Evolutionists?

Question

How did the first cell come into existence? something living can't come from something non-living (proven by the Redi experiment)

the first person who answered has a very good point. i only want an answer if you know truly how the first cell came into existence though.

Answer 1

Why are you asking "evolutionists"? You should be asking "abiogenesists".

Answer 2

lol, "proven by the Redi experiment". Yet another idiot that doesn't even understand the evidence he thinks support him...

Results from experiments such as the Miller-Urey project (and many more) have shown that the basics for life can and do arise in non-living chemical "soups" when the write stimulus is provided.

There was a recent hub-bub about [scientists] building cells from scratch using naturlistic methods such as those used in the Miller-Urey project, once they've succeeded will you finally shut up?

Answer 3

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

The origin of the basic biomolecules, while not settled, is less controversial than the significance and order of steps 2 and 3. The basic chemicals from which life was thought to have formed are:

* methane (CH4),
* ammonia (NH3),
* water (H2O),
* hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
* carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and
* phosphate (PO43-).

Molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) were either rare or absent.

As of 2007, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Jack Szostak at Harvard University. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached. The biologist John Desmond Bernal, coined the term Biopoesis for this process, and suggested that there were a number of clearly defined "stages" that could be recognised in explaining the origin of life.

* Stage 1: The origin of biological monomers
* Stage 2: The origin of biological polymers
* Stage 3: The evolution from molecules to cell

Bernal suggested that Darwinian evolution may have commenced early, some time between Stage 1 and 2.

Answer 4

The first life form, according to mainstream science, was a mere self-replicating Rna chain. Rna has both the ability to carry Information (just like the Dna in most life forms today) and catalyze reactions (just like the proteins in most life forms today, and the intructions to make them are the information in the Dna). then, by slow mutations, these life forms became protein clusters with Dna in them, like virii today. Then a membrane slowly developped to cover it and regulate substances entering and exiting the now protocell. Now a protocell becoming a cell is more believable right?

Answer 5

A) "Proven by the Redi experiment."
Do you know what the Redi experiment was? It proved that life couldn't spontaneously generate in fruit. (Fruit Flies) it said nothing of the conditions necessary to spontaneously generate single-cellular organisms. Fruitflies are massive and extremely complicated by comparison.
B) Because we don't know what the conditions were which generated life on this planet, we cannot yet replicate an experiment to prove that it -can- spontaneously generate. We can, however, learn more until we can prove it.

Answer 6

The first cell arose from entirely natural organic-chemical processes involving self-replicating molecules. We can expect to see this proven in the laboratory within the next 20 years or so... probably a lot sooner.

Also, I would like to point out that there is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'... evolution has nothing to do with 'belief'.

Your question reveals that the foolishness which serves you as a substitute for knowledge and reason is a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It is also known as the 'Divine Fallacy'. It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of (or imagine) how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

That does not point to a limitation of science, or of nature... rather, it illuminates a limitation of YOUR knowledge and/or intellect. Also, it is intellectually dishonest, since it does not (as scientists do) ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge... it merely invokes the fanciful idea of a supernatural creator-entity to manifest the ILLUSION that your ideas correlate to 'facts'. Finally... it reveals that you presume, for yourself, a form of omniscience... thinking that goes like this: "If this were understandable, then I should be able to understand (or imagine) it. I do NOT (can not) understand (or imagine) it... therefore it is NOT understandable... and since it is NOT understandable (by me), it logically follows that it cannot be 'true'. Therefore... God did it." (See? Right back to the Argument from Incredulity.)

'Faith' (wishful, magical thinking) is a substitute for evidence.

'Belief' (the internalized 'certainty' that you are privy to the 'truth' pertaining to some fundamental aspect of existence and/or reality) is a substitute for knowledge... i.e., the ILLUSION of knowledge.

faith + belief = self-delusion and willful ignorance

****************
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin
****************
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GxA8_NIxQZc

Answer 7

As we evolved so can we trace our evolution backwards, eventually giving us the answer that you seek.

Religion offers absolutely no answers. The Bible being man's interpretation of his world at that time. It is of no relevence now.

Actually, I think you may actually be intelligent enough to know this anyway. Or are you really that blinkered?

Answer 8

Did any anti-science people actually do any science at school at all? Or do they deliberately forget even the most fundamental elements of fact and reason?

Why do I answer a question with a question? Why not?

Answer 9

If the odds of the right chemicals coming together to form amino acids were a billion to one against. you would not bet on it happening real soon But if you then have billions of years for it to happen then it goes from highly unlikely to probable.

Answer 10

The same way cars and skyscrapers were started...A Designer/Creator. Ours Is God. We are made In His Image & Likeness. We have been fashioned after God Himself. BUt No one can Explain God,except for God Himself.

Answer 11

So let's just assume a big sky daddy made it all then, awesome, that solves all our problems.

Just because we don't know how it started does not mean evolution did not take place. No matter how hard you try to explain the fossils away, they are real and prove Darwin correct.