How did the first living thing on earth come to life?

[Comprehend]

I don't really want to debate this but don't know where to put it. I would like to know what evolutionists believe happened because I haven't heard a coherent explanation yet.

According to evolution, at one time after the earth formed, there was no life whatever to be found. It was all a primordeal soup of elements that were boiling hot, etc etc. Then if I understand correctly, some elements randomly formed themselves in the proper order, lightning struck and viola - we have our first living cell/virus whatever.

My question is this, what is the theory of how the first living thing CAME TO LIFE? We are easily able to assemble elements into whatever fashion we choose in a lab but cannot make non-living material come to life right? Why can it not be replicated, it should be simple for us to assemble a cell into the proper configuration and bring it to life, right (now lets be honest, taking a formerly living cell and transferring a new nucleus aint the same thing)? Isn't this teaching spontaneous generation?

Evolution doesn't really hang it's hat on the Bubble Theory do they? Can someone please tell me how it started?

 

[doppelganger]

I don't really want to debate this but don't know where to put it. I would like to know what evolutionists believe happened because I haven't heard a coherent explanation yet.

Without really investing yourself in the study of biochemistry, the explanations are not going to be coherent.

 

[Djamila]

Evolution doesn't really hang it's hat on the Bubble Theory do they? Can someone please tell me how it started?

Evolution has nothing to do with how life began.

 

[Comprehend]

Without really investing yourself in the study of biochemistry, the explanations are not going to be coherent.

I got an A in Biology in undergrad and took Chemistry in High School. Would that help?

Edit: to assume I knew nothing about Biology is a bit telling don't you think The problem isn't that I can't understand biochemistry, it is that I can't get anyone to tell me what the theory is.

 

[doppelganger]

I got an A in Biology in undergrad and took Chemistry in High School. Would that help?

Edit: to assume I knew nothing about Biology is a bit telling don't you think The problem isn't that I can't understand biochemistry, it is that I can't get anyone to tell me what the theory is.

Somebody telling you what the theory is won't help you understand it. You have to really study it until you understand it. Then you can use that understanding to poke holes in it, if you can find any to poke. Knowledge, unlike salmon, can't swim upstream.

 

[Halcyon]

I don't really want to debate this but don't know where to put it. I would like to know what evolutionists believe happened because I haven't heard a coherent explanation yet.

According to evolution, at one time after the earth formed, there was no life whatever to be found. It was all a primordial soup of elements that were boiling hot, etc etc. Then if I understand correctly, some elements randomly formed themselves in the proper order, lightning struck and viola - we have our first living cell/virus whatever.

My question is this, what is the theory of how the first living thing CAME TO LIFE? We are easily able to assemble elements into whatever fashion we choose in a lab but cannot make non-living material come to life right? Why can it not be replicated, it should be simple for us to assemble a cell into the proper configuration and bring it to life, right (now lets be honest, taking a formerly living cell and transferring a new nucleus aint the same thing)? Isn't this teaching spontaneous generation?

Evolution doesn't really hang it's hat on the Bubble Theory do they? Can someone please tell me how it started?

No one knows how life began. People may argue with that, but they will be unequivocally wrong.

There are several theories and possibilities. The one i was taught as most likely was the primordial soup origin theory.
For life as we know it we need three basic constituents; amino acids, a coding chemical (DNA or RNA) and a lipid bilayer.
Amino acids form readily under lab based recreations of what the early Earth would have been like. And even if they didn't, it wouldn't be a problem because amino acids rain to Earth in great quantities within meteorites every day, and 3.5 billion years ago there would have been many million times the number meteorite collisions we have today.

Lipid bilayers are what constitute the membranes of all living cells. They are relatively simple in structure and again coacervates (spheres of lipid membranes) have been formed under lab conditions.

