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

[doppelganger]

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.

And before that there was "formlessness" and "emptiness." Both formlessness and emptiness are things. For them to exist there must be some thing(s) with form and something with substance, respectively. The ego fulfills both quite nicely.

In the beginning, "God" awakens to our own substance and fixes "me" as the foundation of all form. Now there can be a formlessness and and emptiness as a contrast. What is needed to create form from the formlessness and substance from the emptiness we experience "outside" our self? Our Divine Logos. Our Word. Reality is then "shaped" from the formlessness.

In short, before "God" there was that from which even "God" must derive. And it can have no words to describe it.

Before the universe was born
there was something in the chaos of the heavens.
It stands alone and empty,
solitary and unchanging.
It is ever present and secure.
It may be regarded as the Mother of the universe.
Because I do not know its name,
I call it the Tao.
If forced to give it a name,
I would call it 'Great'.

Because it is Great means it is everywhere.
Being everywhere means it is eternal.
Being eternal means everything returns to it.

Tao is great.
Heaven is great.
Earth is great.
Humanity is great.
Within the universe, these are the four great things.

Humanity follows the earth.
Earth follows Heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

 

[JerryL]

The avian, reptilian, humanoid, fish, insectoid, and plant forms are each dominant capable lifeforms in their own respect. This means that each of them is capable of evolving to the point that it becomes sentient. When one form evolves enough and is given sentience the other forms cannot then become sentient on that planet.

All forms are equally evolved. Sentience is not "more evolved" than something else.

Humanoids are the dominant lifeform on the earth.

Really? How is our mastery over influenza coming along? The fly? We are out numbered and out massed by any number of critters who also have longer histories on Earth.

 

[Super Universe]

All forms are equally evolved? I disagree. Some appear to have reached their peak (crocodiles, turtles...) as they haven't changed much in millions of years.

Having sentience is not "more evolved" but then I didn't say it was. A species brain must evolve to the point where sentience CAN be given. It is a gift from God. The genetic engineers have no control over this and only have a general idea when it might happen to a particular evolving species.

You can put the flu on an equal placement with humans if you wish but I think you will be very alone in this. What virus has ever written a poem? Or a song? What virus shows mercy, kindness, charity?

If total population were the goal then you might be correct in suggesting that the fly is a more successful species than human beings.

But a fly is still a fly. The long history of the critters hasn't done as much for them as our short history of evolution has done for us.

 

[lilithu]

And before that there was "formlessness" and "emptiness." Both formlessness and emptiness are things. For them to exist there must be some thing(s) with form and something with substance, respectively. The ego fulfills both quite nicely.

In the beginning, "God" awakens to our own substance and fixes "me" as the foundation of all form. Now there can be a formlessness and and emptiness as a contrast. What is needed to create form from the formlessness and substance from the emptiness we experience "outside" our self? Our Divine Logos. Our Word. Reality is then "shaped" from the formlessness.

In short, before "God" there was that from which even "God" must derive. And it can have no words to describe it.

Some time ago I was trying to come up with a parsimonious view that would allow both Buddhism and Hinduism to be true, as well as pretty much every other religion in which I perceived some truth.

Around that time Scarlett Wampus posted this:
"In the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching dual aspects of Tao are described: 1) The non-manifest Tao and 2) The manifest Tao. "The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of ten thousand things. Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations." The first definitely seems to come before the second, and these nicely correspond to the Early Heaven and Later Heaven of the I Ching."

That spawned this conversation, if you're interested:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28802

If not (it's long) I'll just say that when I conceive of God I conceive of two aspects (they're not really two distinct aspects - that's the limitations of language). There is God that is what Tillich calls the "ground of being." I think that corresponds to the "formlessness" that you say predates God, and what SW refers to as the non-manifest Tao, and what Buddhism refers to as nibbana. It is Ein-Sof. It is that which cannot be spoken. And then there is the aspect of God that is an organizing force, that emerges from the ground of being in order to order everything else. It has a direction of sorts. This is the manifest Tao. This is (also) Ein-Sof. This is your Logos, I think. It can be seen as "omnipotent" within this universe but it is tied inextriably with this universe and will end when this universe ends (to begin again).

Sometimes people mistake me for a pantheist because I talk a lot about the immanence of God. But I am a panentheist. There is something that "is" even if this universe is not. But we have no way of accessing it, not thru normal means at least. No way of even conceiving of it as something that "is" without distorting it. As you say it is beyond words. It cannot be measured or quantified. It is not an it. Yet sometimes we can access it directly thru direct experience. Experience that is not processed, interpreted, categorized. In discussing this with Sunstone he suggested that the two be distinguished by "gnosis" and "logos."

