different theories regarding the origin of life?

Question

plz dont send webpages

Answer 1

"Life" may be too narrowly defined. For all we know, stars could be lifeforms that we just don't know the mechanics of, as could our whole planet.

My favorite is Gaia, in that the whole Earth is a life-form. As such, I think life is a function of the Universe that exists in various forms in different galaxies. Since we get to see only the limited expression of the types of life on our planet, and even that is a riot of diversity, I bet there are many types of life-forms we would never recognize because they are probably not carbon-based nor solid in form.

We'll just have to wait until we are capable of space travel on lightwaves so that we can cover some serious distances and find some of these things.

To paraphrase Thomas Paine, why would there be life only on one little planet in one tiny corner of one insignificant galaxy in the cosmos?

Answer 2

Everybodys heard about the clash between science and religion...but i try to look at this argument from a "when u get down to the bottom of it" perspective.

Scientists say that a big BANG exploded from a singular atom and formed the universe. Other scientists say that life evolved from single-celled organisms that eventually became all the species we know of today.

Whether you believe those theories or not, the underlying question(s) remain(s): Where did the exploding atom come from? Whered the cells that evolved into monkeys come from? Howd they get there?

No matter what the answer is, it involves something that nobody can pull up evidence to. Something beyond our thoughts and control put us all here...Scientists say "life started like this..." but they never go far enough to find out what came before that. Because they cant.

Hopefully that answers your question? you said "no webpages" hopefully u was lookin for somethin from my mind

Answer 3

Briefly, about 3.8 billion years ago the earth’s atmosphere consisted of such elements as nitrogen, hydrogen, sodium, sulfur, and carbon. Some of these elements combined to form hydrogen sulfide, methane, water, and ammonia. Water vapor in this mist probably caused millions of years of torrential rains, during which the oceans formed. Gas and water from the earth’s core came to the surface through volcanoes. Ultraviolet radiation bathed the earth, and the elements and compounds interacted with one another to form complex molecules. Recent theories about the origin of organic molecules suggest that these molecules may have formed in hydrothermal vents deep in the oceans, where hot gases and elements emerge from cracks in the earth’s crust. Living organisms have been found near these vents, lending credence to the theory. It is conceivable that DNA may have formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity could have led to protein synthesis, which was necessary for the first cells to develop (anaerobes, then photosynthesizers).

Since you don't want web pages, look up Stanley Miller and Howard Urey - primordial soup theory. Sidney Fox - proteinoids, which acted as act as enzymes and catalyzed
organic reactions.

Answer 4

Tough one.
There are some theories as to how it all started.
The simplest is the Creation theory. It wasn't there, then it was. Simple, unscientific, and wrong.

Other theories include RNA as original replicating material, before DNA came along. I know you don't want web pages, but it is too big an issue to describe in a few lines. See below, or ignore, as you please. Alternatively, use the term abiogenesis in a search engine.

Answer 5

darwin's theory
lamarck's theory
spontaneous generation theory