The Bacteria.

[Godobeyer]

1 cell becomes 2 becomes 4 becomes 8 becomes 16 become 32 becomes 64 and so on in geometric progression...as long as food/resources are available and conditions are right for growth. For most common bacteria, that's every 20 minutes or so to a generation...

Once the first cell started functioning, it did this until there were lots of cells just like it...the result, millions, billions, trillions of copies and beyond...all alive, all just like the original cell, all grown by consuming resources and splitting in half over and over again.
...

I was refering to the claim of theory of origin of life .

So some said it's start by one cell, so go on , until these millions of creatures (trees and human and animals ..)

logically FIRST one cell or 2 cell or 64 ...etc in the end will died in end. so the project failed.
it's ONE WAY GO (death). and ONE SHOT (organised body) .

Go to laboratory and try it.

 

[FearGod]

Such a question is terribly biased, you know.

The universe exists. That much we know for a fact.

I thought it doesn't exist, thank you for telling me the reality.

People who have been taught or spontaneously came to believe that there is a "problem of origin" for the universe sometimes end up feeling that there is some need to find a creator for the universe.

How did you know that ?

In reality, there is no such need. Nor would hypothetizing a creator be an actual explanation, either. Among other reasons, because that would bring the matter of how the creator came to exist itself.

You are simply appealling arbitrarily to a claim of necessary supernatural origin.

Where did i say a supernatural origin? i said there should be a thing.

Such an appeal is many things. One thing that it is not is an explanation. On the contrary, it occupies the place where an explanation might conceivably be proposed.

Who said it's an explanation, is my posts that ambiguous, i said that a thing is a better option than nothingness, so that
won't prevent us from searching for what that thing is? but for me I'm very sure than you could imagine.

Why are you presuming that there ever was "nothingness" before existence?

No i assume and even sure that a thing that we don't know always existed, nothingness can't
and will never produce anything, if I'm wrong then prove by evidence that nothingness can
produce a thing, but don't please give me a meaningless reply

You are just obsessed with sterile questions. I hope you shake that off.

I'm only trying to help you to understand the reality.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I was refering to the claim of theory of origin of life .

So some said it's start by one cell, so go on , until these millions of creatures (trees and human and animals ..)

logically FIRST one cell or 2 cell or 64 ...etc in the end will died in end. so the project failed.
it's ONE WAY GO (death). and ONE SHOT (organised body) .

Go to laboratory and try it.

I don't see how you get to the idea that the original cell, no matter how many times it divided and became more than one cell, necessarily must all die. As long as there are resources available, they will continue to grow and reproduce. If they run out of food or the conditions change to be unfavorable, some will die, but others will go into stasis mode, until conditions change again/food becomes available.

The whole point of evolution is the idea that however that first cell came to be, the survival of its descendants depends on their ability to adapt to conditions in the environment--those that cannot adapt will fail to reproduce, while those that do adapt will reproduce.

Thought experiment: let's say that first cell had plenty of food and stable conditions and ate and divided and so on until there were hundreds of trillions of nearly identical copies. Then, conditions changed. Small variations in the those hundreds of trillions of copies. If only one of those survives until conditions are favorable again, it will pass its genes on, while all the others failed to (in fact, they probably became food for that one that survived). It's offspring would be more likely to survive, so instead of one in hundreds of trillions survive the next change, hundreds survive...and the next time, millions...

Scientists think that life may have started many, many times and died out many, many times, until finally, one kind of ancestral bacteria-like cell survived instead of died out. That is the linage to the last universal ancestor that the article that was linked was referring to.

 

[Godobeyer]

I don't see how you get to the idea that the original cell, no matter how many times it divided and became more than one cell, necessarily must all die. As long as there are resources available, they will continue to grow and reproduce. If they run out of food or the conditions change to be unfavorable, some will die, but others will go into stasis mode, until conditions change again/food becomes available.

