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

[doppelganger]

If you define evolution merely as the process of change (without naming the mechanism) then I suppose that I would agree. It's been proven that things change. However, most people nowadays when we speak of evolution are refering to the mechanism of speciation - natural selection - and that has not been proven.

My background in the study of evolution is from the discipline of Anthropology. "Evolution" is understood as "a change in the genetic frequency of a population." The change results from complex interrelationships between genetic diversity, genetically-linked combinations and their associated phenotypes, mutation and natural selection.

 

[darkpenguin]

I have no idea whether there is bacteria on asteroids and comets. I"m sure there is bacteria on other planets.

Random chaos is not hard to believe, of course there is randomness in the universe but there is also order, great order.

Have you never seen the Milky Way?

Do you think the atoms created themselves and then created the laws which govern their formation then gave life to certain arrangements of atoms, then sentient life?

You have too much faith in rocks.

I agree there must be some sort of scientific order, nothing more/nothing less.
I have a lot more faith in rocks and things that can be studied then I do in religion/creationism!

 

[Hema]

I think it was when asteroids from out of space brought foreign bacteria to the planet. On the National Geographic Channel there was an experiment where an asteriod collision was simulated within a vaccuum but bacteria was first injected into the objects. The little critters survived the blast. Do you know what ticks me off? The way that roaches survive everything! AAARGH! I think that they were one of the first life forms on earth...from since the dinosaur age. AAAAARRRGGGHH!!!!!!

 

[pete29]

nobody can ever make me believe that a bunch of rocks got together and deciced to make a universe all by themselves

 

[lilithu]

Wow! How are we unintelligent members supposed to cope then ????:cover:

Maybe Wiki's article on Abiogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis might be more adapted to those of us who haven't studied as much in depth as Lilithu......

Michel, I cannot tell wether your post is passive agressive. It's clear from reading other posts in this thread that there are people here with a much better understanding of abiogensis than myself who are puzzled over different aspects of it. I was supporting DG's statement that one needs an in depth understanding of biochem and, I would add, cellular biology. It's not a matter of intelligence, but specific knowledge. If you read the wiki article and find that you "get" how life arose. then bully for you. I'm saying that I don't.

 

[Valjean]

The idea that Earth was seeded with life by extraterrestrial rocks doesn't alter the various viewpoints in this debate, it merely shifts the venue.

 

[lilithu]

nobody can ever make me believe that a bunch of rocks got together and deciced to make a universe all by themselves

OK. And no one would try to make you believe that.

 

[lilithu]

The idea that Earth was seeded with life by extraterrestrial rocks doesn't alter the various viewpoints in this debate, it merely shifts the venue.

True dat! :yes:

 

[lunamoth]

The idea that Earth was seeded with life by extraterrestrial rocks doesn't alter the various viewpoints in this debate, it merely shifts the venue.

Yes. At best it perhaps gives us more time but it adds the problem of how anything with the properties of life clinging to an asteroid would not be burned up upon entry into our atmosphere.

 

[lilithu]

Yes. At best it perhaps gives us more time but it adds the problem of how anything with the properties of life clinging to an asteroid would not be burned up upon entry into our atmosphere.

I thought Seyorni was refering to the fact that it begs the question of how the life on the asteroid came to be.

 

[Hema]

Yes. At best it perhaps gives us more time but it adds the problem of how anything with the properties of life clinging to an asteroid would not be burned up upon entry into our atmosphere.

Please see my post higher up; regarding the experiment I saw on National Geographic.

 

[michel]

Michel, I cannot tell wether your post is passive agressive. It's clear from reading other posts in this thread that there are people here with a much better understanding of abiogensis than myself who are puzzled over different aspects of it. I was supporting DG's statement that one needs an in depth understanding of biochem and, I would add, cellular biology. It's not a matter of intelligence, but specific knowledge. If you read the wiki article and find that you "get" how life arose. then bully for you. I'm saying that I don't.

It most certainly isn't; it is the cry of an ignoramus, surrounded by people whose language he is having trouble with - and I think you do yourself an injustice by playing down your own understanding.

My point was a 'wail' of "If you say, that with your qualifications, you are not completely confident, then how is poor little me supposed to cope ?"

The people come along and talk about strings...............:cover:

 

[pete29]

OK. And no one would try to make you believe that.

i'm sorry my meaning was that it seems silly that matter can do things on its own. i didn't mean to imply that anyone here would force their views on me. nobody can make me believe = I can't comprehend that. Welcome to illinois hillbilly speak

 

[lunamoth]

I thought Seyorni was refering to the fact that it begs the question of how the life on the asteroid came to be.

That's what I was referring to as well. You still have to figure out where that life came from...but if you assume that there are other plantets conducive to life they may have gone through their phase of organic life earlier than earth...so there is more time to overcome the improbable statistics of abiogeneisis.

Every hypothesis about life being seeded here from other planets creates as many new questions as it answers.

 

[lunamoth]

It most certainly isn't; it is the cry of an ignoramus, surrounded by people whose language he is having trouble with - and I think you do yourself an injustice by playing down your own understanding.

My point was a 'wail' of "If you say, that with your qualifications, you are not completely confident, then how is poor little me supposed to cope ?"

The people come along and talk about strings...............:cover:

I get the same feeling when people start talking about finances and stock options.

 

[pete29]

I think it was when asteroids from out of space brought foreign bacteria to the planet. On the National Geographic Channel there was an experiment where an asteriod collision was simulated within a vaccuum but bacteria was first injected into the objects. The little critters survived the blast. Do you know what ticks me off? The way that roaches survive everything! AAARGH! I think that they were one of the first life forms on earth...from since the dinosaur age. AAAAARRRGGGHH!!!!!!

i ask this respectfully, can you tell me where these bacteria came from

 

[nutshell]

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?

There is a great explanation and a small group of scientists have watched it happen in gaseous hot springs in (Greenland?). I'll see if I can find the info. online and post it. It's fascinating.

 

[Rough_ER]

i ask this respectfully, can you tell me where these bacteria came from

Can you?

 

[doppelganger]

I thought Seyorni was refering to the fact that it begs the question of how the life on the asteroid came to be.

That's how I understood it too. Seyorni's post underscores a more fundamental problem of a 'logical' discussion of origins though. Nothing ever solves the problem of the origin of the universe. What this tells us is that the phenomenology of cause and effect upon which all of our language, logic and thought is based (and for a reason, too, as it is very useful) is not a valid way to think about origins. This means: (1) science can't provide an explanation because it, too, is a creature of language; and, (2) "theism" can't provide the missing answer either but is merely a placeholder for the non-answer achievable by our enslavement by circumstance to the logic of cause and effect.


From Will to Power

In summa: everything of which we become conscious is a terminal phenomenon, an end--and causes nothing; every successive phenomenon in consciousness is completely atomistic--And we have sought to understand the world through the reverse conception--as if nothing were real and effective but thinking, feeling, willing!--

The phenomenalism of the "inner world." Chronological inversion, so that the cause enters consciousness later than the effect.--We have learned that pain is projected to a part of the body without being situated there--we have learned that sense impressions naively supposed to be conditioned by the outer world are, on the contrary, conditioned by the inner world; that we are always unconscious of the real activity of the outer world--The fragment of outer world of which we are conscious is born after an effect from outside has impressed itself upon us, and is subsequently projected as its "cause"--

In the phenomenalism of the "inner world" we invert the chronological order of cause and effect. The fundamental fact of "inner experience" is that the cause is imagined after the effect has taken place--The same applies to the succession of thoughts: --we seek the reason for a thought before we are conscious of it; and the reason enters consciousness first, and then its consequence--Our entire dream life is the interpretation of complex feelings with a view to possible causes--and in such way that we are conscious of a condition only when the supposed causal chain associated with it has entered consciousness.

The whole of "inner experience" rests upon the fact that a cause for an excitement of the nerve centers is sought and imagined --and that only a cause thus discovered enters consciousness: this cause in no way corresponds to the real cause--it is a groping on the basis of previous "inner experiences," i. e., of memory. But memory also maintains the habit of the old interpretations, i. e., of erroneous causality--so that the "inner experience" has to contain within it the consequences of all previous false causal fictions. Our "outer world" as we project it every moment is indissolubly tied to the old error of the ground: we interpret it by means of the schematism of "things," etc.

"Inner experience" enters our consciousness only after it has found a language the individual understands--i. e., a translation of a condition into conditions familiar to him--; "to understand" means merely: to be able to express something new in the language of something old and familiar. E. g., "I feel unwell"--such a judgment presupposes a great and late neutrality of the observer--; the simple man always says: this or that makes me feel unwell --he makes up his mind about his feeling unwell only when he has seen a reason for feeling unwell.--I call that a lack of philology; to be able to read off a text as a text without interposing an interpretation is the last-developed form of "inner experience"-- perhaps one that is hardly possible--

 

[lilithu]

That's how I understood it too. Seyorni's post underscores a more fundamental problem of a 'logical' discussion of origins though. Nothing ever solves the problem of the origin of the universe. What this tells us is that the phenomenology of cause and effect upon which all of our language, logic and thought is based (and for a reason, too, as it is very useful) is not a valid way to think about origins. This means: (1) science can't provide an explanation because it, too, is a creature of language; and, (2) "theism" can't provide the missing answer either but is merely a placeholder for the non-answer achievable by our enslavement by circumstance to the logic of cause and effect.

Agreed! :yes: