This is relating to the "big-bang theory", and how life came about.

I have always wondered how the first life on this planet, or in our universe, had first begun. I've read about evolution, and natural selection, and how we got to this point in time through those, but this is what I have wondered: how did the first cell come about? How did the first prokaryotic cell suddenly appear on this planet, or in the universe? Certainly life also didnt come directly after the big-bang, and that everything was just non-living materials then.

I don't see how a cell could randomly appear one day, either on this planet or elsewhere in the universe. It could not have evolved from something inferior, since there was no life for it to evolve from.

How did life come from the lifeless?

If I recall the theory, there's a primordial ooze that contains organic molecules that supposedly link to form living cells.
This theory can't be proven, though, because scientists can't create a living cell.
The study is called spontaneous life.

So, according to that theory, some atoms randomly formed a molecule, and these molecules came together to form a very primitive form of a cell?

Then I am guessing that primitive ooze of organic molecules eventually began advancing in complexity and started evolving into cells?

Since when was life a random event?

I'd hope you know about physics, chemistry and such. Life is far from random. You just need the right conditions, which is why we don't see life currently on venus right now even though it could have supported life for billions of years before the atmosphere went to hell. Life is a fragile bio-chemical system. Without the right conditions, you won't get any form of life. People who say life is random are usually uneducated hipochristians.

Back in the day, when earth but was cold wet planet. The ocean was too cold to have (appropriate) proteins/amino acids to bond. The Land was too hot. Once in a while, wind would sweep some of the particles from the ocean, and by pure chance, if they landed in a rockpool on the edge of the land, would 'survive to bond', due to the temperature. The proteins from the land would then bond with those in the rockpools. If by chance, the rockpool remained at the constant temperature between too hot and too cold, the proteins would continue to bond with each-other.

Then it happened. By chance, the proteins bonded in a "perfect" sequence, resulting in the first dna. Should this dna survive, provided with the temperature and the amino acids it required, it grew. When it grew enough, it would form into rna, allowing itself to 'copy' itself.

Thus life was born.

These conditions and results have been met in a lab from scratch.

Originally posted by Gear
Back in the day, when earth but was cold wet planet. The ocean was too cold to have (appropriate) proteins/amino acids to bond. The Land was too hot. Once in a while, wind would sweep some of the particles from the ocean, and by pure chance, if they landed in a rockpool on the edge of the land, would 'survive to bond', due to the temperature. The proteins from the land would then bond with those in the rockpools. If by chance, the rockpool remained at the constant temperature between too hot and too cold, the proteins would continue to bond with each-other.

Then it happened. By chance, the proteins bonded in a "perfect" sequence, resulting in the first dna. Should this dna survive, provided with the temperature and the amino acids it required, it grew. When it grew enough, it would form into rna, allowing itself to 'copy' itself.

Thus life was born.

These conditions and results have been met in a lab from scratch.

DNA wasent the first replicator.

Theres something about that too in the links i provided a few posts up.

Originally posted by Gear

These conditions and results have been met in a lab from scratch.

Thats a lie. The Miller expiriment only succeeded in creating simple amino acids from even simpler chemicals in a small lab setting. Thats still very far from life.

The origin of life by natural means is a paradox given that information (RNA, DNA) is needed to form the cell structure, but the information cannot survive without the cell structure already intact. Essentially, for such structures to manifest by themselves with RNA/DNA intact it would be astronomical on the verge of impossible.

I find it funny that some of you are so quick to judge the idea of a Creator ridiculous while you turn to believing in something that is unobserved, untested, and quite frankly impossible according to conventional biology.

[edit on 22-8-2006 by CaptainKirk]

Originally posted by wiergraf
I have always wondered how the first life on this planet,

Welcome to the club!

how did the first cell come about?

Great question! As soon as you get the answer... u2u me. I'll do the same for you.

How did the first prokaryotic cell suddenly appear on this planet,

I don't believe that there's any requirement, nor do most en vogue theories of abiogenesis support the idea the first cell appeared rapidly.

I don't see how a cell could randomly appear one day, either on this planet or elsewhere in the universe. It could not have evolved from something inferior, since there was no life for it to evolve from.

Your point about life from non-life is well-taken, but scientific opinion on this issue has extended the concept of selection down to non-living things like chemicals. The theories revolve around some sort of 'replicator' molecules, etc. There are other theories as well self-organization theories, etc.

How did life come from the lifeless?

Well that's the billion dollar question isn't it? Unfortunately, you're not going to find the answer here on ATS, despite what some members may espouse. The study of origins of life has been around for 50 years or so, and even the most prominent members of the OOL science community admit the problem is no where near solved.

My personal advice would be to read one of the many fascinating and well put together books re: this topic. There are also a variety of good websites devoted to abiogenesis theory. Again my personal advice would be to explore what the science community as a whole has to say about the topic. Good luck

You all seem to think that life must have a start. This might not be the case. What if life simply always existed. The univers or "megaverse" always existed, so why not life. There are theoreticly demitions where there is no time. What if the first life formed or was always there and sometimes randomly crosses over bringing life into existance in other dementional planes. So life could have never started and has always been.

Life is far from random

Thats very true.
The math prooves that someone had to had a hand in our developement. Im not saying god I do not believe in god, but my point is, All of these things happend in a neat little row for us to be here today, for that to happen randomly isnt possible if you look at the math of probability.

Originally posted by Prot0n
Since when was life a random event?

I'd hope you know about physics, chemistry and such. Life is far from random. You just need the right conditions, which is why we don't see life currently on venus right now even though it could have supported life for billions of years before the atmosphere went to hell. Life is a fragile bio-chemical system. Without the right conditions, you won't get any form of life. People who say life is random are usually uneducated hipochristians.

These "conditions", according to accepted "theory" these days include the addition of an extraterrestrial comet that already contained these organic molecules. This had to be added due to lack of any substantial re-creation.


[edit on 23-8-2006 by bothered]

The trouble I have with these "event" happenings is that the first molecule had to be very simple to say the least. But the conditions proven, so it goes, at that time would be very toxic, and the odds of molecules coalescing into a simple organism with the ability to rid itself of these toxins is practically unbelievable.

Originally posted by Gear
Back in the day, when earth but was cold wet planet. The ocean was too cold to have (appropriate) proteins/amino acids to bond. The Land was too hot. Once in a while, wind would sweep some of the particles from the ocean, and by pure chance, if they landed in a rockpool on the edge of the land, would 'survive to bond', due to the temperature. The proteins from the land would then bond with those in the rockpools. If by chance, the rockpool remained at the constant temperature between too hot and too cold, the proteins would continue to bond with each-other.

Then it happened. By chance, the proteins bonded in a "perfect" sequence, resulting in the first dna. Should this dna survive, provided with the temperature and the amino acids it required, it grew. When it grew enough, it would form into rna, allowing itself to 'copy' itself.

Thus life was born.

These conditions and results have been met in a lab from scratch.

You sure don't know what you are talking about.. You should go read a bit on how life appeared, because that is just wrong.

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
I find it funny that some of you are so quick to judge the idea of a Creator ridiculous while you turn to believing in something that is unobserved, untested, and quite frankly impossible according to conventional biology.

I find it funny that some of you are so quick to jump to te immediate conclusion that it was a creator, and not just an anomoly, or some other unknown situation that created the first cell.

The Creator decision is a much greater leap of faith than what you described.