How did the first life form on Earth know how to reproduce itself?

Answer 1

You assume that knowledge would have been required. It might not have been. It might have been simple division of a cell caused by pysical laws dependant upon the cells size.
To form any real answer we would need a sample of the earliest life, and at the moment there is nobody with a really good idea of what the earliest life was. or how to look for it.

Answer 2

That's as silly a question as if I had asked how did God know to write the Bible in English.

If you're prepared to accept that something could be called 'living' without being able to reproduce - there were probably many of these in the prebiotic era. They 'lived', and then they fell apart.

But the basic requirement for evolution is a Replicator - and that's practically the ONLY requirement. If something is able to replicate, whatever it is, it will evolve. Even jokes do it.

The earliest Replicator may have been a naked strand of RNA. In the lab, such strands are able to catalyse their own replication under the right temperatures and in the presence of free nucleotides.

These would have been fragile, and before too long they would have enclosed themselves in a membrane - such membranous bubbles would also have formed spontaneously - look at 'Action Liposomes' used in medicine and cosmetics: same thing.

It's also possible that the first Replicator was like nothing that is on Earth today. Prof Cairns-Smith has proposed that clay crystals have the necessary internal structure to allow replication to form, and such inorganic material may have formed the first replicating substrate from which RNA World emerged and became dominant.

In short - there are several good, workable theories for the earliest origin of life by natural means. We don't yet know which one actually happend. Maybe we never will; or maybe we'll find something that works so well that it would have to have been the One. Who knows?

But what's important is to realise that this process doesn't require a deity. It needs deep time, warm water and an anoxic atmosphere, all of which were available. The Miller reaction - which has once again defeated its critics according to the latest data - looks as though it was heavily involved.

To most scientists, the first life form on Earth was DEFINED as the first thing able to reproduce.

CD

Answer 3

There are several theories on this
1. We know elements love to combine, and split and are very reactive, since it is likely this early lifeform came from compounds and elements, some say it actually carried over this instinct, this hypothesis, also would explain how the early organisms knew how to evolve (most elements try to become stronger and ultimately a noble gas). However, this theory is radical and highly unlikely
2. It is simply a natural law, all creatures have encoded in their DNA to reproduce, evolve, etc. This is likely but how would this be encoded, either luck or a creator.
3. They simply divided, this would have been a very odd occurance for the early cells unlike modern bacteria and cells that can divide via mitosis, they would have no experience and the transfer could have been very messy, in all liklehood unsuccessful, (resulting in the deaths of cells and life on earth) unless once again they had something encoded to show them how to perform a correct mitosis.

Answer 4

"How did the first existence style on earth style from non-residing aspects? Did it create itself with pre-expertise on the thanks to reproduce by cellular branch?" Hm- this question should be printed to technology, because the solutions you get indexed right here are going to be biased in the direction of non secular motives. i visit't supply you an answer, because i'm no longer a scientist and that i'm quite no longer that in contact, in spite of the indisputable fact that. evaluate this. The darkish a even as began even as Christianity grew to change into the best faith of Rome. Over centuries of time, the pagan Greek and Roman spirit of inquiry revived and finally we had the Renaissance, which, no longer pretty, became no longer welcomed by the church. As you properly understand, in view that that aspect, a great deal of expertise has been garnered by medical analyze, ensuing in issues which includes the computing device you're making use of. None of this became, for sure, the outcome of printed faith, which has in some quarters fought it teeth and nail each and each and every of how. guess what i'm declaring is, in view that faith's had millenia to describe each and every thing and hasn't arise with any unified body of expertise about some thing, yet has, in reality, arise with a myriad of conflicting mythologies, as compared to what technology has done in some hundred years, do not you imagine technology merits truly of staying power on your area? What i understand is that creationists have not been in a position to come back up with one residing structure that shows indications of no longer having had another use earlier it tailored to its modern-day use- in different words, no longer some thing that shows that it became created for the single purpose it at the moment performs, and under no circumstances that it developed by evolution. on condition that, i think that i visit watch for an reason behind some thing of it.

Answer 5

If it couldn't, it wasn't life. Knowledge is not a trait of cells. This question is completely backwards .

Life is defined, in part, by the ability to reproduce. The simplest possible means of a cell reproducing is by mechanical shear, since membranes can be self-sealing.

Answer 6

The study of a single cell bacteria (jelly) proved that it takes more than 6 billion years for atoms(H,Ni...) to evolve into that single cell bacteria(it has 42 precision parts working together as a factory with incredible timing precision)

So life on Earth must come from Space 9asteroid, alien, god ...)

NOBODY knows

Answer 7

Well it didn't "know" that as it was a life form without conciousness. It just did. We don't know how the first replicating life form came into existance. Maybe we will know one day. Until now there are only hypotheses, but none of them really works.

Answer 8

so, by your questions I can see you are hammering on the abiogenesis thing. While by rights this question belongs in the biology sections you will not get definite answers there either because as you well know abiogenesis is hypothesis, not theory. There are a couple of interesting models there is nothing definite.

Why? Two factors:
- stupendous amounts of time have passed
- first life would have been exceedingly simple so would have left little trace

but to point and say 'god did it' is intellectual suicide.

Answer 9

It was doing what comes naturally!
I never saw a mama or papa dog sitting down explaining to the pups about the facts of life. Maybe they did it at night while I was sleeping though.

Answer 10

because it was a replicating molecule. it had bonded in such a way that it made copies of itself. i believe that artificial replicating molecules have already been made. if i find the site that i read it on i will add it later.

here's a whole page of sites.
http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=btfp-web&tab=&p=%22replicating+molecules%22&btn=Search

this story is simple and to the point.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm

sorry, there was no knowing, it was just chemicals doing what chemicals do. following the natural laws of this universe.