If life doesn't come from nonliving things, then how did the first organisms get here?

Question

If from experiences that life doesn't come from dead meat, or out of broth, then how do the first organisms get here? Is it possible for the proccess to happen again? I know that biologist think that electricity helped. But, why didn't lab experiments make new life? How did the Acids come together?

If from experiences that life doesn't come from dead meat, or out of broth, then how do the first organisms get here? Is it possible for the proccess to happen again? I know that biologist think that electricity helped. But, why didn't lab experiments make new life? How did the Acids come together?THIS IS ACCORDING TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Answer 1

Origin of Life
Bacteria appeared on earth between 3.4 and 4 billion years ago. Precambrian evidence of filamentous bacteria-like structures, found making up fossilized sediments called stromalites, has been discovered in Australia and southern Africa. These fossils date back between 3.4 and 3.5 billion years old. Environmental conditions of earth 4 billion years ago were much different than those of today. It has been theorized that the atmosphere was a reducing atmosphere with intense lightning, tremendous volcanic activity, very little oxygen, intense ultraviolet radiation, and meteorite bombardment. These conditions made it impossible for any type of aerobic life to exist. The first cells may have originated by chemical evolution in an anaerobic environment.

Abiotic Synthesis Theory of Life: A.I.Oparin postulated, in the 1920's, that primitive earth with its reducing atmosphere favored chemical reactions that produced simple monomers that eventually formed complex organic compounds necessary for life. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested this hypothesis by building an apparatus to simulate the conditions of the earth at that time.






Their experiments produced 20 amino acids and other organic compounds including: ATP, lipids, some sugars, and the bases of RNA and DNA. The main problem of organic synthesis is how did these molecules develop without the aid of enzymes to speed up the reactions? Sidney Fox, of the University of Miami, dripped a dilute solution of organic monomers onto hot sand, clay , and rock. The water vaporized and left behind polypeptides he called proteinoids. Clay was abundant in prebiotic earth. Clay has the ability to act as a substrate for this type of chemical reaction. The charged sites on the clay attracted monomers in such concentrations to bring them into close proximity for chemical binding. Once these organic compounds were produced, aggregates of these proteinoids self-assembled into small spheres called protobionts. These small spheres were capable of osmotic swelling and shrinking and even able to produce a membrane potential.

RNA the first Genetic Material: Evidence to support the idea that RNA was the first genetic material includes: short polymers of self-replicating RNA have been abiotically produced in a test tube without enzymes. RNA has the ability to act as a catalyst to help make mRNA, tRNA or rRNA. The RNA folding is unique depending on its sequence. This along with mutations, creates a variety of closely related molecules. Through chance this self-replicating material was captured by the protobionts and the entire structure developed under the guide of natural selection.

Other Origin Theories:

Panspermia. Extraterrestrial organic compounds located on the surface of meteorites could well have contributed to the pool of material found on prebiotic earth. Modern meteorites have given up specimens of simple organic compounds such as amino acids.

Some researchers believe that life began on the sea floor away from the harsh surface environments. The discovery of deep sea vents showed the scientific community that the materials needed for life to begin were present away from the harsh surface.

Julius Rebek produced a simple organic molecule in 1991 that served as a template for self-replication. This discovery suggests that RNA was too complex to have come first and a much simpler self-replicating molecule preceded it.

Answer 2

It is very hard to imagine life coming from simple elements, even if lightning helped the reactions, but it is also probably just as difficult to imagine a billion years (and remember the Earth is more than 4 billion years old). Dinosaurs lived tens of millions of years ago and the earliest humans have been found up to 40,000 years ago--still even both those numbers are impossible to fathom. A couple key points to the theory to evolution that I think aren't given as much weight by newcomers or critics to the idea are these: Time and Junk. Like I said, its simply not possible to understand from a distance how long several billion years is, but we know, just from experience in our own time period, that a lot can happen in a few million years. The other thing people I dont think can fully grasp is the amount of junk that evolution has produced over the years. Almost everything you see today is the end product (as of now) of billions of years of trial and error; randomness that no doubt may have created humans and all else but also created a plethora of by-products and failures that didn't make the cut for every one thing that did.

Answer 3

There is no definite conclusion how live arose on the planet on the first place, but there are several ideas (No evolution is not one of them). Evolution explains how life reached the vast biodiversity that man is destroying today. Most religious explanations tell who made life, but rarely give the details on how is was done. So science tries to figure it out. Though none of the hypothesis have definitive evidence oh how life started, I can believe that it did not start in a day, a week, a month or a year. It probably took a billion or so years for life to start in the soup of the cosmos which is why no lab conditions can duplicate those conditions yet. Still for now, no one can say life originated in living, nonliving, supernatural, nor unknown means.

Answer 4

Well, saying that life first came here from another planet does not resolve the problem AT ALL. If then, how did this other life appear?

So you have to understand that we are working on terms of billions of years. Simple atomes collide such as hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, etc... They can react together, create energy, just as when you light something on fire. But more complex reactions are also possible, but they need more energy. The basic thing to understand is that they try to reach a stable state, less complicated, more stable, that needs less energy...

So you have this great mass of water that is the earth and it is being bombed by eltrical storms, unthinkable stroms. New energy is being brought to this great soup. This is when larger, more complex molecules started to appear. Amino acids appeared and some of them assemled together, colliding at random.

Following this train of thought you can understand that we can arrive at a state where a single cell can regenerate, protect its content from the environment and so on. Multicellular organisms developp and evolution starts from there.

Answer 5

Mmm... I think the first organism got here via other organisms on another Planet, in another world. The universe is too mysterious to simply believe all life began on JUST Earth, SOMEHOW, and I don't mean by a damn God. The religion shet makes no sense as to the beginning of life. So, like I said, my hypothesis is there's another world out there around us that we can't see and I think it's possible an organism from their planet reached Earth at some point.

Answer 6

Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever will. So I will give this question a go, THE GREAT CREATOR put ALL things, living and non living things in their place. The Bible tells us that 1000 years is like a day unto the Lord. The work that he did was a LABOR of Love and so he LABORED six days or six thousand years and on the seventh day or seven thousandth year he rested from his LABORS. HE was NOT alone in his LABORS of LOVE. The WORD (his Son) was with him. THE WORD was with GOD and THE WORD was GOD is in the OLD BOOKS of promise and in THE NEW BOOKS OF promise, his SON said "If you have seen ME you have seen THE FATHER." We know a child can look just like the parent looked when he was young. Like twins look alike and talk alike and then act alike, so it is with Our heavenly Father and his only begotten son, who was, before time began. Now in the beginning THEY put even the no see ims (bacteria, viruses, etc) in place. God also has angels, cherubims and seraphim's and other living beings we know not of. They I do not believe set ideally by in heaven and twiddle their thumbs. They were NOT THE CREATORS but they may of had their special assignments to do to make this earth hospitable for mankind. The Bible does not give the angels or the other living beings mention invovling earth. They had there work to do while The Father and Son did what they had to do . We were made for God. We were wanted.

Answer 7

U must first understand the fact that when Earth was relatively younger it was surrounded by an atmosphere of hydrogen, methane, Nitrogen, CO , CO2 & other such gases. There was no free Oxygen present but there was water. The first organism that came to exist in this sort of atmosphere was the Bacteria called 'Methanogens'. These bacteria carried out metabolic activities and released free oxygen into the atmosphere.Slowly due to the presence of free oygen, newer oxygen dependent organisms started evolving from the Methanogens. As the surrounding atmosphere of the Earth changed, the Methanogens eventually could not survive and thus they eventually died out leaving evolved organisms better suited for survival in changing conditions. ("survival of the fittest").And this statement holds true as newer and newer organisms evolved from the older ones. It continues to hold true even now.

Answer 8

There was an experiment conducted by Stanley Miller (I think that's his name) where he took certain gases and infused electricity into the chamber, and was able to produce simple Amino Acids.

From an article (see source below):
"Using a system of glass flasks, Miller attempted to simulate the early atmospheric conditions. He passed a mixture of boiling water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through an electrical spark discharge. At the bottom of the apparatus was a trap to capture any molecules made by the reaction. This trap prevented the newly-formed chemicals from being destroyed by the next spark. Eventually, Miller was able to produce a mixture containing very simple amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. "

Answer 9

It seems you've probably already made up your mind on this and it's very unlikely you will look into this further.

However, if you feel your religious beliefs can withstand it, you may want to read the book "Genesis, The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins." - Hazen

A few things have correctly been pointed out: The theory of evolution is NOT dependent on this, and that the answer is not well known.

Answer 10

Probably they same way fish get into isolated lakes created by volcanoes...eggs attached to birds that visited there. Perhaps life started on our planet in a similar way....I think that is more pausible than being made out of mud...however, if you consider the primordial soup that covered the earth "dust" or mud, then sure the hand of god (a spark of electricity) could have indeed started life here on this planet.

Answer 11

Scientists were able to make simple proteins by mixing primordial ingredients together and pouring the mixture onto rocks which were heated by volcanoes.

Viruses are the simpliest organisms on Earth but they don't meet the requirements of being called "alive".

From this, we can guess the first organisms were probably simple things similar to viruses. From there, they mutated into what we see today.