Questions on Evolution

[Enigma7457]

I have a question on Evolution, but i first wanted to state a few things ahead of time. First of all, i do not believe in evolution (at least not macro). However, i do not believe it has to interfere with Christianity. Also, i am not asking this question as an attempt to attack evolution. I am only trying to expand my own knowledge on the subject, since i am not the most educated on it. Anyway, here we go:

As far as i know, a living thing survives by eating other living things (beit plant or animal life). Now, this obviously doesn't apply to some plants, who use photosynthesis (as far as i know, they don't need to feed off of other living things). So, my question is this: How did the first organism survive? How did the first cell, formed all by its lonesome with nothing around to eat, survive? It couldn't have rapidly evolved photosynthesis? Doesn't it have to eat something? Maybe eat is the wrong word. Our cells don't really 'eat', but they still need something as fuel. What fuel would there be for the first organism?

Also, how did the sexes evolve? A male is useless without a female (and vice versa). So wouldn't both have had to evolve at the same time? AND Find each other? AND know what to do with their new...parts?

Again, i am not trying to attack evolution, just trying to get a viewpoint from someone who knows more. I don't want to bring this up in an argument if there is a simple solution for it.

[IRQ Conflict]

Thats a very good question. I would also like to know what evolutionists believe in that regard. Also why didn't the oceans boil off during the half billion years of no atmosphere?

[zoegirl]

I have a question on Evolution, but i first wanted to state a few things ahead of time. First of all, i do not believe in evolution (at least not macro). However, i do not believe it has to interfere with Christianity. Also, i am not asking this question as an attempt to attack evolution. I am only trying to expand my own knowledge on the subject, since i am not the most educated on it. Anyway, here we go:

As far as i know, a living thing survives by eating other living things (beit plant or animal life). Now, this obviously doesn't apply to some plants, who use photosynthesis (as far as i know, they don't need to feed off of other living things). So, my question is this: How did the first organism survive? How did the first cell, formed all by its lonesome with nothing around to eat, survive?

Very good question....there are some hypothesis that state that very simple chemosynthesis pathways started by using anaerobic pathways and complex inorganic compounds. These enzymes would have been trapped in phospholipid membrane "bubbles" that would have been able to replicate by simply dividing like oil bubbles within salad dressing (poor analogy, sorry).

Of course this raises a huge number of questions (by the way, this is the skimpiest of sections in the AP Bio book that I use, a grand total of two or three pages devoted to the mechanisms) :

Phospholipids are complex molecules to begin with that are synthesized in the cell....begs the question....

Enzymes eventually had to be coded by DNA...they know RNA had to be the first molecule since it can self-replicate, but I still wonder how in the world they can have a mechanism as complicated as even the simplest metabolic pathway and yet these enzymes just happened to be around. Not to mention a mechanism to match the amino acid order of the enzyme with the DNA (or RNA) transcript.

It couldn't have rapidly evolved photosynthesis? Doesn't it have to eat something? Maybe eat is the wrong word. Our cells don't really 'eat', but they still need something as fuel. What fuel would there be for the first organism?

this is also a good question (photosynthesis). I find this one of the hardest pills to swallow and again, the one that is glossed over amazingly in the book.

Also, how did the sexes evolve? A male is useless without a female (and vice versa). So wouldn't both have had to evolve at the same time? AND Find each other? AND know what to do with their new...parts?

Now here, there are some hypothesis....they know that yeast cells have very primitive cells with different mating types. They hypothesize that these could have been the precursor to the differences between the egg and sperm cells. Can't remember know why...I'll have to go look that up !!

AGAIN, though, good points....let's not forget as well about the complex forms of cell division....mitosis and meiosis....

Again, i am not trying to attack evolution, just trying to get a viewpoint from someone who knows more. I don't want to bring this up in an argument if there is a simple solution for it.

Let me do more research....I know there are some hypotheses that I am not aware of or have forgotten.

[Enigma7457]

First of all, thanks, zoe, i knew you'd be the first to reply. That being said...

