How could the first living cell have evolved?

Originally posted by Ookie
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.

Funny how a teeny misspelling can change the entire content. You meant INorganic, right?

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
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.

Right. And again it has to be (the way I picture it in my head anyway) Bang! Life! Nothing can start a little bit alive.

Originally posted by masterp
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.

What frustrates me is that we can reverse engineer almost everything. Why can't we tear apart a living cell and be able to say, AHA, That's how it works! ?

Originally posted by jiggerj
What frustrates me is that we can reverse engineer almost everything. Why can't we tear apart a living cell and be able to say, AHA, That's how it works! ?

We pretty much know how a living cell works, the bits we are still working on generally include protein folding and certain movements within the cell.

Originally posted by bias12

Originally posted by jiggerj
What frustrates me is that we can reverse engineer almost everything. Why can't we tear apart a living cell and be able to say, AHA, That's how it works! ?

We pretty much know how a living cell works, the bits we are still working on generally include protein folding and certain movements within the cell.

Sorry, I meant, AHA, That's how life starts! My bad.

theneurocosmos.blogspot.com...

They say the universe structure is similar to a brain cell.... chk out the link for pic,,,,

But i think we all know the answer... some of us are to scared or ashamed of ones doings to except the answer to the op's post....

reply to post by jiggerj


I wrote what I meant. Organic. As in made of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen. Organic does not mean it is or was alive. Just that it contains carbon.

to: jiggerj

You didn't watch the video i posted, did you?

...

Originally posted by Ookie
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I wrote what I meant. Organic. As in made of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen. Organic does not mean it is or was alive. Just that it contains carbon.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

1. Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic matter. 2. Of, relating to, or affecting a bodily organ: an organic disease. 3. a. Of, marked by, or involving the use of fertilizers or pesticides that are strictly of animal or vegetable origin: organic vegetables; an organic farm. b. Raised or conducted without the use of drugs, hormones, or synthetic chemicals: organic chicken; organic cattle farming. c. Serving organic food: an organic restaurant. d. Simple, healthful, and close to nature: an organic lifestyle. 4. a. Having properties associated with living organisms. b. Resembling a living organism in organization or development; interconnected: society as an organic whole. 5. Constituting an integral part of a whole; fundamental. 6. Law Denoting or relating to the fundamental or constitutional laws and precepts of a government or an organization. 7. Chemistry Of or designating carbon compounds.

I learned something knew! Thank you.

Originally posted by BagBing
to: jiggerj

You didn't watch the video i posted, did you?

...

I did, but I stopped it for several reasons.

1. Fatty acids are used in this clip as one of the processes to create life. This raised an eyebrow, and I checked the definition of Fatty Acids. What I came up with is that fatty acids are made from animal or vegetable. This means one of two things: The clip's premise of how life was created is false, or I don't know all about fatty acids and I don't want to spend a lifetime researching it.

2. If this process works, SOMEONE would have created life in a lab by now, with a big Nobel Prize hitting the news worldwide.

Now, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying I don't know enough about it, and I don't think I'm going to live long enough to learn it.

Originally posted by masterp
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.

No the fact the chemical process is impossible means the chemical process can't happen. It is still a chemical process, just one that never occured. There are things we can create in labs that do not exist in nature because the process required can never happen by random chance.

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.

If you deem scientific evidence as important then you can not support abiogenesis, as there is no scientific evidence on it. See what I did there. Your belief requires just as much faith as theirs.

Originally posted by masterp

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.

The statistical odds of EITHER of them fall into the category of a mathematical impossibility. Now prove that only one needs to be. Source please? That is out of curiosity as neither of those can occur by random chance.

Originally posted by masterp
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.

So now you are just making up numbers. I say it's 0. We are also not talking about the universe, we are talking about Earth. Thanks. For fun we can include the universe, it's still 0. Your wishing otherwise does not change the maths involved.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by masterp
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.

No the fact the chemical process is impossible means the chemical process can't happen. It is still a chemical process, just one that never occured. There are things we can create in labs that do not exist in nature because the process required can never happen by random chance.

O.C....OUCH! You of all people should know that if there is even the slightest possibility it can happen....PROBABILITY DICTATES IT MUST HAPPEN! Mathematical and Physical Law of a Multiverse or even Universe. Split Infinity

Originally posted by BagBing

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)

Funny how the experiments proving amino-acid chains form naturally prove that life can not form naturally. Do you enjoy being ignorant and only look for information that supports what you want to be true, or do you actually want to understand things?

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

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

No, the experiment proved that amino-acids form in a 50:50 ratio of left to ride handed versions, proving that a completely lefthanded chain is a mathematical impossibility, proving life can never form naturally.

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

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

There is no study on it, it's math. Here is a site that has some of the difficulties and the odds.
www.creationbc.org...
They calculate the odds as 1 chance in 10 to the power of 40023 of a very simple protein forming.

I do not claim everything there is 100% factual, but only a fraction has to be to meet the criteria for impossibility. This is also only one step of MANY required for abiogenesis.

Originally posted by bias12

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.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

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.

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

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
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)

Pretty much exactly what Hoyle said. Although his methodology may have been a bit off, the idea is still a statistical fact.