Can science explain the origin of life?

Answer 1

I'll give you my answer but there are many view and I'm not saying that any of them are wrong and that mine is right.
With that disclamer here I go.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that a system moves towards more disorder. What this means is that a complex hydrocarbon like gasoline will easily burn to create a simpler molecules such as H2O and CO2. It is the natural flow of things to break down into smaller more stable molecules and everything in the universe does this. So the big bag theory does not make since because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There would be no reason for molecules to suddenly combine to make complex molecules that form life. Instead they would just stay basic molecules. So in my opinion, the second law of thermodynamics backs the idea of creation. But like I said this is my opinion.

Answer 2

At some point in time, probably. Currently, not quite, but there are a few interesting hypotheses:

1) Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.

2) Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.

3) Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.

4) Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.

5) The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).

6) Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.

Then again, it could be something no one has thought of yet.

Answer 3

There are a lot of theories concerning the origins of life, but nothing definite yet. Every time a scientist thinks they've got it figured out, someone else comes along to and argues against it. The truth is that forming the amino acids that make up the basic building blocks of all life on Earth is not all that complicated in a lab once you know how. Performing the same feat out in the wide open world is another proposition altogether.

If you're up for a somewhat less rational but more energetic response, post this same question in the Religion & Spirituality section (under Society and Culture).

Have a great day!

Answer 4

Yes. It's not a sure fact, afterall no one experienced this firsthand, but scientists are saying with confidence that this is likely to be what happened.

To put it in relatively simple terms, the Earth is around 4.6 billions years old. The primitive atmosphere had no ozone layer and it was hot with crazy weather and exploding volcanos. The lightning, which was much more intense at the time, put energy in the atmosphere and broke up the chemical bonds in molecules. A "biological soup," a large boiling mass, harbored the right molecules to construct living organisms.

Millions of years of this crazy action led to the formation of the first organic compounds. These organic compounds lived in the biological soup, and eventually gained the ability to form crude copies of itself using RNA (rather than the choice of today's lifeforms, DNA). Reproduction was happening; life was forming.

It's undetermined when, but scientists are saying somewhere around 3.8 billions years ago that life truly formed. It ate the compounds in the biological soup to grow and it was able to reproduce itself. This life was microscopic and there is no fossil remains of it.

Scientists have been able to prove that the action in the primitive atmosphere caused organic compounds to form. Search for the Miller-Urey apparatus.

Of course, from then on life branched out and now look how diverse organisms are today. But I won't get into that. ^_^

Answer 5

Science explains nothing. Scientist theorize that in the early days of the earth, there was considerable amounts of water, ammonia, methane, and CO2 in the atmosphere, and lightning or heat created more complex organic molecules. In the vernacular, you could say that God was a "mad scientist". God somehow "hit the jackpot" and created a molecule that could synthezize smaller molecules as "food" and reproduce itself. Thus life began.

Answer 6

nothing was proved.

but theres a 2 theory that states about the origin of life.


1. Biogenesis
- life came from the other life.

2. Abiogenesis
- life was came from a non-living thing.

Answer 7

It already does!! But, you will have to get this info from somewhere other than the Bible.

Answer 8

It's trying...