 

[Yerda]

My question is this, what is the theory of how the first living thing CAME TO LIFE?

There is no one theory. Many ideas compete for the role, but none, in my opinion, are particularly compelling.

Here's some reading: http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm#stanley

The Wikigods say this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

A rare idea that gets little exposure compared to the grand 'Nucleic acids first'-'RNA world'-type theories is one based on the properties of lipids as both information stores and catalysts. Hard to believe, but interesting.

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?

I doubt it. The machinery is still being identified. Even if we could stick the cellular jigsaw together ourselves, we'd have to use living cells to synthesise the pieces for us, and we're still not sure where it all goes and what pieces we still lack.

Isn't this teaching spontaneous generation?

In a sense.

Evolution doesn't really hang it's hat on the Bubble Theory do they?

Nah, the theory runs smoothly no matter who turns the key.

[EDIT - Out of interest, what does the Bubble theory lack in explantory power that the Church of Latter Day Saints provides?)

Can someone please tell me how it started?

Well there is one theory, believed by many, that some cosmic chap spoke living things into existence. I'm not sure of the details, although I presume he has some catalytic tones.

 

[JerryL]

All forms are equally evolved? I disagree. Some appear to have reached their peak (crocodiles, turtles...) as they haven't changed much in millions of years.

They keep evolving into themselves. Your difficulty is stemming from a basic misunderstanding of evolution and your insistance on ascribing a "direction".

You can put the flu on an equal placement with humans if you wish but I think you will be very alone in this. What virus has ever written a poem? Or a song? What virus shows mercy, kindness, charity?

That's entirely irrellevent to the question of who is dominant.

If total population were the goal then you might be correct in suggesting that the fly is a more successful species than human beings.

Or longevity of the species. You are wrong in assuming that there is a "goal".

But a fly is still a fly. The long history of the critters hasn't done as much for them as our short history of evolution has done for us.

Our history of evolution is exactly as long as everything else. We all started at the same time and have been evolving ever since. Some modern forms are more similar to our ancestors than we are... like your brother may look more like your father than you do. That doesn't make you more evolved.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

All forms are equally evolved? I disagree. Some appear to have reached their peak (crocodiles, turtles...) as they haven't changed much in millions of years.

You can put the flu on an equal placement with humans if you wish but I think you will be very alone in this. What virus has ever written a poem? Or a song? What virus shows mercy, kindness, charity?one as much for them as our short history of evolution has done for us.

Yes, I suppose you could say that a panda is not as well evolved as a shark, but really, I wouldn't say one is more evolved than the other. "Better adapted" would probably be closer to what you're describing.

The flu is not, in fact, alive, so I shouldn't put it on the same level, no, but even so. What you're describing has little to do with "how evolved" something is and more with human standards. Human standards are an excellent thing, mind you, but it's a bit besides the point to ascribe them to evolution. Evolution's just a process. If it has any goal, it's perpetuating genetic material, so anything alive today is, in essence, an equal success story thus far.

 

[s2a]

Just for fun, is there any broadly accepted scientific theory that posits an absolute impossibility of abiogenesis occuring?
Put another way, is there any scientific theory that evidentially supports a necessarily supernaturally causal explanation of "life from non-life"?

Which proposed theory is more likely to be falsified or confirmed?

Is supernaturalistic cause the only available alternative explanation to plausible aspects of abiogenesis?

Does the span of, say...two billion years seem like a small, or a large amount of time? In 4.5 billion years, homo sapiens has been around about 0.22% of that measured time. Science has had the nominal capacity to seriously evaluate the implications of that measure for about 0.00000011% of that 4.5Billion year span.
And gee whiz...no definitive answers...yet.

We may very well discover in the next 50 to 100 years of solar system exploration that "life" on other moons, planets, or planetoids is as common as cockroaches, and virtually unavoidable wherever water and some form of energy is (or once was) present.
Life.
Unextrordinary. Expected. Predictable.
If so, then what makes homo sapiens all that special, or uncommon within the entirety of the cosmos? There are 100 Billion stars in our galaxy alone. There are more than 100 Billion galaxies not unlike our own within the cosmos. After 14-18 billion years, within 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 potential stars and countless trillions of planets in orbit around those stars, makes the concept of abiogenesis all that implausible?

