Primordial Soup

[Jimmy]

@Dan From Smithville, @Subduction Zone:

I am with @Moon on this specific question. It is strange that life formed basically as soon as it was possible. And then it took 3 billion years to get from single cells to complex life. We know how multicellularity evolved, we can induce it in the lab. Nature took 3 billion years for that step. Compared to that, formation of life seems much more complex, we don't know exactly how it happened but it did practically in an instant (on evolutionary timelines).

It is weird. That’s all this thread is about really. The strangeness of it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"scientists disagree about which chemical components of life came first, which of life’s processes came first, and where on Earth life first arose."

Is this an argument against science? That's how science progresses. First, we learn a little, which introduces more questions, many of which are answered while uncovering more questions. First there are multiple competing hypotheses, and if a test can be performed that distinguishes between them, then the matter can be decided.

It is strange that life formed basically as soon as it was possible. And then it took 3 billion years to get from single cells to complex life.

I thought that the matter we discussed recently suggested how that might be explained. Abiogenesis on earth might have been skipped, with earth receiving dormant life from Mars that took root on earth as soon as earth was cool and wet enough to be able to support it. Here's some of the evidence for life on Mars - rock varnish: Rock varnish may hold clues to life on Mars

We would expect the first life on earth to be monocellular, prokaryotic, deep in the oceans, and remain that way until the oceans became oxygen rich and eukaryotes could begin evolving, which would not thrive in sunlit waters or on land absent an ozone layer, and which required the oceans to oxygenate the atmosphere and generate a protective ozone layer. Only then could life begin inhabiting and evolving in oceanic photic zones. The evolution of eukaryotes followed by multicellular eukaryotic life apparently had to wait for an oxygenated earth.

Also, there were eras of snowball earth in which photosynthesis presumably did not occur. The last of these (assuming that there were more than one snowball earth) ended about 650 million years ago and was followed by the Ediacarian, where soft multicellular animal life arose, then a mass extinction, then the Cambrian explosion about a half billion years ago, which ushered in the pheanerozoic eon and the paleozoic era. That's appears to be what took so long for animal life to begin crawling the earth.

 

[F1fan]

Maybe the scientists who hypothesis that the earth was seeded by DNA from another planet are correct. Cuz I think it would take a lot longer than a billion years for DNA to come to be after the formation of a planet. I find this ‘seeding’ theory doubtful though.

All you have to do is read what experts in science report. That's it. None of us are experts, and any opinion that deviates from what experts report is irrelevant and baseless. Your doubts are irrelevant. It is likely your heavy religious belief that is a motivation to reject exvertise and results in science, and that is your bias to resolve. The well educated in this forum are only citing what experts report. You denying what experts report as a non-expert means nothing, but it tells us about your bias.

 

[ChristineM]

Terrestrial plants don’t need oxygen

What? ...

Plants cannot survive without oxygen.

How plants breathe / RHS Gardening

Just as we need to breathe to stay alive, plants must also exchange gases with the atmosphere to function. They need two key gases:​

​

• oxygen is used in aerobic respiration, where food molecules are broken down to release energy for growth. This process releases carbon dioxide as a waste product
• carbon dioxide is used in photosynthesis, where the sun’s energy is harnessed to make food. This process releases oxygen as a waste product

 

[Jimmy]

All you have to do is read what experts in science report. That's it. None of us are experts, and any opinion that deviates from what experts report is irrelevant and baseless. Your doubts are irrelevant. It is likely your heavy religious belief that is a motivation to reject exvertise and results in science, and that is your bias to resolve. The well educated in this forum are only citing what experts report. You denying what experts report as a non-expert means nothing, but it tells us about your bias.

Religion has nothing to do with it. I just find this stuff strange. Stuff like dna coming to be in a mere billion years.

 

[Jimmy]

What? ...

Plants cannot survive without oxygen.

How plants breathe / RHS Gardening

Just as we need to breathe to stay alive, plants must also exchange gases with the atmosphere to function. They need two key gases:​

​

• oxygen is used in aerobic respiration, where food molecules are broken down to release energy for growth. This process releases carbon dioxide as a waste product
• carbon dioxide is used in photosynthesis, where the sun’s energy is harnessed to make food. This process releases oxygen as a waste product

My bad typo and never finished thought and correction

 

[Jimmy]

What? ...

Plants cannot survive without oxygen.

How plants breathe / RHS Gardening

Just as we need to breathe to stay alive, plants must also exchange gases with the atmosphere to function. They need two key gases:​

​

• oxygen is used in aerobic respiration, where food molecules are broken down to release energy for growth. This process releases carbon dioxide as a waste product
• carbon dioxide is used in photosynthesis, where the sun’s energy is harnessed to make food. This process releases oxygen as a waste product

I still find it strange it only took a billion years for dna to take shape

 

[F1fan]

Religion has nothing to do with it. I just find this stuff strange. Stuff like dna coming to be in a mere billion years.

