According to science, how did LIFE begin? How did objects go from inanimate to animate in the world of science

Question

I understand Big Bang Theory and the theoretical origin of all objects in space. But how does science explain how and when objects went from being inanimate to animate? At what point did inanimate objects..things without life..officially become life..objects that reproduce have a begin and end date etc. Even single cell organisms have an instinct of self preservation. Single cell organisms bound with other single organisms because some how they knew of strength in numbers. Then the cells within a cluster began to specials and so complex organisms were born. But science never even attempts to explain how lifeless objects became life.

Answer 1

To understand life, it is important to understand thermodynamics.

To recap the most pertinent one (the second law of thermodynamics), the potential energy of a given state will always be less than that of a prior state. In other words, entropy of a system always increases.

This is very important with respect to life. Look at non-living systems in which entropy increases, then examine living systems. Life increases entropy, often at a rate dramatically higher than that of non-living systems.

From that viewpoint- a thermodynamic perspective- understanding life is trivial. Life exists to increase the rate at which entropy increases.

Of course, there's nothing in thermodynamics about rate- none of the laws state anything about how *fast* things go- but it is implicit that pathways that succeed and propagate will use more energy, and demonstrate a greater rate of entropy. For example, a life form that does well may be energy "hungry," laying waste to other, smaller organisms, consuming more resources, and producing more progeny- which in turn consume more energy, resources, and so on.

All that, of course, is a far leap from addressing the root of life- but it's not too far from saying that basic chemical pathways, in conjunction with some sort of physical "housing," such as a micelle, could lead to the formation of discrete phenomena that resemble life. Going back to thermodynamics, the selection of those proto-organisms that demonstrate the greatest ability to increase entropy of their surroundings, to grow, and to proliferate- all those pathways that we associate with "life"- lead to more advanced reactions. Some of these structures and reactions may eventually reach the point of complexity that they might be confused with life- and eventually be recognized as such.

A number of substrates have been recognized in which these sorts of reactions may occur. See also references 1 and 2.

That we do not see such events occuring on a modern scale is not entirely unexpected. The Red Queen effect (reference 3) is such that if any suite of reactions and structures were to manifest today, they would almost certainly be consumed or broken down by some existing organism that has had a few hundred million years to evolve. From a more simplistic standpoint, let's say that your neighbor kids decide to go into the automobile market, and put together a vehicle in their garage from parts they found or built themselves. Now imagine how long their company would stay in business when they went head-to-head with GM, Ford, Toyota, and other established manufacturers. They'd be lucky to win a soap box derby, let alone compete in business. Similarly, new-ish organisms would quickly fall prey to biologic consumers, like bacteria and fungi.

Answer 2

Big problem is that science can't explain how things started. Darwin was never supposed to. He just talked about how things change through natural selection. There were many "if's" and restrictions laid out that people ignore and accept his theory as proff when instead ...it's just a bloody theory!!! no proof just an unproven idea....guess what????if it was proven...it wouldn't BE a theory anymore.

Science has taken another tact and one you should do research on. Check out this site.

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

it's a group of scientists who are looking into your question

Answer 3

That's because science deals with the concrete, not the philosophical. The definition of life is not necessarily a scientific question--it is a matter of opinion. It's like the current debate about evolution. The religious right wants to go the extra step and say that God directed evolution to occur the way it did. Science only shows that evolution occurred--it cannot be proven why. When you go that extra step, you are delving into matters of religion, which cannot be taught in public schools under the 1st Amendment.

Answer 4

Actually, there's plenty of scientific work done in that area.

In the early 1950s, Stanley Miller was a graduate student in the University of Chicago laboratory of Harold Urey, the discoverer of heavy hydrogen and an authority on planet formation. He undertook experiments designed to find out how lightning—reproduced by repeated electric discharges—might have affected the primitive earth atmosphere, which Urey believed to be a mixture of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. The result exceeded Miller's wildest hopes and propelled him instantly into the firmament of celebrities. In just a few days, more than 15 percent of the methane carbon subjected to electrical discharges in the laboratory had been converted to a variety of amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, and other potential biological constituents. Although the primitive atmosphere is no longer believed to be as rich in hydrogen as once thought by Urey, the discovery that the Murchison meteorite contains the same amino acids obtained by Miller, and even in the same relative proportions, suggests strongly that his results are relevant.

Basically, the buildingblocks of life are present in the dust everything in space and on earth is made of. It's been shown that, when hit by electricity in the right conditions, these building blocks form living cells. And there's life.

Answer 5

Charles Siebert explains how the viruses may have been the precursors of all life on Earth in his article titled "Unintelligent Design" on page 32 of the March 2006 issue of Discover magazine.

Answer 6

I think also that it is a very tough question. There's a book called "A Short History of (almost) Everything" that you might find interesting.

Even today, some things exist that blur the boundaries between "alive" and "not alive." Viruses, for example, are technically not alive, although they use living organisms to replicate themselves.

Answer 7

This is too in depth for Yahoo Answers. Check out the movie "What the Bleep do we know" if you haven't already. It very playfully explains quantum physics and some really interesting theories.

Answer 8

the young earth was just one big chemistry experiment and withj Carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen amino acids would eventually get made by lightening would eventually make life

Answer 9

The only proof that I have that make sense is biblically stated.How can something come out of nothing unless a greater being than us do it? It would be good if you would read gen.1 chapter, that might help

Answer 10

One interesting idea is the RNA World hypothesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_RNA_world_hypothesis