I post a link about it
All Species Evolved From Single Cell

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/


If the first cell (they) die , how they continue to grow ?
btw If you die you will continue to grow ?
You have good imagination lol

logically, It's will back to the start point "0"

The whole point of evolution is the idea that however that first cell came to be, the survival of its descendants depends on their ability to adapt to conditions in the environment--those that cannot adapt will fail to reproduce, while those that do adapt will reproduce.

First cells came and gone , so what next?

Thought experiment: let's say that first cell had plenty of food and stable conditions and ate and divided and so on until there were hundreds of trillions of nearly identical copies. Then, conditions changed. Small variations in the those hundreds of trillions of copies. If only one of those survives until conditions are favorable again, it will pass its genes on, while all the others failed to (in fact, they probably became food for that one that survived). It's offspring would be more likely to survive, so instead of one in hundreds of trillions survive the next change, hundreds survive...and the next time, millions...

they are seems optimistic and had no imagination.

Scientists think that life may have started many, many times and died out many, many times, until finally, one kind of ancestral bacteria-like cell survived instead of died out. That is the linage to the last universal ancestor that the article that was linked was referring to

There is suppose ONE shot ,to make organised system or not , agree ?

that's impossible done by start and died ( individual cellls) whatever time (billions of years) you give them.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I post a link about it
All Species Evolved From Single Cell

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100513-science-evolution-darwin-single-ancestor/


If the first cell (they) die , how they continue to grow ?
btw If you die you will continue to grow ?
You have good imagination lol

logically, It's will back to the start point "0"


First cells came and gone , so what next?


they are seems optimistic and had no imagination.


There is suppose ONE shot ,to make organised system or not , agree ?

that's impossible done by start and died ( individual cellls) whatever time (billions of years) you give them.

No, there is no reason for there to be "one shot." There could be any number of shots, and eventually, ONE survived, reproducing by splitting (a process called fission)...it didn't die, it became 2, 4, 8, and many of them survived, and spread to other places, where they started to change to adapt to local conditions...

 

[LuisDantas]

So if you are not sure why you defend for it ?

Technically, I am not sure I even exist, nor that I am not a werewolf.

Be reasonable. The alternative is a claim of a literal miracle, for crying out loud!

Do mean by panspermy
Life comes out of space ?

Yes. I do not find that at all likely, nor a complete answer, but it is still conceivable.

I was refering to the first cell.

The first ancestor cell? It by definition could reproduce as well.

It stands to reason that many, many proto-cells failed to reproduce. But we are talking about a whole planet with a lot of carbon molecules during many millions of years. The odds of accidentally attaining a stable, self-reproducing configuration end up drammatically to the point that it is not at all unlikely that it would happen spontaneously.

I meant by "reproduce" is first cell ever (origin of life) remain alive despite there is no life system ?

I just don't understand what you mean to ask here. What would that life system be? Nutrients? A proper environment, with organic molecules and survivable temperature rangers and radiation levels?

Why do you assume such a life system would never exist in the whole of the surface, atmosphere and oceans of Earth during so many millions of years?

let's suppose this is the begining/origin of life ,millions of years ago
whatever we had cells appears
but in the end they(cells) died, right ?

Died individually, after reproducing at impressive rates? Sure.

what happened after that ?

Their next generations kept reproducing and differentiating.

Again as I said before, about claim of origin of life (millions of years ago)
So what ?
logically the cells died in end after moments or years, end of story.

You must be misunderstanding things to say such a thing.

conclusion:
To make life (variety of creatures) is not simple by that way.

Sorry, but you don't seem to have good enough a grasp of biology to know.

 

[Godobeyer]

No, there is no reason for there to be "one shot." There could be any number of shots, and eventually, ONE survived, reproducing by splitting (a process called fission)...it didn't die, it became 2, 4, 8, and many of them survived, and spread to other places, where they started to change to adapt to local conditions...

