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

[pete29]

Can you?

no. thats why i believe in God

 

[Hema]

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

Hee hee. You are so kind. I saw your reply about God in your other post so you will find my answer to this question when I answer that one.

 

[Rough_ER]

no. thats why i believe in God

Huh? Why not try and find out where the bacteria came from dude?

 

[Hema]

no. thats why i believe in God

So, here's my answer to your question --- these bacteria come from other planets. If you were to ask how did they get there in the first place? Beat's me. I don't know. I have no idea. However, I'm saying that I don't know from a scientific perspective. Like you, I also believe in God and yes, I do believe that all life comes from God, bacteria included. How did God arrange for the bacteria to end up on other planets, beat's me.

 

[Valjean]

Why do you think it's more likely that life arose in a far-away chemical cauldron rather than in our own planetary soup? We know very little about conditions anywhere other than on earth.

And then there is the possibility (probability?) that new life is being generated all the time, all over the planet, if not all over the Universe. Life on Earth might be a mix of thousands of sources.

 

[lunamoth]

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

Hi Hema,

That's interesting. I did not see that Nat. Geo. episode so I can't really comment on it except to say I don't say it's impossible. Just that it does not really solve the problem of abiogenesis and it introduces new problems, like how did bacteria get inside an asteroid and where did they come from in the first place.

And yes, I hate cockroaches too. Blech!

 

[lunamoth]

And then there is the possibility (probability?) that new life is being generated all the time, all over the planet, if not all over the Universe. Life on Earth might be a mix of thousands of sources.

Actually, this adds another problem to the abiogeneisis problem. If life is originating (and most likely almost simultaneously dying out) on this planet still...why do we not see evidence of this? Why don't we find self-replicating proto-cells? Again, I'm not saying I don't think this could happen...it's a good hypothesis and open to investigation.

Maybe the answer is that conditions on earth are no longer conducive to abiogenesis.

 

[lilithu]

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...............

Sorry Michel. It read like sarcasm but I should have known better. Luna's got a PhD in bio also and from the sounds of it there are a lot of people here with advanced knowledge of bio, whether formal or informal. I really don't understand abiogensis. Biochem was my least favorite subject within biology.

You'll cope the same way that the rest of us do, with a bit of faith in science. We are in the same boat on most subjects. I gave up a very long time ago the delusion that I was going to be able to understand everything.

I've heard Steven Hawking speak on big bang theory and specific singularities a few times and each time as I'm hearing him it seems to make sense, but as soon as the lecture is over I am unable to relate it to another person in a coherent manner. As I grasped for language I could feel the sense the understanding fade, as if I needed language to tether it to my brain. As for string theory.... I get tangled up in it.

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

Yup. For the life of me I can't understand economics, and I've tried to.

 

[doppelganger]

Maybe the answer is that conditions on earth are no longer conducive to abiogenesis.

I think that's true under most, if not all, of the major theories I've seen proposed.

 

[lilithu]

Actually, this adds another problem to the abiogeneisis problem. If life is originating (and most likely almost simultaneously dying out) on this planet still...why do we not see evidence of this? Why don't we find self-replicating proto-cells? Again, I'm not saying I don't think this could happen...it's a good hypothesis and open to investigation.

Maybe the answer is that conditions on earth are no longer conducive to abiogenesis.

I vaguely remember being taught that the "act" of abiogenesis changed the environment so that it was no longer conducive to it. But you and Seyorni are right that we (or at least I) tend to think of this as a once only process. "In the beginning..." And this speaks to DG's point about the limitations caused by our framing this within cause and effect.

Funny... I've gotten over that kind linear thinking with respect to the bible. I no longer think that "In the beginning" refers to a specific temporal point but rather is an ontological statement. But I slipped right back into the linear here.

 

[lunamoth]

I think that's true under most, if not all, of the major theories I've seen proposed.

Me too. But there are still microenvironments that may be somewhat like the 'primordial soup.' (Eh, I'm not real thrilled with that particular phrase). Places with high temps, low oxygen, abundant hydrogen sulfide, etc..

 

[Hema]

Why do you think it's more likely that life arose in a far-away chemical cauldron rather than in our own planetary soup? We know very little about conditions anywhere other than on earth.

And then there is the possibility (probability?) that new life is being generated all the time, all over the planet, if not all over the Universe. Life on Earth might be a mix of thousands of sources.

Our planet might have been formed from matter originating from another part of the universe. "“the big bang” is defined by a theory proposing that the earth was one of the larger particles that coalesced after the initial universe explosion, or big bang, that spewed all the particles in the universe away from a central point and destined them to slowly revolve around that point." (http://www.infoplease.com/cig/biology/early-earth-environment.html)

 

[lilithu]

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

I understood that you weren't talking about people forcing their views on you. My response was based on the fact that (at least from a naturalist view point) no one is arguing that matter is "motivated" by any type of sentient volition. Rocks would not "decide" anything. Sorry that my response was cryptic.

 

[doppelganger]

Funny... I've gotten over that kind linear thinking with respect to the bible. I no longer think that "In the beginning" refers to a specific temporal but rather is an ontological statement. But I slipped right back into the linear here.

I always felt it was a mistake to use "Created" instead of "shaped" or "formed" in Gen. 1. The latter also has the added advantage of being more clearly consistent with the sort of thing a Word (logos) could accomplish.

 

[lunamoth]

I vaguely remember being taught that the "act" of abiogenesis changed the environment so that it was no longer conducive to it. But you and Seyorni are right that we (or at least I) tend to think of this as a once only process. "In the beginning..." And this speaks to DG's point about the limitations caused by our framing this within cause and effect.

Yes, that's the idea I'm familiar with too.

Funny... I've gotten over that kind linear thinking with respect to the bible. I no longer think that "In the beginning" refers to a specific temporal but rather is an ontological statement. But I slipped right back into the linear here.

But there's nothing wrong with linear thinking in this case. This was posed as a question for science and this would be the way science approaches abiogenesis.

 

[doppelganger]

Me too. But there are still microenvironments that may be somewhat like the 'primordial soup.' (Eh, I'm not real thrilled with that particular phrase). Places with high temps, low oxygen, abundant hydrogen sulfide, etc..

It could simply be that small instances of such microenvironments create an infinitesimely small window of opportunity compared to the whole earth functioning that way for perhaps millions of years. The chances in any one microenvironment would be approaching zero. Multiplied by the chances that someone happened to be watching it when it abiogenisis occurred . . .

In the aggregate, a planet full of such "microenvironments" given enough time could make it inevitable.

 

[lunamoth]

It could simply be that small instances of such microenvironments create an infinitesimely small window of opportunity compared to the whole earth functioning that way for perhaps millions of years. The chances in any one microenvironment would be approaching zero. Multiplied by the chances that someone happened to be watching it when it abiogenisis occurred . . .

In the aggregate, a planet full of such "microenvironments" given enough time could make it inevitable.

Yes that makes sense. Time + opportunity increase the chance for life to arise. It's really not reproducible in a laboratory or controlled environment. And, even if the first steps were continuously taking place today the chances of catching it in the act would be very very low.

 

[lilithu]

But there's nothing wrong with linear thinking in this case. This was posed as a question for science and this would be the way science approaches abiogenesis.

I meant that I was assuming one point in time where this happened instead of the possibility that life might be created "from scratch" on a continuous basis. Biochemically speaking, yes there would still be a "beginning." But as Seyorni pointed out, unless one hypothesizes that the enivonment changed, there's no reason why this only happened once.

 

[lunamoth]

I meant that I was assuming one point in time where this happened instead of the possibility that life might be created "from scratch" on a continuous basis. Biochemically speaking, yes there would still be a "beginning." But as Seyorni pointed out, unless one hypothesizes that the enivonment changed, there's no reason why this only happened once.

Thank you for the clarification and I agree. I would think that when conditions were right there must have been countless events toward the first proto-cells. Honestly it boggles my little mind and I start to go the way of Antony Flew...

 

[lilithu]

I always felt it was a mistake to use "Created" instead of "shaped" or "formed" in Gen. 1. The latter also has the added advantage of being more clearly consistent with the sort of thing a Word (logos) could accomplish.

Well as a panentheist I have no problem with the word "created." But within the context of the scripture I agree you. As Genesis starts with the spirit of God moving over water, it seems that matter already existed and what God was doing was organizing it.