How could the first living cell have evolved?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:21 AM
reply to post by Bixxi3

Yes, the odds are not zero, but they are so low they constitute a mathematical impossibility. Which is the same as abiogenesis.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:23 AM
reply to post by Reflection

It's fine it is a logical assumption, mostly because if it can not be explained using physical processes what else is there? I just don't want to discuss personal beliefs in this thread although I am more than willing to elsewhere. I definitely believe the universe is geared for "structure" and "order", I however can not find a way for abiogenesis to work. Amino acid chains will form, but never in a way useful to life.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:09 AM

Originally posted by drakus

Originally posted by Wifibrains
I'm in no way saying this is truth. Just a perseptions from an angle. Life, DNA, is a signal. If the cell/molecule has the right qualities to receive the signal. If fires into life. Single cell organism to start. To see how it progressed watch a video of how the egg of a human embryo splits from one cell to two. It just pops and suddenly there are two, then four and so on. Magic! It just copy's itself.

My friend, it ain't magic, it's called meiosis/mitosis. We have a pretty good idea how that works, what's more, we have actually recorded the process
Which doesn't mean it's not awesome.

When you say 'recorded the process' what do you mean by that? Is there video of inert matter becoming a cell? I call rubbish.
It's all speculation, theory.
There is intelligence in life, you call it nature, some call it God.
Science puts all it's eggs in the single dimension (purely physical) basket. This will be shown to be short sighted and ignorant in the future (if it's not already).

Good luck trying to isolate God in the test tubes.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:52 AM
reply to post by micmerci

We don't know exactly how it works yet. But we will, in time, just like with so many other things in the past.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:54 AM
reply to post by Aim64C

The fact that it is a complex chemical process does not change the fact that it is a chemical process.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:57 AM
reply to post by Sparky63

But if you deem scientific evidence important, then you cannot support intelligent design at all, as there is absolutely no scientific evidence on it.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:04 AM

Originally posted by drakus
1 - This is the SCIENCE forum, speculations outside the scientific method have THEIR OWN forum.

I would argue that any thinking or theory of big bang which is classified as science is in fact religion which has its own forum

having no control model, evolution as such is just religion by a different name, gaping holes filled with with no real facts.

A perfect correlation between the 2 is that in science, man evolved from a rock, religion says that God made Adam from the dirt, so both agree with the origins of man

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:04 AM

The problem is that multiple factors would have had to been randomly generated and existed under the correct conditions at the same time. In the case of RNA - both the proteins responsible for its replication and the code for constructing those proteins would have to have been in existence at the same time to lead to a functioning system of reproduction.

The statistical odds of that happening are well within the accepted rejection zone for chance description.

Reason to the Best Explanation leaves us with the design hypothesis, as chance is greatly insufficient to reasonably suspect it as the cause.

There is no need for both things to be present at the same time. Only one of those things need to be. The other needs only an approximation, an emulation. In fact, both systems can be approximations/emulations until one of them evolves into its final form.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:11 AM
reply to post by jiggerj

I am sorry, that we do not yet do it manually does not mean it is not a chemical process.

We will conquer this in time, as we have other things.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:15 AM
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

I have no idea what the ingredients are, but the probability of life appearing is 1, since the universe is an incredibly vast lab.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:15 AM

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by Sparky63

But if you deem scientific evidence important, then you cannot support intelligent design at all, as there is absolutely no scientific evidence on it.

Unfortunately, that's the problem. To an creationist, genesis is a scientific account of the history of the universe. Telling these people they're wrong is utterly pointless. It's sad, I know, but true.

To others, amino acids form naturally - this has been confirmed numerous times, and basically requires oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon and UV. Funny that they're made of the most abundant things around us. No gods required.
edit on 13-7-2012 by BagBing because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 06:16 AM
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

No, that experiment proved that life, as the experimenter thought it is, couldn't be recreated in the lab.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 12:08 PM
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

can you maybe post a link to these studies that show it is a mathmatical impossability?

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 12:31 PM
Not going to read 8 pages to see if it has already been said. So I am going to just go ahead and explain it the way I read it many years ago.

