Evolutionists, is it possible for you to answer this in a "scientific" way without using the cliches about

Question

being ignorant,bible thumper etc. I want you to tell me "scientifically". After the giant explosion created the universe and the first life form spontaneously created itself, what did this first living creature do to survive. Plant material hadn't evolved yet and neither did other prey, and since it is a fact that all living things need air and "food" to survive, what did it live on, and with what other creature did it mate with to create the next creature? As a primitive life form you surely can't say that it was more advanced than we are, and therefore did not NEED life sustaining nutrition. And was there immaculate conception? I will bet a million dollars that none of you can answer this without just insulting me. It is a VALID scientific question that a 1st grader might ask, and if you can only say "we don't know" then you cannot call it a fact.

enough with saying that evolution is not the same as "abiogenesis". For someone to postulate evolution, it necessarily follows that they believe in this beginning, and if they don't, they have no explanation for where their theory begins. Also , the words, "might-have" and "could-have do not bode well for science. And I can't believe how many people bring up the miller-urey experiment. It produced NO life and was completely based on supposition of what the original "atmosphere" was. No other such "scientific experiment" would be in textbooks with such inconclusive results.

Answer 1

What makes you think plant material hadn't evolved yet? Your chronology is all backwards.

There are prokaryotes (plants) and eukaryotes (animals) to keep it basic.

Prokaryotes came first, THEN eukaryotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote#Origin_and_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea

Answer 2

When the first life form came into existence, it had to eat all the organic matter that was just sitting around the surface of the Earth. See, these days life uses up all the carbon it can, so 99.99% of the carbon on the Earth's surface has at one time or another been inside a life form. But back then, there hadn't been any life before, so the carbon was just floating around in the ocean and lying around on the land, locked up in various small (and a few large) organic molecules. The first life forms were capable of using these chemicals to gain energy and reproduce. Your point in no way disproves abiogenesis, much less evolution.

As for the immaculate conception, it seems unlikely that it ever happened, and besides most of the idea was that Mary was free of sin up until Jesus was born and all that. An actual virgin birth may in fact be possible by natural means, but it is extremely unlikely and would require that Mary have some sort of biological abnormalities, possibly being a hermaphrodite or having some kind of chromosomal syndrome.

Answer 3

There is no truly "standard" model of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Urey-Miller experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.

2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).

3. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.

4. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

5. The origin of the basic biomolecules, while not settled, is less controversial than the significance and order of steps 2 and 3. The basic inorganic chemicals from which life was formed are methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2), and phosphate (PO43-).

As of 2006, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached. The biologist John Desmond Bernal, coined the term Biopoesis for this process, and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell

Bernal suggested that Darwinian evolution may have commenced early, some time between Stage 1 and 2.

Answer 4

You're totally correct! This is a valid question a 1st grader might ask. And I hope you don't feel "insulted" if I treat exactly that way.

Dear little cold thing:
When you get to a certain grade in school, they will teach you how elementary life forms absorb what they need for survival and reproduction from the environment. You will also find that some creatures reproduced themselves by simply dividing. Yes, believe it or not, they just got to a certain size and then split into two! Amazing, isn't it? Later on, if some zealot hasn't convinced you that a wizard did all this, you will be taught how biological entities evolved, and why, for example, sexual reproduction offered certain advantages over the asexual mode to some species. OK, time for recess.

Answer 5

The fact that you are here and are able to ask these type questions is all the proof necessary that those first life forms did survive and evolve into all species on Earth.

I suspect that any answer you get will not be good enough. You have chosen to believe a religious creation myth so rational thinking and scientific theory is beyond your comprehension.

You have chosen to follow the path of ignorance, believing in myths, superstitions, and wishful thinking. As long as you keep those practices in your homes and churches society can remain safe from that evil. When it becomes a part of the political process and gains power then it becomes intolerance, hatred, and causes death to tens of thousands of innocent people.

Answer 6

first of all, no one is saying that evolution is a fact. now to answer your question, in 1953 Stanley Miller proved that amino acids could form spontaneously under conditions that they believed resembled Earth's early atmosphere. The first living organism would have replicated asexually, and would have used the energy from the sun or some type of chemical reaction to survive. Obviously there are several things that are unknown regarding this theory, which is why it remains the theory of evolution, not the law of evolution.

Answer 7

You're trying to whirl the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution into one big puree through a creationist blender. You question is NOT valid scientifically, but it does have a lot in common with what a 1st grader would ask.

If you really desire a scientific answer, why are you asking this question in the religion category where you hope to find even more ignorant people who agree with you? That's being willfully disengenuous.

Answer 8

THough I don't agree with all of the information presented as most is only theory and conjecture- no one can say they know beyond a shodow of a doubt exactly what happened at the origins of the earth,
KUDOS to nondescript, Green_Meklar and Jimvalentino for presenting information to think about without being condescending and insulting. There are some of us that read, research and base our beliefs on valid scientific observation- there is MOUNDS of it that completely lines up with the Bible.
It is rare to have a question like this and get even one mature and intelligent answer - so thanks gus for stepping up to the plate and regardless of what you feel about us , you answered the question with grace!
God Bless!

Answer 9

Evolution is strictly a biological science, having to do with the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of the universe, the earth, or anything else. Your question has nthing to do with evolution... it has to do with organic chemistry, more than anything else.

Google for 'origins of life' and 'abiogenesis' and 'panspermia'... and stick to scientific sources (university web sites, and such)... not 'Liars For Jesus' (LFJ) web sites. After you gain a basic understanding of those ideas, you should be able to ask an intelligent question.

Answer 10

The first life forms were probably monocellular, and monocellular life forms can live in the most extreme environments imaginable. In any case, life was originally formed from elements floating through space from the explosion-- notably carbon. Carbon-based life-forms formed on Earth, and they began to alter the environment with their consumption and emissions (they consumed minerals and broke down the elements they were attached to, then excreted the elements again in a different compound. The atmosphere became more conducive to life, and slowly plant life was created.

Plant life caused a big problem-- it began to turn carbon dioxide into a poisonous, deadly gas: oxygen. The life that depended on the atmosphere adapted and began to use oxygen to breathe, and slowly monocellular life forms began to evolve further, taking on multicellular forms like the plants had. Ozone was forming and lowering the temperature on Earth, and finally the multicellular life forms took on animal life in the Earth's oceans.

That is merely a summarized version of the events, mind you.

Answer 11

You are right...this is 1st grade level science theory.....First, your question is not really about evolution. It is about Abiogenesis. They are 2 very different things. Also, plant cells were around...along with all types of other organic material. Plenty to feed upon. It is NOT a fact that all things need air....ever heard of anaerobic bacteria....that means they don't need air. Not all creatures mate...even earthworms don't mate. Immaculate conception happens in our world everyday.

Your knowledge of science is not VALID....so I don't consider this a VALID question at all. Why would we need to call you ignorant...when your question and knowledge of science show your intelligence level so plainly?