It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The first cell?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
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?




posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
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?



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

It makes sense.. more sense than a god created life.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Check it out
"snipped link*
This is exactly what you're looking for, and it's fun to watch.

Edit: links down, I'll be back with a working version

Okay, I had to downlad the file and upload it to another site. I'll post it in my blog once it's up, but for now just download the file and open it with your browser.
www.file.sc...

THis is a temp fix, but one that I hope can explain some things.
[edit on 20-8-2006 by Rasobasi420]

[edit on 20-8-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

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]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Interesting articles on this issue...

www.discover.com...

www.pnas.org...



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   

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



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Interesting articles on this issue...

www.discover.com...

www.pnas.org...


Cool refs. mel!!
Where did you come across them?

Nice find!



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I have found it is a lot easier if you think of life as being inevitable. When the conditions are correct, life follows naturally. As the poster above said, it’s spontaneous. From that point onward, life followed Darwin’s rules. See Note 1. If you have studied much history then you should know man created God and not the other way round. God is a name old timers gave to the unknown, and over the centuries, God has gotten smaller and smaller. And one day soon I hope, we can put Him to rest for good.

I subscribe to the theory life began on earth about ½ billion years after the earth formed. Blue green algae being the oldest living thing we can find evidence of, but it obviously had its predecessors. Or is it precursors? The earth is about 4.5 billion yeas old. The solar system began about 6 billion years ago.

I think iron is No. 26 on the periodic table and it is conceded that no element above iron can be created outside a nova or supernova event. Exploding star. Our sun must be a 3rd or 4th generation star for there to be so many elements on earth higher or post-iron. Earlier generations of stars did not ‘live’ as long as stars today tend to ‘live.’

I find it exhilarating to read and study about the origins of the Universe and of life. I noticed today that scientist are saying there is irrefutable evidence for “dark matter” which may make up as much as 70% of the mass of the Universe. I also read today that the EU’s SMART-1 lunar satellite has confirmed the Big Crash organ of the moon some 4 billion years ago. The young earth was struck by a Mars sized planetoid and when the “dust settled” we had the moon orbiting the earth. This raises the question how did Saturn’s Titan or Jupiter’s 4 Galilean moons come into existence? One new fact points to many new doors. That is the beauty of science.


Note 1. Assuming the earth accreted from rocky material around the Sun - the 4 inner planets are rocky - and that such bombardment by solid matter over a half billion years or so would have generated much heat on the surface, and there was much volcanism, too, then we need to ask where did the water come from?

We feel pretty sure the accumulation of water would not begin until the surface temperature cooled to less than 212 F. And we also believe earth never went long into a time when the average surface temperature was below 32 F. We have had the best of two worlds, like Goldilocks, neither too hat, nor too cold.

Some water may have come here via comets. This supports the panspermia type origin of life. And it is for sure that many of the complex molecules needed for replication are floating around in space. But it looks as if most of the water came from below the surface of the earth.

One writer pointed out that while it looks to us as if there is a lot of water on the planet, the real “miracle” is the earth is so uniformly flat! “So round, so firm, so fully packed, so free and easy on the draw” as the old Pall Mall cigarette ads put it. The average depth of the water on earth is merely 2 miles, which when you compare that to the earth’s diameter of 7,800 miles, is negligible. We are making a mountain out of a molehill! Or, much ado about nothing.


To vote for an auto forum, click here
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 8/22/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Aug, 22 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   


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.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   

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]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
Interesting articles on this issue...

www.discover.com...

www.pnas.org...


Cool refs. mel!!
Where did you come across them?

Nice find!


Courtesy of RAZD on the EvC forum.

[edit on 23-8-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

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.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join