Where did the first living cell on earth come from?

Question

Whats your take on it? Don't ask me, I haven't got one.

Answer 1

Two main possibilities, defined by the pecise wording of the question.
Life may not have started on Earth, so the answer there would be "from space"
The key words to look for here are "Exogenesis " and "Panspermia."
We may all indeed all be Martians through our ancestors.
(put those images of flying saucers out of your mind: we are talking about bacteria carried by meteors. Bits of Mars have been found on Earth.)

Then there's the term "cell"
It seems clear that the first self-replicating things were not cells, and possibly not to be considered "alive".
A self replicating peptide has been demonstrrated.

To get to a cell, with its enclosed structure, some have suggested that sea foam, with its persistent bubbles, may have presented favourable formers for proteins to self-enclose. The "favourable substrate" concept is well established in certain chemical processes.

So: complex chemistry => self replicating proteins or RNA => "bubbled" forms => first cell.
Either on Earth from the earliest stages, or coming in from elsewhere at the bacterial level.

It's not proven at every step, but it's well up from mere speculation.

Answer 2

Inorganic compounds can create organic, carbon based compounds. It's been replicated in a famous science experiment by some guy, where he was replicating that primoridial soup thing and passing electricity through it. And then in those billions of random creations of organic matter, some RNA molecule that coded for replication was created. It goes through the normal chemical processes involving polarity and molecule shape that caused other organic molecules which it bumped into to line up with the specific bases of the RNA molecule, and the reaction replicates it. It eventually found it's way inside a membrane which is just a lipid bilayer. That offered protection. That meant it could reproduce more successfully since it had a lower chance of being destroyed. The codes expanded through the normal routes of mutation and eventually coded for other proteins which could remain inside the cell or leave. The membrane evolved to be selectively permeable. I could say more but I'm watching tv and getting kinda bored.

Answer 3

In the science forum, try not to resort to god. The current consensus is that life was formed from chemical reactions catalysed by lightning. (This has been repeated by sceintists). These formed amino acids, which over time formed into proteins, etc until you got cells and finally animals.

It MIGHT have come from space in a comet or something, but I don't think this is likely, and even then, chances are that one probably came from the afroementioned process.

Answer 4

The most widely accepted (by scientists) theory is that life arose spontaneously from "inanimate" matter in the hot oceans in the early days of earth. There's also a credible theory that very primitive forms (or precursors) of life arrived here via the impact of a meteorite/asrtroid.

I did a web search with the query "origin of life" and got a lot of good hits. I put links to some of the good results under "Sources". Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life). Fasten your seat belt.

"Scientific consensus is that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when water vapor first liquefied,[2] and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C ), iron and sulfur points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.[5][6] This topic also includes panspermia and other exogenic theories regarding possible extra-planetary or extra-terrestrial origins of life, thought to have possibly occurred sometime over the last 13.7 billion years in the evolution of the Universe since the Big Bang."

An excellent book that helps one comprehend how animate life could have arisen from "inanimate" matter is:
<< The Recursive Universe: Cosmic Complexity and the Limits of Scientific Knowledge >> by William Poundstone.
I highly recommend it. I've put a link to the Amazon page for it below under "Sources".

Answer 5

i will say that scientists have some good innovations, yet incredibly, so what. in actual actuality, i don't have the mandatory expertise, to assert what's maximum in all probability, and no one extremely is familiar with for optimistic. "Why" it surpassed off is at present of no concern to me. That, assumes there became right into a reason, interior the 1st place, and in line with threat it got here approximately with none energetic reason. in line with threat it became into a normal fluke. i'm extra worried approximately no remember if there is even reason to ask why interior the 1st place. the respond could in simple terms as surely be, "why not." to ask why, assumes energetic advent, and that i've got yet to work out data of a writer, so I persist with focusing my efforts on some thing that has of project of bearing fruit. it incredibly is fairly a waste of time, to ask why, while it has yet to be shown that a reason is in all probability, interior the 1st place. The how is a lot extra exciting to me, and that i don't supply lots concern to that subject remember the two. If the respond ultimately confirmed data for the probability of a writer, which would be exciting, and the why would start to height my interest. till I see a reason to anticipate a writer being may be the reason for existence, i'm going to proceed to anticipate the respond is somewhat extra mundane, in nature.

Answer 6

Bacteria on meteorites. The life was sustained by the frozen hydrogen and oxygen on the meteors, and because of the volcanic activity, the moisture formed an atmosphere suitable for life!

Answer 7

From Outer Space.

Answer 8

I don't know, but that is a really good question, and I am going to give you a star, you inspired me.

Answer 9

That is a great mystery of science.

Answer 10

god created the first living THING