How could the first living cell have evolved?

Both subscribers to creationism as well as the theory of evolution forget one thing. You may ponder about how life could have formed as much as you want, but the very basic question that should be answered first is this: is life real? All you, I, and everyone else have, are perceptions of reality and life. There isn´t a single piece of evidence that anything you perceive as real is in fact real. The only truth you´ll ever know is that you are conscious of your mind. Everything else is perceived and may not be reality.

There's too many holes in the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by bias12
reply to post by Aim64C

 

Wow, still no peer reviewed articles.

Surely if you are correct and the number of scientists that oppose intelligent design is "vanishingly small", then those scientists who support intelligent design would publish their work in peer reviewed journals.

I'm sorry, but discovery institute propaganda is not a quality source.

Here are examples of abstracts of quality peer reviewed articles in support of the origin of life as a natural process.

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

www.medicine.mcgill.ca...

Aim64c should stop simply throwing insults around, and show us some quality research to back up his views.

Let's let the real, quality, peer reviewed evidence speak for itself.

While I appreciate your attempts to get the poster to provide some proof of his statement, you are making an assumption that scientists who support intelligent design would have peer reviewed articles published. Honestly, what chances do you think a scientist or researcher whose papers supports intelligent design are going to make it through the peer approval process? You would have a better chance of expecting the patent office to seriously review a perpetual motion devise. The scientific establishment has made up it's mind that intelligent design is unprovable and will marginalize any scientists who support it. They will however continue to entertain other theories that support abiogenesis even they too are unprovable.
The number of scientists & researchers who believe in intelligent design is no doubt small in comparison to those who don't, but that doesn't mean that they do not exist.
I think holding up the peer reviewed process as the gold standard is unduly restrictive and somewhat close-minded.

This is an interesting thread and very informative. I have learned a lot from both sides of the aisle. I just hope this thread can continue to meet the ATS standards for dignity and courtesy even when opinions are 180 degrees opposite.

reply to post by r2d246


Incorrect, there's too many holes in your understanding of the theory of evolution.

reply to post by Sparky63

If they could present a testable and falsifiable hypothesis for ID then it would be science. They cannot, ergo it is not science.

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

i read it and although the calculations seemed sound, i still didnt seem like they were being 100% upfront, so i checked a couple sites showing the evolutionist point of veiw and this site
rebuttal
shows pretty much what i was thinking

although, they are not an impartial party either.

edit on 14/7/2012 by DaveNorris because: added text

Well I looked at your source. Let's go over their points.

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein...

My source used a relatively simple protein of 100 amino acids, not 300. FALSE.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

My source did not calculate this at all, it had nothing whatsoever to do with their reasoning. FALSE.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 1024 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7

Your source claims this can take place anywhere anytime, which is proven FALSE. In fact it is believed it requires something along the lines of a tidal pool for the process to work. FALSE.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

My source didn't. FALSE.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

No they didn't. FALSE.

Your source contains beliefs, not facts. My source stuck to the math. You did not debunk anything on the source I posted. Whether the actual numbers are correct on the source I used I don't know. Your rebuttal source is complete garbage and completely ignores the science it claims to support.
www.wired.com...
Look at the method needed to form ribonucleic acid. It can't happen in the ocean.

Originally posted by bias12

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by bias12

 

Please show me where irreducible complexity as it pertains to abiogenesis has been refuted. Just give me a source.

Harvard Science Review - Fall 2005
www.hcs.harvard.edu...

Quarterly review of Biology - December 2010
www.medicalnewstoday.com...
www.jstor.org...

Quality, peer reviewed research.


The fact that irreducible complexity in biology has been refuted by science at large is a well known fact. See the case notes for Kitzmiller v. Dover if you would like to see professor Behe's disastrous testimony.

"We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)).

^^^ Findings of Kitzmiller v. Dover ^^^

Irreducible Complexity is only considered seriously by pseudosciences and creationists. This is fact.

I was disappointed to find that this thread is not really about debating the science of the first living cell, and appears to be yet another topic in which the proposal of ancient designers is prevalent. Surely that is more of a cryptozoology or religious conspiracy type matter?


Perhaps someone would care to share a piece of published, peer reviewed work, which has any evidence for a "Designer"?

edit on 14-7-2012 by bias12 because: (no reason given)

That's awesome, random irreducible complexity refutes that have NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. Now how about you show me one that does. Unless you think flagellum has anything to do with abiogenesis.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

OC....it may be that RNA cannot be formed in the Ocean...but then again...all that is needed is some of the raw materials that would have existed in a tidal pool then adding a multitude of other conditions...what was once a a tidal pool of Salt Water will become something much different.

A CONSTANT of UNIVERSAL or even MULTIVERSAL REALITY is that by Natural Cause and Effect...Matter will over time continue to arrange itself into Greater Complexity of Form or in other words...Elements will transform via natural process into more complex or heavier elements. It is also a Universal or Multiversal Constant that Elements will arrange themselves into even Greater Complex Structures known as Molecules. There is no debating this since these processes as well as structures EXIST.

There is a 100% Probability of LIFE existing in the Universe or Multiverse as I am typing right now. This also means via logic that due the VASTNESS of what is our Universe there is a 100% Probability that LIFE exists elsewhere. Given the numbers and the math...there is a ZERO% Probability that LIFE is NOT a Byproduct of Matters Universal as well as Multiversal Constant of Continuance to arrange Matter into Greater Complexity.

The Probability that Life exists else where in this one Divergent Universal State of Multiversal Reality is equal to the Probability that other Stars have Planets that exist in the same condition or GOLDILOCKS ZONE...that the Earth's Life enjoys. There is no getting around this Math.

Split Infinity

reply to post by Aim64C

 

You don't understand the actual proposition of Intelligent Design.

On the contrary, I understand Intelligent Design, and I fail to see how that changes the nature of my original question.

It's at this time, you'll notice I'm alluding to Dembski's work - Which I'm sure you'll argue has "been discredited." Spare for the fact that it hasn't.

rationalwiki.org...

This one made me laugh, on the first line of the very link you provide to support your outlandish claims, it states that Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience. You should really check out your own links before posting them to back up your claims.

And unfortunately for those of us waiting with baited breath for the peer-reviewed research to back up Aim64C's argument, it appears there is none.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is a red-herring.

I demand to know what made the pieleg! I will not accept this post - allegedly made by a pieleg - as a construct of intelligence until I know what made it!

I disagree. I believe that all your wonderfully entertaining stories involving driveways and video games are in actual fact the red herrings, designed to distract us from the fact that your claims are unsubstantiated.

However kudos, for continually managing to dance around the point of each post you choose to reply to.

And back to my original question.

Originally posted by pieleg
reply to post by Aim64C

 

I was more hoping for some kind of reasoning as to the logic behind saying 'it's nearly impossible for life to be created on it's own, therefore we must have been designed'. When, in actual fact, this view requires the infinitely small chance of life being created to have happened, not once, but twice.

And for no evidence of the Intelligent Designers to be left behind.

Please, Aim64C et al, enlighten me.

Going back to the OP's original question:

Originally posted by jiggerj
My question is, in order for the very first living cell to to have evolved, how could it have been at some early stage 99% non-living, and 1% living? Then evolve into 98% non-living and 2% living? And so on and so on. This doesn't make sense to me. Actually, it sounds impossible. Either a living cell is 100% alive, or it's just a dab of inert material.

There is not one set definition for "what is life". Life is basically a bunch of chemical processes that can create more complex chains of molecules that can in turn cause other chemical processes, and so on. However, not all complex chemical processes that result in complex molecules can be called "life". One definition of life is that these chemical processes begin to self-replicate (such as the way chemical processes lets DNA replicate itself).

