How could the first living cell have evolved?

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Lets be serious here guys.

*Warning , one intense Swear Word* 8 seconds long.



That pretty much explains it.




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Yes, the right elements joined to form the living cell, but these elements are dumb!

Carbon doesn't have a pocket where the information is held to teach a cell how to split into two cells.
Nitrogen doesn't hold the secret of how to make chromosomes recreate themselves in exact size and detail, and with the exact same information as the original chromosomes.
Oxygen doesn't know how to build an energy plant like the mitochondria.
Hydrogen can't teach the RNA in a cell how to read the information in a string of DNA.

The INFORMATION contained in a living cell is so vast, and yet none of it can be found in these dumb elements.
The evolution of a cell cannot go: 1. Dumb slime 2. Dumb slime 3. SUPER INTELLIGENT INFORMATION!


Very well put. This is along the same line of reasoning that led me to reject the tired old explanations of the origin of life that I was taught all through school and then college. I don't care how many random combinations of elements and molecules you throw together, there is just no way for the coded information needed for even the simplest of living cells to exist, to come about by random chance. It is more reasonable to believe in an intelligent designer that to exercise faith in the current scientific explanation.

I have taken an honest look at both sides of the coin and am satisfied with the conclusions I have reached. If and when scientists duplicate abiogenesis I will reconsider.
Good thread and interesting topic. I look forward to the views from both camps.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by milkyway12
Radiation apparently caused cell mutations and what not that some how made life perfectly sustainable ... Lol

I suppose you apply heat to a gas trapped inside some kind of goo like oil and it will expand to make a bubble. Some kind of permeable chemical membrane. And then more organic molecules squeeze through the membrane and into the interior of the bubble. These chemicals interact and join together, forming long structures that are eventually unable to be contained within one bubble. But rather than just popping the bubble, they move to opposite ends and stretch it apart, shrink the middle, and become two more or less identical membrane bubbles filled with chemicals. And the process continues. Without the radiation (heat), then the molecules aren't able to move around.

Nah, that don't make no sense.



I agree. I used to imagine the cell membrane as a simple structure that existed to merely contain the components of a cell. Then I learned that there is nothing simple about the membrane.
The cell membrane is itself extremely complex, made up of proteins, sugars and fat molecules. It has to function in such a way as to allow nutrients and metal ions in and allow wastes to be removed. This is not some simple permeable membrane that popped into existence due to heat or radiation. The membrane employs channels and pumps to made up of very complex proteins that could not have come about by sheer chance.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac

Originally posted by R3KR
To get the engine going maybe at one point there was some sort of frequency sound/electromagnetic being emitted from our galaxy that aligned everything. Once life got started it didn't stop. And maybe it always emits in other galaxies or solar systems as well. Point is the universe is to harbor life, what is the point of intelligent consciousness ?

Saw this after I posted but I guess we are thinking the same thing...

Originally posted by biggmoneyme
source field arranges the elements into complex patterns. life probably emerges everywhere
edit on 11-7-2012 by R3KR because: (no reason given)

Cosmic microwave background radiation?


Maybe.
This forms complex structures and its just sound...

Notice the higher the frequency, the more complex the structures. What happens to atoms when their resonant frequencies barrage them ?




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
what about dead cells? think about it their dead but when they are alive......
edit on 11-7-2012 by BacknTime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Have you ever heard the one about..... if you had enough monkeys and enough time, eventually all the works of Shakespeare would be typed out by them? Random chance, billions of years, uncounted unsuccessful chemical reactions and lightning or what have you...... its like Drake's equation. Given enough stars and time, there will be life somewhere. It's only because we are so egocentric that we feel its US its all about. And yet.... considering all that goes on in the world.... what the hell have we learned? Human nature in parts is wonderful and as a whole.... disgraceful. The Good don't unite to overcome the Bad. The US is the largest arms dealer in the world. We set off a bomb that the scientists weren't sure if it would ignite the atmosphere. We create toxins and nerve gas and more efficient ways to kill and maim each other.
So, given time and enough chemicals bouncing around under various conditions, here we are! Or, if you think its God's plan..... I'd have to say.... wow, you really meant for all this to happen?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Just a guess here ..........

The right conditions led to a chemical reaction which led to series of other chemical reactions eventually evolving into single celled organisms.

Possibly bacteria from space dust was able to "ferment" after some kind of incubation. All life on this planet is carbon based. Which is one of the most common elements in existence as far as we know.



edit on 7/12/2012 by IpsissimusMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Forget for a minute the cell, and think of something more complicated organized cells can form, let’s say, the human eye (or a hawk’s eye which is more advanced).