Very good question....there are some hypothesis that state that very simple chemosynthesis pathways started by using anaerobic pathways and complex inorganic compounds. These enzymes would have been trapped in phospholipid membrane "bubbles" that would have been able to replicate by simply dividing like oil bubbles within salad dressing (poor analogy, sorry).

I read this and went, "Duh...what?" No idea what many of those words even mean. I do like the oil bubble analogy, makes me want a salad...

[zoegirl]

Ha, understandable.

The idea, very basically, is that the early mixture of chemicals in earth would have included, perhaps (you will notice a lot of perhaps proteins that had enzymatic functions. Enzyme that would have been able to (perhaps) break down other molecules. Inorder to have a basic metabolic process, you want that molecule to provide some energy when it is broken down. (think about the fact that we break apart sugars in our metabolic pathways). But these enzyme are worthless unless they are captured in a early prototype cell. They basic idea of a cell membrane is a molecule called a phospholipid, a molecule that is essentally 2 big fatty acid chains and one smaller water-loving portion. These phosphlipids, because of their chemical nature, do not mix well with water, so they orient in such a way that create millions of molecules aligned in a 2 layer membrane.

http://personal.tmlp.com/Jimr57/textboo ... 3/cms1.htm

(good website for pic;s)

The idea, then is that a bunch of these molecules (or moelcules very similar to them) self-assembled (they wil do this naturally in the lab) and captured some of these enzymes and organic molecule or inorganic molecules that allowed energy to be released when broken. Also necessary would have been the capture of nucleic acids, the most liekly candidate being RNA, since RNA can self-replicate. (DNA cannot)

Another good website (they talk about the theories at the bottom of the page, you can skim through the rest)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fc ... ction.1963
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fc ... ection.194
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fc ... ection.210

These provide very nice descriptions. Notice, though, that they gloss over terribly the HUGe evolutionary steps that would have been required. Lots of "such and such a process would have evolved" without even a description of how it did so.

I liken these theories to a child throwing a bit of K-nex or legos in a bag and having a few connect and form basic shapes. And then saying that this process could be used to create one of those cool K-nex roller coasters or skyscrapers. (the difference between the two is probably more signifiant). See, these molecules, by their very nature, ARE designed to self-assemble, to keep things within their membrane, to self-replicate, to release energy, much like K-nex ARE designed to link together. So is it any surprise that several K-nex will join together when thrown together in a bag?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I have a question on Evolution, but i first wanted to state a few things ahead of time. First of all, i do not believe in evolution (at least not macro). However, i do not believe it has to interfere with Christianity. Also, i am not asking this question as an attempt to attack evolution. I am only trying to expand my own knowledge on the subject, since i am not the most educated on it. Anyway, here we go:

As far as i know, a living thing survives by eating other living things (beit plant or animal life). Now, this obviously doesn't apply to some plants, who use photosynthesis (as far as i know, they don't need to feed off of other living things). So, my question is this: How did the first organism survive?

Actually life survives by consuming organic compounds. Organic compounds exist naturally, (They can be found in comets and moons around saturn, among other places) and presumably they were available in the immediate environment of the first organisms.

How did the first cell, formed all by its lonesome with nothing around to eat, survive?

It would not be prudent to suggest that the first organism was alone. The easy answer is if there were no compounds around it or more correctly this population, they would not survive.

It couldn't have rapidly evolved photosynthesis? Doesn't it have to eat something? Maybe eat is the wrong word. Our cells don't really 'eat', but they still need something as fuel. What fuel would there be for the first organism?

Here is an interesting article about a "bug" (bacterium Chlorobium tepidum) which eats (metabolizes) non-living* material. There are even organisms which feed exclusively on material oozing from the earth itslef in deep ocean vents. So even today there are living organisms which do not depend on photosynthesis directly or indirectly for fuel.

*inorganic as opposed to organic which as explained earlier is not necessarily compounds resulting from life

We can look at these organisms and imagine what the earliest life forms must have been like. But we do not know how the first life forms developed. Nor do we know exactly what the first life forms were.

Also, how did the sexes evolve? A male is useless without a female (and vice versa). So wouldn't both have had to evolve at the same time? AND Find each other? AND know what to do with their new...parts?

