That brings up another question- How do we know that happened at all? Is there some evidence that is conclusive that inanimate objects became animate?
The deal is max, how much do you want to "know" Papers come out every year describing how chemical reactions occur, or the structure of materials. Do you think we "know" how protons behave? I do, but there are millions of $$$$ working on it still to learn in further detail.
Is this the straightest answer I can get on this?? I have your answer now, Casey. I'm asking for shasta's.
your question is flawed. Oh no wait, the NSF just announced that all questions have been answered on the origins of life. No further study is required and all funding has been cutoff. All scientists are going to bermuda to celebrate.
Eh, ok lets first establish that while the origin of life was a necessary precursor for evolution, actually understanding that evolution occurred does not require understanding how life was first created. In addition, it is a very complex and hazy subject: we do not understand how to "create life" in a controlled lab environment using the best technologies of the 21st century. So, it is no surprise that science has a hard time explaining what may or may not have happened in the mysterious prebiotic world. The job is made even more difficult because we have a very limited understanding of what the environmental conditions were in the prebiotic world. Think of it this way: We are trying to figure out how some fantastic dessert was made w/o having any idea of what tools, specialized procedures and ingredients the original creator had access to or used. Now, there is definitely no prevailing theory as to what happened, there are just plenty of ideas floating around that people tend to subscribe to. Personally, I'd like to believe that there was that proverbial spark that generated RNA in the prebiotic world as the early form of information storage and the precursor to cell synthesis. I'm pretty sure you are wondering why scientists are so set on believing that life originated from cells and not just animals being put on earth. Perhaps the easiest and most well-known defense of this belief is the relationship of mitochondria and eukaryotic cells. Our bodies are made up of these cells and are powered by these unique compartments. Scientists used the known facts that mitochondria uniquely have their own genetic sequence, their genetic sequence is much more similar to bacterial DNA than the cell's, they replicate independently of the rest of the cell, and are the only compartment that is bound by a double membrane (cells are bound by a double membrane as well) and developed a hypothesis. All these signs point to the hypothesis that mitochondria are derived from endosymbiotic prokaryotes. Basically this means that we like to believe that there was a time that the mitochondria lived independently and outside of eukaryotic cells and eventually were "taken in" by the larger cells. This relationship led to mutual benefit and the progression of the organism down the evolutionary ladder. I apologize for the biology lesson, but I hope I provided some useful insight.
very helpful. tons of insight. thank you. i get that the "hows" of the creation of life and evolution are ultimately 2 separate issues. my understanding is that there isn't clear consensus on the creation of life on earth...and in fact, there are some who suggest life might have come here from another planet....and that the whole animate from the inanimate thing may never have occurred on this planet. i actually kind like the idea that it all developed from cells like you say. the very concept of that is just amazing to me, when you consider the complexity of cells. so much of what we've understood was based on the assumption that the smaller you go, the simpler it would be....but peering in to the cell has blown that idea out of the water.
Another thing that I think you guys need to understand is there is problem when we start asking when "life" came into existence. What defines whether something is living or not? Is self-awareness the only prerequisite for being considered alive? Are self-replicating and fully independent cells considered alive? The cell contains nothing close to a brain but does contain a region which "directs" its responses to the environment around it through complex biochemical interactions. However, a cell cannot form new responses to new problems w/o the necessary benefit of mutations. Does that mean cells are not alive? As you can see this is why it gets confusing. Casey is talking about numerous publications that have come over the years that discuss how it is mathematically, thermodynamically, chemically, biologically and theoretically possible to assemble the various possible precursors to a cell. However, even when we get to that step, people will challenge that science has just established a possible means of constructing a machine, not life. And the debate continues
That's what I meant when I was speaking of the "animate." I'd call that animate....as opposed to inanimate which is not self-replicating and/or independent. As I said..thanks for your responses.
Welcome to science, we are a working progress, but that is the nature of the subject. Hope you enjoy your stay!
awesome! there's a wonder to all this that i hope isn't lost with information. i know it is for some.
shastarocket, thank you for entering the debate with reasonable and realistic comments; How do we postulate that complex bio-chemical reactions first occured by random processes? Could you explain how any spark could possibly form a protein? I think sparking an amino acid is nice, but has a protein ever been observed to form by a random process or apart from a living cell? To quote the prevailing scientific thought on the origin of life- "the central problem of origin-of-life research can be refined to ask, By what series of chemical reactions did this interdependent system of nucleic acids and proteins come into being? " http://proxy.arts.uci.edu/~nideffer/Hawking/early_proto/orgel.html Isn't the central problem to the prevailing scientific view of the origin of life that chemical reactions cannot produce a protein by a random process? I realize these questions may not have answers and would lead me to not be so emphatic about using any evolutionary theory to provide answers to origin questions.
Evolution theory never inteneded to expalin how life begin on earth, yet people keep on coming back to that point. How long have the modern science been around? Two to three hundred years at most and vast maority of the advancements were made in the last one hundred years. How about give science 1000 or 10000 or even 100000 years to come up with more answers? Do you ask Newton to explain the theory of relativity? The good thing about science is that it is constantly seeking new answers and refine or discard bad information as new knowledge are formed. If anyone does not think evolution is correct, they are perfectly welcome to come up with a "testable" alternative theories.
I hear ya...but it comes up because the theory that, "we all started from one cell and evolved from there...simple to complex" kinda naturally brings up the question of, "ok, where did that one cell start from, to begin with?" I agree with you it's certainly separable. It's not the question evolution seeks to answer. It just leads to that question. At least it does for me. And since this isn't a formal scientific journal, I felt empowered to ask the question.
It started by the right parts coming in contact with each other. And by chance they bonded. then more complex reactions began and set off more chemical process.
Casey, think of the word 'chance' in terms of bonding and increasing complex reactions taking place... or I'm going to start worshipping chance (kidding)
That first cell was the 'Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Joe Montana, John Wooden, Babe Ruth' of all cells!
Not to derail the thread, I just wanted to sneak in to make a comment. I've always found it interesting that atheists and theists have nearly identical arguments on the matter: "we all started from god creating everything... poof" kinda naturally brings up the question of, "ok, where did god come from, to begin with?"
