Atruthseeker
Active Member
Actually, re-phrase that. Did the very first form of life evolve (and I don't mean afterwards)? Opinions please! :shout
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did the very first cell evolve?
- Thread starter Atruthseeker
- Start date
I'm speechless. Rarely does one encounter a question so wondrously inane, so deliciously stupid. :clap
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Let's play anyway.
First some chemistry sufficient to sustain a replicating reaction.
Some would say a virus type of life would precede all else.
Having the ability to reproduce is a characteristic of life.
Forming a cell wall would enhance and prolong the reaction, as the delicate strands of the genetics would be better protected.
From there...diversity.
First some chemistry sufficient to sustain a replicating reaction.
Some would say a virus type of life would precede all else.
Having the ability to reproduce is a characteristic of life.
Forming a cell wall would enhance and prolong the reaction, as the delicate strands of the genetics would be better protected.
From there...diversity.
Half Asleep
Crazy-go-nuts
All life "evolves."
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
In the Archean period ( very low oxygen atmosphere) the earliest organisms existed pretty much unchanged for eons. There was literally an ocean of resources and no real environmental pressure to change and obviously no predators. Eventually the bluegreen algae whose metabolic process produced oxygen as waste. Oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere until its level rose high enough that it actually started to poison the microbes that produced it. This was the first real environmental pressure for major change. Soon more efficient aerobic bacteria evolved (some the first predators) and then competition for resources and so the the evolutionary ball started rolling. The rest is history.
So getting back to the OP the FIRST organism is hard to define and is addressed best under the topic of abiogenesis. It depends how your define life. Which ever way you do it, it will consist of a number of criteria eg
Ability to reproduce
Uses external energy and nutrients to do work.
It does work
Excretes waste.
Is "Anti-entropic"
Ability to evolve.
It can die.
These are criteria we can apply to most of the organisms we see around today and are familiar with. But what if the organism in question has some of these characteristics but not all. For example a virus? Is it living. It cannot metabolise nutrients or utilise energy, it relies on a host for that, but it is hard not to look at a virus and regard it as anything but a functional form of life.
The chances of getting all the bits randomly together in one spot at one time to produce the First organism is a bit of a stretch. But when we consider the early earth was a sterile environment odd combinations of particles with some of the life characteristics can hang around for literally millions of years intact. Remember that one teaspoon of water could have miscelles containing 10^20 combinations happily coexisting, now consider how many teaspoons it takes to fill the pacific ocean thats a lot of combos and they have half a billion years to bump into one another in the surf and waves. The odds skyrocket because the chances of substance 1 with characteristics ABC may combine with substance 2 with characteristics DEF, giving us a finished organism for the first time with ABCDEF characteristics = life. This step wise process is extremely feasible. In fact it occured rather quickly in only a couple of hundred million years after the earth was cool enough to support a liquid aqueous environment. For those interested the evolution of the humble mitochondria is enlightening.
So we need to define life, but be flexible enough to consider proto life where a substance can have many of the characteristics we defined above.
Cheers
So getting back to the OP the FIRST organism is hard to define and is addressed best under the topic of abiogenesis. It depends how your define life. Which ever way you do it, it will consist of a number of criteria eg
Ability to reproduce
Uses external energy and nutrients to do work.
It does work
Excretes waste.
Is "Anti-entropic"
Ability to evolve.
It can die.
These are criteria we can apply to most of the organisms we see around today and are familiar with. But what if the organism in question has some of these characteristics but not all. For example a virus? Is it living. It cannot metabolise nutrients or utilise energy, it relies on a host for that, but it is hard not to look at a virus and regard it as anything but a functional form of life.
