The origin of life Created 15 years ago2009-07-13 01:37:03 UTC by Alabastor_Twob

At one point in the history of the world, there was no life life. Then there was life. Presumably all life is descended from the first life forms. I was wondering; what evidence is there to suggest that life hasn't been formed more than once? Animals are traced back through an evolutionary tree, but would it be possible that there is more than one 'tree'?
Or was the ability for life to occur spontaneously limited to the world of a few billion years ago, when the Earth may have still been developing?

The answer is 42.

Imagine a huge puddle of random atoms coming and going in the high temperatures of the early Earth. Many of these would sometimes unite to make atoms of a different kind (well, another element). These different atoms would also randomly group into molecules and break off of them. Given enough time, a particular combination of Carbon atoms would end up forming a significative molecule. Then these significative molecules would group and ungroup as well, and after some time (say, a couple hundred million years) these random combinations would end up forming a living cell. Then the same goes on and on for more millions of years and here we are.

Ever wondered how is it that, a bunch of random, meaningless, thoughtless, insignificant Carbon atoms packed together in different ways, shaped in the form of a person, are able to interact with other packs of more Carbon atoms, have thoughts, memories, feelings and aspirations?

I was wondering; what evidence is there to suggest that life hasn't been formed more than once?

Who ever said that life hasn't started more than once? Chances are it has, and many times. The universe is a massive place.

And as for your trees: everything traces back to single-celled organisms. There can't be any more trees at that point.

And as for your trees: everything traces back to single-celled organisms. There can't be any more trees at that point.

All life that WE know.

Energy based life?
Personally, I combine the "Adam and Eve" story and the theory of evolution, but I doubt that earth is the only planet with life on it.

I would put money that I could find more than 5 others threads dedicated to this topic that ended up getting closed.

Yeah. There's been about one a year since I can remember.
It always turned into some stupid political /religious thing.

All life that WE know.

No, just all life on Earth. But it makes sense that all other life would start with cells, or a cell-like figure. A cell is the most basic form of life that can still be called a lifeform, and that applies to everything, not just Earth.
Look at a prokaryotic bacteria cell. In their simplest form, they are nothing more than some strands of DNA (a handful of molecules strung together) and protiens(a handful of mlecules strung together) contained in what is essentially a bubble. You can't get more simple than that and still have a living thing. Anything less is just plain matter. And if you're thinking "well why not?" then you need to read more into what actually constitutes a living being.

Energy based life wouldn't fall under what we define as "life", and sounds pretty ridiculous if you actually understand what constitutes a lifeform. For one thing, by definition, a lifeform has to be made up of matter, not energy waves.
Of course you could make the argument that at the quantum level all matters breaks down into waves, but that's a totally different kind of "wave" and isn't really a sound argument.

Ectoplasm is also not a form of life.

...It's a form of death.

Shazam.

The only thing i'm gonna say is point out a problem with the Theory of Evolution as it bothers me every time I think about it. So before creatures had eyes, we are assuming that over thousands of years they developed eyes. So did they plan this because they would have had this useless non-functional eyeball for hundreds of years as it developed...does that sound kinda far fetched to any of you??

Hotdog: Light sensitive cells became useful to predators that had an advantage in determining the time of day. It would prove useful to the organisms that determine hunting for their favorite meals is easier depending on the presence of light or not. Eventually it developed into complicated eyes with lenses and such.. depth perception and color recognition.. because it provided an obvious advantage.

Hotdog: Life doesn't "choose" what it needs and then "decide" to evolve any certain way. It only seems that way because natural selection allows life that just happened to obtain what they need to flourish, while those that did not evolve in such a beneficial way die out.

None of it is "planned". You have to understand that natural selection is the main reason that today's organisms seem to have only evolved beneficial traits.

Edit: Evolution is an ongoing, and for all intents and purposes, random process. And it wasn't over thousands of years that creatures would develop eyes. It was hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

Well, there's always this:

And God went on to say: ?Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.? And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that it was good.

Genesis, chapter 1, verses 24 and 25

But of course, I am sure this will not sit right with some of the atheists here.

Yeah. You say that and the thread is closed within the week.

But that kinda defeats itself...as other things like lungs, tails, ect...would be a useless body part until hundreds of thousands of years later when they had finished 'evolving' it into a useful body part...it just confuses me.

And Tito, what actual version of the Bible are you getting that reference from??

It doesn't "defeat itself". There's physical evidence of these things in fossils all over the world.
And things like the lung organ wouldn't have formed all at once. It doesn't sound like you understand how evolution works at all, because you seem so fixated on the idea that lifeforms choose their own evolutionary path. And it doesn't work like that, it just doesn't. Nothing is "started" and then "finished" later with any specific goal while being completely useless during "development". It's all very, very gradual and seamless.

Have actually done research on this at all?

I love how people are trying to wield evolution as fact. It's a theory for a reason, people - it cannot be proved using our current resources and scientific knowledge. Therefore it should be considered as a possibility, not a fact.

On the other hand, we have Tito referencing a book that, until proven otherwise, is a work of fiction. Amazingly credible source there. And no, I am not an atheist.

In creating a thread such as this, you won't get any real responses. All you'll get are a bunch of subjective opinions. (Although I think this is exactly what the thread creator was aiming for: Internet arguments.)

I propose that all life was created with magic. I cite the Harry Potter series as a reference.

Therefore it should be considered as a possibility, not a fact.

http://www.notjustatheory.com/index.html
In a nutshell.
I'm out.

Definitions aside, human evolution is not proven. I am aware that evolution has been observed in some organisms, and that it is currently the most likely explanation. But it is not concrete.

I'm out.

I lied, I'm still here.The earliest ancestor is where the "humanesque" branchd off from the monkeys and apes and whatnot. If you don't understand or simply don't believe my little picture here then you can look into each of these ancestors yourself and see just how related they are.

Unless you really want to flatout say that every one of these was a different species that had nothing to do with each other, in spite of their remarkable similarities over the timeline, then I can assure you that human evolution has happened, just as every other lifeform has.

Okay, I admit that I really don't know what I'm talking about. But my point about subjective opinions is still valid.

Life surely existed before. I mean, before the birth of the Universe.There's a theory that the Universe, as it is now it's still expanding, but at one point it will be contracting until another huge ball will be created. Because of the infinite gravity it will become the size of a point. Then it will explode again. If this is true, a lot of life types were in the other worlds. If it isn't and the Universe will arrive at an equilibrium, there will be no source of energy left- Universe dead. That also mean death of everything.

And I myself as a Christian, I believe in the theory of evolution. For example, do you know that because of the earth is heating up, sheep are shrinking ? It's a comic fact, but it's true. I'd say they begin to adapt, and that is just a little step in evolution.

i remember the last religion debate on here a couple of years ago. it went for a very long time...

I remember a religion thread, which is probably what you're referring to.

Personally, I believe evolution. I guess I just consider it more logical and believable than a god who made earth and life, possibly because he just had nothing better to do.

Penguinboy has a little bit of a point (I also like the magic idea). No-one can guarantee they're right (but sure, they're close, and I can't wait for one side to shut the other up). The moral of the story: believe no-one.

NOTE: This may not be my actual opinion on the subject. I'm just putting it out there for you to consider.

Anybody ever heard of the Galapagos finches? It's how darwin basically 'proved' his hypothesis into a theory. There are some 30 types of finches on the galapagos island, all believed to have came from the same parent species. But because of the area of the island that each sub-species resides in, and lack of migration to other areas, the finches evolved different features : Longer beaks, shorter beaks, larger eyes, thick beaks, shorter legs...

Plus take a look at the human appendix. A few thousand years ago the appendix was much larger. And it actually served a purpose. The appendix filters out the bacterium that's found in raw meat, protecting our bodies, and allowing our intestines to distribute the nutrients into our blood without contaminating us. Since we've discovered fire, and began cooking our food, the bacteria died and didnt need to be filtered. Since that point, we haven't been eating raw meat (essentially..) and because of that, our appendixes arent needed anymore.

I believe there has also been evidence showing that our pinky toes are leaving as well. They don't serve much of a purpose, and people who don't have them have the same balance they would with the toe.

And Tito, what actual version of the Bible are you getting that reference from??

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. I borrowed it from my neighbor since I did not have a copy at the time.