The early Earth's atmosphere was full of organic compounds. Lightning caused these compound to form the precursors of life. They rained down on the ocean and were incorporated into sea foam. This foam was washed onto the beaches. The foam bubbles were covered in a diluted protein coat and as the water evaporated it concentrated these proteins into a semi solid structure. This formed the first "cell wall" trapping other proteins and organic molecules inside. This happened several hundred thousand trillions of times until finally one of these evaporated bubbles had just the right mix of ingredients to be actually alive. This first cell divided and multiplied and gave rise to all other life on Earth.

Didn't say it was logical or sensible, just that is how they say it happened. Roll the dice enough times and eventually you get life. They are saying if you throw the right stuff into a sack enough times it can spontaneously form a living thing. But you're looking at ALL the foam on ALL the beaches of the whole planet for millions of years constantly shuffling the dice. The mind cannot comprehend how many times it happened and nothing was created other than brown sludge on sand. It only had to happen once for there to be life.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by bias12

On the matter of plausibility, I question how one can find the notion of a supreme designer of all life more plausible than the origins of life being a physical process.

This is your failure to understand the design hypothesis.

The design hypothesis makes no assumption other than one consistent with the Law of Information Conservation that states the end state of a computational system can never exceed the amount of information in its initial state by more than the amount determined by those laws. Information in a computational system can increase - but the computational resources place restrictions on how much additional information can arise within the system.

There are two fundamental flaws with the three main anti-intelligence arguments for origins: Chance hypothesis simply doesn't cut it. The odds of even a small protein of 100 amino acids forming by chance is roughly 1:10^164. For comparison, there are 10^80 atoms in the observable universe.

That does not take into consideration the fact that all environments where peptide chains have been demonstrated to form also generate a substantial amount of 'junk' compounds that react with the organic compounds to destroy the process of peptide bonding and polymerase.

But, suppose we could take each atom in the universe and every Planck Second since the estimated beginning of time and use each atom to attempt to form a protein. The odds of that simple protein forming by chance in a prebiotic soup consisting of the mass of the universe is still only 1:10^61.

To say that is small is an understatement.

Then figure that the enzyme responsible for RNA polymerase is over 3,000 amino acids in length.

You cannot reasonably argue chance.

Suppose life is a sort of predestination - the organic version of a crystalline lattice.

This runs into problems. For starters, DNA and RNA both show no affinity toward bonding. Making matters worse - if they did, it would end up destroying the very function of DNA/RNA as information carrying molecules. Laws, by definition, create defined patterns and repeating sequences - something that is not found in the functional information of DNA and RNA.

This is a fundamental problem inherent to any "predestination" theory that assumes life to be a natural end result of biochemical soups.

Combined theories (that attempt to combine chance and natural laws) run into forms of the same problem or both.

The only one worth addressing is the "RNA World" hypothesis (as all others have been argued into extinction) - which assumes small protein sequences of 20 bases or smaller could undergo a process of natural selection that ultimately gives rise to more complex molecules.

The problem with this theory is that the process of natural selection cannot apply to a system that does not reproduce. RNA sequences of around 300 bases have been demonstrated to be capable of self-replicating 10% of their sequence - but that's all.

Ironically, experiments designed to "simulate" the processes insert a large amount of experimenter-introduced-selectivity. Chemical compounds are evaluated based on their similarity to a future function as opposed to an existing function (the only thing natural selection recognizes).

Thus - the experiments directly confer the influence of intelligence/design at play in the system.

We know the building blocks of life form naturally, we don't know for certain how they become living cells.

We do know, however, that intelligent agents can produce functionally meaningful sequences of information.

And where is this designer?! I want anyone to tell me where they think the great designer is right now. Is he in a spaceship or is he floating in another dimension?

If you come to your car to find a long scratch mark down the side of your door, you can infer that it has been "keyed" or that some random process generated a self-propagating ablation of paint. You will never likely be able to identify the individual - or precisely what object they used (or precisely when they committed the act).

Your inability to identify the executor of the phenomena does not cause you to question the obvious and statistically likely explanation that an individual (presumably human) was responsible.

Likewise - just because you can't identify the intelligent agent does not mean that there is no evidence that an intelligent process was most plausibly behind the origin of life.

