Jump to content

How did all life become developed by the big bang?


Recommended Posts

No one knows, obviously. We have found what may be the first life forms on earth. They are called stromatolites and are about 3.7-3.8 billion years old.

We have also found something that might have been a living organism and it dates back to 4.1 billion years, but we are not clear on that.

 

Here is a good summary:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life

 

Also, check this short article:

 

http://www.livescience.com/1804-greatest-mysteries-life-arise-earth.html

 

But no one knows how exactly these organisms came to be living. That is an incredibly complicated question you're asking there.

Edited by Lord Antares
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life did not appear on the earth, in fact, the earth itself was not created, until billions of years after the "big bang". It makes no sense at all to say that the "big bang" ​caused​ life or that life "developed" from the big bang.

Edited by Country Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I believe you are mixing up evolution by natural selection with abiogenesis, if i am getting you.

So, It doesn't matter how life began, evolution applies to any life form that has imperfect replication (gene mutations).

If you are implying and in the process attempting to discredit evolution, by saying "primordial soup" is disingenuous on your part.

Evolution happened, we know his.. whether or not we arrived via abiogenesis [or big bang or whatever you want to point in here] or not is unknown, a very promising hypothesis but ultimately unknown.

This is where I think you disingenuously imply abiogenesis with the derogatory term "primordial soup" and use it to discredit evolution which is completely different. I have seen many pseudoscience advocates do this. I think this would go under the category of what I call 'pseudoscientific apologetics'.

P.s. this is more for the sub topic biology but I can understand based on your question, why you asked it on a cosmology forum.


Life did not appear on the earth, in fact, the earth itself was not created, until billions of years after the "big bang". It makes no sense at all to say that the "big bang" ​caused​ life or that life "developed" from the big bang.

While being true and i agree with you but playing devils advocate...

...technically all matter that ever existed came from this singularity an din the process of gasses cooling formed matter and with the add of exploding stars, this matter is spread and ultimately, as far as we know, life. We are matter and matter expanded from this dense point and cooled and here we are.

But, what made life into non life is unknown.

(Saying that abiogenesis does seem very promising but yes it is still a hypothesis )

Edited by emily436
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Saying that abiogenesis does seem very promising but yes it is still a hypothesis )

Strictly speaking, it's a subject matter concerned with the transition from non-living molecular systems to ones that make up a living system or organism. It, therefore, contains hypotheses about the advent of life but is not a hypothesis in itself. When you talk about the advent of life, 'abiogenesis' is where you put it, as a category.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...technically all matter that ever existed came from this singularity an din the process of gasses cooling formed matter and with the add of exploding stars, this matter is spread and ultimately, as far as we know, life. We are matter and matter expanded from this dense point and cooled and here we are.

 

Another way of looking at it is that physics and chemistry controlled how the universe cooled from its hot dense state (the "big bang") and also defined how life arose and evolved. So they are both consequences of something else (the fundamental rules of nature).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I think you disingenuously imply abiogenesis with the derogatory term "primordial soup" and use it to discredit evolution which is completely different. I have seen many pseudoscience advocates do this. I think this would go under the category of what I call 'pseudoscientific apologetics'.

I am in agreement with the rest of your post, but not with your suggestion that "primordial soup" is a derogatory term. Perhaps you meant that Emmawhat was using it as such, but the term itself has a fine pedigree.

 

Once religious explanations were cast aside by science the origin of life seems to have been largely ignored by scientists, with good reason: insufficient data. Darwin made his famous reference to "a warm little pond" in a private letter and Pasteur put to rest the idea of spontaneous generation that had been popular for several centuries and Huxley, Darwin's bulldog introduced the term abiogenesis, but supplied no real details.

 

It was J.B.S. Haldane and Alexander Oparin who independently conceived a more detailed version of Darwin's warm pond in the 1920s. Haldane, or one of his supporters, called this rich sea of chemicals the primordial soup. The term was definitely not derogatory, but a rather nice description of a complex concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In spite of our modern state of knowledge, nobody has yet produced a living organism out of non-living building blocks.

That's what gives creationists hope that some god must have started it off. It's tempting to think, if they can't do it in modern labs, how could it just happen on it's own?

 

The answer for me is that the Earth before life was a soup of chemicals. Each slightly different set of circumstances was it's own lab and it's own experiment. Where now there might be just a few dozen human labs working on this type of experiment, four billion years ago there were billions, trillions, squillions, there just isn't a number big enough, of random encounters between chemicals going on, in vast numbers of varying conditions. Those numbers are impossible to replicate, so human labs could never hope to replicate it randomly.

If you multiply the number of random chemical events, by the hundreds of millions of year before life DID kick off, you get mind-blowing figures for the number of random chemical events that happened before life appeared. Given those kinds of numbers, you have to suspect that if abiogenesis is possible, then it's almost certain to happen.

 

All you need is a dead planet, covered in oceans of water, and a few hundred million years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a viable question but impossibly difficult to answer.