The chemical differences between the processes we could call "life" and those we would call "Not Life" are very small. So you COULD IN FACT have two different piles of molecules that are engaged in chemical processes that are very similar to each other -- and while BOTH piles of molecules are building more complex chains of molecules that in turn result in more even complex chemical processes (and so on), only one may be doing so in a manner that is self-replicating...

...Therefore, one of those very similar piles of molecules engaged in similar complex chemical processes could be considered "life" and the other may not be life -- but they could be similar to each other, chemically speaking.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Aim64C

 

His request was direct and to the point. My request was direct and to the point. Post up the abstracts of the papers from credible journals that support the notion of ID or the existence of a designer. You know this sort of thing would be explicitly mentioned in the abstract so there's really no need to keep posting up excerpts from websites and sources of a dubious origin. Let's just cut to the chase and see these papers, eh? If the non-ID position is "vanishingly small" then such a monumental discovery would leave a paper trail a mile long from a whole slew of credible journals. I do not see the difficulty in complying with this reasonable request.

Here is my request, direct and to the point. Post up the abstracts of the papers from credible journals that show that abiogenesis is proven.

Originally posted by pieleg
reply to post by Aim64C

 

Thanks for the story, however I was more hoping for some kind of reasoning as to the logic behind saying 'it's nearly impossible for life to be created on it's own, therefore we must have been designed'. When, in actual fact, this view requires the infinitely small chance of life being created to have happened, not once, but twice.

And for no evidence of the Intelligent Designers to be left behind.

Please, Aim64C et al, enlighten me.

First, you are using the word created in places it does not belong. Second, it would not require it to happen twice. Third, it does not require it to have happened once under the laws governing this universe. Fourth, the onus is on science to prove abiogenesis, which they haven't. Your best defense is facts. Where are they.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Abiogenesis is unproven, however there is a boatload of evidence at your fingertips which strongly suggests abiogenesis occurred. What bias and john asked for was merely a credible source or two indicating there was some evidence pointing toward intelligent design.

Not an unreasonable request in this situation.

www.nature.com...
adsabs.harvard.edu...

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Firstly, what word *should* be in place of created?

Secondly, where would the intelligent source come from in order to create life?

Thirdly, how can it not have happened at least once in this scenario?

Fourth, just because science has not proven as of yet exactly how life came into existence is not one in the win column for intelligent design.

It's like hearing hoof beats and assuming unicorns. We know of several animals which could make that noise, but there is no evidence anywhere at any time of the existence of unicorns.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


What? Who said abiogenisis was "proven"? It's a hypothesis, whilst AIM64C made specific claims that he said were supported by scientific literature. Still, the silence is deafening.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Fourth, the onus is on science to prove abiogenesis, which they haven't. Your best defense is facts.

Correct, however you are implying a false dichotomy that somehow abiogenisis still being a hypothesis = ID proven. That's not how science works. You know that's not how science works. Your (usually) critical and scientifically literate mind completely fails to operate when dealing with science that conflicts with your personal religious belief, which is why it is clouding your judgement in such a way that you cannot see the glaringly obvious logical fallacy you are committing.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


sorry, i should of clarified, as well as reading your source i looked up a couple others, one of wich lead me to this rebuttal (the link i posted).

"How could the first living cell have evolved?"

That is our question. First, it cannot have been evolution, it would be more like a quantum leap, that is, from non-living to living. Even today, we have viruses, which self-replicate, but it is still debatable whether they are really life, as the can crystallize, and need a living cell to their self-replication. Would anyone care to estimate the blind chance of all the necessary proteins coming together with the RNA/DNA to encode them, along with a cell membrane to enclose them, not even to mention the energy-producing mechanisms? Well, it boggles my mind.

We did not see it happen. We cannot come up with a mechanism for which it could have happened, which bears close scrutiny. We cannot do it ourselves, all hopes aside. Seeding from the cosmos only pushes the problem one step back.

