The first organism?

[dstebbins]

The theory of spontaneous generation has been disproven.

 

It is now a scientific law that all lifeforms must come from at least one parent life form (if it is at only one, it is called "asexual reproduction"). Maybe the parent dies in the first place, but it has to have been alive at some point in time because organisms don't just pop up out of nowhere.

 

But, if that's the case, then how did the world's first organism come into existence?

 

It had to have come from somewhere, and if it just spontaneously generated, why is that organism the sole exception to the rule?

 

Science doesn't deal in "unique exceptions;" science follows the notion "If you repeat the conditions, you repeat the actions," which means if we allow for one instance of spontaneous generation, we have to allow for many, many more.

 

So, where did the first organism come from?

[npts2020]

The theory of spontaneous generation has been disproven.

 

It is now a scientific law that all lifeforms must come from at least one parent life form (if it is at only one, it is called "asexual reproduction"). Maybe the parent dies in the first place, but it has to have been alive at some point in time because organisms don't just pop up out of nowhere.

 

But, if that's the case, then how did the world's first organism come into existence?

 

It had to have come from somewhere, and if it just spontaneously generated, why is that organism the sole exception to the rule?

 

Science doesn't deal in "unique exceptions;" science follows the notion "If you repeat the conditions, you repeat the actions," which means if we allow for one instance of spontaneous generation, we have to allow for many, many more.

 

So, where did the first organism come from?

 

Who disproved this theory and how? There may be spontaneous generation happening all over the universe right now but how would we know it?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What was disproven was the idea that, say, worms spontaneously appear in meat when it gets too old. That doesn't happen. (The famous experiment was to put broth in a flask where no particles could enter, and to let it sit. Nothing grew in the broth.) The biological concept of abiogenesis, however, has not been disproven, because it suggests that the life begins in an extremely simple form and gradually -- over thousands or millions of years -- becomes more complex.

[Sisyphus]

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

 

^worth a read

 

Life wouldn't have begun at one precise moment. Any "first organism" you choose is probably not going to look much like an organism. Or if it does, then so will it's "parent." Is a lipid bubble full of proteins an organism? Not really. But we're probably "descended from" something like that.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Life wouldn't have begun at one precise moment. Any "first organism" you choose is probably not going to look much like an organism. Or if it does, then so will it's "parent." Is a lipid bubble full of proteins an organism? Not really. But we're probably "descended from" something like that.

 

...opening up a whole realm of "Your mom is a lipid bubble!" jokes.

[Phi for All]

The theory of spontaneous generation has been disproven.

How, and by whom?

 

It is now a scientific law that all lifeforms must come from at least one parent life form (if it is at only one, it is called "asexual reproduction").

Citation please. I've never heard of any law like this.

 

Are you talking about how modern complex lifeforms can't be generated from inorganic materials, or are you claiming that something like a protobiont couldn't have been spontaneously generated?

 

 

Edit: Wow, a lot of people beat me to post #3! You must have claimed something radical, dstebbins.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This may be of assistance:

 

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

 

Read the last section in particular.

[Mr Skeptic]

The theory of spontaneous generation has been disproven.

 

Yes and no. The "old fashioned" theory was that the entirety of vermin were spontaneously generated from rotting food. All flies came from rotting food, and did not have a parent. Someone figured that flies reproduce just like us, and disproved the above by letting a piece of meat rot while no flies were allowed to reach it.

 

The modern idea, called abiogenesis, is an explanation for the first life form, which we know there was. Some form of abiogenesis must be true. So that's rather the opposite of disproven.

[foodchain]

The theory of spontaneous generation has been disproven.

 

It is now a scientific law that all lifeforms must come from at least one parent life form (if it is at only one, it is called "asexual reproduction"). Maybe the parent dies in the first place, but it has to have been alive at some point in time because organisms don't just pop up out of nowhere.

 

But, if that's the case, then how did the world's first organism come into existence?

 

It had to have come from somewhere, and if it just spontaneously generated, why is that organism the sole exception to the rule?

 

Science doesn't deal in "unique exceptions;" science follows the notion "If you repeat the conditions, you repeat the actions," which means if we allow for one instance of spontaneous generation, we have to allow for many, many more.

 

So, where did the first organism come from?

 

What if the process that generated life, or the environment, required over a hundred years to lead to life? For it to be disproved would require science I imagine. All we have right now is hypothetical stuff on the origin of life, or nothing proven fully.

 

Back to the hundred years in a specific environment, we really cant set up such an experiment yet. To be honest going from my readings correctly modeling the behavior of chlorine in the atmosphere is considered a very difficult task.

[dstebbins]

Okay, let me get this straight.

 

A sodium atom and a chlorine atom just happen to be in the same place at the same time, so they combine into a molecule of table salt.

 

Likewise, the theory of abiogenesis argues that a lot of molecules that we now recognize as "organic," like O₂ and amino acids, were at the same place at the same time, started engaging in chemical reactions that were physically possible under those conditions, and then BAM, the first organism.

 

Is that the gist of it?

[Ouroboros]

Okay, let me get this straight.

 

A sodium atom and a chlorine atom just happen to be in the same place at the same time, so they combine into a molecule of table salt.

 

Likewise, the theory of abiogenesis argues that a lot of molecules that we now recognize as "organic," like O₂ and amino acids, were at the same place at the same time, started engaging in chemical reactions that were physically possible under those conditions, and then BAM, the first organism.

 

Is that the gist of it?

 

Yes, why not?

We think life is somehow special because of its complexity and rarity, yet our sample size is still just one planet. If you think of life as just a system, interrelated parts functioning as an orderly whole, it doesn't sound so unfamiliar.

You could simplify the functions of a virus to the point where the line between life and lifeless are blurred (..which is pretty much the case to start with).

[Sisyphus]

Okay, let me get this straight.

 

A sodium atom and a chlorine atom just happen to be in the same place at the same time, so they combine into a molecule of table salt.

 

Likewise, the theory of abiogenesis argues that a lot of molecules that we now recognize as "organic," like O₂ and amino acids, were at the same place at the same time, started engaging in chemical reactions that were physically possible under those conditions, and then BAM, the first organism.

 

Is that the gist of it?

 

Not exactly. There wouldn't have been any BAM, because there wouldn't have been any clear "first organism." It's not like one moment you've got a bunch of dead chemicals, then the next you've got a fully formed microbe undergoing on all the processes of life.

 

Did you go to the Wikipedia link?

 

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

[Horza2002]

And so what if its a scientific law? Laws have been proven wrong in the past! Newtons laws of motion are wrong and have since been replaced with relativity. They probably mean is that the moment, the evidence supports the idea that everyhting needs a parent. But without giving a reference then its hard to see wither way...

 

And yes, simply exposing one chemical to another and them reacting does happen...if it didnt chemistry would have died a long time ago!!