It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How could the first living cell have evolved?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:24 PM
evolution is the same as mutation radiation speeds this process up

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 01:25 PM

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by bias12

Actually, the idea of some omniscient being creating existence as we know it is now becoming more and more plausible scientifically, if not just mathematically. The odds of all this being real vs. being a simulation are a billion to one btw in favour of this being a "simulation" on some sort of "computer" (hope I'm not plagiarizing).

I like the whole universe is a simulation on a really advanced civilizations computer thing. Not sure of the one billion to one in favour odds, but i like it none the less lol

I don't think we can take any of it and say it is becoming more plausible scientifically though. It is a fun exercise in statistics and mathematics.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by amongus

I agree with Amongus, I feel the movie Prometheus was a little to accurate in some aspects.
But I believe we were genetically created because dinosaurs were the Earth's natural creatures.
Then we came? Out of nowhere! No, we were put here...
I believe we were truly a slave race in the past for the Sumerian gods.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:10 PM
very interesting answers on here

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by stealthmonkey

To be more accurate, evolution is not entirely similar to radiation induced mutation. You ARE in fact partly correct in that evolution is based on mutations. However evolution is best described as a mutation taking place in an organism at birth, where that mutation is certainly beneficial. Due to this newly formed adaptation, the afflicted organism is given an upper hand amongst its peers. This makes it more likely to survive to pass on it's DNA, including the new adaptation. And if the theory of natural selection holds true, in time, the entirety (or majority) of the population should now have this adaptation... In theory of course

Basically what i'm trying to say is that evolution cannot technically take place through radioactive mutations.

This is my first post by the way, so hi ATS!

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:08 PM

Originally posted by VonDoomen

Is there something specific you were addressing in that link?

What you have written sounds convincing, but my mind cries out for scientific evidence. Meaning, we can create all sorts of thing in a lab: rust, polymers, heavy water... But, no life, even when we know all of the elements contained there-in. If what you state is true then why haven't our brilliant minds been able to recreate life? Should be just a matter of mixing the right stuff and placing it in the right environment (and it doesn't sound like it has to be the exact conditions as it was on earth way back when, seeing as life is so eager to evolve).

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Sparky63

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.

Leave it to Curly to explain my thoughts better then me!

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:15 PM

Originally posted by stolisGreece
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.

Sorry, I don't see consciousness as possible without form, without some kind of machine to generate thought. Also, if life were the ultimate goal, we'd have aliens waving to us from every planet. We would have picked up radio transmission from every point in the universe.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by micmerci

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by jiggerj

Life is nothing more than a chemical process. Put the right ingredients in, and out comes life.

If this is so, why haven't we been able to replicate it? Has anyone been able to "put the right ingredients" (ALL NON-LIVING) together and come up with a living organism?

Oh dear here we go again. If you have a few million years to spend experimenting then yes you can sit there tweak and replicate the origins of life.......but we don't have that amount of time do we. So instead all we can do is experiment with key triggers. The initial key triggers have been studied and replicated BUT it DOES NOT mean life has been reproduced merely that we understand some of the main triggers and functions.

And yet again, just because we cannot be 100% (millions of years) does not mean we need to invent a mythical creature to fill in the gaps. That's ludicrous nonsense that some people need as a crutch.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by NorEaster
every event causes the fact of that event's occurrence to emerge.

Hey, if I had 20 or 40 more I.Q. points I'd toe to toe with you. But I don't, so I won't.

Just please explain this part. This sounds like your saying the creation of the first living cell actually caused the creation of the first living cell. Is that what you're saying?

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:39 PM

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by jiggerj

Life is nothing more than a chemical process. Put the right ingredients in, and out comes life.

Great! Mix up some carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and a few trace elements and send me a living cell. My address is:

Fulla Malarky
100% No Way
NoHow, Notgunnahappen

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:45 PM

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13

Originally posted by jiggerj

Even the plasma material isn't enough. How did the INFORMATION to build the DNA and mitochondria get into this plasma?


You have no idea how much I want to argue with that. But I can't! Instead, I have to go with, who or what created the creator. I simply will NOT buy that he/she/it always was and always will be.

That is the limitation with the thoughts of man. There are hierarchies of consciousness. Humans are relatively low in this hierarchy.

Most often when people refer to the One God, they are referring to the totality consciousness or the sum total of EVERYTHING...

He controls Himself as much as we control ourselves. Do you control every single cell of your body? but you can guide them through your choices.

The Totality consciousness is as impossible for humans to comprehend as it is for an ant to understand human consciousness. Some is revealed to us through the portions of our higher selves that reside with the seat of the Totality consciousness, but humans are limited in the possibility of understanding while trapped in meat sacks.


posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:55 PM
Yep, jiggerj, you're on the right track.

Scientists will manage to kill us all before they ever unlock the secrets of infinity. I'm not anti-science, I'm just aware it has its limits and large children shouldn't be allowed to dabble in it.