DNA and RNA are the complicated part, although its reasonably safe to say the use of these coding molecules occured after a very basic form of cell, composed of only protein and lipids, began to evolve.
Proteinoid microspheres are by far the most compelling evidence for a pre-nucleic, protein-only cell form. These microspheres have been produced under laboratory conditions, they show some membranous selectivity, they grow larger with consumption of surrounding amino acids and they exhibit binary fission, just like cells we recognise as living today.

I have no idea how these cell precursors began using nucleic acids as informational storage. However there are theories;
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v1/n3/full/embor574.html

This article is a good outline, if a little presumptive for my tastes.

 

[SerotoninIdler]

The most common one I have hear is that a bunch of elements were near each other and a thunder storm occured, which created some organic molecules, which formed amino acids then protiens.Those organic molecules then combine to form organelles, then prokaryotic cells which combined to form eukaryotic cells.
(That much has been proven by a couple scientists. Nobody knows how DNA and RNA came about, however)

 

[Rough_ER]

For life as we know it we need three basic constituents; amino acids, a coding chemical (DNA or RNA) and a lipid bilayer.

Naughty boy, that's phospholipid bilayer!

 

[Halcyon]

Naughty boy, that's phospholipid bilayer!

Quite right, would you believe i'm tired? Really i'm just lazy and forgetful.

 

[Rough_ER]

The most common one I have hear is that a bunch of elements were near each other and a thunder storm occured, which created some organic molecules, which formed amino acids then protiens.Those organic molecules then combine to form organelles, then prokaryotic cells which combined to form eukaryotic cells.
(That much has been proven by a couple scientists. Nobody knows how DNA and RNA came about, however)

Don't say proven, nothing has been proven and it never will be, science is incapable of that.

I would tend to think that lipids and phospholipids are the important part. Due to their polarity phospholipids will arrange themselves into a sphere with a space in the middle. There you are with a cell essentially, with a membrane which is easily permeable to lipid soluble molecules. As to how they then reproduce I have no idea. :s

 

[Halcyon]

Don't say proven, nothing has been proven and it never will be, science is incapable of that.

I would tend to think that lipids and phospholipids are the important part. Due to their polarity phospholipids will arrange themselves into a sphere with a space in the middle. There you are with a cell essentially, with a membrane which is easily permeable to lipid soluble molecules. As to how they then reproduce I have no idea. :s

Check out those proteinoid microspheres i was gibbering about my endoplasmical friend. It's quite astounding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid

 

[Rough_ER]

Now that is really interesting. To be honest I didn't know that peptide bonds could only be formed at 170 degrees but anyways... Am I right in thinking that the ribosomes now take the role of assembling polypeptide chains? Ribosomes are tricky little buggers to understand, what they do is simply amazing. (Imagine if they decided to stop working! Yikes!).

P.S It had never dawned on me that a catalyst might have been involved in the early stages. Nice thought.

 

[logician]

I wish these creationists or whoever they are would get thru their thick skulls that EVOLUTION has nothing to do with HOW LIFE FORMED initially. Evolution is only about how life changed thru time, AFTER it had already come into being. Life could have formed in the primordial soup, or have been seeded from some outside source like a comet or meteor. Since we weren't there at the beginning, it's really just a guess.

 

[UnityNow101]

The process of evolution has been proven scientifically through careful observation of the world around us and the changes that are happening. However, evolution has not yet, nor ever will, disprove the existence of a Divine Creator who initially sparked it all. When we think of evolution it must be the continual changes that are happening throughout the living world and NEVER put it in place of God. Evolution is a process ordained by God Almighty.

 

[Comprehend]

No one knows how life began. People may argue with that, but they will be unequivocally wrong.

There are several theories and possibilities. The one i was taught as most likely was the primordial soup origin theory.
For life as we know it we need three basic constituents; amino acids, a coding chemical (DNA or RNA) and a lipid bilayer.
Amino acids form readily under lab based recreations of what the early Earth would have been like. And even if they didn't, it wouldn't be a problem because amino acids rain to Earth in great quantities within meteorites every day, and 3.5 billion years ago there would have been many million times the number meteorite collisions we have today.

