Ancestors of Rocks and Elements

If we follow the trail of evolution back far enough to the pre biological state, are we not according to the theory of evolution the direct ancestors of your common Stone or rock?.


Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you are one crazy little fucker, aint ya?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I actually like the idea of rocks and inert chemicals as the ancient ancestors of man.

And, in a certain way, they are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

May I remind people that the topic of this thread is the pre-biological evolution of humans and the trail of evolution before biological life and leading up to it.

Over-Stand

 

for frak sakes
call it abiogenesis then

 

No because lay people wont understand what it's about.

peace

 

Nothing —> fluctuation —> opposite pair production —> elemental particles —> stars —> light atomic elements + heavier atomic elements —> molecules —> cells and rocks —> life —> brains —> consciousness —> posting about rocks.

 

Yes, you are quite correct! Rocks can come to life, given the right conditions and enough time.

 

Actually, abiogenesis is a common enough term that people will follow it.

Did you have questions about it?

 

No I just realised how many ordinary people I meet are not able to follow evolution back past Biological states. I thought maybe many people who post on here have never studied it back to this point or maybe do not understand pre biological evolutions in the universe.


I was going to put a poll with it to see the awareness levels but I already added a few polls in other threads and didn;t want to flood alot of them.


I don't have any questions no I understand it fully.


Peace

 

oh, crap, I studied what the current thinking is when I took Biology 1, but that was the Semester of Sinusitis fever...

Amino acids in solution start forming coherent patterns, the patterns start increasing in complexity....

Ooh! Google is my friend... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#RNAworld

Yes (and gawd that was a miserable semester!) since RNA can function both as a catalyst and a template it is thought RNA molecules formed the first primitive organisms.

Which explains why our cellular "printers" ribosomes-use RNA templates to "print" up cells/cell structures out of components...but not DNA. DNA is used as a template for the RNA. Since the RNA actually came first. Having a "library" of DNA, that then got stowed in a nucleus to protect the integrity of more complex organisms, is a later innovation.

 

Oh, I scrolled down on the same site to find this bit:

(look under topic# 5)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#Orgel2004

Hmm, so that IS one of the considered-possible avenues of life's origin-deep-sea rocks. Go figure.
(Learn something new around here every day....)

 

Mod note:

That’s because most ordinary people probably have a better understand of the Theory of Evolution that you do.

Most here think you are trolling. I tend to agree, but I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt this once, and this once only.

The Theory of Evolution deals with changes in populations of organisms once they have formed. It does not deal with the mechanisms that changed inanimate matter into animate matter*. That is a process known as abiogenesis. If you want to discuss abiogenesis, then fine – do so. But call it that. Trying to involve the ToE is not valid as it has nothing to say on the matter.

Thus, seeing as this thread proceeds on an invalid postulation, there’s no point keeping it open.

So thread closed.
----------------

(*) There are some aspects of natural selection that would have played a part in the propagation of self-replicating RNA molecules in the pre-biotic Earth.