Me, I take the word of One who brought about a Book written with an internal heptadic code, which, like that hypothetical first cell, transcends all mathematical possibility.

I think people trip themselves up by looking at a modern cell and wondering how it could have just appeared, ready-made. Clearly, that's not what happened and AFAIK none of the working hypotheses for abiogenesis suggests that it did. There is every reason to believe that the first precursors of modern cells were much simpler. For one thing, modern cells have had more than 3.5 billion years to evolve into their present form.

I can't claim to be an expert on abiogenesis, I'm just an interested layman but I know a little about one of the hypotheses that seem most promising, the "RNA world" hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that the first "protocells" didn't have any proteins at all. The model that Jack Szostak and others are working on is an extremely simple 2-component system consisting only of lipids and a replicator (RNA or a chemical equivalent of RNA). Lipids in water will spontaneously form bilayers, which is essentially what a cell membrane is. It doesn't have the sophistication of a modern cell membrane but it has the important property that it will let nucleotides in but will keep polymers of the same nucleotide trapped inside. A replicator inside a primitive cell membrane is all that's needed to get an evolutionary process started, even if we wouldn't call it "alive" by any common definition.

Obviously, this is a fledgling field of study and a coherent theory is probably decades away but I haven't seen anything to suggest that we will never be able to find a possible natural pathway from organic chemicals to a living cell.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
Certain chemicals have a tendency to link together in certain ways, but there aren't any that link together to form cell structures with specific important components. There's no way for dead material to "evolve" into something living.

Wrong. Even the cell structure itself (double lipid membrane) forms spontaneously when lipids meet water, e.g. when you pour oil onto water. Granted, it's not as complex as an actual cell membrane, but still, a good start (a compartment) for more complex things to come. As for the beginning of life itself, it almost certainly started as noncellular RNA life. Autocatalytic RNA molecules can form spontaneously from relatively simple short strands of RNA, which themselves form in the right environment spontaneously and naturally. This has already been done in the laboratory, i.e. RNA life spontaneously came to be from short stretches of RNA.

The origins of life required the advent of biological information. Such information could exist in a pool of short linear polymers, such as RNA oligomers synthesized abiotically. We propose to demonstrate that self-replicating RNA molecules can emerge spontaneously via the aggregation of a collectively autocatalytic set found within a pool of random RNA oligomers, each 40 nucleotides or less in length. This would be an empirical demonstration of the ideas proposed by Stuart Kauffman regarding emergence of order from chaos. Our approach is to exploit the intrinsic ability of some RNAs to recombine other RNAs to produce new combinations of sequences.

In publications and preliminary data we have demonstrated that the Azoarcus ribozyme, 198 nucleotides in length, can be fragmented into four pieces that can spontaneously self-assemble into a covalently-contiguous molecule through recombination reactions. These assemblages can self-replicate because they can autocatalytically catalyze further self-assembly reactions. In the current proposal we will extend this methodology by exploring whether smaller and more random fragments in a pool of oligomers can accomplish the same task.

We propose three sets experiments to achieve this goal. The first is to break the current Azoarcus RNA system into five or more fragments, such that the average fragment length drops below 40 nucleotides. The second is to select for a shorter version of the Azoarcus ribozyme by deleting large sections of the molecule, targeting a recombinase that is less than 140 nucleotides. The third is to use a novel type of in vitro selection, termed autocatalytic enrichment selection, to bring a pool of RNA oligomers which does not demonstrate detectable self-assembly back across a complexity threshold to the point where it does self-assemble and self-replicate. We can accomplish these experiments inexpensively with graduate and undergraduate students at Portland State University in three years’ time.

If the final aim is met, will creationists shut their mouths for ever? Anyway, what they already achieved demonstrates that life can indeed spontaneously form from non-living. Autocatalytic RNA molecules are subject to natural selection, and it appears that from there to cellular life that resembles contemporary life took about 500 million years..