity characterises the behaviour of a system or model whose components interact in multiple ways and follow local rules, leading to nonlinearity, randomness, collective dynamics, hierarchy, and emergence.[1][2]

The term is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways, culminating in a higher order of emergence greater than the sum of its parts. The study of these complex linkages at various scales is the main goal of complex systems theory." - Complexity - Wikipedia

Sometimes quantity and simplicity can lead to complexity through emergence. Examples would be 1. the game of GO (which only has one type of piece and only three rules) but a 19x19 grid makes it more complex than chess (which is more complicated). 2. Conway's Game of Life. Again very few rules but the size makes it so complex that a Touring machine can be implemented in it.
DNA is complex in the same way.

 

[Jimmy]

Because there are a lot of variations of a very simple mechanism. That is quantity not complexity.

Ok

 

[ChristineM]

Eh

Abiogenesis is not evolution and evolution is not abiogenesis.

 

[ChristineM]

"Complexity characterises the behaviour of a system or model whose components interact in multiple ways and follow local rules, leading to nonlinearity, randomness, collective dynamics, hierarchy, and emergence.[1][2]

The term is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways, culminating in a higher order of emergence greater than the sum of its parts. The study of these complex linkages at various scales is the main goal of complex systems theory." - Complexity - Wikipedia

Sometimes quantity and simplicity can lead to complexity through emergence. Examples would be 1. the game of GO (which only has one type of piece and only three rules) but a 19x19 grid makes it more complex than chess (which is more complicated). 2. Conway's Game of Life. Again very few rules but the size makes it so complex that a Touring machine can be implemented in it.
DNA is complex in the same way.

DNA is quite simple, a lot of DNA is complex

 

[Jimmy]

Abiogenesis is not evolution and evolution is not abiogenesis.

Eh

 

[Jimmy]

DNA is quite simple, a lot of DNA is complex

DNA is complex especially its origin

 

[Heyo]

DNA is quite simple, a lot of DNA is complex

Yep. Complexity from quantity of simple components. And you need a lot of DNA to show any function at all.

 

[ChristineM]

DNA is complex especially its origin

Nah, it's origin is just 4 nucleotides. Then comes another with 4 nucleotides. Then comes another with 4 nucleotides... etc. Getting more complex as it grows

 

[Jimmy]

Nah, it's origin is just 4 nucleotides. Then comes another with 4 nucleotides. Then comes another with 4 nucleotides... etc. Getting more complex as it grows

Ok

 

[ChristineM]

Those nucleotides came from a meteor they think. Sounds like a simple process

Do they? Possible of course but unknown

 

[Jimmy]

Nah, it's origin is just 4 nucleotides. Then comes another with 4 nucleotides. Then comes another with 4 nucleotides... etc. Getting more complex as it grows

The origin of dna is complex

 

[Jimmy]

Do they? Possible of course but unknown

They think maybe the earth too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Top scientists only have hypothesis with no evidence to test them so basically they got speculation at this point. That’s all I got

There is evidence, just not enough to test any of the current hypotheses. Recall some of our discussion where I mentioned a portion of that evidence. There is more that suggests abiogenesis at this point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wasn't aware that single cell to multi-cell life was achieved under laboratory conditions. That's super interesting. I'll have to look that up.

As for all other (complex) evolution happening beyond that in a (mere) 600 million years... I think the theory is that the more complex an organism is, the more prone to evolution it is. Things like sexual reproduction really accelerate the process of evolution because it increases the number of factors that affect genealogies.

Hopefully, someone more adept at biology can explain it better than I have here. But the nutshell answer I heard years ago was that complexity and diversity leads to even more complexity and diversity. The inverse of that suggests that simple life forms are less apt to evolve than complex ones.