The chances of getting all the bits randomly together in one spot at one time to produce the First organism is a bit of a stretch. But when we consider the early earth was a sterile environment odd combinations of particles with some of the life characteristics can hang around for literally millions of years intact. Remember that one teaspoon of water could have miscelles containing 10^20 combinations happily coexisting, now consider how many teaspoons it takes to fill the pacific ocean thats a lot of combos and they have half a billion years to bump into one another in the surf and waves. The odds skyrocket because the chances of substance 1 with characteristics ABC may combine with substance 2 with characteristics DEF, giving us a finished organism for the first time with ABCDEF characteristics = life. This step wise process is extremely feasible. In fact it occured rather quickly in only a couple of hundred million years after the earth was cool enough to support a liquid aqueous environment. For those interested the evolution of the humble mitochondria is enlightening.
So we need to define life, but be flexible enough to consider proto life where a substance can have many of the characteristics we defined above.
Cheers
Last edited:
dust1n
Zindīq
Nope, but eventually it's replicating children mutated and turned into something that was not original. Granted to say, a single anything can not evolve, only adapt. Evolution is something that happens between generations.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
He's asking if the first organisms were the product of darwinian evolution, or at least a similar evolutionary process. Given how much we emphasize the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, it's actually an extremely good question.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Can you ever dignify anyone with a response other than an insult Jay?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Here's a concept you need to get used to: In nature, very few things are absolute. There are no bright lines. There's not a clear division between "alive" and "not alive." There's not a clear distinction between a cell and something less than a cell. There's not a single moment we could point to, even had we been there with a microscopic video-camera, and say, "Voila, the first living thing." For example, even today, viruses are in between being alive and not alive. Rather what you have, what you always have, is a gradual movement toward being a living thing, and a point at which we can clearly say we've moved past that boundary. So there really isn't a single instance of "the first living thing."
Before there was true life, there was not true Darwinian evolution. However, as soon as molecules began to replicate, something like evolution did come into play. Do you see why?
Before there was true life, there was not true Darwinian evolution. However, as soon as molecules began to replicate, something like evolution did come into play. Do you see why?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Jay: There is no such thing as a stupid question. We are all ignorant of many things, including you. As long as a person is trying to rectify their ignorance, all questions should be welcomed and, if possible, answered. The scholars of the Talmud encourage Jews to ask questions, that they may constantly enhance their learning.
Gabethewiking
Active Member
ah... Truth... I do not know what to say. First I really want to ask you if you know what Evolution means, the word that is. Anyway, read what Thief wrote (very simple and clear, no hard thinking for you) and then Tiapan's post for extra points on your essay.
Then you may ask questions. Read first, before asking questions.
Atruthseeker
Active Member
Thanks....:slap:
lunamoth
Will to love
When you think about it, it would almost have to. Any replicating system is going to be more 'successful' the more it combines the attributes of stability and self-replication. But, not perfect self-replication, or there would be no room for improvement. So, even pre-life there would be competition for metabolites and a more successful system will out-replicate the others.
I think that the first membranes were added to the replicating systems that eventually became life because they provided a matrix for more efficient replication mechanisms that required more than one component (keeping the metabolites in close proximity), and after that because they provided the means for a gradient differential that could be harnessed for even more efficient energy production.
It does still seem a big jump, though, between a self-replicating system and the ability to harness chemical or physical energy. No doubt it happened, but this just seems like one of the biggest jumps that had to be made.
Last edited:
Atruthseeker
Active Member
Yeah, like a person jumping from Las Vegas to New York in one bound.
Thought Criminal
Member
Atruthseeker
Active Member
Hey, that's the sort of thing I get from evolutionists all the time.
Thought Criminal
Member
"I know you are but what am I?" is so childish as to not even rate a fallacy.
The argument from personal incredulity is the trick you played when you pretended that your refusal to accept something had anything to do with its truth.
I am beginning to conclude that you are intellectually stunted.
TC
Atruthseeker
Active Member
I'm not the one who believes life came from nothing.:angel2:
Thought Criminal
Member
Nor am I. It would make you look much less foolish if you learned what your opponents actually believe instead of attacking a straw man.
TC