What is the origin of life?

Question

I want to know when, how and why life originated in a far past. Life came to be from one single cell who learned to divide itself. But how did it learn to do so? God created life from void or was it evolution?

Answer 1

------------------LEEEET ME TELL YOU-------------------------
dont listen to any one else (no offense guys), trust me, they are a bunch of know-it-alls (again, no offense). Hi, im Jubayer, hi, nice to meet you.
this is the thing: EVOLUTION may be correct - Darwin had nothing better to do (or had no other way) of making up such a controversial and completely novel biological principle. most importantly, the evolutionists say that it started with the amino acid - smallest unit of a protein. they say that it "by chance" formed the correct chemical structure of the amino acid we know today.

but here is the thing: PROBABILITY deals in how likely an occurrence is about to occur. an amino acid (smallest unit of a protein) must consist of carbon atom backbones, then it must form the correct links with the other atoms like oxygen and nitrogen (called peptide bonds), and then the entire molecule must form the right-hand shape (rather than the left hand shape because everything in life is in the right-hand shape and never the left).
the chances of each of those steps (and there are more but i forgot them) is somewhere near 1 in 50 to 1 in 5000. now mathematics predicts that anything near 1 in 900 is pretty near improbable; adding up all the probabilities so that random atoms can form the specific peptide bonds comes to about 1 x 10 to the power of 93. that means 1 followed by 93 zeros.........absolutely impossible.
the universe has not been around for that long to provide enough time for the atoms to randomly form this way.

what about this: PROTEINS are just a small part of a cell: the cell is made up of billions of billions of proteins all arranged in the correct way to make bigger proteins and structures in side the cell. now what would be the chances that the atoms came together in the correct way, shape, amount and then in the correct order; and then these formed bonds with other amino acids and then they came together with 50 more amino acids to form proteins; then these came together to make membranes, and then an ENTIRE cell. there is no way that chance could allow for a process so specific to occur.
REMEMBER: chance means random and freak incidents, and their rate of occurrence - the careful, deliberate and precise nature of biological life testifies that it is beyond random and freakish!

listen to this: evolutionists say that MUTATIONS lead to evolution and is how bacteria progressed into more complex life forms. GENETICS 101: mutations always lead to a worsening of the previous situation. not one mutation in the human genome bears glad tidings or good fortune. any mutations that do occur, they happen in the areas of DNA that dont code for any proteins (97% of DNA is non-functional).


ok so what about this: CLEARLY, there must have been something that brought about the big bang and all the requirements for the peptide bond, something that allowed all the precise, specific and perfect balances to occur in order to allow for the first bacteria to form in the first place.

it is up to you if you want to believe in a metaphysical force, or is you still want to deny the existence of God. but one last thing: anything that is made HAS to have a maker, anything that is destroyed HAS to have destroyer, anything that happens MUST be triggered , and that trigger itself must be applied by soemthing (or someone).

if you really want to look at real-life examples then look up the book entitled: For Men Of Understanding by Harun Yahya (a christian-born doctor that converted to Islam)

Answer 2

Here's the Australian Aborigine explanation. It makes as much sense as any of the other hundreds of creation myths. I'm not aware of whether we're supposed to go to Hell if we don't buy it.

"In the beginning the earth was a bare plain. All was dark. There was no life, no death. The sun, the moon, and the stars slept beneath the earth. All the eternal ancestors slept there, too, until at last they woke themselves out of their own eternity and broke through to the surface.

When the eternal ancestors arose, in the Dreamtime, they wandered the earth, sometimes in animal form -- as kangaroos, or emus, or lizards -- sometimes in human shape, sometimes part animal and human, sometimes as part human and plant.

Two such beings, self-created out of nothing, were the Ungambikula. Wandering the world, they found half-made human beings. They were made of animals and plants, but were shapeless bundles, lying higgledy-piggledy, near where water holes and salt lakes could be created. The people were all doubled over into balls, vague and unfinished, without limbs or features.

With their great stone knives, the Ungambikula carved heads, bodies, legs, and arms out of the bundles. They made the faces, and the hands and feet. At last the human beings were finished."

*
*
*

Seriously, though: Think about the origin of life as molecules and structures and eventually cells that became more and more complex. Early on it could have been RNA molecules that totally by chance had happened on sequence(s) that allowed them to copy themselves--thus there were more and more and the sequence was preserved. Later, one of these RNA sequences arose that was able to make proteins or peptides--if that was advantageous those RNAs would also be selected for.

