6 ms·
I find it fascinating how many bizarre, wide gaps we have in evolution where we are left wondering how something could have possibly come into existence at all
by EMM_386 3y ago
I find it fascinating how many bizarre, wide gaps we have in evolution where we are left wondering how something could have possibly come into existence at all in the first place.
And clearly, the questions are completely valid. From the most basic "how did life start" to questions like in this article (where did mitochondrion come from?) ... it is very difficult to make sense of. The timescales involved are long, any evidence of the in-between steps is long gone, and simply the odds of these random things occuring would seem to be astronomical.
Taking even just the first premise in this article, that mitochondrion came about due to a cell ingesting another cell, I can see that occuring. Given enough cells, and enough time, I can see it happening repeatedly. I mean, putting a cell in a cell doesn't get you mitochondrion, but you can start with the idea. But how do all these separate isolated occurances, which have no impact on each other in the vast ocean or wherever it is assumed this was taking place, move to the next step?
One single one of those events, then somehow needs not only confer an advantage, but also have the ability then to recreate that "cell within a cell", and then over time that not only needs the survival advantage, it has to undergo further continuous refinement to where, what was a simple merger of two similar things, has become specific internal machinery doing things that confer advantages to the whole.
Just trying to imagine this occuring due to things literally bumping into each other in the ocean already makes my brain start thinking "there's no way". But it is billions of years, there's theoretically a lot of these "primative" cells everywhere, and I just accept that part as seemingly impossible, yet obviously wasn't. And this is all still to try to figure out how only the most basic stuff came about. When you start bringing in complex structures that have to orchestrate with other ones in order to function, it only becomes more difficult and confusing.
At the end of the day, it's obviously evolution. There's literally nothing else it can be. Even if you think it came in on an asteroid, it had to start somewhere. The only other option that I can think of is that none of it is real and the simulation we're living in is glossing over some important details! But I'll stick with evolution.
But it's still very mysterious, to the point it seems to border on the impossible.
- roughly 3y agoPart of what makes this kind of thing difficult to really fathom is the time scales involved - e.coli can reproduce once every 20min or so, yeast can do so every 2 hours or so. 12 replications a day, 4380 replications per year, repeated over a billion years. It all seems phenomenally unlikely, but the combination of an unfathomable number of repetitions and even a small evolutionary thumb on the scale can take you an enormous distance.
- tetris11 3y agoI'm guessing at the start it was incredibly easy to stick things together, like two Lego pieces. After a few thousand years and a few interesting Lego builds, some with interchangeable brick complexes with one another, a great calamity destroys the majority of those builds, leading a sparse minority of builds which seem to have legacy interchangeable brick complexes still for reasons unknown to us
- fallsoffbikes 3y agoI’d suggest the book Life Ascending. It talks about how certain major jumps in complexity occurs. It directly addresses the “bumping in the ocean” you mention — according to the book the likely explanation was these initial reactions occurred in local environments around certain types of thermal vents that were constrained by small geologic features. Interesting read.
- hackeraccount 3y agoThe "not stranger then we suppose but stranger then we can suppose" part for me isn't the how did life start or how did that eukaryotes evolve from prokaryotes. Those are both genuinely mysterious. The thing that gets me is why it was easier to go from no life to life. If you said it took 2 billion years for life to emerge from inorganic molecules but 300 million years after that we had eukaryotes then I'd say, that seems about right - I wonder how it happened? Tell me that (as I understand to be the case) life pops up a couple of hundred million years after it's possible to have life on earth - and then several billion years go by before you get eukaryotes then I'm really left scratching my head. I'm not saying mitochondria aren't amazing but the leap seems closer to me to the evolution of warm blooded animals from cold blooded ones. Life from nothing seems fantastically more complicated. I'm generally down on life's origins being an off-earth thin but ... sometimes I wonder.