Those who question science tend to have religious bias as the reason. Your high religiosity is well known, and your dismissiveness of what experts have reported is typical bias. Why not just read up on these topics yourself? I see fervent believers pretend to be asking honest questions and open to the answers by the well informed, but eventually there is a breaking point and the believer rejects the science.

Why is science strange? As a person who was exposed to conservative Christian ideas in my youth I suspect it is because we were taught that God created humans as special beings, and the science we have available to us today offsets this obsolete dogma. It seems strange that humans are a type of primate that evolved from other types of more primitive primate, and that lineages goes back to the origins of organic chemicals. The ego wants to be special. I suggest we are special by following facts, rejecting irrational belief, and accepting what experts in science report. Belief in ancient religions and obsolete interpretations is primal, not special at all.

 

[Jimmy]

Those who question science tend to have religious bias as the reason. Your high religiosity is well known, and your dismissiveness of what experts have reported is typical bias. Why not just read up on these topics yourself? I see fervent believers pretend to be asking honest questions and open to the answers by the well informed, but eventually there is a breaking point and the believer rejects the science.

Why is science strange? As a person who was exposed to conservative Christian ideas in my youth I suspect it is because we were taught that God created humans as special beings, and the science we have available to us today offsets this obsolete dogma. It seems strange that humans are a type of primate that evolved from other types of more primitive primate, and that lineages goes back to the origins of organic chemicals. The ego wants to be special. I suggest we are special by following facts, rejecting irrational belief, and accepting what experts in science report. Belief in ancient religions and obsolete interpretations is primal, not special at all.

Strange because of the complexity of dna as I’ve said like 8 times now. Doesn’t mean I believe god did it. It means I find it odd

 

[Jimmy]

You have not been reading the answers in your own thread have you (or perhaps deliberately ignoring them). First life had to oxygenate the atmosphere before any complex life could develop. Imagine the time required for microscopic organisms to drive oxygen levels up enough through the whole world.

Once the hard part flooding s done the rest can follow easily.

It took less than 2 billion for Cyanobacteria to oxygenate the atmosphere

 

[Subduction Zone]

Terrestrial plants don’t need oxygen

You should have thought this through. Sap often has a sugar in it. Why? How would a plant convert sap into energy? Guess what? Plants "breathe". They need oxygen to burn the food that they make.

Oxygen For Plants – Can Plants Live Without Oxygen

You probably know that plants generate oxygen during photosynthesis. Since it?s common knowledge that plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen into the atmosphere during this process, it may be a surprise that plants also need oxygen to survive. Learn more here.

www.gardeningknowhow.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

Strange because of the complexity of dna as I’ve said like 8 times now. Doesn’t mean I believe god did it. It means I find it odd

That is just an argument from ignorance. It is not rational. You are using a logical fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It took less than 2 billion for Cyanobacteria to oxygenate the atmosphere

Where did you get that figure from? It appears that it took almost three billion years:

Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria

When making a claim it is very often a good idea to find a reliable source that supports that claim. Sometimes when you look up stuff you find out that you were wrong. in a recent post on Pepsi a member showed the new and old logos of for Pepsi Cola. I had never noticed the previous one and the "new" one was a bit more like previous logos so I was about to say that he had them backwards when I thought, I better look it up to be sure. I was wrong. Looking it up before posting kept me from looking foolish.

 

[Jimmy]

Where did you get that figure from? It appears that it took almost three billion years:

Fossil Record of the Cyanobacteria

When making a claim it is very often a good idea to find a reliable source that supports that claim. Sometimes when you look up stuff you find out that you were wrong. in a recent post on Pepsi a member showed the new and old logos of for Pepsi Cola. I had never noticed the previous one and the "new" one was a bit more like previous logos so I was about to say that he had them backwards when I thought, I better look it up to be sure. I was wrong. Looking it up before posting kept me from looking foolish.

We can wait for someone smarter than the both of us to confirm

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can wait for someone smarter than the both of us to confirm

Did you check out the link? Basic facts like this do not need confirmation from others.

 

[ChristineM]

I still find it strange it only took a billion years for dna to take shape

It may have happened overnight once the chemistry was right

 

[ChristineM]

It took less than 2 billion for Cyanobacteria to oxygenate the atmosphere

Almost half the time earth has existed or more

 

[Jimmy]

It may have happened overnight once the chemistry was right

Doubtful

 

[ChristineM]

Doubtful

Not really, chemical reactions can be extremely fast.

 

[Jimmy]

Almost half the time earth has existed or more

I still find it odd that the evolution of single celled oranganisms to terrestrial plants took 4 billion when the evolution of dna took a mere billion