Evolution theory doesn't delve into cosmological origin theories, or hypotheses of abiogenesis...but it certainly explains well enough how single cell organisms could very well evolve sufficiently enough (given adequate time and fateful circumstance) to contemplate and evaluate it's own specie's origins.

Based upon the facts that neither water, nor readily available sources of energy, are rare in the cosmos; and given the virtually limitless available fields upon which the seeds of life might sow itself over the course of billions of years, I am not overmuch concerned that no "beyond all reasonable doubt" conclusion has yet to be offered in sound accepted theory as answer to "Where (or from which) did life come [from]?".

I'm pretty sure the answer will never be..."from God".

 

[pete29]

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.

I don't know how God created life. I dont think it's important how he did it i'm content in knowing that he did

 

[pete29]

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.

i'm a little thickheaded at times have patience with me

 

[Rough_ER]

I don't know how God created life. I dont think it's important how he did it i'm content in knowing that he did

This makes no sense at all. You don't know how he did it, yet you KNOW that he did?

If you can't explain how he did it, please explain to me how you KNOW that he did. I'd love to hear your response to this. Is you belief based on anything more substantial than convenience?

 

[lunamoth]

I don't know how God created life either...but I trust that He did.

 

[painted wolf]

"how did the first living thing on earth come to life?"
oohh oooh... one word. "oops"

we have a frankly artificial definition of life... what about viruses and prions?

mimivirus looks like it is getting close to bridging the gap. Its so "complex" and large that you can see it. Its DNA (not an RNA virus) is just shy of being as big as the simplist bacterium.

Who knows what the DNA of the first life forms was, the most "primitive" life we have here on Earth now has been evolving for 3 billion years. It isn't the same as it was then.

ps. yes crocs and turtles have changed... thier "basic" design may be rather static but they have definatly continued to evolve. Modern species arrived not long before modern humans did.
You wouldn't reccognize the early Crocs... or the marine kind, or the later mammal hunting land running crocs.
http://www.amnh.org/science/papers/crocodile.php
http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/Unit290/290.200.html
I will agree that modern viruses are just as evolved as we are... and they are continuing to evolve at a terrific pace. Whats so great about a poem anyway?
Ever listen to a whale sing?

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

All forms are equally evolved? I disagree. Some appear to have reached their peak (crocodiles, turtles...) as they haven't changed much in millions of years.

This makes it sound like crocs and turtles are stagnating.
I'd say, rather, that they are so brilliantly and perfectly designed that they've managed to endure through hundreds of millions of years of environmental change.

Having sentience is not "more evolved" but then I didn't say it was. A species brain must evolve to the point where sentience CAN be given. It is a gift from God. The genetic engineers have no control over this and only have a general idea when it might happen to a particular evolving species.

It seems to me that sentience, which I think you're equating with intelligence, is clearly maladaptive. Modern humans, for example, burst onto the scene at the end of the last ice age, only 10,000 years ago. They immediatly wiped out the Neanderthals and the Pleistoscene megafauna, and now -- in a blink of geological time -- the species is not only on the verge of wiping itself out but is destroying the Planet's ecosystem as well. Hominids have launched the latest catastrophic mass extinction event.
Humans seem to be the most virulent and poorly designed organism Nature ever made the mistake of creating. What other species has fulmanated into a planetary infection, completely altered the biosphere and climate, and precipitated a mass extinction event?

You can put the flu on an equal placement with humans if you wish but I think you will be very alone in this. What virus has ever written a poem? Or a song? What virus shows mercy, kindness, charity?

If total population were the goal then you might be correct in suggesting that the fly is a more successful species than human beings.

But a fly is still a fly. The long history of the critters hasn't done as much for them as our short history of evolution has done for us.

 

[lilithu]

no. thats why i believe in God

Surely that's not the only reason why you believe in God.

This makes no sense at all. You don't know how he did it, yet you KNOW that he did?

If you can't explain how he did it, please explain to me how you KNOW that he did. I'd love to hear your response to this. Is you belief based on anything more substantial than convenience?

Look, you can't explain how life arose on earth either, yet you KNOW that it did arise. Pete29 is just attributing that to God, which is what someone who believes in God would naturally do. (God=creator) So what you're grilling him on is his belief in God.

 

[Hema]

And before that there was "formlessness" and "emptiness." Both formlessness and emptiness are things. For them to exist there must be some thing(s) with form and something with substance, respectively. The ego fulfills both quite nicely.