I'm just gonna edit that bible reference, because I personally think God created the big bang, ect. So science and religion should get along.

And God went on to say: ?Let the earth put forth living souls in the form of ameobas according to the kinds they will evolve into, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.? And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the abeobas of the earth according to what they would evolve into and the domestic animal according to what they would evolve into and every moving animal of the ground according to what they would evolve into. And God got to see that it was good, at least until something evolved so much that it caused nuclear war.

WCD seems to have the "Evolution is a fact"-corner pretty much filled up in this here thread so I'll just quietly agree and condone his attitude. Don't let the "evolution is just a theory"-people(it's not, in the common sense of the word) bring their pseudoscientific nonsense close to the real deal.

I'm not sure it was the most recent one but I remember starting an incredibly provocative thread a few years back. That was fun (albeit a bit silly on my part).

Edit: gigglez (yes, opening a thread with that statement was stupid)

The world started because I mapped it!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA Thats my opinion...so i'm outta this thread...truth is I don't much care for how on earth we friggin got here...fact is we are here and that is that...the past is built of fabrications over true facts...example...Carbon dating is practically guesswork past 3000 years (yes, proven fact somewhere)...however...according to the Bible...Noah and the great flood...if so then entire soil structure would have shifted and ruined any sort of dating...and whats more the bible is written of things that happened before people actually started recording data...both theories have flaws

Hahaha...im in a weird mood so there...feel free to flame me or whatever PEACE!!!

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people.

That's the end of the religous debate.

Now to save the world.

Yeah, and all I gotta say is this.

Edit: gigglez (yes, opening a thread with that statement was stupid)

I called the lock of that thread like a pro

That's probably one of the longest threads to recieve a visit from the massive truck of fail.

Catholic religion was made up in the middle ages to keep the ignorant crowds in submission. Of course, it has evolved (see wat i did der?) into a kind of motivation for some. But it's essentially the same as back then.

So leaving that out of the picture, we can all conclude that Dumbledore, being as old as he is, was bored and created all teh stuffs. End.

But Dumbledore is a dead gay wizard.

DUMBLEDORE IS DEAD?! WAT?! SPOILER ALERT PLS

DUMBLEDORE IS GAY?! WAT?! SPOILER ALERT PLS

I saw half the first Harry potter movie, please don't ruin it for me!

No wait, I'm not going to watch any of the Harry Potter movies anyway. Oh well, carry on.

The movies aren't very good. The books are great tho.

ZL's thread ain't got shit on Dumb Americans thread.

Oh srry, you make such good points.

And remember all of those jahzel threads? Good times.

I'm still fairly certain he was Ron Paul's campaign manager or something.

I know this piece of text block is kind of big for the forum, but it really fits in with the topic at hand, but above all...it really puts you to think about things in general with an interesting twist. The following story is somewhat old, some of you might have heard of it. A long time ago, while a student, Albert Einstein humiliated his atheist professor at his own game:

A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet and did not answer the professor's hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"

The other students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color.

You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's Inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name - Albert Einstein

XD Score one for the religous guys!
(Please note I'm not against atheisim, beleive what you want to, I just personally beleive in one God)

Meh, Tito. I've seen that story several times before without the added suggestion it was made by Albert Einstein. I seriously doubt he ever said anything like that. Especially considering Einstein wasn't even a Christian (nor an atheist).

Besides, the story doesn't really prove anything nor does it add any proper argument to the discussion. What's it saying? Evil is the absence of God? What does that have to do with the origin of life?

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

Ah yes, good'ol snoop.com, it's been a while I have not heard from them. Let's see, that report was written by a Barbara Mikkelson, founder and co-owner (with her husband) of snoop.com.

The problem I have with snoop.com is that this whole site is really the point of view of just one person, an angry woman with an obvious far left liberal agenda called Barbara Mikkelson. Nothing ever gets published on snoop.com if it contradicts her preconceived views on the subject. It's her way, or the high way. Even here co-owning husband has to agree with her. No, snoop.com wont do.

I rather hear from a true, multi member investigating committee composed from unbiased points of view. That's why I like the Myth Busters TV show, they actually go out of their way to investigate and test stuff, not just debunk out of their asses like others do.