An eye is a perfect videocamera, a complex construction where laws of optics (and much more) are enabled.
Do you really believe that this happened by chance? No way.
There must be a designer for something so complicated to be constructed. Yes, maybe evolution can explain for example skin to be let’s say photosensitive, so a worm can “understand” when is out in the surface and be in danger, but a very complicate construct like a hawk’s eye no chance.

What I feel is happening is that, individualized nonphysical consciousness’s are essentially the creators of everything (what we call physicality).
We must not forget that physical laws are very convenient so life can emerge, its almost as everything is designed with life as ultimate goal.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by stolisGreece
reply to post by jiggerj
 

We must not forget that physical laws are very convenient so life can emerge, its almost as everything is designed with life as ultimate goal.


You make your point well, but somewhat back to front. The fact that life appears to be designed to fit within the laws of physical reality must point towards a physical process, such as evolution, not meta-physical, like individualized non physical consciousness that are the creators of everything.

I would accept your argument much more if there were plentiful examples of life that defied the natural laws, then we could say perhaps there is something more going on here.

As life evolved constrained by the laws of physics, it is only natural for the result of evolution to appear to magically fit in with said laws.

On the evolution of the eye; to look at the eye as it is now, such a perfectly formed piece of equipment I can understand how an individual could wonder how something so complex could just happen to form by accident.
I would say to them it is no accident, but the result of many iterations of collections of photo sensitive cells, each useful to their possessor, over a period of billions of years.

Take two fictional worms, one worm born with one photosensitive cell, and another with a random genetic mutation that gives it two photosensitive cells.Let's assume that the worm with two light detecting cells is more able to survive, possibly by being better equipped to detect a predator from above, or the best time of day to expend energy to look for food.

The worm with the dual cell mutation will be better able to pass on his genes to the next generation than the worm with the single cell. Therefore over the course of time his mutation becomes the norm as the old worm dies out due to competition from the new, better, worm 2.0.

Now over the course of billions of iteration and random mutations, from a single photosensitive cell, to many, to different photo sensitive cell structures, to a protective protein casing for all these cells, to a covering that can be manipulated by muscles to focus light from different ranges; we have the human eye. Not by design, but simply by the fact that genetic mutations with a positive effect on the competitiveness of the organism lead to that genetic mutation becoming dominant within a species.

Obviously the worm example is a simplification and I don't know on which organism the first primitive photosensitive cells came into being, but there are many different iterations of the eye in many different creatures, some better than ours, maybe like hawks, some worse, perhaps like squids.

Even something as complex as the eye, or, bat sonar hearing, although it seems to us to be amazing, can be rationally explained by natural selection.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
I feel that the unique possibility for an instantaneous combustion of life is possible if not one of the only ways possible due to what you've pointed out here. The conditions could be absolute perfect in that flash of a moment to spur together natural vibrations of life which just built off itself endlessly with what it was given in that time.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by bias12
 


A very good article, about how complex an eye really is, and how difficult it is to happen naturally:

www.detectingdesign.com...

The point is, that in nature, even a very simple construct, something to resemble a plastic bag from oil has not emerge by chance.
Please, read the above link, its food for thought for sure…



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by stolisGreece
 

Your argument is the fallacy of irreducibility which has been debunked thoroughly, including the eye example.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


What about the brain and central nervous system, do you content that nature/evolution came up with those due to natural selection? All im saying is there has to be some measure of design, life is just to complex not to have some controlling factor.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by amongus

Simple if you think about it.

We were planted here.

It's the only logical explaination.

No that's a paradox because who planted the planters? Just becasue somebody cannot conceive of an event does not mean that that event did not occur.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by stolisGreece
reply to post by bias12
 


The point is, that in nature, even a very simple construct, something to resemble a plastic bag from oil has not emerged by chance.


Thanks for the link to the article, a great explanation of how the eye works if not a great argument against evolution.

With regards to your quote, I totally disagree. The point is that even a very simple construct has appeared by chance, simply a random genetic mutation. If that mutation provides a competitive edge then it is more likely to become a dominant trait within a group.

With regards to the article the author makes a long and complex argument debunking the theory of evolution of the eye, but there are so many false assumptions and fallacies that he gets rather lost. He bases most of his argument on the assumption that all the co-functional parts of a modern eye must have evolved at once. No one that is knowledgeable of evolutionary biology would try to base anything on such an assertion.

I would recommend the article for anyone interested on the anatomy of the eye, holding an M.D the author is knowledgeable on the topic, but I would caution the reader that there is little true argument for or against the evolution of the eye, and the article is on the whole little more than a soap box.

The over riding problem I have with pieces like this is that the author points to evolution as nothing more than baseless speculation and inference with little evidence that can be observed and documented. The evidence for natural selection and evolution is all around us, in the fossil record and in our forests, mountains and homes.

