How did all life become developed by the big bang?

[EmmaWhat]

 

How all species developed out of a Big Bang . You disclaim primordial soup so what then ? .

[Strange]

The big bang model describes the development of the universe from a hot dense state. It doesn't have anything, directly, to do with the evolution of species.

[Lord Antares]

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 March 3, 2017 by Lord Antares

[Country Boy]

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 March 3, 2017 by Country Boy

[Lord Antares]

It does make sense to say that. I think she meant it as in ''how did it go from the big bang to living organisms?''

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

[emily436]

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 March 3, 2017 by emily436

[StringJunky]

(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 March 3, 2017 by StringJunky

[Strange]

...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).

[Argent]

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.

[mistermack]

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.

[Sensei]

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 March 4, 2017 by Sensei

[Daecon]

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?

[Itoero]

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 March 5, 2017 by Itoero

[Moontanman]

This short video give you a starting point. If you want a more complex explanation I can give you a two hour long explanation by one of the leading scientist on the subject.

 

[DrP]

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 March 7, 2017 by DrP

[harlock]

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 March 18, 2017 by harlock

[Strange]

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.

[Argent]

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 March 18, 2017 by Argent

[harlock]

Were they liquid at the beginning?

 

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

Testing it with a solid nothing happens.

[Argent]

 

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?

[harlock]

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 March 18, 2017 by harlock

[StringJunky]

 

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