What if life began with a single cell. And what if life multiplied when that cell divided into two cells (mitosis).
And what if you were around six or seven thousand years ago and you knew that life started with a single cell that divided into two cells, but you were trying to explain that to someone that didn't even know that cells existed (and who probably still wouldn't get it even if you explained it since the microscope hadn't been invented yet to show them what you meant). So how would you explain it to them? What would you say to get that idea across while still being comprehensible?
In other words, how would you describe mitosis to an ancient Sumerian or Akkadian in a way that they might still get the main idea of what you're saying?
As far back as Greek times they had the concept of atoms, though no direct evidence to support their existence. I think you could approach such a discuss with someone back then with the same approach; i.e., show them a piece of skin, then ask them to imagine dividing it until you got down to some level of division where, after one more cut, "skinness" ceases. Then, with that concept in mind, break it up in the pieces that constitute a cell and explain from there.
ReplyDeleteand you don't think that would just freak them out rather than make it clear?
ReplyDeletethe atom idea was, what? 3000 years ago? go another 4000 years back and would people have gotten it?
i think there's also the problem of conveying the idea of life at that size.
Oh, I'm sure it would freak them out just as any radical idea is initially freaky. But I think they could figure that out.
ReplyDeleteAs for life, we can't even agree today what constitutes "life". At that level, are bacteria and virus "alive"? They're not much different from what a lot of people want to call life...
this reminds me of a challenge my brother threw at me a few years ago when we were discussing the creation/evolution issue and he suggested that the Genesis account was written that way because how could you describe evolution in a way that would be simple enough for people at that time to understand - I said I'm sure God could have found a way, he is omnipotent after all, and my brother said: you're the writer, write it. so I did - I wrote an alternative account of creation in simple words, talking about how in the beginning God made tiny little beings and from them he made bigger beings and so on... showing how creation could have been described in the Bible if evolution theory was true. (I've probably still got this kicking around somewhere.)
ReplyDeletebut then, who says there was a need to say how it happened - the Bible could have just said: in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and all that's in them, even the sun and the moon and the stars, everything that grows, and all living beings. and he even made man. end of story, moving now on to other stuff.
i'd love to read it. :-)who says there was a need to say how it happened i find it interesting that God didn't say how for anything except man and woman. man's was formed from dirt. woman was formed from man. but nothing else gets even that much explanation.
ReplyDeletegoing to have to translate it, wrote it in Hebrew. but it's high time I did translate it into English anyway.
ReplyDeleteok, I've translated it. here goes:
ReplyDeleteHow creation could have been described in the book of Genesis if God had made the world using evolution:
In the beginning God said: let there be a massive loud bang. And there was a massive loud bang. And God made all the stars and the sun and the moon and the earth. And on the earth God made tiny little creatures. And out of those tiny little creatures God made all the plants and all that creeps on the earth and all the fish in the sea and all the birds of the air and all the animals and man.
Not to be argumentative (who, me? :) but evolution only comes into play where life exists and changes over time. Prior to that you have abiogenesis to explain the transformation of non-living into living material, and cosmology to explain formation of planets, solar systems and the like.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think even Genesis would have animals evolving into plants. ;)
oh, ok, so I shouldn't have just said evolution, I should have added abiogenesis (new word for me) and the big bang theory and possibly other stuff too.
ReplyDeleteanimals evolving into plants?
oh, I see what you mean. I've got the plants evolving from the tiny creatures. yes, this needs some tweaking.
ReplyDeleteYeah, just to keep things clear. I've spoken with people in past who thought evolution was "wrong" because it doesn't explain the origins of planets or of life.
ReplyDeleteoh, how peculiar! hadn't come across this view. I thought it was kind of obvious that the theory of evolution was about the development of animals and humans, not an attempt to explain "life, the universe and everything"...
ReplyDeleteSome people are very zealous in their desire to reject it.
ReplyDeleteI've never seen the point in saying you reject X on the basis of X being not-X. if you're going to reject something you might as well have the decency to find out what that something is.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's the most admirable of approaching something, even if it's something that might shake your understanding of things. That's totally how to be intellectually honest, and I respect that in a person. :)
ReplyDeletethanks, Darryl - for me this has always seemed the only way that makes any sense, if I am wrong about something then I do want to find that out. without this willingness to allow my understanding to be shaken, I would never have come to the point of rejecting the theory of evolution, for example... and I would definitely never have become a Christian. I was brought up on the idea that Jews don't believe in Jesus and that's that - it is so deeply ingrained in us, it's hard to describe. But the way I look at life is: if I've found out that X is (to the best of my understanding ) true, then that's that, I embrace X as true and live with that.
ReplyDeleteYou reject evolution? Based on what? I won't go into a debate, but am curious what aspects of evolution you feel make it unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteoh, very long story... but for me it started with seeing how it doesn't add up with what the Bible says. later I also heard scientists speak on the subject and point out all sorts of things about the theory of evolution that they reckon don't add up scientifically, and some areas where the evidence is being interpreted in a certain way but it doesn't have to be that way. (but I'd better stop here, because it's 2.20am here and my brain is heading for meltdown and science is a subject I've seriously never been good at so it's not the sort of thing to try and handle when I'm half asleep.)
ReplyDelete