In the beginning, "God" awakens to our own substance and fixes "me" as the foundation of all form. Now there can be a formlessness and and emptiness as a contrast. What is needed to create form from the formlessness and substance from the emptiness we experience "outside" our self? Our Divine Logos. Our Word. Reality is then "shaped" from the formlessness.

In short, before "God" there was that from which even "God" must derive. And it can have no words to describe it.

Before the universe was born
there was something in the chaos of the heavens.
It stands alone and empty,
solitary and unchanging.
It is ever present and secure.
It may be regarded as the Mother of the universe.
Because I do not know its name,
I call it the Tao.
If forced to give it a name,
I would call it 'Great'.

Because it is Great means it is everywhere.
Being everywhere means it is eternal.
Being eternal means everything returns to it.

Tao is great.
Heaven is great.
Earth is great.
Humanity is great.
Within the universe, these are the four great things.

Humanity follows the earth.
Earth follows Heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

Hi! I’ll just post what you thought was a similarity between “Om” and the “word” that you speak about from the “Fresh Questions about the Trinity” thread:

The Bible says that in the beginning was the word and the word was God. This is what Hinduism says on the beginning of creation “Before the beginning, the Brahman (absolute reality) was one and non-dual. It thought, "I am only one -- may I become many." This caused a vibration which eventually became sound, and this sound was Om. Creation itself was set in motion by the vibration of Om. The closest approach to Brahman is that first sound, Om.” (http://www.omsakthi.org/worship/mantra.html). Scientists have affirmed that the first sound to come out of creation was Om.

I don't know how God created life. I dont think it's important how he did it i'm content in knowing that he did

I think that is sweet. Isn't that what faith is about? Don't worry, the human mind is too limited to comprehend everything that God does. I remember in high school, one of my biology texts said that scientists are unsure about how the child begins to live in the mother's womb. Yes, they can explain the formation of the foetus and how the child is sustained in the womb etc. but not how it actually BECOMES alive. Did scientists figure out that one yet? I remember when I read that, the first thing I thought was - this is where God gives life to the unborn baby.

 

[michel]

I don't know how God created life either...but I trust that He did.

Quite; I guess that must be the only answer we can give (as theists)

 

[pete29]

This makes no sense at all. You don't know how he did it, yet you KNOW that he did?

If you can't explain how he did it, please explain to me how you KNOW that he did. I'd love to hear your response to this. Is you belief based on anything more substantial than convenience?

since your from england let me put it this way. I don't know how the tower of London was made, but I know that someone designed it and i know that people, beings built it,i.e. created it. i have no proof this happened. i wasn't there and tthere are no eyewitnesses alive to verify that it was actually people that built it. anything in history books i think could be considered hearsay evidence. So since there is only circumstantial evidence that people built the tower of London, i must go beyond provable fact and have faith that people indeed did build the tower of London and in that faith is the knowledge that people built the tower of London. in the same way i have faith that God created the universe,both by what i have read and by what i have experienced in my life, my faith has grown to a point that its not just a belief that God created the universe, in my mind i know he did.

 

[pete29]

This makes no sense at all. You don't know how he did it, yet you KNOW that he did?

If you can't explain how he did it, please explain to me how you KNOW that he did. I'd love to hear your response to this. Is you belief based on anything more substantial than convenience?

look i'm not trying to make anyone angry but there are certain things that i personally am sure of. i'm not saying that you have to believe me or even accept my way of thinking in the least, but please don't try to ridicule my beliefs. Ridicule is the first step to animosity, animosity the first step to hatred, and hatred is why we have wars.:sorry1:

 

[Rough_ER]

since your from england let me put it this way. I don't know how the tower of London was made, but I know that someone designed it and i know that people, beings built it,i.e. created it. i have no proof this happened. i wasn't there and tthere are no eyewitnesses alive to verify that it was actually people that built it. anything in history books i think could be considered hearsay evidence. So since there is only circumstantial evidence that people built the tower of London, i must go beyond provable fact and have faith that people indeed did build the tower of London and in that faith is the knowledge that people built the tower of London. in the same way i have faith that God created the universe,both by what i have read and by what i have experienced in my life, my faith has grown to a point that its not just a belief that God created the universe, in my mind i know he did.

I fail to see how any of this results in you believing in God and his purposeful creation of the universe. Let's just suppose that you have proven the existence of "a" God, how are you so sure of his identity (the God of the Bible)?. It seems quite a leap to get from believing in "a God", to believing in "my God". Perhaps you could tell me why you don't believe in Zeus? Maybe then I will understand better.