How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.
"If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell. There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened—even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins."
2007-07-17 07:54:19 · 14 answers · asked by Deslok of Gammalon 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
yes i agree with that .. dna and rna are extremely complex and actually contain the codes within themselves to copy themselves ... its a classic chicken and egg problem ... and the dna/rna replication model for the beggining of life is flawed and i think any real scientist knows this ..
2007-07-17 07:59:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Life could have begun in a number of ways. And it's not that improbable if you think that the "experiment" could have been going on in at least one planet of each of the millions of galaxies, and that on each of those planets the "experiment" would have had millions of trials. In fact, it's inevitable that one of those planets would have produced a self-replicating molecule that could have formed and then evolved into a self-replicating cell. It's just lucky it happened on this planet. Take the lottery. It's improbable that you (an individual) will win the jackpot, but if enough people play, it's inevitable that *someone* will win it. And that person is considered lucky. It seems much more improbable that the omnipotent, invisible lottery creator just decided that that one person deserved to win, and so it happened.
And, more than likely, these early cells that formed did not need to use oxygen. Your body's cells can get energy from food without oxygen--they do it quite often...it's called glycolysis. So they didn't need oxygen, but they probably produced oxygen as a by-product of metabolism, which would eventually fill the atmosphere with oxygen, which would eventually allow for other forms of metabolism. So you don't have to make a choice.
The only choice that seems unreasonable is that everything "popped" into existence in a span of seven days, which hasn't been supported in science anywhere...ever.
2007-07-17 08:16:23 · answer #2 · answered by the_way_of_the_turtle 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question is based on faulty assumption. You are assuming that the first life was a living cell. Abiogenetic models do not work that way, and you should study the science before you form an argument against it.
In fact, current abiogenetic models have a long period of development of pre-cellular living processes before the first protobiont appears, and the first protobiont is assumed to be far simpler than any current living cell.
To answer one of your questions, during the first few hundred million years of life, there was no atmospheric oxygen, and in fact life probably could not have formed had there been any. The earliest life was anaerobic. Anaerobic bacteria continues to live today, but sticks to areas relatively free of oxygen.
Atmospheric oxygen was produced by photosynthesizing life, a later development that was a turning point in life.
2007-07-17 08:00:32 · answer #3 · answered by Diminati 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Incorrect Sir. Oxygen is not necessary as the first living organisms lived off of volcanic sulpher deposits. The decomposition of the organisms eventually raised the level from around 2% oxygen to our current levels. As for your second statement, amino acids that travel in asteriods and such can create complicated proteins when they crash at high speeds and fuse together. Because of the low level of oxygen they would not burn up in our atmosphere allowing them to crash at full speeds. This has been demonsrated through placing amino acid in a bullet shell and shooting it, the result is the fused acids in there new form.
2007-07-17 08:09:32 · answer #4 · answered by truckin_with_christ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first living cell probably evolved from simpler life. It didn't begin, it evolved. Also, it might have been different enough that whatever the atmosphere was, it could survive in it. But most likely it contained the same stuff as now, just different quantities.
2007-07-17 07:58:54 · answer #5 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The first atmosphere certainly did not contain free oxygen. This presents no problem for evolution at all.
Proteins did not arrive from chance processes. They likely evolved from a previous form of life such as RNA.
I suggest getting your information from scientific books rather than creationist lies.
2007-07-17 08:01:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Friend: I cannot answer your question from a scientific point. I simply choose to believe that God, who just is, created the first living cell and from that cell, created the one the Bible calls Adam. It has always been a matter of faith. I choose to believe that I choose to believe.
Rev. Terry
2007-07-17 08:02:41 · answer #7 · answered by Rev. Terry 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Toss together a couple amino acids, boom you have the genetic code of a simple prokaryote.
A couple of the prokaryotes reproduce, take on endosybioants via their offspring, boom eukaryote.
a couple eukaryotes get together and start performing joint task, book, multicellular organisms.
By the way it would help if you cited a source by a biologist or chemist, a doctor of mathematics probably isn't as well versed in the intricacies of life as say a person who has studied it.
2007-07-17 07:58:25 · answer #8 · answered by smedrik 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Again- there's that ever elusive "unobserved mechanism" by which these chance occurrences happened, and which science cannot provide any sensible answers. They call it "instinct". Hmmm. The animal kingdom survives by instinct; I've just never had the occasion to witness a rational predator explaining to his prey why they must die.
Bacteria to man? Ooookay.
2007-07-17 08:05:43 · answer #9 · answered by RIFF 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Most likely one organism consumed another one, which instead of dying, integrated its genetic material so that both organisms were copied during asexual reproduction.
2007-07-17 07:58:04 · answer #10 · answered by scottcmu 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