Am I reading the right theory?

Question

It doesn't make sense. Usually when electricity strikes water, hydrogen and oxygen split. How could lightning striking water possibly create the first cell? Since I intend on being a doctor about ten years from now, I had learned alot about biology, enough to learn the organic elements, Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Sulfur etc. I especially know that Carbon, Oxygen, and Hydrogen are the main components in organic sugars. Anyway, since electricity seperates Hydrogen and Oxygen, how could it have possibly bonded the two to form the first practical cell?

Since atheists considered themselves more informed than Christians, I thought I would get more answers from you. But I see that I was wrong.

Answer 1

DNA replication cannot occur without the assistance of a number of proteins, each members of families of large molecules that are chemically very different from dna .. AND .. those proteins are formed by following instructions contained in dna ... so ..it brings in a classic "chicken and egg scenario, "what came first, the DNA or the proteins needed to retreive or copy the information it contains?" ...... oh, there have been experiments done to form amino acids spontaneously under certain conditions but the problem is they are far far less complicated than most simple rna and seem to naturally form that way ... so the most simple rna building blocks, ie nucleotides, contain 9 or 10 carbon atoms and numerous other groups of atoms connected in a precise 3-dimensional pattern and there are literally thousands of different and more likely ways that these connections could be made or form yielding millions of possible nucleotides in place of the standard ones, NONE of which would represent RNA. So, imo ... the dna/ rna replicator model of the origin of life is fundamentally flawed and the theory of the formation of rna spontaneously under any conditions has a lethal defect ...

Answer 2

I think the supposition is that it provided enough energy for nucleic acids to begin forming. The problem with this is that even under ideal laboratory conditions it is nearly impossible to force this reaction. Some nucleic acids have been coaxed but nothing even close to resembling RNA or DNA. The probabilities that the first cell randomly coalesced are astronomical. But they have faith. :P

If you decide you really want to learn more about cells, look into micelles and phospholipid bilayers. This is the real must along with the RNA that is believed to have been part of the first cell. The more you delve into the workings of cells, the more you will see how all the parts are necessary leading to the difficulty of how did they all come together at once. Many scientists who work on this problem find it to be such a dilemma that they realize suddenly something else must be involved to guide the process.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0817norman.asp

Answer 3

You are correct : it just couldn't have happened that way.

The Miller-Urey experiments did NOT prove that life began that way. All it showed was that some very simple AMINO ACIDS could have come about by lightning. It's a far cry from a living CELL. Besides, evolutionists fail to mention the trap that was used to REMOVE these simple amino acids. If they were to remain in the original environment, THEY WOULD BE DESTROYED BY THE VERY LIGHTNING THAT FORMED THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. If these experiments proved anything, it's simply this : It required intelligence to produce even those simple amino acids !!

Answer 4

The MILLER-UREY EXPERIMENT OF THE 1960's showed that a mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor, when zapped with an electrical arc for 2-3 weeks would create simple amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, the building blocks of cells.

So you are either reading the wrong theory, or not understanding what you are reading!

Here are the basic details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Answer 5

Have you read any of the experiments that create amino acids from simulated `primeval` conditions. It works, it happens, why doubt it? Unless you are another blinkered Creationist trained to ignore science. Simply listing elements and declaring " I don`t understand",will never make you a doctor. Try research into the subject.

Answer 6

R&S is definitely the place to come to learn about unusual theories. Where is this from?

Does this mean that every time lightning strikes a new virus is born?

Answer 7

keep studying and at the end of those 10 years it will become clear to you.
Hint: abiogenesis is supposed to have occured in water as a solvent, not a substrate, no need to generate water. Also having carbon in a molecule does happen to generate large differences in the behavior of the molecule to water. Try it out. Drink a pint of ethanol or a pint of water. Have some friend handy to help you if you choose the first option if you pass out or become generally incapacitated.

Answer 8

I'm sorry, but I have no idea which theory you're referring to. It's not evolution, and the big bang theory refers to the creation of the universe, not to the creation of life itself.

Care to elaborate?

Answer 9

It took hundreds of millions of years for rudimentary life to begin in the sea. Don't bother yourself too much over it.

Answer 10

Did you just make up what you think abiogenesis is about?

I hope you are never my doctor - scary.


EDIT:

What answers do you want? Your whole premise is wrong.

You are reading the WRONG "theory."

If you really want to know anything about abiogenisis, I suggest you read "Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins" - Hazen