Question:
Atheists please tell me how life could have started?
2009-07-13 12:18:49 UTC
Atheists please tell me how life could have started?

Please show me what molecule(s) would need to be required to be called life. Would it be rna, protein(s), ribozyme(s), or another molecule that started life? If so then tell me how that molecule could assemble and the likelyhood of that happening. If you say that a rna, protein, and/or ribozyme has been created out of chance in a laboratory then please show me the nobel prize the scientist(s) received. By the way, rna/protein/ribozyme/polypeptides do nothing by themselves, additional molecules are required for those molecules to do anything!

Also tell me how titins, the protein which is 34,350 amino acids long somehow evolved. If there is a wrong type of amino acid in the protein titins then it could prevent the protein from folding making it useless.
41 answers:
Mr.Samsa
2009-07-13 12:26:19 UTC
I don't know, but I find it presumptuous to say that since I don't have an advanced degree in biochemistry, then everything must be the result of an invisible old man who lives in the sky with infinite magical powers.
Thunder and Lightning
2009-07-13 12:28:47 UTC
I don't know. I'm not a scientiest.



"Wendy said: "ask the scientists who created simple DNA in a laboratory"



Simple dna has not been created in a laboratory, you are lying."



Actually, it has.



"Liz: That article you gave me only strengthens me. Why don't you READ the article first before posting it. Here's what it says:



"However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form."



The scientists simply created the materials for rna in a lab, not the rna itself! Why are people so uninformed about this?"



RNA =/= DNA
2009-07-13 12:27:38 UTC
Life as we know it began about 3.2 billion years ago when two primitive species of bacteria, a “mother” bacteria (Bdellavibrio) and a “father” bacteria (Thermoplasma acidophillium) started “exchanging energy” in a stable and dependable way that led to the formation of all subsequent life forms. This happened when the free-living bacteria took up residence in large “eukaryotic” cells. Confined within the large cells, the bacteria transformed into swarming elliptical membrane-filled bodies called mitochondria. With the formation of mitochondria began the flow of a river of DNA that sweeps through three billion years to include us all. After billions of years of natural selection and mutation, we're here arguing through a computer. Point is, there was nothing spontaneous about human existance.



You Christians may ask "where did those bacteria come from then?"



Here you go: "Two NASA researchers now say we may have some distant comets to thank for life itself. Comets crashing into the Earth brought water, nitrogen and carbon dioxide that make up our atmosphere. But researchers Chris McKay and Bill Borucki have demonstrated that the crashing itself may have been a key event in the origin of organisms. McKay and Borucki created a vial of gas simulating the best guess of scientists as to the composition of the early atmosphere. They then mimicked a collision of a comet and Earth by aiming a laser blast at the primitive mix. What they found was that the powerful shock waves from this "micro" blast created temperature and pressure changes that altered the molecular composition of the pseudo-atmosphere. Those new molecules, when mixed in with water, form amino acids. They're the start, the first step toward life."



I know the Christians will completely dismiss everything I have typed thus far because actual consideration of it may destroy the foundation of their faith and they're so bent on being Christians they won't let anything (including evidence to the contrary) change their minds. This information is for those with open minds that maybe want to know where we really come from.



Of course, you'll just respond "you are lying" since you're obviously closed minded about anything contradictory to your ideas.



I have an idea: since we are all liars, why don't you, the honest one, give us proof that god created life out of dirt.
?
2016-05-25 05:04:55 UTC
Argument from Ignorance. Things do not "spontaneously evolve." You don't expect a car to just pop into existence fully formed, do you? No, it has to be put together piece by piece. As for the lipid proteins, any time genetic material is copied, it produces errors. That's the entire mechanism behind evolution, mutation, which is undeniable. Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. Organisms don't just keep getting bigger and bigger, that isn't how evolution works. While an organism may get bigger, it may not be able to survive its environment better, and be killed off. It isn't about whats bigger, stronger, more gathering, etc, it's what is able to reproduce more frequently, easier, faster, etc. And for the record, give me evidence of your God first, then we can discuss whether or not he created life. I could just as easily claim Zeus, three blind mice, or a conscious orbital teapot created life, not your God. ADDENUM: "You claim things do not spontaneously evolve," --You're right, I mean to say complex things are not spontaneously created, they evolve over time. And, Irreducible Complexity is an argument from Ignorance. "I don't know, therefor, God did it." "then tell me how a titin protein could not have spontaneously evolved." --Read above. It didn't, it evolved over time from something simpler. Note the car thing. Henry Ford built the Model T early on, not the Ford F-150. "Useless fragments of the protein couldn't have built up because that would be against natural selection." --Evolution isn't perfect, and Natural Selection selects those that are "good enough" to survive in its environment. "It's either the entire titan protein or none." --Argument From Ignorance. Irreducible Complexity is "I Don't Know." That's not a valid argument. "The protein might not work when your missing an amino acid or got the wrong one in a place." --Biological Chemistry would be a class for you to take. Sometimes, Peg A only goes in Slot B. Molecules are only able to form in certain ways, because chemistry, like physics and nature itself, operate through a series of laws, not simple random chance. "The reason why I say might not work is because we know very little on how brownian motion makes proteins fold but it appears so far that any wrong amino acids at all will cause the protein to be useless." --Hey look, you realize it (I think). Because we don't know doesn't automatically God did it, it only means we don't know. ----Oh, and read the God of the Gaps argument.
brettj666
2009-07-13 12:30:15 UTC
That's right, ask general people their interpretation on how life was created to defend your notion that some dude just waved his hand and created everything.



Funny, Atheists seem to be ok saying "I don't understand the science myself", but from a math perspective, consider this.



Of the billions of stars in a galaxy and the billions of galaxies in the universe, no matter how small the chance that a bunch of stuff begins to create life, if you multiply the odds of that NOT happening by infinity, you'll find the odds are almost 100% that it will happen somewhere.



Most places it won't, some places it will. Do you why we can fathom that, because we are one of the places that will.



Because if it didn't, there wouldn't be life.



Take that opposed to "Since the big bang couldn't have just happened, because where did that singularity come from, a god, who I don't have to explain where he came from made everything... But he won't provide any proof of his existence."



yah, that's a great argument.
Matt
2009-07-13 12:25:04 UTC
Research abiogenesis.

A giant soup of material necessary for life caused an extremely basic life form to be created (by proteins coming together the right way, not a magical sky daddy). Life then evolved from there.

It actually is quite simple, you just have to look into it before you deny it.



Edit: "Simple DNA has not been created in the laboratory, you are lying"



Time to give up on educating this one folks, he denies fact to justify his insane beliefs. Ignore the idiot, don't get mad at him, pity his ignorance.
No Chance Without Gilgamesh
2009-07-13 12:37:27 UTC
I don't know, though I'm willing to believe that something fairly unlikely happened after 4.54 billion years. Because of the reproductive nature of life, it continued to develop for 3.7 billion years into what we know it today, and man appeared 200,000 years ago - a mere infant.



Hey, you sound interested, how about taking your theories down to the Natural History Museum? The experts there will be delighted to talk you though their various theories and answer your questions.
Liz
2009-07-13 12:25:39 UTC
I'm going to call it at replicating Ribonulceotides. It wasn't created out if chance in lab. It was created with dedicated hard work.



http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/



I got a whole pile of pins, if you got any more bubbles need popping.



**
2009-07-13 12:24:31 UTC
If you had any education at all (I'm a chemist) and had any understanding whatsoever of how chemical reactions and natural processes occur, you wouldn't ask the question--you'd know prima facia that the possibility exists. Among other things with random events--given enough events and time for them to occur in--and the probability of any given event approaches one. You haven't seen a nobel prize as most nobel winners don't live 3 or 4 billion years unfortunately. NEXT STUPID QUESTION PLEASE
Doya K
2009-07-13 12:23:46 UTC
ok they took a vile and put hydrogen and oxygen and other eliminates and chemicals in it to simulate the atmosphere of the world before life was on it. then the ran a electrical charge through it and it made amino acids witch is the building blocks of life.



are you telling me that you have never seen lightning out side of a lab before? wow you must live in a vary sheltered home.... well i guess information like yes lightening is out side of labs is kept away from people that like to believe in a god. i mean not believing in evolution is one thing.... but not believing in lightning...
Luft Waffle
2009-07-13 13:03:06 UTC
Thank you for posting this question. I have always hated how atheists used some stupid theories to make it sound like we evolved from monkeys.



Cant they see, that this world in all its glory was created by the almighty flying spaghetti Monster.



May all be touched by his noodly appendage.

RAMEN
soxul
2009-07-13 12:24:11 UTC
You expect us to actually know what happened billions of years ago? Just because we don't believe there was some person like you know what, I'm going to create the universe doesn't mean we know what happened. And please tell me, if this argument is so great, assuming you're christian, where your god came from if there needs to be something to make life. Saying "he was always there" just doesn't cut it.
♫ Music is my Boyfriend ♫ ™
2009-07-13 12:26:04 UTC
Well, im not a scientist, but some people would rather believe something so easy like god making people than for proof.
2009-07-13 12:34:20 UTC
What is your point? If I don't know the answer, that means some wacky religious story is true? You're a clown, my shoe has more intellectual integrity than you creationists.
Pope Barley
2009-07-13 12:31:54 UTC
Dr. Szostak currently has a theory in testing



Here is a simplified version of it:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg



Incidently, what do you believe made life to begin and what is your evidence for ti?
?
2009-07-13 12:21:36 UTC
ask the scientists who created simple DNA in a laboratory.
The Drapery Falls
2009-07-13 12:24:16 UTC
Here is one brief explanation:



Conditions for synthesis of organic molecules on the early Earth



Essential to the spontaneous origin of life was the availability of organic molecules as building blocks. The famous "prebiotic soup" experiment by Stanley Miller (Miller 1953, Miller-Urey experiment) had shown that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, arose among other small organic molecules spontaneously in the lab by sparking a mixture of methane, hydrogen, ammonia and water. These conditions were assumed to simulate those on the primitive earth. Already in 1922 Oparin had proposed that the early Earth had such a reducing atmosphere (in his classic "The Origin of Life" from 1936 he expanded on these ideas). Observations of Jupiter and Saturn had shown that they contained ammonia and methane, and large amounts of hydrogen were inferred to be present there as well (it is now known that hydrogen is the main atmospheric component of these planets). These reducing atmospheres of the giant planets were regarded as captured remnants of the solar nebula and the atmosphere of the early Earth was assumed by analogy to have been similar.



Only in a reducing atmosphere like this, synthesis of organic molecules – also sugars and organic bases, building blocks of nucleotides – would have been possible in large amounts (Chyba, Sagan 1992).



Later research had cast doubt on the existence of a reducing atmosphere, and suggested a neutral atmosphere instead – see also Chyba 2005, the accompanying article to Tian F et al. (see below).



However, new calculations indicate that hydrogen escaped from the early atmosphere at a much slower rate than previously thought, yielding an atmosphere where hydrogen was a major component (about 30%) and which was therefore highly reducing (Tian F. et al. 2005; see also press release). The authors measured the production of organic molecules through UV photolysis under those conditions, and conclude that at 1010 kg/year it "would have been orders of magnitude greater than the rate of either the synthesis of organic compounds in hydrothermal systems or the exogenous delivery of organic compounds to early Earth".



Another new study supports an early reducing atmosphere as well. Chondrites are primitive material from the solar nebula and are generally believed to be the building blocks of the Earth and other rocky planets, asteroids and satellites. During and after planet formation, gases escape from the chondritic material due to high temperature and pressure. Systematic, detailed calculations on what these gases must have been show that they are mainly the highly reducing hydrogen, methane and ammonia – the same gases as in the Miller-Urey-type experiments (Schaefer, Fegley 2006; see also press release). The composition of the gases varied with temperature only to a moderate extent, and was found to be largely independent of the actual pressure under which outgassing may have occurred, which appears to support robustness of the conclusions.



The authors mention that it had been found that a reducing atmosphere of methane and ammonia is extremely vulnerable to destruction by UV sunlight (Kuhn, Atreya 1979, Kasting et al. 1983). They also point out, however, that recent developments suggest that a reducing atmosphere is more stable than previously believed:



1. It was found that hydrogen escape from the Earth’s atmosphere was less efficient than previously thought (referring to the study above).



2. Observations of the atmosphere of Titan, Saturn’s moon, which is composed primarily of methane and nitrogen, show that photochemically produced hydrocarbon aerosols form a haze layer in the upper atmosphere that protects the lower atmosphere from photochemical destruction. Such a haze layer could also have been produced on the early Earth from outgassed methane and ammonia (Zahnle 1986, Sagan and Chyba 1997, Pavlov et al. 2000).



Of course, if life arose in deep-sea hydrothermal vents (see below), the composition of Earth’s early atmosphere would become largely irrelevant. To a certain extent, this also holds true for organic building blocks delivered to the earth by interplanetary dust particles and on carbonaceous meteorites.



Although some estimates assume a relatively concentrated prebiotic soup of organic molecules in the earth’s ocean or other waters (e.g. De Duve, Miller 1991 and references therein), others have argued that the prebiotic soup would have been too dilute. However, locally it might have been concentrated by such simple processes as, for example, evaporation in puddles or shallow lakes, possibly with long-term wet/dry cycles. It should be kept in mind for evaluating all chemical scenarios that, due to its nature, the origin of life must have been a very local event; this is also important for the issue of the origin of homochirality of amino acids and sugars, see below.
2009-07-13 12:23:14 UTC
Have you got five years spare to complete a degree in biochemistry followed by a doctorate? You'll need that to understand the answer.



No? Well just go on saying "I don't understand so it can't be true".
2009-07-13 12:27:37 UTC
Never did I claim to be an expert in Biology or any science for that matter.
Scott Pilgrim
2009-07-13 12:25:10 UTC
I love how you throw up some big words and try to look like Mr. Smart Creationist.

I think it's cute.
2009-07-13 12:22:35 UTC
Did you know that most atheists are not biologists?



If you want answers that make sense and isn't scolding go to the Biology section.
Deke
2009-07-13 12:23:05 UTC
I don't believe in gods. That doesn't automatically make me a scientist.



Besides, I'm more concerned about where we're going, than where we came from.
Purple Monkey Dishwasher
2009-07-13 12:30:22 UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis



im no scientists and do not fully understand the whole abiogenesis process myself so i can not truely comment on it. i will hoeer give you that link so you can find your answers or at least come close.
Z->Z^2 C
2009-07-13 12:22:51 UTC
Come on, man. Everybody knows Zeus created everything.
Jewish Zombie
2009-07-13 12:22:54 UTC
So you expect all atheists to be experts in quantum physics, biology, etc. etc., why don't you take an elementary science class first and stop being such an idiot.
2009-07-13 12:25:56 UTC
Creationists, please tell me how God could have created the earth and everything in it in merely 6 days when scientific evidence proves otherwise.
2009-07-13 12:22:16 UTC
You ever seen an encyclopedia?



Better yet you ever considered getting back in school? It wouldn't hurt.

.
The Wags
2009-07-13 12:26:59 UTC
atheists believe in the theories of man (therefore they worship man or themselves).

these theories have holes and improbabilities and cant be proven 100%. they see samples of how theories work....but on a small scale compared to what they think happened to create the universe.

then they believe that as technology develops further, their theories will be proved even more. (thats called faith in a belief)

they refuse to believe (even the possibility) that the road of science will lead them to the power of God.
2009-07-13 12:23:05 UTC
I'm sorry I never said I was a scientist..I said I was an atheist.
Miguel
2009-07-13 12:23:49 UTC
Why would you ask atheists?



Why wouldn't you ask scientists that spend their lives studying such things?
2009-07-13 12:21:49 UTC
Google it!
2009-07-13 12:21:32 UTC
I have no idea. Do I look like I was there to see it all unfold?
2009-07-13 12:23:27 UTC
yawn *points to badge* see not a biologist
PJ
2009-07-13 12:23:14 UTC
I'm not an atheist, however if I was I would agree with what Darwin said.



pj
2009-07-13 12:22:27 UTC
There are infinite possibilities.



Now please tell me "how" your diety of choice created life. He just did is just as valid as nature just did, so let's hear it.
2009-07-13 12:23:13 UTC
well i don't know, I'm not a scientist.

can you tell me how god was created?

and if he exists forever then what is forever??
2009-07-13 13:28:03 UTC
I have a better idea. Why don't you show us how "God" did it.
2009-07-13 12:21:19 UTC
How do you define "life"
?
2009-07-13 12:24:04 UTC
and you my friend tell me how you got to know all this?



oh.....let me guess 'god' whispered in your ear..........right.....
2009-07-13 12:22:12 UTC
Fundies please tell me how god could have started?
2009-07-13 12:21:50 UTC
Chemistry section.



That way --------------------->


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...