What have you read that gave you this impression? And the scientific framing of your question should be, “I don’t know of any hypotheses regarding the evolution of cells,” if you were really seeking the science. Of course, there are multiple hypotheses regarding the evolution of cells that are based on the biochemistry and biophysics of lipids.
What makes you think that the origin of life must have been cellular, Gary?
I agree.
Of course, there are multiple hypotheses regarding the evolution of cells that are based on the biochemistry and biophysics of lipids.
What of it? There are also hypotheses that there is life on Mars. Hypotheses in science are a dime a dozen.
It contradicts your claim that “modern evolutionary biology has no answer whatsoever regarding the evolution of the cell structure itself.”
Again, what have you read that gives you that impression?
Hi Joao,
I’ve read a great deal of the literature across the spectrum.
My original question was not misworded in any way. I just don’t consider wild speculation to constitute “answers”. Far from it.
Hi Orion,
Since cells are the basic unit of life, when someone asks, “Where did cells come from?,” I immediately think we are discussing the issue of the origin of life. But this is just semantics. In any case, I’m pretty sure I understand your question, i.e., where did the complexity of the individual parts of cells come from? It’s a very good question. As Joao has pointing out, there are a good number of scientific hypotheses that attempt to explain the various aspects of your question, and scientists should rightly continue to probe for scientific answers. I could write about some of these, and about things we do know (like the stages of development in photosynthetic photosystems), but I’m guessing this isn’t at the core of your inquiries.
Scientists don’t have good answers currently for many complex cell components and there is, in fact, a fair amount of speculation. So, what do we make of this? First, it is important to acknowledge that this is not at all positive evidence that God miraculous and abruptly intervened. The only thing we can make out from the situation is that scientists currently don’t have explanations. Christians should be careful to not make too much of this. We see that scientists keep coming up with new fascinating discoveries that further our understanding of things. This was the point of my endosymbiosis story; something that seemed like a completely insolvable phenomenon in biology (getting from prokaryote to eukaryote cells), and was an easy target for skeptics of evolution, is now solidly answered.
Second, the biggest point of my essay is that we have every reason to understand that God works with the natural things he created in the way I described for the development of a human baby; we can explain it with natural mechanisms and simultaneously say that God caused it to happen. I know this is kind of a mind-bender for those of us who live in modern western culture, but it is how the Bible describes God’s actions and it expands our view to encompass all that the Bible claims about God’s transcendent character. Christians know that God could abruptly intervene into nature on a daily basis to show himself in conspicuous ways, but we also know that he doesn’t. Is it possible that God miraculously created all the first cell components in an instant? Of course. But there is no good reason to favor that idea given what we already know. So, I eagerly await new discoveries from my scientific colleagues while I praise God for every one of them.
I hope some of this is helpful.
1 Like
Dr. Fugle,
When is evolutionary theory, not evolutionary theory?
Answer: When it is ecological theory.
You cite the work of the great ecologist Lynn Margulis as an great example of evolutionary theory. I am old fashioned enough to insist that we call things by their right name and her work has been rejected by evolutionists for a long time with good reason.
As I am sure you know Darwinian evolution is based on slow evolutionary genetic changes. Her work with symbiosis shows that eukartic cells, the basis for multicelled creatures of all sort are based on a merger of two different kinds of single cells. Instantaneous change outside the rules of evolution.
Darwinian evolution focuses on ceaseless struggle between members of a species for scarce resources. Ecology and symbiosis focuses on the best use of resources within a ecological niche with all of inhabitants of that niche.
A Limited Sketch of Lynn Margulis taken from the Wikipedia
"Throughout her career, Lynn Margulis’ work could arouse intense objection (one grant application elicited the response, “Your research is crap, do not bother to apply again”[4]), and her formative paper, “On the Origin of Mitosing Cells,” appeared in 1967 after being rejected by about fifteen journals. Still a junior faculty at Boston University at the time, her theory that cell organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts were once independent bacteria was largely ignored for another decade, becoming widely accepted only after it was powerfully substantiated through genetic evidence. Margulis was elected a member of the US National Academy of Sciences in 1983. President Bill Clinton presented her the National Medal of Science in 1999. The Linnean Society of London awarded her the Darwin-Wallace Medal in 2008.
Called “Science’s Unruly Earth Mother”,[6] a “vindicated heretic”,[7] or a scientific “rebel”,[8] Margulis was a strong critic of neo-Darwinism, a position that sparked lifelong debate with leading neo-Darwinian biologists, including Richard Dawkins,[9] George C. Williams, and John Maynard Smith.[10][11] Margulis’ work on symbiosis and her endosymbiotic theory had important predecessors, going back to the mid-19th century – notably Konstantin Mereschkowski, Boris Kozo-Polyansky, and Ivan Wallin – and Margulis took the unusual step of not only trying to promote greater recognition for their contributions, but of personally overseeing the first English translation of Kozo-Polyansky’s Symbiogenesis: A New Principle of Evolution (Harvard University Press) which appeared the year before her death.