Take two lions, one normal, one blind through genetic fault and tell me natural selection wont sort out that mess.

I am perfectly open to being disproved, but the physical evidence points at evolution through natural selection as being how life has changed from single strands of RNA to the variety of life on our planet now. I have yet to see anything real and physical to suggest that beings/entities/consciousnesses somehow designed us or started life on this planet. I respect the beliefs of those who think we were winked into existence by imps or gods, all I want is some evidence, not even proof, just a single piece of real, physical evidence.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
You didn't upset me at all. I'm saying that I can't come up with a logical argument against some kind of intelligent intervention in the creation of the first living cell. So, a creator? I cannot rule it out. I was just stipulating that if logic compels me to accept intelligent intervention, then logic also compels me to consider an endless cycle of intelligence creating intelligence, creating intelligence.... Everything we see (EVERYTHING) has a beginning and an end, so there is no logical justification in believing that this cycle just stops somewhere.

OK......I'll try and dig out the recent paper where this was all explained. The initial spark of life is based around the need to transfer,store and utilise energy. That mechanism has been found to be quite easy. It is no longer the billion to one chance event in fact it is highly likely.

So your need to involve a creator is based on an inability to understand those very primitive molecular exchanges that give rise to self replication.

Since you are having these circular arguments : who created the creato?. If you are willing to accept a "creator" came from nothing then surely so can the initial spark of life. If you are saying the creator has always been here then surely so can the sparks of life.

A creator is illogical. Life from non life isn't, it is just beyond the comprehension of some and a puzzle slowly being solved by others.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


"It's complicated and we don't fully understand it" is not a legitimate argument. We know life evolves, we know that complex features such as the brain are incremental improvements of their predecessors. We know that incredibly complex systems can arise out of a few simple rules and the time scales involved mean that even the most unlikely scenarios will eventually happen.
edit on 12-7-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bias12
 


You are a very good reader my friend, you absorb information very quickly, and you mentally process it at once.

So you must have a designer!!! (I am just kidding of course, thanks for the reply)

To defend my point of view, I will speak about DNA .

DNA has something metaphysical in it. But before I refer to that, I want to say that, I believe that metaphysical is something physical which is not yet understood.

Now there was an experiment, which resulted in what is called the “DNA Phantom Effect”, in which, in essence, DNA demonstrates strange properties, the ability in essence to change reality itself after its removal.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


Now my friend, I hope that my point of view is correct in this healthy argument, not for my ego of course, but because if my point of view is correct, then every possibility is open, else we are just machines, created by accident, with the end coming rapidly and no chance for something more……



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Or maybe the easier answer to all of everything. There is actually a God who created us.

I know, I know, you don't want to hear that......But regardless of what people think about evolution, you can't have something alive from nothing unless something or someone in this case created it.

Sorry for all of you non creationists, but god is real....


Actually, I can't deny SOME kind of intelligent manufacturing going on. Even if we say that aliens did it, well how did their first living cell come to life?

Is there anyone here that could explain how the first living cell could possibly have evolved? I know science tells us that amino acids (or RNA - whatever it's called) helped form DNA, but that doesn't explain how the living cell went POOF! ALIVE and loaded with information!


Nothing can ever be explain if you embrace particle physics and the "opportunity" theory of progressive development. These are fatally flawed and embarrassingly dated notions, and the fact that their proponents have had to embrace more faith that snake-handling tent preachers to even give these notions the span of survival they've enjoyed is stark evidence that their flaws will ultimately kill them off forever.

You need to take a walk all the way back to the existential substructure and begin again in your search for staples that can survive the progressive development examination. I suggest embracing a very misunderstood breakthrough that bases the field of Quantum Physics - the quantum itself - and then looking at the immediate ramification of the quantum within an environment where every event causes the fact of that event's occurrence to emerge. From there, the journey to the very first cell depends on raw survival of the least of identified existence as it responds to the opportunities presented within each contextual relationship that exists or has the potential of existing. (hint: examine the simple orbit as you begin)

I'm trying to teach you how to fish instead of handing you a fish in this instance. If you won't fish, then that's your decision, but I just gave you a rod and reel, and showed you where the fish are biting. Everything you claim to want is now sitting right in front of you, and all you have to do is reach put and close your fingers around it.

Okay, enough of the mixed metaphors. Have fun.
edit on 7/12/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Or maybe the easier answer to all of everything. There is actually a God who created us.

I know, I know, you don't want to hear that......But regardless of what people think about evolution, you can't have something alive from nothing unless something or someone in this case created it.

Sorry for all of you non creationists, but god is real....


Who created god, and who created the entity that created god, and so on.....

It's infinite, there is not start point.





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join