start from scratch,

say there is no life on earth, begin from there, how can it jump from nothing living to what we have today. step by step please?


peace.

http://www.jpdawson.com/creation/creaevol.html
http://www.jpdawson.com/creation/celltrz.gif




but i still dont get how everything isnt imbred and fucked up, also it does not explain everything totaly.

peace

Evolution does not describe how life started from scratch.

ohh, i understand how evolution works once the ball is already rolling, but i was just wondering how the ball got in the court to begin with.

what explains this then that ties in with evolution?


peace.

Say there is no life on earth, begin from there, how can it jump from nothing living to what we have today. step by step please?

Biologists are still working on the problem of abiogenesis. The details are still to be worked out.

Basically, the first living thing must have appeared as a result of chemical processes. Note that these are not "random", as Creationists (for example) would assert. Certain chemical elements have affinities for bonding with other chemical elements. It has been established, for example, that amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) are quite easy to produce from their constituent elements.

The probability of life evolving by chance chemical combination is hotly disputed. But it doesn't really matter, in the end. The probability that life arose on Earth is 1 (certainty), retrospectively. We just need to work out what particular combination of processes occurred.

We also don't know if life arose from non-life once or many times. However, we do know that most, if not all, of the lifeforms currently on Earth are related, which suggested that most, if not all, share a common ancestor.

ohh, i understand how evolution works once the ball is already rolling, but i was just wondering how the ball got in the court to begin with.

what explains this then that ties in with evolution?

People have taken some goop thought to be equivalent to "primordial ooze" and shot it with bolts of electricity. By this process, they were able to produce some basic amino acids.

So at some point in the past, simple organic chemicals were combined in such a way that they could reproduce themselves. At this point, it was nothing you'd call life, but it was capable of self-replication.

Evolution began right there. Those compounds best able to reproduce themselves did so. Over time, the self-replicating bits became more and more complicated until they became what we would call life.

so why would a single cell evolve into anything more than a single cell?

peace.

What probably happened was that single cells found it advantageous to "co-operate" with each other, in some instances. Initially, they just grouped together. But then gradually they began to specialise and differentiate, so that instead of all cells in a group being exactly the same, some would do one "job" on behalf of the group and others would do other jobs.

Your body is a collection of millions of co-operating cells, all specialised to perform different tasks. By using your body as a vehicle, these cells all have a better chance of surviving than they would on their own. In fact, many cannot not survive on their own, since they are so specialised to their particular tasks in your body.

The genes that code for the structure of a cell became more or less numerous due to it surviving and reproducing (dividing) in the environment. Variations in copying accuracy meant that variations in the most successful organisms arose and accumulated. The oceans filled with an arms race of well adapted structures, our ancestors.

What keeps goop elsewhere from cooperating?

They taste yummy.

so why would a single cell evolve into anything more than a single cell? When it happened, it worked. So it kept happening, and stuck around.

It took a very long time. More than two thirds the history of life on earth is of single cells only.

The how of it is unknown. There are about a hundred known ways it could have started, and maybe every one of them was involved at some stage of the journey.

One way, for illustration, is by extension of the common occurence of dividing cells sticking together for a while. It happens someimes, even among little guys that don't normally live in clumps. If some genetic quirk raised the frequency and there was no survival hit immediately, you'd have whole populations of little clumps pretty soon - millions of different ones, all over the shoreline of the ocean, down next to the vents, everywhere. Then they start to evolve themselves, as clumps - - -

Another way: The single celled beings covered the planet foir a billion years. Along the way, they became each other's environment. And so they adapted to each other's presence. They formed (we know this, from residual structures here and there and the fossil record) large, mutually cooperative assemblages of differently specialized (but still separate) cells. Clearly tighter coordination has dome benefits in such a situation - and single celled organisms do swap DNA and pick up DNA from the environment and so forth. So - - - .

What keeps goop elsewhere from cooperating?


