About Evolution again?

Question

Asking in here because I won't get enough answers in science

Ok I'm not questioning if its real or not.. That debate is old and dead
My question is it could not have been one cell that made everything could it have been?

My Thinking is this. Back when ever it happened the protiens lined up and became life there had to be a LOT of them I mean A LOT right?
Some got coded to be eaters and others got coded to be eaten. Then those that got coded to be eaters moved on and became the animals and what not. Those that got coded to be eaten became plants.

I know eaters can be eaten and Eaten can be eaters but do you see my line of thinking?

So do we have any theoretical ideas on this or am I just out on a limb?

Serious answers only please

appearently people missed the SERIOUS ANSWERS ONLY part

as for not understanding Evolution you got that part oh so wrong

let's see you explain it
I understand how things evovled from a common ancestor
That is not the issure
What I want to know is how did some of those proteins evolve into things that became the cells that became plants while others went the route not to use the sun and use other things for energy

Answer 1

I think I see where you're trying to go... maybe I can answer...

Think about water. When it is heated, it becomes a vapor. The vapor condenses to become water, it rains down, etc. But, if, while in the air, it comes into contact with other gases, it will rain "acid rain." This is how things change form and combine, depending on the environment.

When the earth was quite young, there was probably a long and slow process of molecules changing form. They would combine and recombine under different environmental influences, such as temperature, pressure, and interact as solids, vapors, etc.

So... when proteins formed, there were many. Those proteins combined in various ways under various conditions, and the whole chain of events has begun.

Different enviromental circumstances dictated what formed, and how it formed. If it could not live in that environment, then it could not form.

The two theories I entertain the most are that the building blocks were already here when the earth formed and recombined over time, or that any necessary ingredients that were missing came in on a meteorite (which means the potential for life exists throughout the universe).

As a Christian, one might choose to believe a creator caused these events to occur...

I believe it is a repetitive process throughout infinity that the universe reshapes and reforms itself.

Answer 2

Hi Taelec

You wrote: "That debate is old and dead"

Actually it is still going on, we're just told it is "old and dead" so we won't ask any difficult questions. The more biology discovers about DNA and cell structure the less likely it appears that evolution (as described in our school books) could have happened. The biologists have discovered that "simple" cells are very complicated and precise collections of machines that all work together. Think about going to the store and buying a bicycle in a box. You need the instuctions, the parts, the tools to assemble it, and the ability to read the instructions.

For you it is a relatively simple task. The cell has to have the instructions and the tools and then it has to refine the raw materials, make its own parts, and assemble itself. Classic "chicken and egg" problem. How did such a complex structure build itself?

You touched on this problem, and how it is often explained away, when you wrote, "Some got coded to be eaters and others got coded to be eaten." The basic question is "Where did the code come from in the first place?" The assumption is that the code "just happened" but, if we think about it for a minute, we know that can't be possible.

"Everywhere we encounter it, information does not bubble up from a random flux or prebiotic soup. It comes from mind. Taking the hierarchy beyond the word, the central dogma of intelligent design ordains that word is subordinate to mind. Mind can generate and lend meaning to words but words in themselves cannot generate mind or intelligence."
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3631 George Gilder

Dave

Answer 3

Well, you've pointed out at least one disconnect in origin of life theories.

"The proteins lined up and became life." That's a BIG leap, and evolutionary biologists have no answer for how this happened.

"Some got coded." Another big leap. How? Why? No answer from the "experts."

"Then those that got coded to be eaters moved on and became the animals." Ditto.

Evolutionists are just as bad as religious fundamentalists - their answer is always, "Believe it or else." It's just as much a matter of faith as religious belief.

Love, Jack

Answer 4

The first forms of life were most likely more simple then single celled organism. Also, single celled organisms interact in many different ways, not just eaters and eaten. The formation of plants and animals evolved much later then the first life.

I don't really get your questions though. You need to clarify.

Answer 5

All life are eaters.....

Some life feeds on other living things like other cells some plant cells and some animal cells.

Other life feeds off of energy from the sun or air or chemicals in water.

Either way all life needs to feed to survive. There are NO cells that exist without sustenance.

Answer 6

I think the idea that multiple living cells formed at the same time is an interesting one, but I don't think it's true.

Also, the first proteins didn't need to "eat." They self-replicated as long as the correct chemicals were available, but they didn't "eat" those chemicals. The first "heterotrophs" (organisms that eat others) came much laster. The genes separating heterotrophs from autotrophs likely didn't develop until a long time after abiogenesis (the "birth" of the first living things).

Answer 7

he first "life"probably wasn't nearly as complicated as a cell.Maybe a self replicating molecule.There was no competition for resources then,so there wasn't much evolving for about a billion years or so.Once it became "crowded" competition for resources/survival of the fittest/evolution kicked into high gear.Everything "eats"it's only what they eat that differs.Some were able to harness sunlight,and became plants.It's all about survival,nothing else.The changes are random,the changes that survive are not.

Answer 8

I think all simple forms of life like amoebas are considered 'eaters' . . . its just that *what* they eat differs . . . most of the complex genetic coding that differentiated plants and animals would come later.

Answer 9

You can't make such a clear distinction between plants and animals at the single cell level. That disproves your hypothesis.

Answer 10

insects came from plants there are still some plant that exhibit carnivorous tendency's still today,the earth was seeded by extraterrestrial bacteria and the human race was genetically engineered by advanced interdimentional entitys