I haven't read through the posts on here since last evening, so someone else may have provided this. But I think it is research on multicellularity and is likely the work that was superficially mentioned. Again, I've only read the abstract, but it demonstrates that multicellularity in eukaryotes could have happened rapidly, not that it did. The difference is a modern eukaryote under laboratory conditions. Still a fascinating piece of work in support of evolution if nothing else.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.1115323109

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Never denied or refuted. Only expressed my bewilderment

Then that's what my first post in this thread tried to express. If you are bewildered, and you genuinely want to try to understand, you will never achieve that by saying "doesn't sound right to me" or words to that effect -- rather than chasing down the clues you've been given with a little research. It's easy enough to do online, or at your local library.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Again, I've only read the abstract,

Yeah, me too. I get the impression the rest of the paper would be difficult for me to follow.

The abstract does seem to say that multicellular life was evolved from a eukaryote in lab conditions. That's neato.

The difference is a modern eukaryote

I wonder how much of a factor this is. Does a modern eukaryote have a better chance of evolving into a multicellular organism than an ancient one?

Regardless, the authors of the paper conclude that the single-celled organisms can "readily evolve" into multicellular life.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville, @Subduction Zone:

I am with @Moon on this specific question. It is strange that life formed basically as soon as it was possible. And then it took 3 billion years to get from single cells to complex life. We know how multicellularity evolved, we can induce it in the lab. Nature took 3 billion years for that step. Compared to that, formation of life seems much more complex, we don't know exactly how it happened but it did practically in an instant (on evolutionary timelines).

The origin of life is still cloaked in mystery. There is too little information available to fully test any hypothesis for abiogenesis, let alone determine how quickly or how frequently life may have arisen on the early Earth. All of these changes in living thing were driven by conditions and the addition of life was a contributing factor in those conditions. The very atmosphere we have is the result of the existence of living things.

I don't agree that there is evidence available to allow us to make sound claims about how quickly or how surprising the speed of change (slow or fast) in the evolution subsequent to the appearance of living things is. We know one way that multicellularity could form based on experiments with modern yeast, but this does not tell us about the conditions that multicellularity actually formed under or if it was through the same mechanisms.

I combined into a single timeline one containing some major geological events and one containing biological events with rough times of occurrence based on the evidence to provide a perspective of the occurrence of these events. Keeping in mind that dates are best estimates depending on when the lists were devised and by whom. The list is comprised of major events in the history of the Earth and living things on it.

4600 mya (million years ago) - planet Earth formed.
4500 mya - Earth's core and crust formed.
4400 mya - the Earth's first oceans formed.
3850 mya - the first life appeared on Earth. It was very simple single-celled organisms. Prokaryotes. Exactly how life first arose is a mystery.
3,000 mya - photosynthesis.
2,000 mya - the first complex cells. Eukaryotes.
1500 mya - oxygen began to accumulate in the Earth's atmosphere.
700 mya - the first animals evolved. These were simple single-celled animals.
570 mya - arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans).
550 mya - complex animals.
500 mya - fish and proto-amphibians.
475 mya - land plants.
400 mya - insects and seeds.
350 mya - the first land vertebrates evolved. With plants present on the land to provide a food
360 mya - amphibians.
300 mya - reptiles.
225 mya - the first dinosaurs evolved from lizards.
200 mya - mammals.
150 mya - birds.
130 mya - flowers.
65 mya - non-avian dinosaur extinction
2.5 mya - origin of the genus Homo.
200,000-300,000 years ago - appearance of modern humans.
25,000 years ago - Neanderthal extinction.

This list shows a gradual progression of changes, each leading to next steps in that progression. What we do not see are finer details that may have had significant impacts on the rates of change. The origin of mitochondria for instance, would be a critical step in the evolution of eukaryotes, for instance. Or plate tectonics and the impact of that on practically everything. It can also be noted that there is nothing in this to indicate that some more idealized rate should be expected either.

Based on evidence not immediately or at all evident in this list is that some events were dependent on preceding events in order that they take place. The accumulation of an oxygen atmosphere would be a significant event effecting both geochemistry and living things.

I'm not really sure how a particular expectation of rate can be devised from this evidence or that we shouldn't expect it faster due to some condition. In my opinion, you really can't say much for early events. However, for later events the rate does seem to move more rapidly and this is likely the result of established and much more stable natural infrastructure.