The Earth today is a vastly different planet compared to what it was like 4 bya when life first arose. Primarily, the atmosphere is very different. Today our atmosphere is an oxidizing atmosphere with molecular oxygen at ~20%. This is a harsh atmosphere and is very inhibitory to abiogenic processes. New de novo life (as we know it) is very unlikely to ever again appear on this planet. It’s okay for already existing organisms that can derive energy from the environment and use it to repair the continual damage that occurs as a result of living in an oxidizing atmosphere. However, 4 bya the atmosphere had no oxygen and lots of ammonia and methane – a reducing atmosphere that likely stimulated the abiogenic process.

[Disclaimer: I’m no biochemist – in simple terms this is how I understand this topic. Please correct me as appropriate.]

The other reason that we don't see life spontaneously popping up all the time (in the form of very simple sub-bacterial organisms) is that the Earth is completely covered with living organisms already. Anything primitive organism that spontaneously pops up would be eaten almost immediately by one of the advanced, established organisms already existing in the biosphere.

The other reason that we don't see life spontaneously popping up all the time (in the form of very simple sub-bacterial organisms) is that the Earth is completely covered with living organisms already. Anything primitive organism that spontaneously pops up would be eaten almost immediately by one of the advanced, established organisms already existing in the biosphere.Exactly right. Billions of years ago these "sub-bacterial organisms" were the most highly evolved things on the planet, so they dominated. Now, if they happen to be recreated, they are quickly someone's lunch.

start from scratch,

say there is no life on earth, begin from there, how can it jump from nothing living to what we have today. step by step please?


peace.

EFoC, this is just my take on it. could be wrong but we will see what comes of it.

If it happened once under the conditions you describe, just one creature...a damn mouse, it would be...i hate to use the word magic but we are talking a living breathing shitting creature from WHAT?

NOW you multiply that by millions\billions and what do you want to believe?

We know that evolutiuon is a fact of life, because we see it all the time. Seeds turn into trees, a rusty car door dissolve into nothing, lifeforms metamorphisiszing during the life cycle but the problem with the kind of evolution you are referring to is the fact that it stopped. AND people will say it did not stop but there is not one single sign that it is happenening...in so far as creatures evolving into entirely seperate ones. so by its very nature (tangible evolution) would not include Darwin Evolution...it would be a myth, a man made assumption with no real basis in fact.

all you have to do is say where are the species between ape and human tha are around today...This infers that this was a one time occurance, the ape to human theory, but that contradicts the very laws that evolution itself relies on.

People will say humans are still evolving but loook at this scenario:

If you take a few thousand modern breeding humans and erase every memory, every learned ability, every language and started from scratch then how long do you (knowing modern human abilities as well as we all do) suppose it would take them to go from not evern knowledge of fire to buildin a micro chip or manned space flight? I can say with near certainty it would take just as long as it did the first time and perhaps even longer. This nullifies the notion of human evolution insofaras human intelligance.

-----------------------------------
OP: Hercules Rockefeller


"The Earth today is a vastly different planet compared to what it was like 4 bya when life first arose. Primarily, the atmosphere is very different. Today our atmosphere is an oxidizing atmosphere with molecular oxygen at ~20%. This is a harsh atmosphere and is very inhibitory to abiogenic processes. New de novo life (as we know it) is very unlikely to ever again appear on this planet. It’s okay for already existing organisms that can derive energy from the environment and use it to repair the continual damage that occurs as a result of living in an oxidizing atmosphere. However, 4 bya the atmosphere had no oxygen and lots of ammonia and methane – a reducing atmosphere that likely stimulated the abiogenic process."
--------------------------------------------------
There is absolutely no way of knowing this and as a matter of fact in terms of early earth i would assume it to be much less hospitable to life let alone creating it.

Disclaimer: my opinion will not change anything so lighten up. AND for F**** sake all i am saying is that the evidance is too weak so find some more.

