Simple (hah) question : How did life arise on earth?

[Andrew Karpinski]

Can someone explain to me the basic theory as to how life arose on Earth?

[jokerthief]

The dark lord Xenu did it.

[CallMeIshmael]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

That is as good a place as any to start

[aeest400]

In order of plausibility:

Xenu

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

or

And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so....And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." etc...

[Nielsio]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/02/red.rain/index.html

And also watch the series:

BBC Space
BBC The Planets
What We Still Don't Know

..to get a much better feel for time and complexity

And they also discuss the very question ofcourse.

[siegfriedandroy]

Funny. I have a friend who is a big proponent of evolution (though clearly lacking in technical knowledge) send me the same article. Pretty fantastic stuff. I think the link does next to nothing to show how 'life arose on earth'.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
The dark lord Xenu did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is a more probable explanation - getting closer! (Except, though, that this dark lord is certainly not powerful enough to create an incredible, often inexplicable, and infinitely amazing universe).

[siegfriedandroy]

hmmm...my initial questions (in random order):

1) What basis did Aristotle (or at least the aforesaid 'crazy europeans'!! have for believing that adult mice arose from dirty laundry?

2) What are the best scientific explanations available today that attempt to explain the origin of Darwin's 'warm little pond' (primordial soup)? Where did this come from, and why (originally) was there 'something' instead of 'nothing'?

**This first section of the link presents basic evolutionary ideas. Yet they seem so fanciful, I do not understand how so many can simply believe all of these things upon initial reading, w/o literally millions of hours of intense scientific scrutiny. My point is that most who accept 'evolution' do not (and probably are incapable of ever) adequately undertaking the truly sufficient amount of research necessary to have a legitimate belief that the theory is true. Instead, they simply accept it b/c the theory is in vogue in modern times and is accepted among many as intellectually acceptable. It is a clear example of people closing their minds and blindly accepting the consensus of those few who have more than simply a vague familiarity of the ultimate issues at hand.



**I would read the rest of it, but am a bit tired presently.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
hmmm...my initial questions (in random order):

1) What basis did Aristotle (or at least the aforesaid 'crazy europeans'!! have for believing that adult mice arose from dirty laundry?

2) What are the best scientific explanations available today that attempt to explain the origin of Darwin's 'warm little pond' (primordial soup)? Where did this come from, and why (originally) was there 'something' instead of 'nothing'?

**This first section of the link presents basic evolutionary ideas. Yet they seem so fanciful, I do not understand how so many can simply believe all of these things upon initial reading, w/o literally millions of hours of intense scientific scrutiny. My point is that most who accept 'evolution' do not (and probably are incapable of ever) adequately undertaking the truly sufficient amount of research necessary to have a legitimate belief that the theory is true. Instead, they simply accept it b/c the theory is in vogue in modern times and is accepted among many as intellectually acceptable. It is a clear example of people closing their minds and blindly accepting the consensus of those few who have more than simply a vague familiarity of the ultimate issues at hand.



**I would read the rest of it, but am a bit tired presently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a Christian?

[aeest400]

See the biology textbook thread. Order the textbook. Prepare to be deluged by evidence.

[AceofSpades]

>hmmm...my initial questions (in random order):

>2) What are the best scientific explanations available >today that attempt to explain the origin of Darwin's 'warm >little pond' (primordial soup)? Where did this come from, >and why (originally) was there 'something' instead of >'nothing'?

At this point it's really an open question. Essentially what you are asking is the same as asking "What explains where relativity comes from and why (originally) does light and time exist?"

There are different theories but ultimately, nobody knows at this point.

>*This first section of the link presents basic evolutionary >ideas. Yet they seem so fanciful,

What ideas exactly do you find fanciful? Try excluding abiogenesis for the moment, and just focus on the evolution of life from life.

That mutations can occur? That variation is inherent in populations? That over time these small changes can accumulate? That changes in the genetic code can change phenotypes? That we can look for evidence that supports thinking this happened and it exists?

>I do not understand how
>so many can simply believe all of these things upon initial >reading, w/o literally millions of hours of intense >scientific scrutiny.

The reason you find it hard is because it conflicts with your belief system. Others can simply accept the evidence offered as not a grand conspiracy, but simply the current level of scientific knowledge.

Take relativity for example, you accept that, but surely if it conflicted with your religous views you would view it as absurd. And evolution & relativity were viewed as absurd by many, but were eventually widely accepted because of the evidence that supports them.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not understand how so many can simply believe all of these things upon initial reading, w/o literally millions of hours of intense scientific scrutiny. My point is that most who accept 'evolution' do not (and probably are incapable of ever) adequately undertaking the truly sufficient amount of research necessary to have a legitimate belief that the theory is true. Instead, they simply accept it b/c the theory is in vogue in modern times and is accepted among many as intellectually acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This goes for most modern scientific theories. Most people will never even have a basic grasp of the tenets of relativity, or quantum physics, or cosmology, let alone be able to explain what evidence was gathered and experiments performed to verify these hypotheses.

It isn't limited to science, either. Economics and medicine are two examples of other fields where people put their trust in expert consensus on a daily basis.

Thanks to sites like talkorigins though, if you have any questions about specific points of the theory, you can look up exactly what evidence has been gathered in support, and so forth.

Note that evolution is a completely different subject to abiogenesis, which is what this thread is about. There is no scientific theory of abiogenesis. There are some proposals about how sections of it might have gone, but nobody really knows. The subject is extremely difficult to investigate given the almost total lack of evidence left, the unknowability of conditions on Earth at the time, and the impossibility of replicating the event. However, even if we grant "God did it" as the answer to how the first organisms appeared, the theory of evolution remains valid and unchanged.

The question of "why there is something and not nothing" is again completely separate. This is a metaphysical or (dare I say it) religious question rather than a scientific one.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain to me the basic theory as to how life arose on Earth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Enough time, dude, enough time... That's all! It only needs one replicator.