And speaking of infinity, add to that the questions of paradox and consciousness and we see that science has virtually no answer to those three very telling clues.

Those--and other clues--such as a clockwork universe fine-tuned for us paradoxical consciousnesses adrift in infinity suggest to the chagrin of science, a Creator after all.

S&F for your efforts and an interesting OP.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:10 PM
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein

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

Really.... Highlight the word "easier" - By that logic God made us - then what made God? and what made whatever made God? and what made whatever made whatever made God? Do you see me point - maybe we don't understand the beginning because we look at everything linear - as our perception of time is linear - so we search for a beginning, a start, thus a creating a creator - but that view as whole is skewed. Maybe there was never a beginning and there will never be an end, just a circle.

"The more we learn the more we realize we know nothing" - (cant remember)

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:50 PM
This video sheds a little light on how the line between life and non-life is a lot more blurry than we've previously thought.

Personally, I like to take it a step further and say that there actually is NO line. And somehow, all matter is infused with some form of life. So, on some level, all matter is conscious. And what we think of as "life" is just a more complex organization of consciousness.


posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:45 PM

Originally posted by DaveNorris
all cells are made from the elements, out of the billions of differant combinations of these elements there is at least one combination that can make up primative cells, all of these differant combinations would be played out at some point or another given enough time. and if theres one thing we know about the universe its that it has been around for a while.
edit on 11/7/2012 by DaveNorris because: (no reason given)

Quite to the contrary, it's a mathematic impossibility life forms by random chance. Life uses only lefthanded amindo acids. In nature both left and right handed amino acids are created with equal probablility. It is a proven mathematical impossibility given the age of the universe that this could happen by random chance. This is only 1 peice of the puzzle, there are others that stretch credulity to imagine them happening randomly. Either we need to find something that changes the odds, or it did not happen by chance. There has been demonstrated ways to improve the odds, so that rather than a 50:50 ratio we would have 47:53 in favor of Left handed amino acids. This does not tip the scale enough.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:48 PM

Originally posted by DaveNorris
ok, so evolution doesnt have all the answers, its still more beleivable than a bearded man in the clouds

although there is a third option. the only way i can think of to get something from nothing is if at some point in the future time travel is used (deliberately?/accidently?/naturally?/artificial?) and something from the future travels back to the past creating a never ending loop.

There would be nothing ever evolving for that initial future to begin.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:59 PM

Originally posted by jaxnmarko
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?

Do you believe everything you hear? Not in the amount of years we have had or with the monkeys that have lived.

Random chance, billions of years, uncounted unsuccessful chemical reactions and lightning or what have you......

With the numer of years the universe is believed to have existed, with the years Earth is belived to have existed, it is a mathematical impossibility that it would happen by random chance just on the amino acid count alone. Add in other factors and it is less likely still.

its like Drake's equation. Given enough stars and time, there will be life somewhere.

It's nice you have heard the name Drak'es equation. What if I told you Drake's equation proves there is no life anywhere else? You do realize that Drake's equation gives no results unless you plug in imaginary numbers that don't exist. It's like me telling you that you are getting back $1million from the IRS because of the tax equations. Only problem is that I had no actual tax data and I just plugged in numbers. Welcome to Drake's equation, reality is your tax refund won't be $1million.

It's only because we are so egocentric that we feel its US its all about.

Or is it because there is zero evidence of life anywhere else? All ET life is wishful thinking, the actual evidence in support of ET life is nil.

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?

As I already explained, not enough time exists in the entire universe for that to be true, not even close. If you don't think it is God's plan, then what is it? Don't give me time and chemicals, it's mathematically impossible. Fairies and Unicorns dancing in your living room right now is just as likely. Go take a look and let me know if you see any of them.

As to what I think, that's not really relevant, I would prefer to stick with science and facts here in this forum.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:02 PM
We have still not figured out the remarkable properties of water. There is so much to learn about this basic combination of hydrogen and oxygen, yet together they create the most wondrous of molecules. Water even has a "memory", which is astounding in itself.

I think that once we really understand the very nature of water, then we will also understand how life evolved.

Interesting stuff here: Amazing properties of water

And this video, about the water memory is incredible: Water has a memory
edit on 12-7-2012 by charlyv because: (no reason given)

And why water and life can never be separated. Water is Life
edit on 12-7-2012 by charlyv because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 11:08 PM

Originally posted by john_bmth
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.

Incorrect, we do not know this. We assume this because it fits the paradigm of evolution and "it's complicated and we don't fully understand it." Which we already agreed is not an adequate answer.

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)

I agree that complex systems can arise out of "simple" rules, however I quote the term simple because no rules in nature are truly simple. Where you go wrong is in assuming the time scale involved allows all these unlikely scenarios. This is false. Amino acid chains needed for all life forms can not happen by chance even given the time scales involved.
I will admit I do not know that website very well, and haven't really proofed it, but the maths seem to be accurate at a glance. It will give you some insight into what you believe happened if you believe amino acid chains formed by random chance.

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in