The other reason that we don't see life spontaneously popping up all the time (in the form of very simple sub-bacterial organisms) is that the Earth is completely covered with living organisms already. Anything primitive organism that spontaneously pops up would be eaten almost immediately by one of the advanced, established organisms already existing in the biosphere.

Primitive organisms survive all the time, even if it is a minor event, life is pervasive.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0203_050203_deepest.html

Same as it allways was?

The Earth today is a vastly different planet compared to what it was like 4 bya when life first arose. Primarily, the atmosphere is very different. Today our atmosphere is an oxidizing atmosphere with molecular oxygen at ~20%. This is a harsh atmosphere and is very inhibitory to abiogenic processes. New de novo life (as we know it) is very unlikely to ever again appear on this planet. It’s okay for already existing organisms that can derive energy from the environment and use it to repair the continual damage that occurs as a result of living in an oxidizing atmosphere. However, 4 bya the atmosphere had no oxygen and lots of ammonia and methane – a reducing atmosphere that likely stimulated the abiogenic process.

[Disclaimer: I’m no biochemist – in simple terms this is how I understand this topic. Please correct me as appropriate.]

I meant in other ways, on other systems. :p

Sam, how are you today. What time is it where you are? You were wound up yesterday, how are you doiung today?

Sam, how are you today. What time is it where you are? You were wound up yesterday, how are you doiung today?

I am fine, John, how are you?

Thank you for that post.

I wasn't wound up, I was winding you up.

Its been nice and warm today, its 1:20 here, and I am relaxing after a flight.

Take care,

Bye,

sam

You dont wind me up SAm, i like you.

Now lets not derail this thread on human evolution.

Human evolution?

what are you talking about?

Why dont you answer the OP then? he even said please.

I'm just wondering where you came up with human evolution.

the replies are very good so far, all evolution is ok to discuss in this thread, human evolution can be talked about, but the main objective is for the foundation of cells evolving to be discussed.

if we know this much about what conditions are needed to create life from chemicals and elements, then we could create life in a lab right?

how close are we to recreating the start of life on earth in a lab?


peace.

There is absolutely no way of knowing this and as a matter of fact in terms of early earth i would assume it to be much less hospitable to life let alone creating it.


If only you could appreciate how much this statement says about how little you know. But you can't, so there's not much point explaining it to you. :(

start from scratch,

say there is no life on earth, begin from there, how can it jump from nothing living to what we have today. step by step please?


peace.
a perfect example of the incompetence of our education system.

you do indeed know about evolution but nothing of abiogenesis.
the education system conveniently left that part out.
why? because they can't make it fit with the evolution theory. (my opinion of course).

step by step please?
Goo > Morph > You.

ohh, i understand how evolution works once the ball is already rolling, but i was just wondering how the ball got in the court to begin with.

what explains this then that ties in with evolution?


peace.

Biogenisis is not evolution.

Life is just a higher form of complexity. If you start with basic chemical reactions, like 2H2 + O2 + Energy -> 2H2O, that's pretty obvious. Add energy, trigger the reaction.

Follow the chain to higher and higher levels of complexity, more and more energy is required. Well, there is plenty of energy.

Take it further and you start seeing molecules like lipids (waxes and oils), amino acids and so on. Such molecules have been generated spontaneously (given energy and proper conditions) in the lab.

There is a bit of a jump from aminos to proteins and phospholipids, but eventually you would get virus-like structures. Sooner or later these begin using and storing energy and self-replicating. At some point you get bacteria-like things. These then naturally exist in colonies. Some colonies benefit from establishing roles - say the cells on the outside gather food and send some of it inside, and also get rid of unneeded stuff from inside. Eventually separate colonies begin to interact and you get some kind of basic mutualism -

Say one colony's waste is another's food, and the colony that eats the waste protects the original colony from some toxic chemical, or absorbs deadly UV energy from the sun.

The next step is distinctive cell types living in mutualistic groups, and these then form increasingly organized shapes - those most beneficial (or statistically reinforced) are going to dominate.