Well this question will require one to study life in more detail. Sexual reproduction exists in single celled organisms, and it is most unlikely that sexes were developed at the multicellular level. In other words the mechanisms for sexual reproduction did not occur in some primative frog, fish or even worm but at the level of single cells. And in addition it is most likely that the first sperms and eggs were also most likely undifferentiated as well. There is much more to be said here but this topic requires a greater understanding of the theory of evolution and is better left for advanced studies. However if you wish to continue this thread we can go into more detail if you have the patience.

Again, i am not trying to attack evolution, just trying to get a viewpoint from someone who knows more. I don't want to bring this up in an argument if there is a simple solution for it.

[zoegirl]

Thanks, Bgood, I knew you would have more info and was hoping you would chime in.

[Himantolophus]

Also, how did the sexes evolve? A male is useless without a female (and vice versa). So wouldn't both have had to evolve at the same time? AND Find each other? AND know what to do with their new...parts?

This is just a hypothetical scenario so don't ask for a source!

the first organims were most likely asexual and reproduced by budding or fission or something else. This didn't promote genetic diversity as all babies were clones of the parent. In order for genetic variability to increase in a population, a combination of two different individuals may make a more "fit" individual that is better able to cope with changes in the environment. In unicellular organisms it may have started with haploid (as opposed to diploid) cells that originated from two normal cells that may have not divided (mitosis) correctly. A mutation in their coded DNA may have caused this to occur. The resultant cells may have only only had half their DNA (haploid). Somehow two of these cells may have fused like an egg and sperm do today and formed a new genotype. This type of reproduction was not quite sexual but the cells may have become endosymbiotic inside a larger cell (the haploid cells were less able to feed?) and developed into the "sex cells" we see today. This is far from the "male and female" we see today but that developed over time.

Or maybe it was less energetically demanding for cells, or a cluster of cells, to form small haploid reproductive cells that found each other, fused, and grew into an adult, instead of budding themselves

[zoegirl]

Also, how did the sexes evolve? A male is useless without a female (and vice versa). So wouldn't both have had to evolve at the same time? AND Find each other? AND know what to do with their new...parts?

This is just a hypothetical scenario so don't ask for a source!

the first organims were most likely asexual and reproduced by budding or fission or something else. This didn't promote genetic diversity as all babies were clones of the parent. In order for genetic variability to increase in a population, a combination of two different individuals may make a more "fit" individual that is better able to cope with changes in the environment. In unicellular organisms it may have started with haploid (as opposed to diploid) cells that originated from two normal cells that may have not divided (mitosis) correctly. A mutation in their coded DNA may have caused this to occur. The resultant cells may have only only had half their DNA (haploid). Somehow two of these cells may have fused like an egg and sperm do today and formed a new genotype. This type of reproduction was not quite sexual but the cells may have become endosymbiotic inside a larger cell (the haploid cells were less able to feed?) and developed into the "sex cells" we see today. This is far from the "male and female" we see today but that developed over time.

Or maybe it was less energetically demanding for cells, or a cluster of cells, to form small haploid reproductive cells that found each other, fused, and grew into an adult, instead of budding themselves

I remember hearing that a lot of research focuses on yeast cells that have different mating types as being the beginning of the differen gametes. I'd have to look it up though

[David Blacklock]

Excerpts from the scientific, evolution-utilizing Bible: In the beginning there was God who created hydrothermal vents and said, "Let there be life." And life formed and it was good. But life was lonely so God said, "let there be parasites." But the parasites smote much of the other life akin to a great flood sweeping across the land. After 40 days and 40 nights, life and the new parasitic life form began to play the arms race game of the Red Queen and that was good. And other life begat more other life through cloning of their DNA's, but reproduction through cloning once again allowed parasites to gain dominion over the land and the seas, so other life invented immunology and other life invented sex, in self defense. And so it went.

The point here is that sexual reproduction is theorized to have developed through natural selection as part of an escalating arms race - sexual reproduction providing greater antigenic diversity, causing other organisms - parasites, viruses - to have to work harder to gain access and control over their host organism.

There are four more paragraphs if anyone is interested.

DB