As far as a simple cell goes, it may have been merely a matter of formation of a membrane around such RNA and/or protein molecules--maybe one of these nucleated the formation of a membrane from lipids somehow (?). Anyway, the sequestration of the RNA and protein molecules from the building blocks outside the cell might have caused the enzymatic processes to accelerate, resulting in increasing growth and complexity--these "cells" would have had an advantage. If the primitive "cell" at this point is continuously incorporating exogenous lipids, eventually the structure will grow too large, become unstable, and divide. These are just ideas, but I think you get the idea that there is nothing that makes evolution of the earliest cells to be implausible.

As far as when, who knows? One of the problems is what do you define as life? Another problem is the earliest life may have been localized and/or not yielded fossils. The numbers you usually see are around 2-4 billion years.

As for why: why not? Nothing caused it, it's just a consequence of the laws of nature and of chance.

Answer 3

One school of thought is that terrestrial life may be the offspring of microscopic life that has traveled through space from elsewhere, possibly Mars. They don't give any clues about how it developed there.

I see one fundamentalist response in the list and I have no great objection to that answer, either. The problem is that modern-day fundamentalists are dealing with a document that is the result of a millennia-long series of acidental and deliberate mistranslations of the original documents. The original versions of Genesis did not use a word meaning "day" in such phrases as "And on the seventh day, He rested." The word actually used more closely translates as "cycle" or "epoch". The Bible then begins to make more sense to me.

Answer 4

I watched a documentary on space, which stated that in the begining (apparently) there was nothing. Everything started from something smaller than an atom. But how do we know there was nothing? And even more to the point, if we are in this great vast expanding universe; drifting out into an endless void of nothingness, just precisely where is the universe - and is there more than just the one?

Answer 5

in case you extremely prefer to be conscious of the foundation of life there are 2 places to seem for fact. One technology, and that i'm not speaking relating to the crap we study in elementary college. I advise actual technology! We could desire to seem on the cosmological clarification. that's the argument from the beginning up of the universe. The logical variety, the argument is going like this; each little thing that had a beginning up had a reason (The regulation of Causality), the universe had a beginning up, subsequently the universe had a reason. all of us be conscious of it had a beginning up by using fact of scientific discovery. Pensias and Wilson won a Nobel Prize for gaining wisdom of the afterglow from the enormous Bang fireball explosion. Technically usual by using fact the cosmic background radiation, this afterglow is extremely heat and lightweight from the preliminary explosion. The COBE study got here across the version in radiation (ripples) in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation. the two a type of proved the universe had a beginning up. began from not something. there have been no atoms or something till the enormous Bang. and then there is Hubble who got here across the increasing Universe. it is not increasing into area. area itself is increasing. additionally, upload Einsteins concept of widely used Relativity to those discoveries and the 2d regulation of Thermodynamics and we've 5 traces of valuable scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning up. i could desire to flow on and on yet this provides a initiate. I reported 2 places, the sciences are one and the different is the Bible. What technology is purely getting to understand over the final a hundred years(or could desire to I say proving) is that the Biblical account of introduction is precise. in the beginning up God reported and Bang it replaced into. Even Atheist astronomer Stephen Hawkings or Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow can not deny. The Universe had a beginning up and started from not something. actually no one in the sciences who're being common is waiting to disclaim.

Answer 6

There is no clear answer yet as to exactly how life started. It's not too likely that a god did it, because then the question becomes where did that god come from? (The answer to that question is almost always the same: Humans made up a god when they didn't understand something)

Answer 7

The first sort of "life" probably started out as some sort of chemical that could reproduce itself. It didn't need to be nearly as complex as the most primitive life alive today. Eventually it would increase in numbers and other varieties of it would be produced by chemical reaction. There would eventually be several types of these chemicals. Eventually after millions of years they started using enzymes or some sort of chemical to degrade other "life" and evolution began. One of the chemicals used by one group was something similar to DNA called RNA. It was used to make all sorts of enzymes. Eventually it started adding amino acids and using them in the enzymes. Then the enzymes became more complex and split off the molecule. It allowed a method to encode changes and save them. Eventually RNA was used as a code to make proteins, It added DNA because it is more stable. The most primitive life that we might recognize today was formed. After billions of years of evolution, higher animals evolved.

Answer 8

Life is made in a factory in Michigan. And Mikey really does like it!

Answer 9

That, apparently, is fairly well documented, fortunately. It is all a matter of the evolution of protein.

Answer 10

Bacteria forming around hot mud or water pools... simple as.

Answer 11

I think it was in that rice pudding I reheated from tepid to lukewarm 4 hours ago.....