Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Origina of the Single Cell Organism

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I recently watched a documentary, hosted by Ben Stein. In this documentary Mr. Stein would question intelligent design and Darwinism proponents as to why the subject is so divided.

The intelligent desgin crowd has a very good argument. How did a cell develop from no life at all?

What happened to give the spark need to align the first protiens in such a way that they could be jolted to life and what exterior power could jolt them to life?

It seemed highly possible that a single cell organism would evolve, given the trillions of different opportunities and the massive amount of time available to trigger such an evolution. However, once I started looking at the numbers, I found that the probablility that a single cell organism would evolve at all is very small, if not non existent.

If the number is absolute 0 and there is nothing in nature that can be a variable, then the number must remain absolute and 0.

I mean, with absolute 0, there are no odds at all that life could spring forth from thin air or thick mud.

I listened more and heard a number that was incredible, to say the least. Odds of 1 in 1 tillion, trillion, trillion, trillion have been assigned for the chances of aligning the protiend in a correct order and then jolting them to life, naturally.

The odds are so staggeringly high that the chance of the occurrance taking place is essentially 0!

Now, this is not an absolute 0, no odds statement. This statement reveals to us that, when including variables, the chances for life to srping forth are still essentially 0!

So how did life ever manage to beat basically impossible odds and hit the genetic lottery with the first single cell organism?

Scholars and amateurs alike search for the answer to this unrelenting question - so far with no avail to an solid answer. The more they study, the less and less they seem to agree on a possible spark of life that jumpstarted the evolution process.

Without consciousness and facing such terrible odds, why would there ever even be a need for life to spring forth in the first place. The rest of the universe seems to get along just fine without life - that we know of anyway - so why here, why now?

This could be tied into several different topics, such as the matrix theory, the spiritual theory, the Gd theory, the theory of alien intervention and so forth.

The numbers are so dificult to even fathom, the chances so small, but yet - here we are!

When I thought about the odds in my head and tried to reconcile my own idea of the origin of life with the information I recently learned I was stumped. I could think of no way, logically, that life would erupt on our planet, or anywhere else for that matter.

So, I continued to think about it and theidea that came to mind is one I am going to share with you now.

It is short and simple and I have never heard or read of this idea being put forth as an option for human evolution - and there are many roadblocks to the idea.

Is it possible that a single cell organism did not evovle from a primordial soup? Instead reach the right conditions to come from a dormant state?

Is it possible thatwhen all of the matter was clumped together as one, just before the big bang, and this matter was organic, carrying the building bloxks of life within itself?

Could everything we have been looking for be as simple as the proteins being on Earth and what makes up the Earth from the inception of our home planet?

Could these proteins be present in an unknown form - hibernating - until the conditions are right for them to develop from a single cell into life as we know it?

Every single thing you see is a product of our Universe, including what you can't see. Radio waves, microwaves, etc., even consciousness is a product of the Universe.

Knowing this, is it feasible to think that the Universe nudged us along, with life inherent in every particle of matter in the Universe? We are not here now because we asked to be here as individuals, same can be said for all living beings.

So it must be that we are the Universe and we have been worked into delf conscious being - not to be individuals or as a gift to us - but so that the Universe can see itself and know what it is.

Afterall, our consciousness is the Universe's consciousness - we are the Universe studying ourself!




posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


Scientists have already found evidence that life might have originated from a meteorite from Antarctica, so...



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
They don't know how the first cell started .. if they did you bet the athiests would be rubbing it all over the creationists faces


abogenisis they hate that word every time it comes up lol

"origin of species not life" !!! lool

they have tried many differnt methods to try and do it but nothign has worked so far



seems like its alot harder then just add water + spark + a few bill years ...













We don't know how it happened but were trying




Scientists have already found evidence that life might have originated from a meteorite from Antarctica, so...|



They found the building blocks of the first cell ... i would hardly call a tainted metor evidence of anything
edit on 12-8-2011 by seedofchucky because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mr10k
 


Yes, but nothing is concrete, they have no idea if this meteorite carried the spark for life or not.

It is possible that all of the ingredients were on earth and the meteorite was the catalyst for jump starting the existing recipe.

The debate would only get deeper even if the meteorite was proven to carry the first life, the debate would turn to...

How did life begin on a meteorite? What brought rise to the neccessity of life, why - for what reason was there a need to have life come forth from nothing?

Either way, looking at this information makes it much easier to believe that the recipe for life to become animate and even evolve intelligence and self-consciousness becomes very rare occurrance on a cosmic scale. The universe may not be a place that is loaded with life, even on it's basic levels.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


No one is saying that there was life already on the meteorite when it hit the Earth. What they are saying is that it contained the building blocks for life. The ingredients of the recipe that makes RNA is where the evidence is the strongest as 2 of the 4 base pairs have been created in the lab already. So think of it as a recipe, that's how they explained it actually. You may have the correct ingredients but you may not have them mixed correctly and at the proper temperature.

Also, there is no "reason" for life to exist; it just does. Unless of course you wish to believe it has a purpose and I don't see anything wrong with that.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 

We also didn't know that all matter was anything other than various ratios of air, water, fire, and earth. Good thing we didn't accept that answer and kept looking, no?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by esteay812
 

We also didn't know that all matter was anything other than various ratios of air, water, fire, and earth. Good thing we didn't accept that answer and kept looking, no?


"I will list an unrelated topic which people were ignorant about in the past -- this proves that you are ignorant for not agreeing with me on the thread topic." Have any more fallacies for us?

To the OP: I don't believe that any humans have a proper grasp on the odds involved. I'm sure those calculations are filled with just as much arrogant conjecture as either camp's certainty of creation / random mutation. Whenever we can do real computer simulations of it, which are accurate in terms of all the physics, we will be closer.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Observer99
 


"I will list an unrelated topic which people were ignorant about in the past -- this proves that you are ignorant for not agreeing with me on the thread topic." Have any more fallacies for us?

Hardly unrelated. There's a large difference between "the question is unanswerable", as Ben Stein would like to imply, and "the question has not been answered yet".
edit on 13/8/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
We have no way of explaining the emergence of life, and where and when this emergence took place. If this emergence is from a source such as God, it's possible we may never know how this emergence took place. Just like a crime that can't be solved, because the information is nil or incomplete, it would be foolish to claim science will one day explain everything we have questions about. However, it would also be foolish to stop looking. It's in our nature to be curious.
The main reason I love getting into these threads about God, where we come from, when, and why is I love mysteries. I can't help it. I say there's a variable that's unknowable. Scientists say this unknowable variable will be gnawed at until it becomes knowable. Well, I love looking for the answers to these extreme questions as much as they do, but I realize the more we reveal about which was previously unknown, the more colossal the unknown becomes. I will continue to look, and continue to point out the arrogance of scientists who say things like, "Abiogenesis was jump started by a meteorite.".



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Thank you all for your replies here.

I think the point I am trying to make can be found in some of the replies.

I only mean to point out that the question of how the first single cell organism - 'life' - came to be. After learning about some of the numbers involved, it became quite obvious that there is no way one side or the other could be confident in their theories.

Personally, I find it arrogant to think that people oppose one side of the debate to even be allowed in schools in some areas. They would love to have only evolution theory, while others would love to have intelligent design taught.

It can be a very contreversial subject, if we make it that way, but I think there is a much more important aspect to it - other than finding the real truth, down whatever path the truth lies. This subject is a perfect opportunity to teach people critical thinking skills, as well as teaching the different possibilities and how the world can be filled with great mysteries. Teaching how to research and form educated opinions could also be a great product of such subjects being taught.

The arrogance that allows a group to deny the opportunity for an opposing subject to be elaborated on, while giving the individual the capability of choosing the answer they feel is appropriate for themselves, is crippling.

I just wish more people with these beliefs could see they are doing more harm and stunting progress more than helping. I find it ignorant for one to push their beliefs, when it is quite possible they believe that way because they were never presented the opportunity to properly examine both sides of the matter.

Maybe one day we will see a change from individual wants and needs to a place where we can be freely educated without prejudice or bias.... maybe - just hope it is before Dec. 21, 2012!!

haha j/k about the last part....



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
Thank you all for your replies here.

I think the point I am trying to make can be found in some of the replies.

I only mean to point out that the question of how the first single cell organism - 'life' - came to be. After learning about some of the numbers involved, it became quite obvious that there is no way one side or the other could be confident in their theories.


Okay, I'm going to ask the same questions I asked my students when they came up with a nice flat statement like that: How do you know the numbers are right?

How do you know that the formulas aren't garbage?

Let me give a quck example. Cats purr. Lightning strikes. I can make a formula saying that cat purr vibrations affect the number of times lightning strikes the Earth and there's a relationship where 1200*purring frequency is the inverse ration of the power of local lightning strikes.

Does that make it right?

I could make a video of it and show purring cats and thunderstorms. How do you know I didn't cherry pick the data?

[quote[This subject is a perfect opportunity to teach people critical thinking skills, as well as teaching the different possibilities and how the world can be filled with great mysteries. Teaching how to research and form educated opinions could also be a great product of such subjects being taught.

Which is why I teach my students to ask "where do those numbers come from" and "is there any proof of the numbers" and "is this a meaningless or garbage equation."


The arrogance that allows a group to deny the opportunity for an opposing subject to be elaborated on, while giving the individual the capability of choosing the answer they feel is appropriate for themselves, is crippling.


Happens all the time. Fact of history. It's particularly rampant when people don't or can't read deeply on the subject (the hard stuff. With the big scary math and chemistry.)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Just because something has the odds of "1 in a million" doesn't mean it takes a million chances.

Same with the 1 in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. Just because the odds are small doesn't mean it's impossible, just very improbably given a short amount of time. But the amount of time WAS long. So it makes more sense, unless I'm wrong then correct me. But again, just because those are the chances doesn't mean it takes exactly that many tries.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812


I listened more and heard a number that was incredible, to say the least. Odds of 1 in 1 tillion, trillion, trillion, trillion have been assigned for the chances of aligning the protiend in a correct order and then jolting them to life, naturally.