Most of the individuals who founded the biochemistry surrounding DNA have overtly stated that current theories ultimately rely on the chance hypothesis to produce self-replicating systems, and the likelihood of that happening is so small as to be implausible.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by bias12

What I don't understand is where people get the idea of a creator from.

What I don't understand is your inability to comprehend basic statistical analysis.

I think that life is a physical process because I know all the bits that go in a cell, and what makes up those bits. I also know that the stuff that makes up all the bits can be made naturally, as a result of a physical process.

You must be new to biology and working off of books from the 30s. This concept has not been seriously entertained since the discovery of proteins being long sequences of non-repeating peptides.

The basis of the problem is simple. There is no process by which any bias is afflicted upon the sequencing of DNA or RNA. Further, proteins are incapable of reverse-transcription: IE - they cannot embed their information into DNA or RNA.

Another flaw that has been illustrated since experiments have been done in this area is that proteinoids generated from abiogenic experiments tend to form chains that are not representative of any known biology. While they are "proteins" - they do not represent in part or whole functional proteins within extant cellular biology.

It's like if our cells were speaking Latin and the proteins generated by abiogenesis were speaking in tones of ultraviolet light.

I think that life was designed by someone would this sentence finish??? Please finish this sentence without saying "because you cant prove it wasn't" or "i cant explain how it happened therefore it must have been"

That's no different than saying: "There were lots of organic compounds on the early planet. Surely, some of them had to come together into something meaningful."

Irreducible complexity is an argument of ignorance. It asserts that a proposition (life being designed) is true because it has not yet been proven false.

. . . Do ... you speak English?

Go look up the word "irreducible."

Irreducible complexity argues that systems reach a point at which processes cannot be changed or removed without compromising function of the system. IE - your car can and will work without an air conditioner - the air conditioner can be removed. The engine, transmission, axles, wheels, and (for a practical vehicle) steering system cannot be removed from the vehicle while maintaining a functional vehicle. Such a system is irreducibly complex.

The self replication of known RNA strands involves well over 50 components that represent irreducible functions (the actors of those functions may not be irreducible in their complexity - but functions require them just the same) with protein bases ranging from 100 (small) to a few thousand (moderate) bases in length.

Irreducible complexity argues that, for a functional self-sustaining system (such as a basic cell), there are certain functions that must come into existence in the same time and locale. Since the chances of even one of these sequences appearing at random is essentially zero for even small proteins; the idea that multiple proteins and RNA sequences would come into existence at the same time and locale is incalculably small.

Simply because we can't explain why something happens, is in no way evidence that it happens supernaturally.

The error in your thinking is that we don't have a logical explanation for what we see.

We know that intelligence can generate functional sequences - it happens every day, and just happened in the formation of this post. It happens in the design of computer systems.

When we look at the systems of cellular biology and take note that there exist a symphony of functional information sequenced into a self-replicating system; logic dictates that in the absence of Null (chance) and Necessity hypotheses fitting the data, that the only known cause(s) for the phenomena currently are suspect in creating it previously.

Rather than using the argument of the lowest common denominator, use a positive argument. List the evidence in favor or your argument, don't simply say I can't prove mine.

It is, ironically, the way in which you attempt to prove yours that solidifies the design argument.

In order to get organic compounds of increasing complexity, researchers must continually design experiments capable of selecting compounds and rejecting others (particularly those hazardous to the preferred organic processes). This is no longer representative of pre-biotic Earth and represents processes designed specifically to arrive at a certain outcome.

Which is nothing other than intelligent agents acting to design a process.

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by Aim64C

earlier you stated the origin of life is most likely from either random chance or design.,.,.,

we can look at the definition of the word design to include,, intent, order, organization, structure, stability, and probably a lot of other things,.,.,.,.

is it possible that the origins of life occurred and subsequent evolution,, was able to take place by random chance and design,.,., much like all of human life takes place now,,, nothing is certain,,, but we have our trials and errors and designs, we can build structures in time,, some fail, we experience chance and chaos,

so maybe there is some mathematical pattern within the revolution and rotation of the planet,, coupled with all of the fields,,, all of the energy from the sun,,, the speeds,,, the forces of gravity and so on,,, all of these carved the possibility of life into,,, a possibility of life,,,,, as we can see today even on this one planet there is seemingly infinitely diverse possibilities of life,,, and thats only on this planet at this time,.,.,.,.,.

