This is E.coli. E. coli has about 4,639,221 nucleotide base pairs, which code for 4,288 genes, each one of which produces an enormously complex protein machine. The E.coli is a good study subject because it represents the smallest type of self-sustainable life form. Many of the smaller bacteria are parasitic types of life forms which dont really make a good subject for the study of minimal requirements of life.(Its another subject to try to understand how these little parasites evolved)
So if E.coli represents early evolution, how in the world did it evolve to the tremendous level of complexity which it has?
Every machine must have a certain minimum number of parts for it to function, and if one part below this minimum is removed, the machine will cease to function. E.coli represents a machine which is vastly complex even to the level that there are really only a few people on earth who completely understand it, (and I have a feeling that complete knowledge of just about anything in the world is impossible at this time)so it certainly is beyond what we can understand.
However, we can use what we do understand about things, and we can take our own common sense(mixed with a lot of bias
) and come up with conclusions that make sense. So I can only give the "present state of my knowledge", next week, the "present state of my knowledge" will hopefully grow. But according to my limited knowledge, a cellular life form, a single-celled organism like the E.coli and any cell throughout any body consists of some basic parts:
1.
DNA \- contains the cell's "masterplan"
2.
RNA - Transports protein assembly instructions to the "protein assembly station"
3.
Proteins - Which make up everything.
4.
Ribosomes ,
enzymes , various other chaperons and protein assembly helpers.
So it is a lot like a machine or a factory. All the peices are dependent upon each other, DNA would be nothing without RNA and proteins. (Though there seems to be some mixing within the various function for certain types of cells)
So the problem of the complexity of life is a real obstacle to the theory of evolution. Various theories have been used to explain it,
Panspermia being one solution, which basically states that life started elsewhere (like ello said), but that theory just displaces the essential problem. I think it is worth saying that panspermia itself was advanced by
Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, Crick was one of the co-discoverers of DNA, and the complexity of the model would be extremely familiar to him.
But panspermia only takes the problem of the complexity of a cell to a different part of the universe, it doesnt directly address it. The naturalistic view is that all of this assembled rather by chance, however, even if we igonre the amazing odds against that happening, natural evolutionists still seem to ignore that a cell needs a way to take in food and biochemically process it. It also needs a way to distribute oxygen. None of these processes/functions could have evolved seperately, and none of them could have survived independently. The beginning life form is what we call: "irreducibly complex".
Irreducible complexity is found all throughout biology, yet at its most fundamental level, the cell, it is blazingly apparent.
Even if these parts and functions could have evolved (through mutation, which cannot happen), the many parts needed for life could not sit idle waiting for the other parts to evolve, because the existing ones would usually deteriorate very quickly from the effects of:
1.
Dehydration 2.
Oxidation 3. The action of bacteria or other pathogens.
For this reason, only an instantaneous creation of all the necessary parts as a functioning unit can produce life.
