The of begining life on earth
- Thread starter yaracuy
- Start date
What ever my limited chemical knowledge is . It is hard to think to exclude some programmed design as we see life after how man got evolved
If humans are the pinnacle of Darwinian Evolution we are too complicated for the study you suggest. We have over 40,000 active genes and 3 bn or so differentiated cells. We are the ultimate in analogue bio-physical biochemical beings. Horrendously complicated, no wonder we go wrong from time to time. Simple cells with 5000 active genes asr far easier to study and manipulate. Some say nature could never have invented something as good as us, but natural selection is real, and it happens every minute of every day. It never stands still an instant. 3.5bn years of development, and we still have a toxic waste-pipe running through a recreational zone. Some improvements are still evidently needed!
Some exapmles of Exremophiles o Earth..http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/poster/poster_images/astrobioactivity1-studenthandout.pdf
ULTRA;2698526. Simple cells with 5000 active genes asr far easier to study and manipulate. Some say nature could never have invented something as good as us said:I agree with you the selection have put us were we are and now we are selecting animals also. but my point is get back to inorganic chemistry , then into biochemistry , after that into biology and then to evolution of the specie.
Friend let me try this one on you Petroleum : we had this soup closer to the surface , mow we are going deeper 4.0 + miles down and that soup is millions of years old there are all sorts of hydrocarbon were previous it was hydrocarbon with all the necessary ingredients for life . yet life did not come out of it but a soup of hydrocarbon . Which some wisdom have to restore this components into a useful cell and give it life again,
think about it.
Would you call Petroleum a soup of organic and inorganic chemicals ? If yes, then why no life is formed in the petroleum soup , it is churning it self for millions of years.
That is what makes me think . There must have been a creator for the beginning of life on the earth >
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Petroleum was formed in the Carboniferous Era, about 350 to 300MYA. The Earth was considerably cooler then than it was when life first arose.
Thank you . I am aware of how old petroleum is and you are helping me the period.
The earth is about 4.5 BYA the early living organism found is about 3.7 BYA
the difference is 800 MYA to produce life from a hot molten surface ( crust )
Let say after the crust cooled off, we had inorganic chemistry after it cools of some more we probably obtained some organic compounds , then the environment perhaps would be suitable to form some nucleic acids , then we need a period to produce ( assemble ) some RNA DNA then we need a period for making a system to make prodeines . OK
Now I say Petroleum or pre petroleum have all components to make life sense petroleum is a product of living organism.
Let say give it 200 MYA to produce life from components in petroleum , but Have we obtained life from it as it said from primordial soup.? I do't think so . Apparently some thing is missing ... The creator of life .
Wrong. Life already exists almost anywhere it is possible to exist on Earth, even deep underground. This prevents the formation of new life, which has not had time to develop any evolutionary defenses. In any case, oil is not a suitable medium for life, as there is no oxygen down there.
How can you be so positive , by saying, " wrong"
Hi , I am sure you heard about anaerobic life ( sewage plants or septic tanks )
You are on this tread from the beginning. You know I am looking how life started from raw elements .
My point with the petroleum is an example , that here we are beyond Inorganic chemistry.
But let me add what it seems as I am thinking most things in chemical in a natural way is to increase entropy and so to build life is to reduce entropy which means you have to do work to put it together ,
when you reach certain level , the when we die entropy increase of those chemicals
OK, you are correct that life can exist without oxygen. I suppose it's a good question whether life exists in oil deposits, but according to proposed theories of abiogenesis, life didn't start in oil deposits, it started in hydrothermal vents. Oil seems to be toxic to life.
Hydrothermal ; were do you get the nucleic acid to push it through the path
of the vent ? does the vent have RNA inside , so were do you get the RNA.
Theory.... There are many about early life , That is why I am posting . I would like some reasonable challenge to my question so I can learn other view. So ear on this forum or in others I get is divination into evolution . I don't have problem with evolution , my problem is start.
I understand Petroleum is toxic , but once it was not toxic it had life.
r
It really makes more sense that life come from an other planet with specie more intelligent ( advanced ) then we are , but the proposal of primordial soup in my opinion is a fantasy proposed by physicist or biologist , and i doubt it will be proposed by chemists.
No it doesn’t. There are proposed mechanisms, with varying levels of observational data and experimental support, for how life might have arisen on Earth. There is no need to invoke panspermia, although that remains as a potentially viable alternative.
I think the primordial soup idea came from JBS Haldane (a geneticist/biologist), although it is sometimes credited as far back as Darwin. Regardless, the primordial soup idea (ie. pools of water on the surface of the planet) has long since been replaced by hypotheses that state that abiogenesis occurred deep in the Earth’s crust (or at least as deep as the ocean floor at hydrothermal vents).
So, you are using what we call a “strawman” argument. You are claiming to debunk something that isn’t current dogma in the first place.
and i doubt it will be proposed by chemists.
Wrong again. As an example, Sidney Altman and Thomas Cech won the 1989 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their work on catalytic RNAs. These molecules pay fundamental roles in theories of abiogenesis. Chemists and biochemists feature prominently in such research.
Sense I am not familiar with that work , I will have look into it and to see what was their objective in their work, As you know there are many people who take someones work and draw their own conclusion
I just noticed one earlier in the post.
I agree we don't have a real answer , but it is good to put our opinion on the table to sort them out , then select a more reasonal.