The odds are so staggeringly high that the chance of the occurrance taking place is essentially 0!



I believe that that is referred to as an argument by retrospective improbability .

Have you ever gotten a grain of sand in your eye ...... what are the odds of that solitary grain of sand out of all the grains of sand on the planet finding its way into your eye . Every action has an inconceivably vast number of complex physical events preceding it.

" The odds are so staggeringly high that the chance of the occurrance taking place is essentially 0 "

Thats not how it works- ....... if its possible at "Odds of 1 in 1 tillion, trillion, trillion, trillion" - its possible.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Go ahead and disregard any probabilities on how likely it is for life to form. We aren't exactly sure how it happened, so how can anyone generate accurate probabilities? They would be have to be based, partially, on pure speculation. What chemicals were involved? How long did it take? What were the environmental conditions? What processes occurred? We can make pretty good guesses at some of these, but in reality we'll never actually know. Additionally, we don't even know the range of conditions that life might arise in. There are hypotheses that life can form differently than life on earth has, utilizing different chemicals.

However, we do know a lot. We know that organic molecules can form naturally. We know that lipids form liposomes and micelles naturally. Piece by piece, we are finding that a natural explanation for life is becoming more apparent. We have genetic and molecular evidence that demonstrates a common origin for life on earth. We even have models that demonstrate how life could have arisen by completely natural processes. The video seedofcucky posted is a really good explanation of this.


Originally posted by seedofchucky



So, we have evidence for a natural origin occurring, and every year we are coming closer to creating life of our own design. Just because we haven't done it yet, doesn't make it impossible. The airplane was not impossible before 1903.
edit on 15-8-2011 by PieKeeper because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Great video.

Thanks!



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Cellular structures form natural from the behavior of long-chain fatty acids suspended in a liquid solution. Differential reproduction takes care of the rest.

Nucleic acids and amino acids also form naturally from methane, water, and radiation. Out of the possible cohort of molecules that congregate at one location at one time, after 500 million years all it takes is one combination to continue to spread differentially until enough proteins are apart of the monad in order to induce auto-catalytic mechanisms.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   
I find it paradoxal as to how inanimate matter can become a living thing.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by esteay812
How did a cell develop from no life at all?

What happened to give the spark need to align the first protiens in such a way that they could be jolted to life and what exterior power could jolt them to life?

Could everything we have been looking for be as simple as the proteins being on Earth and what makes up the Earth from the inception of our home planet?


Actually, they do know how the first single cell organism began. They can "create" amino acids from vaccuums of nothing but different gases. Then the amino acids (the building blocks of life) would take millions of years binding to form polypeptide chains...then eventually after millions of years...single celled lifeforms.

On Earth, part of the problem is that people wrongfully assume that the present oxygen atmosphere existed in the past when life was formed. It wasn't. Life began forming in Earth's two previous atmospheres.

Earth's 1st atmosphere was primarily ammonia-methane. We know this to be true from the bottom-most layers of the earth's crust which is primarily calcite formations. They could only form in an ammonia-methane atmosphere. If you know anything about vaccuum studies...placing different gases in vaccuums and sending electric arcs through them, virtually all gases....amino acids form. BUT...the greatest abundance of amino-acids form when ammonia-methane is placed in a vaccuum and electric arcs are sent through it.

So in earth's 1st atmosphere of ammonia-methane...all it took was any form of "electric arcs" or electricity in the air and amino acids were forming all over the planet...a soup of amino acids (the building blocks of life).

The next catalyst to the ammonia-methane atmosphere and its amino acids was that Planet Earth got hit by a giant Mars-sized asteroid, which formed the moon (from the projected material). When this occurred, it opened up a magma scar (Pangaea) in the planet and carbon dioxide, sulfur and other volcanic gases poured into the atmosphere. It was during this phase that the first single celled organisms evolved-- they were called "greenplant".

Now greenplant isn't really "green". There was very little oxygen on earth at this point. Those first single celled organisms breathed in the toxic atmosphere and exaled oxygen. It was because of the single-celled organisms all over the planet breathing in the toxic gases and exhaling oxygen gas (O2) that we have oxygen today. There was also no ozone until after the "greenplant". The oxygen gas that they exhaled (O2) went into space and as it got into the higher layers it broke into atomic oxygen or O*, then reformed into O3 which is the ozone.

Once the ozone was in place, the oxygen gas being exhaled by greenplant filled the planet with O2. Which brought planet earth into the 3rd atmosphere...one rich with oxygen and life.

Without those single celled organisms breathing in toxic gases and exhaling oxygen...no other life would have formed. If it really interests you....try looking up a book by Barbato & Ayers called "Atmospheres". That will get into the specific chemical composition in very great detail of all 3 atmospheres of planet earth ...especially the chemical composition of the atmosphere of the planet that the single celled organisms used to breath in--exhaling the oxygen. Their book is very detailed on the chemistry of it all...balancing it out with geological chemistry of what was in the soil of the Earth's crust to prove each atmospheric composition.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 

And yet no one bats an eyelash at living things becoming inanimate matter. Odd, no?





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join