as for the carving out potential for life to take,, via the quantum laws and the macro laws,, which seem steady and stable,, this i believe is the meaning of,, being made in gods image,.,., if from the birth of the universe,, uninterrupted man arose,,,, man is a natural creation of the universe,,,, a child of god,,,,

and if i wanted to take bias' side of the argument,,,, i could say all mankind does and has ever done is random chance,,, no design at all,,.,.,.., the organizing of humans into cities and jobs,,,, just like certain chemicals in cells have specific jobs and functions,.,,. its all random,,. you can argue a man has no choice in who he will fall in love with and marry and how he will meet that spouse, its chance,,,,, you can argue the job a man will receive is random chance or fated from birth,,,,,designed not by him or any other, but by so many factors and variables it has to be considered a random act,
edit on 13-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by amongus

Originally posted by jiggerj
First, I feel a need to point out that I do not consider myself religious OR atheist. I am a seeker of logical truth.

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.

Any thoughts on this?
edit on 7/11/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

Simple if you think about it.

We were planted here.

It's the only logical explaination.

so how did life begin with the beings that planted us here ?

that's just kicking the can

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by bias12

Likewise - just because you can't identify the intelligent agent does not mean that there is no evidence that an intelligent process was most plausibly behind the origin of life.

Wow...This made me me laugh...

You are completely correct! The fact that the agent is unidentified certainly doesn't mean there is no evidence for intelligent design. I suppose, from your point of view, it's just an unfortunate coincidence that there really is no evidence for an intelligent process behind the origin of life whatsoever. I think someone may have to go outside and pick a whole bouquet of oopsy-daiseys!

In case you don't know;

We live in a world of rationally explainable and proven physical phenomena. A long time ago we believed many things that we didn't understand to be magical or the work of deities, but when we got to the bottom of it, they all turned out to be a natural physical process. Perhaps you still believe rain is just your god crying?

The physical phenomena we don't understand yet, we're working on, have some patience. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean that it is the work of a mischievous imp or grumpy goblin. The same applies when everyone doesn't understand it.

I can provide a comprehensive list of processes, phenomenon or other such happenings that have been rationally explained to be a result of a natural physical process.

Perhaps you would care to share your list of anything that has been rationally explained to be the result of mystical beings or cosmic entities...(This is a genuine request, please provide the list. If you can find a single example, backed up by respected peer reviewed research, I will literally eat my own hat.

I would suggest to you to cast off the dowdy robes of 14th century thinking and join us here in the present, you will be amazed at what you find when you simply open your eyes to reality and deny ignorance. You are clearly not a stupid person, and maybe if you put as much effort into rationally explaining the world around you, instead of rain dancing your moon god into winking life into existence, you would have a bit more fun!


The theory of irreducible complexity is a central argument in the pseudoscience of intelligent design. Professor Behe's (the term's originator) claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large, and a court of law. The scientific community has rejected this argument for a long time, ever heard of the Harvard Science Review, check it out, you might learn something. Again come join us in the present, deny ignorance.

The only problem I have with intelligent design pseudoscience and mysticism is that there is not even the slightest whiff of evidence supporting it. Nor is there any evidence of an unseen hand's involvement in any other aspect of our lives.

At least we that support the theory of life as a natural process can say that all other processes when fully understood turn out to be physical, natural processes. Why should life be any different?

While whimsical tales of scratched cars and wet driveways may entertain, and allow us to marvel at the imagination of the author, I look forward to a reply that includes some hard facts, and a distinct lack of made up statistics.

p.s. Can't wait for your list of things with any evidence of a creators involvement! I'm a literally excited by the prospect! Probably going to be let down though...

posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:02 PM
the very first membrane that allows matter to pass in and out of a cell is a mind blower.

how do you get a nucleus ?

how do yo get mitochondria ?

all childs play compared to the first double helix DNA molecule.

famous quote from Francis Crick

"You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance. In any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 600 million years, it’s just not possible"
edit on 13-7-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

top topics
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in