Molecules do this pretty readily, why not cells?

You can fly to Mars and find molecules that can only exist in abundance due to the presence of another type - can't think of an example but I'm sure there's something. Say ice forms and this insulation allows a light-sensitive molecule to accumulate under the ice.

:shrug:

Same type of thing with your unicellular critters.

On and on it goes. The similarities between biotic (living) and abiotic (nonliving) components of the world suggest a connection - crystalline structure vs tissue structure (say bone.)

Ice forms spontaneously on the moons of Jupiter (Europa has an ice ocean), so why can't calcium deposits form a crystalline structure to support a colony of cells - or whatever?

Alive/Not is a distinction we created. The universe doesn't necessarily distinguish the two.

How does one arive at a higher level of complexity? :shrug:

Birds (highly evolved chordates) use basic tools, sticks for example, to gather food.

Primates use tools on a more complex level, perhaps using a stick to pry up a rock that is then used to smash its prey.

Humans attach the rock to the stick, making a hammer, then build a house.

Life is just a higher form of complexity. If you start with basic chemical reactions, like 2H2 + O2 + Energy -> 2H2O, that's pretty obvious. Add energy, trigger the reaction.

Expand on that, particularly "energy"- No really go ahead.

Evolution from inanimate chemical bonds to animate ones is a simple matter. Single celled organisms formed by a process of repeated bondings of molecules and different chemicals. Which takes a VERY long time (billions of years anyone?), but under proper conditions (water, chemicals, etc) it works.

As these bonds grew, larger molecular structures are formed. Eventually this little "broth" of chemical soup makes the jump to single celled organism. This organism is basically a very very large collaboration of molecules, which is in essence a large number of atomic bonds. It's not really as much a jump as a transition that takes longer than your grandma does to walk down the stairs.

It's no surprise that we spent the first few billion years in this simple stage. The energy readily comes from other molecules and chemicals, which are continually bonded, changed, used, etc. At base, this is what a cell does. A few million times a minute, probably. But I'm not that well versed in biology yet.

Evolution from inanimate chemical bonds to animate ones is a simple matter.
so simple in fact that scientists have not been able to recreate it, despite 50+ years of trying.

so simple in fact that scientists have not been able to recreate it, despite 50+ years of trying.

I did not say it didn't take a long time. The problem with scientists is that they're trying to speed up a process that took a few billion years for matter to achieve. So of course they're having difficulty.

Expand on that, particularly "energy"- No really go ahead.

Okay, thermochemistry.

I don't have access to academic formatting software to give you the proper formula nomenclature, but insert something like:

35kJ

Something like that. :shrug:

It's an exothermic reaction, but there is an energy threshold or "trigger" just like burning a piece of paper.

Paper burning is exothermic, but you must overcome the intermolecular forces within via an outside energy source - a match, for instance.

Hydrogen + Oxygen does not just turn into water on it's own. You gotta light it.

I am 100% certain of this. :D

so simple in fact that scientists have not been able to recreate it, despite 50+ years of trying.

50 years is an incredibly short amount of time to go from Mendelain genetics to cloning sheep.

:shrug:

Give our species a break!!

Another 10 years we'll probably have a virus in a testtube. Organic chemistry is incredibly complex.

I explained how two chemicals that would be UV sensitive may exist beneath an ice sheet (like on Europa - one of Jupiter's moons that is the most likely candidate besides Mars for finding primitive life). Well, it's a simple matter for some alkane to fuse with some alcohol (or whatever) in such an environment, but making the jump to actual life is quite a different matter.

You could make a phospholipid, perhaps, in a matter of minutes given the right conditions. But life?

(As stated earlier...) billions of years anyone? :shrug:

What probably happened was that single cells found it advantageous to "co-operate" with each other, in some instances.

for a modern example of this, see the classic example of "volvox". a bunch of individual organisms living together in a spherical community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8O4OolGcPg