She was an agnostic,[14] and a staunch evolutionist. But she totally rejected the modern evolutionary synthesis,[25] and said: “I remember waking up one day with an epiphanous revelation: I am not a neo-Darwinist! It recalled an earlier experience, when I realized that I wasn’t a humanistic Jew. Although I greatly admire Darwin’s contributions and agree with most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist, I am not a neo-Darwinist.[26] She argued that “Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create”, and maintained that symbiosis was the major driver of evolutionary change.[27]”
Wow! I have no interest in offending you, but you have compelled me to point out that much of what you wrote is simply inaccurate. You can not categorically claim Lynn Margulis’s work has been rejected by evolutionists; it states right in your Wikipedia excerpt that her endosymbiosis ideas are now “widely accepted.” To characterize endosymbiotic theory as “instantaneous change outside the rules of evolution” is incorrect and demonstrates that you do not fully understand what biologists are saying. And to state that “Darwinian evolution focuses on ceaseless struggles between members of a species for scarce resources” oversimplifies what evolution is about. This is not the place to try to clarify all these things. I will not be responding again.
Dear Relates,
I’m not sure why this battle was important to you. Ecological factors and environmental conditions
are certainly a part of the discipline of Evolutionary science.
Perhaps you could explain why in the ‘big view’ of things, you think this distinction is crucial?
Or perhaps it isn’t a crucial difference … just something you wanted to mention in passing?
George Brooks
It is a matter of clarity and precision.
People use evolution to mean a mish/mash of ideas about how nature changes, or a specific theory about how nature changes.
It seems that most evolutionists are using it to mean the mish/mash, while pretending to have a precise theory. Very unscientific, while claiming to be scientific.
The hob/glob covers up the unsystematic nature of the theory which betrays its unscientific nature. Its unsystematic and unscientific nature allows atheistic ideologues to claim scientific justification for their theories which seem to be accepted as valid, when they are not.
Evolutionists love to claim that the future of the earth depends on evolutionary theory, but it depends on ecological theory, so they are living a lie. Until we, and that includes all of us stop arguing over evolution and start working on ecology, we are in deep trouble. Those who perpetuate that argument seem determined to prevent people from focusing the real issue which is ecology.
When we argue about evolution we are argue about that which divides us. When we discuss ecology we should be discussing that which unites us.
‘Relates’, I think you are waging an unnecessary battle. Whether we use the term Ecology or Evolution, the cause and effect is the same… which has very little to do with the goals of BioLogos.
God-led Ecology (or Evolution) is obviously MUCH more precise than the randomness to which you speak.
Sincerely,
George Brooks
@gbrooks9 wrote:
“God-led Ecology (or Evolution) is obviously MUCH more precise than the randomness to which you speak.”
There is only one evolution and one ecology and one God in Three Persons.
You seem to have a cavalier attitude toward the Logos or the Truth.
Maybe it depends what biologists we are talking about. Richard Dawkins is the most prominent biologist talking about evolution and he rejects symbiosis and ecology. I do not see any biologist disagreeing with him, even on BioLogos. I do disagree and I do not care you knows it.
Lynn Margulis rejected the Malthusian theory of Darwinian Natural Selection, and so do I. This is why she rejected the neoDarwinian synthesis which most people call the theory of Evolution. Symbiosis is outside the neoDarwinian synthesis. I stand with the ecological view of Lynn Margulis.
Hi Dr. Fugle,
Thanks for another thoughtful explanation of your thinking and expertise. Although I don’t agree with your conclusions, I like how you put it.
My previous response was inadequate. The goal of BioLogos as I understand it is find an explanation of evolution which is both scientifically accurate and theologically true. This goal is not a subjective task, but a demanding search for God’s scientific truth. I do not see how your “cosmic ray” proposal as a serious effort to meet this goal.
Hypotheses with significant empirical support can’t be accurately described as “wild speculation.”
Really?
So how do YOU think God manipulated the genetic materials of creation?
Does he have arms and hands?
Does he have Harry Potter’s wand?
If cosmic radiation can “flip” the coding of DNA, and DNA coding is the
basis of evolution and changes in the variants of a breeding gene pool…
why wouldn’t cosmic radiation be PERFECT for the task?
George Brooks
So how do YOU think God manipulated the genetic materials of creation?
Does he have arms and hands?
Does he have Harry Potter’s wand?
George, I appreciate your interest and enthusiasm, but what seems to be your combative attitude is out of place in this discussion. You are dismissing what I have to say even before I say it. That is not wise or smart.
First is the question as to whether God “manipulated” genetic materials to produce evolution? This is the position generally speaking is the position of ID, Intelligent Design, which says that God has to guide or manipulate or intervene evolution to create human beings. This position has been rejected by generally speaking by BioLogos. The issue is: Why would God need to manipulate the results of God’s Creation? If God made it and designed it, why would God need to manipulate it or fix it?
Second, God does not manipulate people or things in this way. God leads. God does not compel. God sets up processes that lead to change. God does not force change.
The problem with ID and Darwinism is that they look exclusively at genetic change or Variation as the basis for evolution. That is misleading and why I am critical of Darwinism, ID, and BioLogos for their rejection of ecological Natural Selection. You can control by controlling the input or the output. They look at the input, when we see that God actually uses the output the guide evolution which is quite effective.
If you are interested we can discuss it. If you are not, ?
1 Like
Dear Roger,
You lost me. I don’t understand your distinctions. And I don’t
understand why these theoretical considerations even affect
BioLogos’s mission.
But it’s okay…
George
Maybe there’s a book that you think epitomizes your view. Let me know and I’ll
give it a look…
Yes there is a book about it and Roger wrote it. I bought it and read it. It explains Rogers point very well.