NO,be reasonable.
remember we taking about origin of life

but it's will died in the end,right ?
Since that cell or collection of cells will died in end (end of project), it's actualy and logically ONE shot.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

NO,be reasonable.
remember we taking about origin of life

but it's will died in the end,right ?
Since that cell or collection of cells will died in end (end of project), it's actualy and logically ONE shot.

Yes, we are talking about the origin of life, and saying that there was only one shot, and that the first cell died, is NOT reasonable...there were multiple shots, and finally one cell succeeded in surviving--there was one successful shot, not just one shot.

What in the world does "but it's will died in the end,right?" even mean? I understand that English is not your first language, but so far you've said essentially the same thing several times, and it still doesn't make sense. The first cell continued to grow and divide and its still-surviving descendants include us. Eventually, yes, that genetic trail will die out, when the last living thing on Earth dies, probably billions of years from now. But it hasn't died yet.

 

[Jumi]

It could also be multiple simultaneous starts, multiple cells of different origin living at one time for extended periods of time, but one ended up being dominant.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm only trying to help you to understand the reality.

Oh, then you would probably do well in giving up. You are certainly failing very consistently. There is no clear benefit for anyone from your efforts so far.

 

[FearGod]

Oh, then you would probably do well in giving up. You are certainly failing very consistently. There is no clear benefit for anyone from your efforts so far.

No need to be.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Some facts about bacteria:

Bacteria specialize for environments: Bacteria are mostly of two kinds Aerobic or Anaerobic. They either need oxygen to survive or they cannot survive in the presence of oxygen (since oxygen is very corrosive). This is so common that bacteria are often either called 'Aerobic' (need oxygen) or 'Anaerobic' (no oxygen). There are some bacteria which do not fit and are neither Aerobic nor Anaerobic.

It is rare to find bacteria that can metabolize tough plastics, and they do it poorly. Probable reason why: There is an energy cost (chemical energy cost) to metabolize any food, so bacteria can only thrive if that cost is more than paid (using chemical energy) and that food returns more energy than is required to metabolize that food. It takes a lot of energy (relative to what a bacterium has) to metabolize plastic, and the amount of energy gotten from plastic molecules is either too small or too large or is difficult to use. That is why plastic in the oceans is accumulating instead of rotting. There has been some progress towards breeding bacteria that will 'Eat' tough plastics, but in general bacteria do not do this just like they will rarely will attempt to 'Eat' fossil fuel.

Bacteria are very diverse. There are bacteria which contain chlorophyll (like plants do) and so can obtain energy from light. Some bacteria do not need light and exist miles below the Earth's surface inside of minerals. These deep bacteria have very slow metabolisms, and they live for long periods of time -- possibly centuries or more. Most bacteria could not survive at such depths. Some bacteria live in animals and thrive best in them.

Bacteria compose approximately 25% of the mass of human feces. The rest is water and dead solids. (Got this from a youtube video).

Sometimes bacteria can steal DNA from other dead bacteria, picking up new metabolism means. In other words they can be somewhat like Lego sets. You can take pieces from one set and snap them onto the other -- although sometimes the result is ugly. Sometimes bacteria absorb DNA that does not help them and can even cost them energy -- which tends to kill them.

Bacteria can be attacked by viruses. Some viruses thrive only in bacteria.

Bacteria are small, but there is a range of sizes of animals between a bacterium (single bacteria cell) and a bug such as a flea. For example a Flea may have a tiny parasite on it which will still be many thousands of times larger than a bacterium. There are lots of sizes between bacteria and flea. Even a flea is practically an entire city compared to a bacterial cell.

People are surrounded by clouds of bacteria in the air around us. Air is not just air, and the bacteria don't just fall off. They are very lightweight, and they are always around as well as inside of our bodies. We are like the character 'Pigpen' from the Peanuts comics. When you pass by someone some of their bacteria cloud joins your cloud. It is possible (with a lot of work) to track whom you have met and where you have been by studying your personal cloud. (Got this from youtube, too.)

 

[Godobeyer]

Yes, we are talking about the origin of life, and saying that there was only one shot, and that the first cell died, is NOT reasonable...there were multiple shots, and finally one cell succeeded in surviving--there was one successful shot, not just one shot.

What in the world does "but it's will died in the end,right?" even mean? I understand that English is not your first language, but so far you've said essentially the same thing several times, and it still doesn't make sense. The first cell continued to grow and divide and its still-surviving descendants include us. Eventually, yes, that genetic trail will die out, when the last living thing on Earth dies, probably billions of years from now. But it hasn't died yet.

That's impossible logically .

First cell died . so if that would repeated it billion of time , same result is not changed.
let me explain it by math ok ?

1*0=0

1 =is represent cell/cells (one shot). ok ?
0 = represent the death .(end of living time) , ok ?
0 =(result) is represent the failure , Ok

Repeat that math matter billion or trillion of times the same result . ZERO

The fact that one single cell or collection of cells could not build system of creature, alone.

Fact is one single cell should have the full perfect plan(of body ) or that project is would failled, right ?

I do believe that impossible the first cell ever was zygote !

I mean
Human or other creatures could not live without missing essiential organs and systems they need to live healthy, or live in first place (such heart,lungs,kidney,bones,...etc).

For my opinion evolution is senseless.
because human body or bodies orginased to live, but important organs. there was no tests.

I mean human without heart, or human without lungs ....etc first version.

 

[Godobeyer]

Technically, I am not sure I even exist, nor that I am not a werewolf.

So I have good news to you, you are exist , since you are talking to Godobeyer

The first ancestor cell? It by definition could reproduce as well.

It stands to reason that many, many proto-cells failed to reproduce. But we are talking about a whole planet with a lot of carbon molecules during many millions of years. The odds of accidentally attaining a stable, self-reproducing configuration end up drammatically to the point that it is not at all unlikely that it would happen spontaneously.


I just don't understand what you mean to ask here. What would that life system be? Nutrients? A proper environment, with organic molecules and survivable temperature rangers and radiation levels?

Why do you assume such a life system would never exist in the whole of the surface, atmosphere and oceans of Earth during so many millions of years?

I think @beenherebeforeagain understood my point better

Their next generations kept reproducing and differentiating.

Seems you have optimistic imagination

Notice I am talking about first cell (life origin)

The actual cell had no relation with death cell. by biology ?
they are sperated ?
The next cell will died the same way, and same result because it's could not copy/paste the changes , because it will died

 

[FearGod]

We created man from an extract of clay. (Qur'an, 23:12)

Clay, a seemingly infertile blend of minerals, might have been the birthplace of life on Earth. Or at least of the complex biochemicals that make life possible, Cornell University biological engineers report in the Nov. 7 online issue of the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature Publishing.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131105132027.htm

 

[LuisDantas]

No need to be.

Is there any point at all to what you are saying here in this thread, then?

 

[LuisDantas]

I think @beenherebeforeagain understood my point better

If he understood it at all, I would bet that he did.

Seems you have optimistic imagination

Uh? I am simply aware of how cells reproduce.

Notice I am talking about first cell (life origin)

The actual cell had no relation with death cell. by biology ?

I can't parse that at all.

they are sperated ?
The next cell will died the same way, and same result because it's could not copy/paste the changes , because it will died

Of course cells reproduce and die. So?

 

[FearGod]

Is there any point at all to what you are saying here in this thread, then?

Discussing the first form of life on earth, this is my point.
Life originated from non-living matter(abiogenesis) which is the earthly minerals and water and
that exactly what the scriptures say and what recent studies found.

 

[Godobeyer]

If he understood it at all, I would bet that he did.

You always disspoint me

Of course cells reproduce and die. So?

So if the very first (reference) cells is died, where is the evolution ?

 

[LuisDantas]

You always disspoint me

In these matters, I am apparently doomed to remain disappointing you.

So if the very first (reference) cells is died, where is the evolution ?

On the accumulation of small differences along generations. That is how it works.