The primordial organism and abiogenesis

[BigToque]

To believe in the theory of evolution, one must subscribe to the belief that every living thing in this universe came from one initial primordial organism. In and of itself, seems logical and reasonable.

Everything in this universe is created out of molecules of matter, which is nothing more than the elements we all know of.

When you stick a bunch of these elements together, you get macromolecules.

All life is determined by it's DNA. DNA is nothing but a particular set of macromolecules. These molecules are adenine (A), thymine (T), uracil (U), cytosine (C), and guanine (G).

---------

Someone explain to me how lifeless groups of molecules changed into the first "life". Abiogenesis is very difficult to understand.

 

[BigToque]

/watches dustball pick up and say "Fsck this, I'm outta here"

 

[Epic Fail]

Originally posted by: BigToque
Someone explain to me how lifeless groups of molecules changed into the first "life". Abiogenesis is very difficult to understand.

When sex was discovered, life started.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: BigToque
To believe in the theory of evolution, one must subscribe to the belief that every living thing in this universe came from one initial primordial organism.

No one doesn't. I believe in evolution but the last part of that is appears to be thinly veiled intelligent design.

 

[So]

To believe in the theory of evolution, one must subscribe to the belief that every living thing in this universe came from one initial primordial organism.

False premise. Everything has to have some origin, but not that every living thing came from one initial primordial organism. DNA analysis does seem to indicate that it all came from a small handul of debateably living DNA/RNA strands, but not the SAME strand necessarily. [Caveat: IANAB(iologist)]

 

[BigToque]

Originally posted by: So

To believe in the theory of evolution, one must subscribe to the belief that every living thing in this universe came from one initial primordial organism.

False premise. Everything has to have some origin, but not that every living thing came from one initial primordial organism. DNA analysis does seem to indicate that it all came from a small handul of debateably living DNA/RNA strands, but not the SAME strand necessarily. [Caveat: IANAB(iologist)]

It more than likely started with multiple organisms, but you're missing the point.

All life would need to start the same way, by going from lifeless macromolecules to some kind of self-replicating creature.

It doens't really matter if it happened in one place with 1 initial "organism", or in multiple locations with multiple "organisms".

 

[So]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: So

To believe in the theory of evolution, one must subscribe to the belief that every living thing in this universe came from one initial primordial organism.

False premise. Everything has to have some origin, but not that every living thing came from one initial primordial organism. DNA analysis does seem to indicate that it all came from a small handul of debateably living DNA/RNA strands, but not the SAME strand necessarily. [Caveat: IANAB(iologist)]

It more than likely started with multiple organisms, but you're missing the point.

All life would need to start the same way, by going from lifeless macromolecules to some kind of self-replicating creature.

It doens't really matter if it happened in one place with 1 initial "organism", or in multiple locations with multiple "organisms".

Fair enough, but I don't see the reason that one theory is dependent on the other (although someone arguing that a god let life spontaneously generate on its own and then guided it's evolution is rather silly, by any standard).

That said, I subscribe to both the Theory of Evolution and the general concept of abiogenesis (AFAIK there isn't a well formed theory that the community has agreed upon).

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: So

To believe in the theory of evolution, one must subscribe to the belief that every living thing in this universe came from one initial primordial organism.

False premise. Everything has to have some origin, but not that every living thing came from one initial primordial organism. DNA analysis does seem to indicate that it all came from a small handul of debateably living DNA/RNA strands, but not the SAME strand necessarily. [Caveat: IANAB(iologist)]

It more than likely started with multiple organisms, but you're missing the point.

All life would need to start the same way, by going from lifeless macromolecules to some kind of self-replicating creature.

It doens't really matter if it happened in one place with 1 initial "organism", or in multiple locations with multiple "organisms".

Fair enough, but I don't see the reason that one theory is dependent on the other (although someone arguing that a god let life spontaneously generate on its own and then guided it's evolution is rather silly, by any standard).

That said, I subscribe to both the Theory of Evolution and the general concept of abiogenesis (AFAIK there isn't a well formed theory that the community has agreed upon).

But, please don't do what the religious fundies do: "Well, if they don't have a good theory, that can mean only one thing: God did it." Who's to say that in the next 100 years, someone doesn't have one of those Eureka moments and demonstrate that it's easier than we thought under a particular set of conditions for abiogenesis to happen. How many years did science work before they began to be able to easily produce buckyballs and other "exotic" molecules? Life is a little more complex; I think it's just a matter of more time before a very viable possibility is discovered.

 

[Ika]

Earth had more than a billion years to create conditions for abiogenesis. in a billion years, the chance that random molecules would come together to form some primitive, self-replicating form of DNA isn't really all that bad.