how did life begin?

[computerages]

hey everyone!

 

I studied about the theory of evolution in my biology class today... but I could not understand how life begun... who was the first organism on this planet to live and from what group of species it was from....

[PhDP]

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/O/Or/Origin_of_life.htm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Abiogenesis

 

Conclusion; We don't really know , but as Hilbert said, we must know, we will know...

 

About "species", it was'nt of any. It was probably a very simple cell, without nucleus (unlike animals, plants, algaes, mushrooms...), so it's was relatively similar to a bacteria (and there's no "species" of bacteria, only strains).

[Hellbender]

I studied about the theory of evolution in my biology class today... but I could not understand how life begun... who was the first organism on this planet to live and from what group of species it was from....

Life began from amino acids, then to the first self-replicating molecule. I don't know who the first organism was, nor do I think, if it was the first organism, it would be derived from any species, being a progenitor of sorts, correct? Its ancestors would be more primitive molecules, I suppose.

[hyebeh]

there were a series of experiments where scientists produced organic molecules from inorganic molecules through a apparatus that simulated conditions on the early earth. There is no definitive "first" life form because there is a fine line between living and nonliving and there are no remaining fossils from that long ago. (The lack of fossils is not proof of spontaneous formation as proposed by strict creationists because any study of the process of fossilization will indicate that it is practically impossible for any fossils to remain of such a "life" form.)

[hyebeh]

Life began from amino acids, then to the first self-replicating molecule. I don't know who the first organism was, nor do I think, if it was the first[/u'] organism, it would be derived from any species, being a progenitor of sorts, correct? Its ancestors would be more primitive molecules, I suppose.

 

life probably began as a string of nucleotides (mRNA most likely) that was encapsuled inside a ball of lipids (phospholipid membrane?) There is a name for these spherical bodies of lipids but I don't know the name off the top of my head.

[fuhrerkeebs]

I don't know who the first organism was, nor do I think, if it was the first organism, it would be derived from any species, being a progenitor of sorts, correct? Its ancestors would be more primitive molecules, I suppose.

 

Which is where the problem of defining the term living comes from...so I find it much easier to not consider anything "alive."

[Bettina]

Also, who is to say that life didn't start elsewhere in the universe and we simply rode in on one of the thousands of comets that helped create our oceans. Which, by the way, is what I always believed.

 

Bettina

[hyebeh]

Also' date=' who is to say that life didn't start elsewhere in the universe and we simply rode in on one of the thousands of comets that helped create our oceans. Which, by the way, is what I always believed.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Some evidence suggests that this may be true but until we find a planet with conditions similar to ours, it is only a hypothesis while the origins of life on this planet is a scientific theory.

[Bettina]

Some evidence suggests that this may be true but until we find a planet with conditions similar to ours, it is only a hypothesis while the origins of life on this planet is a scientific theory.

 

As space exploration continues, I believe it will be found that life was created during the early formation of the universe and once this life was "seeded" thrived on the planets that could support it and is still going on today. The present scientific "theory" of life originating on earth, in my opinion, will be in question. Life evolved from the oceans and I have no doubt that I rode in on a comet.

 

At one time I had a great link to a great explanation and I will find it shortly, but for now, check this out.

 

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/seta/2002/05/23/stories/2002052300020200.htm

 

Bettina

[hyebeh]

"theory" in science is much different than "theory" in normal everyday terms. A scientific theory indicates that the idea has lots of supporting evidence to back it up. It's in every science book; common misconception.s

[Bettina]

"theory" in science is much different than "theory" in normal everyday terms. A scientific theory indicates that the idea has lots of supporting evidence to back it up. It's in every science book; common misconception.s

 

Your statement is correct and I fully accept that, but I also accept that lots of supporting evidence does not set it in concrete. If we ever discover a life form or building blocks on a comet, and I believe we will, things are going to change fast.

 

I found that link I mentioned. Here it is.

 

http://www.bazaluk.com/en/01.html

 

Bettina

[Kleptin]

It's true. Religion would completely collapse if alien life was encountered, much much faster if the alien race is intelligent.

 

Or the Christians could do what they've always done: Interpret the bible a different way to make themselves look less wrong after each scientific discovery...

[Sayonara]

Your statement is correct and I fully accept that, but I also accept that lots of supporting evidence does not set it in concrete. If we ever discover a life form or building blocks on a comet, and I believe we will, things are going to change fast.

While the first part is true, you'd be surprised how little evolutionary theory would be impacted by the discovery of off-world life. It doesn't, after all, aim to describe any off-world life, so it can't really be "wrong" about it. Nor does it deal with the origins of terrestrial life, so it won't be affected that way either.

 

Or is that not what you meant?

[Ophiolite]

Conventional wisdom places the origin of life on the Earth. This scenario has difficullties that may (or may not) be overcome). If life can originate on the primordial Earth it could also have originated in the dust cloud around the proto-sun, and would clearly have done so before the opportunity arose on the Earth.

By extension it might have originated in any dust cloud in the galaxy and subsequently seeded the Earth (and other planets).

The number of detected organic molecules in interstellar gas clouds continues to grow. Similar materials are present in comets. The IR characteristics of some interstellar gas clouds match those of dust coated bacteria.

If, as Bettina says, life were to be discovered in the interstellar environment that would overturn the conventional wisdom. You are correct that it would have no significant impact on evolution, but evolution and abiogenesis are separate issues.

[Sayonara]

The fact that they are different issues is what I was endeavouring to highlight. I'm sure the overall impact would be sizeable, just not for evolutionary theory (or at least, not in the way Bettina means, if I read her posts correctly).

[reverse]

There is another way to look at this.

 

What ingredients did you have to work with at the start.

Sun, minerals, what else (did you think)?

[-Demosthenes-]

Also, who is to say that life didn't start elsewhere in the universe

Even if that were true than it would have still had to start somewhere, life would have had to be started somewhere eventually.

[Kleptin]

There is another way to look at this.

 

What ingredients did you have to work with at the start.

Sun' date=' minerals, what else (did you think)?[/quote']

 

Because of the heat, pressure, and whanot flailing about the atmosphere, little atoms chained into amino acids, which chained into proteins, which became genetic material, which learned to reproduce, which started evolution, which lead to unicellular lifeforms, which lead to algae, which lead to oxygen production, which lead to...and usually, kevin bacon would be the end of this.

[Halucigenia]

At one time I had a great link to a great explanation.... I found that link I mentioned. Here it is.

http://www.bazaluk.com/en/01.html

I scanned the link (most of it is just unreadable) and just had to stop at :-

"Fig. 6. Six main groups of living creatures in nature. Their position from the point of view of cephalization conception of J. Dana. The arrow shows the directed character of the process of evolution."

 

I think that you have to be a bit more discerning, not only with the style in which the article is written but with basic facts "The arrow shows the directed character of the process of evolution" stands out as blatant misconception of the scientific understanding of the theory of evolution.

The concept of directed evolution is definetly wrong.

 

I do think that is is certainly possible for life to have evolved elsewhere in the Universe and to have been able to 'seed' itself throughout the Universe i.e. panspermia.

Bettina, the first link that you gave was much more scientific.

But I agree with Demosthenes that life still had to start somewhere.

Panspermia does not do away with the requirement for a first 'living' organism which was the question of computerages post.

Just read up on Abiogenesis as per Phil's post and then ask the question "who was the first self replicating molecule"

[Bettina]

The meaning of my post was kind of sidetracking the original posters question...sorry. I was just saying that part of the original post implied earth life originated on earth, and I am not 100% sure it did.

 

I went on to say that life could have been in the ice of the comets that came down, and "seeded" us. It's just another possibility of how life started on earth. It doesn't explain, however, where life started.

 

I have to review the impact again. Though the majority of the people believe in the biblical version of adam and eve, they would still be unfazed by a discovery of seeded proportions. Their faith will carry them through the discovery, and the bible would be reinterpreted to fit it.

 

I, would not be fazed at all, because I believe the possibility is real and would not be surprised and I don't think it would take scientists by surprise either.

 

Just my opinion...

 

Bettina

[Cathy Pa]

As space exploration continues' date=' I believe it will be found that life was created during the early formation of the universe and once this life was "seeded" thrived on the planets that could support it and is still going on today. The present scientific "theory" of life originating on earth, in my opinion, will be in question. Life evolved from the oceans and I have no doubt that I rode in on a comet.

 

At one time I had a great link to a great explanation and I will find it shortly, but for now, check this out.

 

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/seta/2002/05/23/stories/2002052300020200.htm

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Hi.

 

I have been reading this forum for a while and today I registered just to ask this question.

 

If life came in on a comet or other missile from space, how did it survive the heat that was generated when it came through the atmosphere?

[Ophiolite]

If an incoming bolide is the right size it can make it. Much too large and it impacts the Earth vaporising everything. Too large and it explodes in the atmosphere. Too small and it burns up. Just right and it lands intact with only the exterior hot. Keep in mind it takes only a matter of seconds to travel through the atmospere - no time for the interior to warm significantly.

On an allied topic, in a recent series of experiments ice loaded with amino acids (which are common in interstellar space) was impacted at energies equivalent to striking the earth. Not only did the amino acids not decompose, but they linked up to form polypeptides , a precursor of proteins.

[-Demosthenes-]

I went on to say that life could have been in the ice of the comets that came down, and "seeded" us. It's just another possibility of how life started on earth. It doesn't explain, however, where life started.

I see very little evidence for life developing on other planets and then "seeding" this one. First, it is no more likely that another planet will develop life rather than ours. Second, there are no planets that have been seen to have had life remotely near us. It just seems much more likely that life started on this planet rather than on another and then somehow got caught on a comet (hmm) and then somehow made it to a hospitable plantet (passed jupiter) and somehow did not burn up in the atmosphere and lived it lived through the whole ordeal without leaving a trace of evidence anywhere.

Sounds like view from someone who is trying to reconcile two different beliefs, which is not good science.

[reverse]

Actually can someone refresh me again on how exactly a sun produces different elements.

 

Might as well start at the beginning

[metatron]

I see very little evidence for life developing on other planets and then "seeding" this one. \

Sounds like view from someone who is trying to reconcile two different beliefs' date=' which is not good science.[/quote']

 

 

 

I agree, there is no logic in the belief that life came from outer space and then arrived here on earth.

Life is a purely natural occurrence on this planet, just as in the formation of the mineral kingdom.

The only ingredient for life arriving from outside, was energy in the form of light waves.