Those familiar with science and evolution, help me understand if you will?

Question

the primordial soup,how did a living -one celled organism evolve from non-living elements? and did that one celled organism create itself with the DNA information to automatically know how to reproduce by cell division? i'm not very familiar with this brand of science and would like to know more..?? thanks in advance

Answer 1

The short answer is: we don't know. Indeed, we may never know for sure. It is virtually certain that early life used RNA rather than DNA as the genetic carrier of information, and that could well have been preceded by something else. Once any form of life existed, evolution took over and created the vast panoply of life that we see today. It is reasonable to expect that scientists will create life ab initio within the next hundred years, and that may give a clue as to how it got started in the first place.

Answer 2

The one-celled organism is a looooooong stretch from the non-living elements. Since science is theoretical on this subject at best, here's merely a list of experiments and current theories.

The start of this journey was proved by Urey and Miller in 1953- they took methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen (the earliest components of Earth's atmosphere) and placed them in an atmospherically regulated chamber and induced lightning. These random elements started to form complex forms- the so-called "primordial soup" which contained 13 out of 22 amino acids used in cell synthesis. This was the beginning- complex molecules "spontaneously" emered.

After this "soup" was created, the molecules floated around a bit and jumped a step- noone knows quite how the amino acids came together coherently, but there was a simple cell structure that emerged. This structure was something similar to the simple squamous cells that we have- minus the organelles.

Somewhere along the line, a proteobacteria formed- this was an energy-forming entity ( current-day mitochondria) that was made of roughly the same materials as the other cells floating around. These cells had better protection, yet no energy-creating capacity. These two structures formed a symbiotic relationship.

From there, the energy was created and exploited, the amino acids were put into use- insert the steps to cell division and energy cycles and BAM! multicelled organisms.

All of these are generally accepted, though they have their critics. This is just an introduction to what is believed to have happened.



~~EDIT~~

Panspermia (the "life from space" theory) is another side of the story, yet no groundbreaking research has been done on this idea.

Also, anyone who criticizes Darwin should really check out his ideas for themselves- he's one of history's most misunderstood people. Hell, very few of the people calling him the devil or saying that he's wordly know that he was to be a minister once.

Seriously- everyone needs to take a moment to read a book/ assess for themselves and stop drawing rediculous conclusions based off of something someone told them.

Answer 3

This is a very complicated topic! The problem is that right off the bat, you say how did a living -one celled organism evolve from non-living elements?!! We do not know this to be the case , living coming from non living! There is organic and inorganic properties, in simple terms what is ones life can be anothers non life and vice a versa! Life can grow and florish, just by floating in the air, or sea, which is what I think you are referring to as the primordial soup!! These two elements are not non-living elements!!! Any way, how did that one celled organism create itself with DNA imformation to reproduce cell division? Again very complicated topic, but in simple terms all it takes is a chemical reaction and you got one cell, zillions of yrs go by and you got two, three, four, five, six, etc. etc.With each division an imprint is made to be carried into the future! LOOK INTO BIOPHYSICS!!

Answer 4

Well, this has NOTHING to do with EVOLUTION at all. Zilch.

It's called abiogenesis. ... It's still being worked on, and for sure it wasn't a DNA start... It likely wasn't even an RNA start. This question's a good one for NG: < sci.bio.evolution > - ask about abiogenesis or OOL and you'll get more expert answers.

Just like we didn't know we weren't the centre of the Universe until 360 years ago and we didn't know how things evolved 'til 1859 and how mutation worked until 1953, we don't know the mechanism for abiogenesis now. ... Lacking this knowledge is *just as unfulfilling* as not knowing how some "God(s)" might have done it.

Answer 5

Efew days ago I translated an article for my teacher. The newest theory said that, DNA and Amino acid came from another planets and a big stone came them to earth.( this is newest theory and scientist find some of it in earth)

but there are other theory who said that the conditions in eary earth was different and it was able that RNA and Amino acid made themselves.

At first DNA was not exist, it was RNA , after evolution insteade of RNA the nature used DNA.

There are lots of elements that cause cell divition. They are not one.
The environment can cause cell devition too.

Well some scientist proved that the living thing in earth needed more time than earth's age to formed by mutiation.

actualy they said that there are strange power who lead them to formed themselves.

Answer 6

Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It's the "god of the gaps" - intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:

That's not evolution, it's abiogenesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

It's an extremely unlikely event - but it only needed to happen *once*, in hundreds of millions of years, on an entire planet.

More questions? post in the right section.

Answer 7

So you're saying that by not believing in macroevolution, you are being anti-science? *Sigh* Your religion of macroevolution is not science. Macroevolution has already been debunked countless times and beyond doubt. It's only people like you that refuse to give it up and continue to cling to it even though it is proven wrong. Check my sources for proof that macroevolution is incorrect. If all you can do is give me ad hominem comments, but no scientific proof for macroevolution or explanations about how my evidence against macroevolution is wrong, it is time for you to reevaluate your beliefs.

Answer 8

Well to aside your facetiousness, how can a perfect being evolve out of nothing!

If you are beyond that, then the theory is this. It is possible for amino acids to produce rna that could lead to life. It only takes 1 strain to start it all. Given all of the water on the Earth, and millions (yes millions) of years time, then there is lots of chances for life.

Answer 9

Isn't it amazing how vociferous the outcry against your questioning the religion of evolution?
My, my. Such outrage and passion could only be elicited from questioning someone's deeply held beliefs!
You might destroy their faith in their god, Nature.
Don't you know that evolution is sacred?
Evolution is divine!
Evolution is truth!
Evolution is the ONE TRUE RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!

And, by the way, the probabality of a single amino acid forming from the elements and compounds in a tidal pool are
10^10^10^10^10.
Or, approximately the same as a tornado passing over a junkyard and leaving a fully assembled and functioning 747 behind.
And that's the TRUTH!

Answer 10

"Science and religion [are] no longer seen as incompatible."
-- The Daily Telegraph, London, May 26, 1999.

Reconciling Science and Religion
- An Enduring Quest... http://watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.htm

A Nuclear Scientist Tells--"Why I Believe the Bible"
http://watchtower.org/e/20040122a/article_01.htm

Unraveling the Mystery of Your Genes :
- Genes, DNA, and You
- Peering Into the Microscope
- What Is Behing the Mystery of Life?
- How DNA Replicates
- How Proteins Are Made
http://watchtower.org/e/19990908a/article_01.htm

There are two of every thing [including science]:
factual --vs-- theoretical farce.

So... "how did a living -one celled organism evolve from non-living elements? (etc)..."

It Didn't... Doesn't... &, Never Will (;