In environment with the right conditions (presence of enough high and enough low temperature, presence of clouds and thunderbolts),

with the right chemical composition (CO2 or CO, CH4, H2O, N2 or NH3 or HCN),

there will be created amino acids, like in Miller-Urey experiment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

 

Two amino acids, join together through a peptide bond:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_bond

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of life from non-living material, is it possible to have a molecule that's something like a cross between an enzyme and a prion, or would such a thing be a contradiction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of life from non-living material, is it possible to have a molecule that's something like a cross between an enzyme and a prion, or would such a thing be a contradiction?

Pathogens can produce enzymes to help overcome body/cell defenses. In a sense, those enzymes are prions or can become prions.

It depends on the definitions you use...

Edited by Itoero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read recently, or watched it in a documentary, that the chemical reactions that formed the first gene like molecules in the primordial soup were probably sped up in the interstitial layers of clay. They allow a more repeated catalysed reaction of some weird long molecules. Thus speeding up the formation of life on the planet by millions of years, maybe billions.

 

I saw a parallel here to some polymer reactions we were doing back in the 1990's using graphite as a catalyst to choosing particular allotropes. The poymerisations we were doing were influenced by the graphite - it was believed that the reactions were taking place between the layers of graphite and selectively choosing a certain chirality for the polymer. That's what we reckoned anyway - we certainly saw the increase of one of the chiral orientations increase with the presence of graphite anyway... I think this might have helped in the case of building self replicating molecules that used the clay layers as a chiral/steric catalyst to form the pre cursers to DNA... (Sorry - I do not have a reference for this right now, but it seemed pretty convincing to me).

 

PS - Sorry - this might be covered in Moontanman's vid - I'll look at later.

Edited by DrP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

However why is Mars(ETC...) full of extinguished volcanoes and there's no active volcano!

Were they liquid at the beginning? And if yes, how many years does they need to cool, and

is there sufficient time for evolution?

In order to explain evolution it needs to explain also:

why are all martian volcanoes inactive while there're so many active volcanoes on the Earth!?

It'd be interesting to see how temperature increases in real superdeep boreholes

Edited by harlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there sufficient time for evolution?

 

 

Obviously, yes.

 

 

 

In order to explain evolution it needs to explain also:

why are all martian volcanoes inactive while there're so many active volcanoes on the Earth!?

It'd be interesting to see how temperature increases in real superdeep boreholes

 

That has nothing to do with either the big bang or evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However why is Mars(ETC...) full of extinguished volcanoes and there's no active volcano!

It is small and so the interior cooled more rapidly than the Earth. I think there is evidence for some geologically recent activity and the atmospheric methane that has been detected could indicate current active magma bodies, but you are correct that the Earth is volcanically much more active.

 

 

Were they liquid at the beginning? And if yes, how many years does they need to cool, and

is there sufficient time for evolution?

 

There was extensive volcanic activity "at the beginning". The majority of this activity had ceased by about 3.7 billion years ago. There was some debate as to whether or not the core of Mars was still molten, but this has no direct connection with the presence or absence of volcanoes.

 

As Strange pointed out Martian vulcanicity is not connected with evolution.

 

 

 

In order to explain evolution it needs to explain also:

why are all martian volcanoes inactive while there're so many active volcanoes on the Earth!?

 

This has been explained above. The Earth is large and carries more internal heat, the driving force for plate tectonics, than Mars. And evolution can contribute nothing to this explanation.

 

 

It'd be interesting to see how temperature increases in real superdeep boreholes

 

There is plenty of information on this online and geothermal gradients, globally, are well known.

Edited by Argent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's an opinion. Also their ellipsoid shapes make me thinking about it.

Testing it with a solid nothing happens.

Now you have confused me.

 

I understood that the "they" in your question referred to possible magma pools within Mars. If that was what you meant then it is far more than opinion that they were liquid (molten). It is the only explanation for the observation of vast quantities of lava on Mars.

 

Now, you say "they" have an ellipsoid shape. That makes no sense to me. Do you mean the Earth and Mars have ellipsoid shapes?

 

And what is it you are testing with a solid? And what is it you expect to happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is it you are testing with a solid? And what is it you expect to happen?

 

If a solid is spherical, it doesn't become ellipsoidal if it has a rotational movement..

BUT if all Earth, and other planets, were liquid at the beginning, an ellipsoidal shape is well acceptable

because of their rotation..

Edited by harlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If a solid is spherical, it doesn't become ellipsoidal if it has a rotational movement..

BUT if all Earth, and other planets, were liquid at the beginning, an ellipsoidal shape is well acceptable

because of their rotation..

Earth is fluid on astronomical timescales, so it's always been 'liquid'.

 

 

Oblate spheroid

 

A "squashed" spheroid for which the equatorial radius a is greater than the polar radius c, so a>c (called an oblate ellipsoid by Tietze 1965, p. 27). An oblate spheroid is a surface of revolution obtained by rotating an ellipse about its minor axis (Hilbert and Cohn-Vossen 1999, p. 10). To first approximation, the shape assumed by a rotating fluid (including the Earth, which is "fluid" over astronomical time scales) is an oblate spheroid.

 

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OblateSpheroid.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.