English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The Big Bang superhot cooled off over billions of years , created unstable elements , that cooled off and came together to form amino acids which became the basis of life .Plausable theory . Now lets roll it . Which amino acid was formed first .Who gave the instruction to do so , in my cell biology i know this is the work of the genes that contain the encoded message to perform any cell function . Therefore it might be right to say a gene was created first by the big Bang cool off and since a gene is enclosed inside the nucleaus as it which we researchers believe and conclude is more complicated that the current evidence . Remember once Professors got red carpert laid in front of them , got invited to expensive dinners simply to give seminars on Amoebas being the most simplest cell the basic cell etc and now!!! it just went pear shaped as science started to overtake their theory an amoeba is now considered a complex thing we know very little about it .can life originate from nonmatter?

2006-09-19 19:43:45 · 8 answers · asked by roy 1 in Science & Mathematics Zoology

8 answers

Yes.

Complex chemicals formed the amino acids you speak of, which combined to form viruses and such. From there it really took off, over the next 3 billion years!

These things take time. You cannot create an experiment and say this is life...it just materialized. Evolution takes a long time to work through the process...most humans are not that patient, so they jump on the Creationism bandwagon. Tends to neaten things up, while at the same time leaving huge holes where science used to be.

2006-09-19 19:51:44 · answer #1 · answered by powhound 7 · 0 0

The big bang was not directly responsible for life as we know it; the bang happened nine billion years before the earth and the rest of the solar system was formed. During that time, a star formed, burned for a time, and eventually exploded in a supernova, creating the heavy elements (heavier than iron) that are found today in both the earth and the sun. The sun and planets grew by gravitational accretion of matter which had become more concentrated due to turbulence of some sort -- perhaps caused by the same supernova. At the time the sun achieved ignition, the earth was a ball of rock, covered mostly with seawater, and with an atmosphere of methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor. The presence of water permitted storms of the same sort we see today. Back in the 50's, Harold Urey conducted a famous experiment, passing electric discharges through a mixture of water and gases as described above. The results included a number of amino acids and other organic compounds. How these got organized into what we now call life is not known; it is possible that the huge tides prevailing at the time, which would have given a thorough mixing of the substances, had something to do with it. We do know that it did not take too long for life to appear -- the time may have been a hundred million years, but it was not billions. But eukaryotic cells, which are essential to the complex life we see today, took a long time to appear -- possibly as much as two billion years. After that, complex life evolved rather rapidly.

2006-09-19 20:27:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The BIG BANG is a theory and like most creation ideas is yet to be proved. However, if we are to believe the evolution idea then this takes millions upon millions of years to get to the first acids that combined then even more to go from there. So with all this time wouldn't cells etc have evolved with all this information through trial and error and survival of the fittest until finding a suitable building block to develop on.

2006-09-19 23:19:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Life cannot originate from nonmatter! You are basically saying that life can originate from space, or nothing. Matter: anything takes up space, and has mass.

Who gave the instruction to do so? Another question that doesnt make sense, because atoms arent instructed to form bonds, they just do it.

Buy Modern Biology 2006th edition by Hold, Rinehart and Winston

Go to page 286

There is no simple answer to your question.

2006-09-19 20:16:11 · answer #4 · answered by adrianchemistry 2 · 0 0

No, the universe grew to become into "shaped" with the aid of the "vast bang," which had no longer something in besides to do with carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, warmth or flames. the only "existence" all of us understand of, right here on our planet, "shaped" approximately 9 billion years after the formation of the universe. There may well be different existence interior the universe that shaped earlier existence right here did, yet while that's something like the existence all of us understand (that's carbon-based), it may no longer have shaped for a minimum of one thousand million years or so after the universe did, because of the fact all the carbon in our universe comes from stars making it of their interiors making use of nuclear fusion, and then "loss of existence" (the two as a supernova or a puffed-out crimson super) to furnish their carbon out to the universe. It grew to become into a minimum of one thousand million years after the formation of the universe until eventually there grew to become into any respectable volume of carbon around. Please go get some education. Peace.

2016-10-15 05:04:37 · answer #5 · answered by valda 4 · 0 0

BIG BANG is a theory, nothing more, simply not possible, because it contradicts the physical LAW of Angular momentum! (There are at least 2 moons in our solar system that are turning in the opposite direction of everything else).
In order to create one organic cell, we need to deal with the order of amino acids in proteins which is a much greater miracle than monkey evolving to human.
Please keep in mind that throughout scientific history, theories keep falling or changing, but the Laws of physics do not change (Because they are proven and demonstrated before they become Laws).
The whole concept of Big Bang and billions of years is also simply impossible, because the element of TIME does not exist and the scientific world has agreed that Earth is much younger than initially believed!! Without time, every theory which needs a lot of time FALLS!
There are many scientific facts (not theories) that support the very young age of earth and make life on this planet impossible just 1 million years ago!!!! One of them is the fact that our SUN is losing millions of metric tons of matter into the space every single hour of every day (based on evidence visible and claimed by NASA), the rest is simple childish math and all we need to do is to calculate backwards in time and instead of deducting millions of tons, ADDING millions of tons to the mass of the SUN for every single day and go back to only one million (not 150 billion years ago) years ago, when we do this simple calculation, our SUN becomes 15 - 20% larger than its size today, making life for any kind of organism on earth IMPOSSIBLE. The life on this planet will be too busy burning up, to even think about evolving!
Every theory about life originating by it self and without an intelligent designer requires a lot of time, which is simply not there. Even those scientists who were desperately searching for a way to reject intelligent designer are one by one coming to the conclusion that life and our biology in its complexity, can not just be a product of random chance!
There is NO chance, life was formed by chance.
Please note; Once we reject intelligent designer (GOD / Creator), we are left with the embarrassment of: NOTHING + TIME + CHANCE = HUMAN BRAIN
Send me an email if you like and share your thoughts.

2006-09-19 20:33:22 · answer #6 · answered by Cory 2 · 0 3

I can sense a very intelligent person here that knows what he is talking about. I don't have the answer to that because i don't study genetics but find it fascinating.

I would guess and say no to your question. (Ive come to that conclusion after reading your paragraph)!!

2006-09-19 19:49:28 · answer #7 · answered by Scatty 6 · 0 1

Question to long to answer with out give and take email me or im me and we can take it one at a time.

2006-09-19 19:56:11 · answer #8 · answered by timex846 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers