Orgin of Life on Earth

dvvel · 07-20-2007

Hi.. its known for us that life originated on earth through a series of process for millions of years.. now if we go a bit brief into that, heard that bacteria called cyanobacteria produced oxygen billion of years ago, and from then on, species orignated on earth through the process of terraforming.. if that was true, did earth not have oxygen in its atmosphere before the origination of life.. can we discuss how life originated exactly on our planet, and about terraforming .. though we get some notes regarding these, but it will be easy to understand if wise people say..

Jesus · 07-20-2007

there was oxygen before too, but not at the same amount.

MRiGnS · 07-20-2007

well these bacteria already were lifeforms. It's pretty clear today that life doesn't need oxygen to exist as even on earth there are lifeforms using nitrogen or methane instead.

The proper origin of life on earth is still pretty unclear till this day and there are several theories including cosmic impacts bringing micro organisms.

dvvel · 07-20-2007

thank you MRiGNs.. thats great..

MRiGnS · 07-20-2007

Chemosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

jms1989 · 07-25-2007

Hmm, the origin of life on earth... it's very simple really. We were made by God. The one and only faithful God. His whereabouts are unknown but I believe he rests outside the universe watching everyone, everywhere, all the time.

Our source is NOT "human evolution," it is God. Proof in in the Holy Bible. Just read the first chapter in the book of Genesis to see for yourself.

joemac · 08-01-2007

I'm sure that Terry Pratchett said Life started from a mayonaise sandwich left behind in a time travel mistake

Jellicletrb · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by joemac

I'm sure that Terry Pratchett said Life started from a mayonaise sandwich left behind in a time travel mistake

So, would it have been the mayonnaise? Or the bread?

Oooh, we're bread mold people

yaaarrrgg · 08-01-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRiGnS

The proper origin of life on earth is still pretty unclear till this day and there are several theories including cosmic impacts bringing micro organisms.

Here's a funny twist to the idea:

a planet is seeded by microbes.
eventually it evolves into "intelligent" life
planet eventually gets blown up a in nuclear conflict
bits of planet (laden with microbes) scatter across Universe
repeat.

seekermeister · 08-07-2007

What is most amusing about areas of science such as this, is that the devotees of these theories don't realize that while the imagination has no bounds that we are aware of, the brain's ability to comprehend does. The result of this is that theories become regarded as facts, instead of what they truly are...daydreams. Of course this manner of thinking does lead us to some actual advancements, but not nearly so much as the imagination promises. But then, a true devotee doesn't mind this, because each failure is viewed as a step forward, which moves us along on a path that we do not know the destination of. Therefore, they do not realize that they are traveling in circles, because the mission field is so vast and indescript that it is difficult to know even where we are now.

Science can be a very worthwhile endeavor, but too often it is a terrible waste of minds. most of the effort going into imagining an alternative solution for past mistakes. This wouldn't be so bad, if they could see past the trees and perceive the forrest that they are lost in. There is no point in attempting to guide them, because a lost mind is too involved with themselves to even know that they are lost.

Jellicletrb · 08-07-2007

Cool....and profound! I'll be absorbing this one for a while yet

Big Dave · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvvel

heard that bacteria called cyanobacteria produced oxygen billion of years ago

Pretty much, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvvel

species orignated on earth through the process of terraforming..

It's more to do with evolution than anything else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvvel

if that was true, did earth not have oxygen in its atmosphere before the origination of life..

Yes, earth did have oxygen. However, the oxygen was not present in its elemental form. The oxygen was combined with other elements in various compounds, and it was the action of the cyanobacteria which was able to convert oxygen into its pure form. This then gave rise to evolution of more complex organisms able to use oxygen for respiration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRiGnS

It's pretty clear today that life doesn't need oxygen to exist as even on earth there are lifeforms using nitrogen or methane instead.

You forgot another main one: carbon dioxide. If sunlight and water are also present, that's what allows photosynthesis in plants to occur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRiGnS

The proper origin of life on earth is still pretty unclear till this day and there are several theories including cosmic impacts bringing micro organisms.

Look up the Miller-Urey experiment for another theory as to how the first prokaryotic cells developed on earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms1989

Hmm, the origin of life on earth... it's very simple really. We were made by God. The one and only faithful God. His whereabouts are unknown but I believe he rests outside the universe watching everyone, everywhere, all the time.

You show me where God is and I may just begin to adapt to your ideas. "He's outside of this universe," is not an answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms1989

Hmm, the origin of life on earth... it's very simple really. We were made by God. The one and only faithful God. His whereabouts are unknown but I believe he rests outside the universe watching everyone, everywhere, all the time.

Our source is NOT "human evolution," it is God. Proof in in the Holy Bible. Just read the first chapter in the book of Genesis to see for yourself.

Awww, shucks! It's that book again that has absolutely no verifiable origin... guess that easily defeats real empirical scientific evidence then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekermeister

What is most amusing about areas of science such as this, is that the devotees of these theories don't realize that while the imagination has no bounds that we are aware of, the brain's ability to comprehend does. The result of this is that theories become regarded as facts, instead of what they truly are...daydreams.

Complete nonsense.

Many of the original authors of the Bible - whoever they may be - are the daydreamers. Scientific theories are verifiable through empirical experiments. That's how science works. When an observation is made, a theory is formulated to scientifically explain that theory. Later, if more observations are made which fit with the theory, that theory is strengthened. Conversely, if new observations are made which show the theory to be incorrect, that theory is scrapped and scientists go back to formulate yet another theory to explain everything.

It appears, more than anything, that you do not understand simple scientific priniciples. If that is the case, you are not in a position to declare any science incorrect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekermeister

Of course this manner of thinking does lead us to some actual advancements, but not nearly so much as the imagination promises.

Your point? Correlation does not prove causation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekermeister

But then, a true devotee doesn't mind this, because each failure is viewed as a step forward, which moves us along on a path that we do not know the destination of.

Exactly. You're talking as though that's a bad thing; it's not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekermeister

Therefore, they do not realize that they are traveling in circles, because the mission field is so vast and indescript that it is difficult to know even where we are now.

BS. Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekermeister

Science can be a very worthwhile endeavor, but too often it is a terrible waste of minds.

Leaving those great minds to sit around and pray in church all day (and fiddle with the choir boys) would be a far greater waste of intelligence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekermeister

This wouldn't be so bad, if they could see past the trees and perceive the forrest that they are lost in.

Oh, great. Richard Feynmann's son is posting on this forum. No wonder you got kicked off Newegg.

Jellicletrb · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Awww, shucks! It's that book again that has absolutely no verifiable origin... guess that easily defeats real empirical scientific evidence then.

Stephen King's are much better. And he'll autograph them and everything

MRiGnS · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Dave

You forgot another main one: carbon dioxide. If sunlight and water are also present, that's what allows photosynthesis in plants to occur.

Well, I did not mention it on purpose in my example, because you could argue that it contains an O[2] molecule whereas methane CH[4] and nitrogen N[2] doesn't.

It might be possible that in some kind other evolved plants and animals could use methane and chlorine instead of carbon dioxide and oxygen for exothermic chemical reactions.

Big Dave · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRiGnS

Well, I did not mention it on purpose in my example, because you could argue that it contains an O[2] molecule whereas methane CH[4] and nitrogen N[2] doesn't.

You're forgetting one of the basic foundation principles of chemistry: elements and compounds have different chemical properties. Oxygen and carbon dioxide are simply not the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRiGnS

It might be possible that in some kind other evolved plants and animals could use methane and chlorine instead of carbon dioxide and oxygen for exothermic chemical reactions.

I would be highly surprised to see a methane-chlorine reaction. 1) There are very few situations in which both reactants could be properly synthesised and isolated to react, and 2) the reaction in a lab setting is remarkably violent.

MRiGnS · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Dave

You're forgetting one of the basic foundation principles of chemistry: elements and compounds have different chemical properties. Oxygen and carbon dioxide are simply not the same.

I would be highly surprised to see a methane-chlorine reaction. 1) There are very few situations in which both reactants could be properly synthesised and isolated to react, and 2) the reaction in a lab setting is remarkably violent.

I know they are not the same, but I just wanted to exclude it so no one would come by and claim they are.

I just meant it might be possible to have something similar to the to us known photosynthesis as chlorine molecules do react on uv-ray influence and the radicals can react with methane in an exothermic reaction.

There is so much stuff floating around the universe and I think it was pure coincidence that it happened they way it actually has on earth.

Big Dave · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRiGnS

I know they are not the same, but I just wanted to exclude it so no one would come by and claim they are.

Okay, as long as the distinction is clear, that's all that matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRiGnS

I just meant it might be possible to have something similar to the to us known photosynthesis as chlorine molecules do react on uv-ray influence and the radicals can react with methane in an exothermic reaction.

A chlorine radical and methane reaction is self-propagating, as it is a free radical substitution reaction. New radicals are formed by reactions involving old ones (there are intermediate methyl group radicals, as well as chlorine radicals, present). Thus, the reaction releases huge amounts of energy relatively quickly. (A mixture of hydrogen gas and chlorine gas will explode in the presence of UV light.)

In humans (and most other animals), respiration reaction speeds are moderated by the mitochondria present in our cells. I would be surprised if a reaction like the one above could contain that sort of energy and harness it for energy production.

seekermeister · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Pretty much, yes.

It's more to do with evolution than anything else.

Yes, earth did have oxygen. However, the oxygen was not present in its elemental form. The oxygen was combined with other elements in various compounds, and it was the action of the cyanobacteria which was able to convert oxygen into its pure form. This then gave rise to evolution of more complex organisms able to use oxygen for respiration.

You forgot another main one: carbon dioxide. If sunlight and water are also present, that's what allows photosynthesis in plants to occur.

Look up the Miller-Urey experiment for another theory as to how the first prokaryotic cells developed on earth.

You show me where God is and I may just begin to adapt to your ideas. "He's outside of this universe," is not an answer.

Awww, shucks! It's that book again that has absolutely no verifiable origin... guess that easily defeats real empirical scientific evidence then.

Complete nonsense.

Many of the original authors of the Bible - whoever they may be - are the daydreamers. Scientific theories are verifiable through empirical experiments. That's how science works. When an observation is made, a theory is formulated to scientifically explain that theory. Later, if more observations are made which fit with the theory, that theory is strengthened. Conversely, if new observations are made which show the theory to be incorrect, that theory is scrapped and scientists go back to formulate yet another theory to explain everything.

It appears, more than anything, that you do not understand simple scientific priniciples. If that is the case, you are not in a position to declare any science incorrect.

Your point? Correlation does not prove causation.

Exactly. You're talking as though that's a bad thing; it's not.

BS. Try again.

Leaving those great minds to sit around and pray in church all day (and fiddle with the choir boys) would be a far greater waste of intelligence.

Oh, great. Richard Feynmann's son is posting on this forum. No wonder you got kicked off Newegg.

Since you consider yourself such an expert on scientific principles, it should be simple for you to explain exactly how the theory of evolution is founded. I don't mean any wordy generalities, but a black and white, step by step explanation, so that we might be illuminated by your brilliance. Show us why this daydream should be considered fact. BTW, no links, just put it in your own words.

MRiGnS · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by seekermeister

Since you consider yourself such an expert on scientific principles, it should be simple for you to explain exactly how the theory of evolution is founded. I don't mean any wordy generalities, but a black and white, step by step explanation, so that we might be illuminated by your brilliance. Show us why this daydream should be considered fact. BTW, no links, just put it in your own words.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life...

It only describes why life became like it is today.

seekermeister · 08-08-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRiGnS

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life...

It only describes why life became like it is today.

If you fail to see how the origin of life and evolution tie together, then I won't even try to show you. However, it really doesn't matter, because I simply chose the area that I thought would be most simple. Perhaps you would like to accept my invitation expound on it.

07-20-2007	#1 (permalink)
dvvel Discussion starter Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 65	Orgin of Life on Earth Hi.. its known for us that life originated on earth through a series of process for millions of years.. now if we go a bit brief into that, heard that bacteria called cyanobacteria produced oxygen billion of years ago, and from then on, species orignated on earth through the process of terraforming.. if that was true, did earth not have oxygen in its atmosphere before the origination of life.. can we discuss how life originated exactly on our planet, and about terraforming .. though we get some notes regarding these, but it will be easy to understand if wise people say..
dvvel Discussion starter Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 65	Buttons \|\| FreeDir English & Fun

07-20-2007	#2 (permalink)
Jesus Commentator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 52	Re: Orgin of Life on Earth there was oxygen before too, but not at the same amount.
Jesus Commentator Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 52	http://s1.bitefight.se/c.php?uid=28609

07-20-2007	#3 (permalink)
MRiGnS the wicked one Join Date: May 2007 Location: Saarbrücken, Germany Posts: 1,917	Re: Orgin of Life on Earth well these bacteria already were lifeforms. It's pretty clear today that life doesn't need oxygen to exist as even on earth there are lifeforms using nitrogen or methane instead. The proper origin of life on earth is still pretty unclear till this day and there are several theories including cosmic impacts bringing micro organisms.
	regards, Julian my blog

07-20-2007	#4 (permalink)
dvvel Discussion starter Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 65	Re: Orgin of Life on Earth thank you MRiGNs.. thats great..
dvvel Discussion starter Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 65	Buttons \|\| FreeDir English & Fun

07-20-2007	#5 (permalink)
MRiGnS the wicked one Join Date: May 2007 Location: Saarbrücken, Germany Posts: 1,917	Re: Orgin of Life on Earth Chemosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
	regards, Julian my blog

07-25-2007	#6 (permalink)
jms1989 Just getting started Join Date: May 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5	Re: Orgin of Life on Earth Hmm, the origin of life on earth... it's very simple really. We were made by God. The one and only faithful God. His whereabouts are unknown but I believe he rests outside the universe watching everyone, everywhere, all the time. Our source is NOT "human evolution," it is God. Proof in in the Holy Bible. Just read the first chapter in the book of Genesis to see for yourself.
	My Site: Michael's Photo Gallery One simple fact: To exist is to have a purpose and God does exist for we have a purpose. To Worship Him.

08-01-2007	#7 (permalink)
joemac Be gentle, newcomer Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1	Re: Orgin of Life on Earth I'm sure that Terry Pratchett said Life started from a mayonaise sandwich left behind in a time travel mistake
joemac Be gentle, newcomer Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1

08-07-2007	#10 (permalink)
seekermeister Commentator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 58	Re: Orgin of Life on Earth What is most amusing about areas of science such as this, is that the devotees of these theories don't realize that while the imagination has no bounds that we are aware of, the brain's ability to comprehend does. The result of this is that theories become regarded as facts, instead of what they truly are...daydreams. Of course this manner of thinking does lead us to some actual advancements, but not nearly so much as the imagination promises. But then, a true devotee doesn't mind this, because each failure is viewed as a step forward, which moves us along on a path that we do not know the destination of. Therefore, they do not realize that they are traveling in circles, because the mission field is so vast and indescript that it is difficult to know even where we are now. Science can be a very worthwhile endeavor, but too often it is a terrible waste of minds. most of the effort going into imagining an alternative solution for past mistakes. This wouldn't be so bad, if they could see past the trees and perceive the forrest that they are lost in. There is no point in attempting to guide them, because a lost mind is too involved with themselves to even know that they are lost.
seekermeister Commentator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 58

08-07-2007	#11 (permalink)
Jellicletrb Discussion starter Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 84	Re: Orgin of Life on Earth Cool....and profound! I'll be absorbing this one for a while yet
	You bow, and taking off your hat; address him in this form..O' Cat!