Lipid bilayers are what constitute the membranes of all living cells. They are relatively simple in structure and again coacervates (spheres of lipid membranes) have been formed under lab conditions.

DNA and RNA are the complicated part, although its reasonably safe to say the use of these coding molecules occured after a very basic form of cell, composed of only protein and lipids, began to evolve.
Proteinoid microspheres are by far the most compelling evidence for a pre-nucleic, protein-only cell form. These microspheres have been produced under laboratory conditions, they show some membranous selectivity, they grow larger with consumption of surrounding amino acids and they exhibit binary fission, just like cells we recognise as living today.

I have no idea how these cell precursors began using nucleic acids as informational storage. However there are theories;
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v1/n3/full/embor574.html

This article is a good outline, if a little presumptive for my tastes.

ah. thank you. some actual information.

 

[logician]

The process of evolution has been proven scientifically through careful observation of the world around us and the changes that are happening. However, evolution has not yet, nor ever will, disprove the existence of a Divine Creator who initially sparked it all. When we think of evolution it must be the continual changes that are happening throughout the living world and NEVER put it in place of God. Evolution is a process ordained by God Almighty.

Actually, evolution proves there is no need for a creator god, or any other god for that matter, the multiverse is ruled by chaos.

 

[UnityNow101]

Evolution may explain how things are continually changing, but in NO way does it explain how everything came together in the first place OR what brought everything together.

 

[Valjean]

There are two relatively simple approaches to this subject:
Given: I think we can all agree that life did arise; that there was once a time when the Planet was sterile, and that now there is life.

Approach #1: Life arose, at least once, through some natural biochemical process or processes.

Approach #2: Life arose by magic (ie: by an unknowable mechanism) through the volitional act of an invisible, undetectable, immensely powerful personage/personages.

#1 falls within the purview of science. Several mechanisms have been proposed, and are actively being investigated. More, no doubt, to follow.

#2 falls completely outside the purview of science, cannot be investigated in any systematic way, cannot be falsified, and, indeed, does not even propose a mechanism that might be investigated.

The first approach yields plenty of material for discussion. The second, though, is rather jejune. It's pretty much an agree/disagree proposal devoid of any supporting evidence.

 

[Djamila]

Evolution has nothing to do with how life began.

Then why is the thread still going?

I don't know, maybe people can't read?

Or perhaps they want to discuss how life started anyway, even though the OP doesn't make any sense?

Could be, but have they no consideration for perfectionists like us?

Apparently not.

Okay, we'll play it low-key - but if anyone mentions evolution in relation to the creation of life again, we'll pounce - agreed?

Sounds good!

 

[lilithu]

I got an A in Biology in undergrad and took Chemistry in High School. Would that help?

Edit: to assume I knew nothing about Biology is a bit telling don't you think The problem isn't that I can't understand biochemistry, it is that I can't get anyone to tell me what the theory is.

I did not get the impression that DG was saying that you know nothing about biology. That's you reading into his post. I did get the impression that he was assuming that you probably don't have an advanced understanding of biochem. And that's what it would take.

I know that sounds elitist and deceptive - I know it sounds like it's a big mystery that you can't understand and you'll just have to trust it's true. But honestly, he's telling the truth. I majored in bio as an undergrad. I got A's in all my bio classes. Even then I only understood bits and pieces and took the truth of evolution on faith. I had faith in science even tho I didn't fully understand it. It wasn't until grad school and being really immersed in biology - biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, developmental biology, ecology, functional morphology, and evolutionary genetics that I started to see how things really do fit altogether. And I'm talking about my understanding of speciation (how new species evolve from pre-existing species). I have some vague understanding of the theories of abiogensis (the beginning of life) but I don't fully comprehend it. And I have a PhD in biology. Without the necessary knowledge-base, as DG said the explanations won't make sense.