How did the first living thing on earth come to life? (evolution, creation)

[Comprehend]

I don't really want to debate this but don't know where to put it. I would like to know what evolutionists believe happened because I haven't heard a coherent explanation yet.

According to evolution, at one time after the earth formed, there was no life whatever to be found. It was all a primordeal soup of elements that were boiling hot, etc etc. Then if I understand correctly, some elements randomly formed themselves in the proper order, lightning struck and viola - we have our first living cell/virus whatever.

My question is this, what is the theory of how the first living thing CAME TO LIFE? We are easily able to assemble elements into whatever fashion we choose in a lab but cannot make non-living material come to life right? Why can it not be replicated, it should be simple for us to assemble a cell into the proper configuration and bring it to life, right (now lets be honest, taking a formerly living cell and transferring a new nucleus aint the same thing)? Isn't this teaching spontaneous generation?

Evolution doesn't really hang it's hat on the Bubble Theory do they? Can someone please tell me how it started?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by comprehend

I don't really want to debate this but don't know where to put it. I would like to know what evolutionists believe happened because I haven't heard a coherent explanation yet.

Without really investing yourself in the study of biochemistry, the explanations are not going to be coherent.

[Djamila]

Originally Posted by comprehend

Evolution doesn't really hang it's hat on the Bubble Theory do they? Can someone please tell me how it started?

Evolution has nothing to do with how life began.

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Without really investing yourself in the study of biochemistry, the explanations are not going to be coherent.

I got an A in Biology in undergrad and took Chemistry in High School. Would that help?

Edit: to assume I knew nothing about Biology is a bit telling don't you think The problem isn't that I can't understand biochemistry, it is that I can't get anyone to tell me what the theory is.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by comprehend

I got an A in Biology in undergrad and took Chemistry in High School. Would that help?

Edit: to assume I knew nothing about Biology is a bit telling don't you think The problem isn't that I can't understand biochemistry, it is that I can't get anyone to tell me what the theory is.

Somebody telling you what the theory is won't help you understand it. You have to really study it until you understand it. Then you can use that understanding to poke holes in it, if you can find any to poke. Knowledge, unlike salmon, can't swim upstream.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by comprehend

I don't really want to debate this but don't know where to put it. I would like to know what evolutionists believe happened because I haven't heard a coherent explanation yet.

According to evolution, at one time after the earth formed, there was no life whatever to be found. It was all a primordial soup of elements that were boiling hot, etc etc. Then if I understand correctly, some elements randomly formed themselves in the proper order, lightning struck and viola - we have our first living cell/virus whatever.

My question is this, what is the theory of how the first living thing CAME TO LIFE? We are easily able to assemble elements into whatever fashion we choose in a lab but cannot make non-living material come to life right? Why can it not be replicated, it should be simple for us to assemble a cell into the proper configuration and bring it to life, right (now lets be honest, taking a formerly living cell and transferring a new nucleus aint the same thing)? Isn't this teaching spontaneous generation?

Evolution doesn't really hang it's hat on the Bubble Theory do they? Can someone please tell me how it started?

No one knows how life began. People may argue with that, but they will be unequivocally wrong.

There are several theories and possibilities. The one i was taught as most likely was the primordial soup origin theory.
For life as we know it we need three basic constituents; amino acids, a coding chemical (DNA or RNA) and a lipid bilayer.
Amino acids form readily under lab based recreations of what the early Earth would have been like. And even if they didn't, it wouldn't be a problem because amino acids rain to Earth in great quantities within meteorites every day, and 3.5 billion years ago there would have been many million times the number meteorite collisions we have today.

Lipid bilayers are what constitute the membranes of all living cells. They are relatively simple in structure and again coacervates (spheres of lipid membranes) have been formed under lab conditions.

DNA and RNA are the complicated part, although its reasonably safe to say the use of these coding molecules occured after a very basic form of cell, composed of only protein and lipids, began to evolve.
Proteinoid microspheres are by far the most compelling evidence for a pre-nucleic, protein-only cell form. These microspheres have been produced under laboratory conditions, they show some membranous selectivity, they grow larger with consumption of surrounding amino acids and they exhibit binary fission, just like cells we recognise as living today.

I have no idea how these cell precursors began using nucleic acids as informational storage. However there are theories;
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/.../embor574.html

This article is a good outline, if a little presumptive for my tastes.

[SerotoninIdler]

The most common one I have hear is that a bunch of elements were near each other and a thunder storm occured, which created some organic molecules, which formed amino acids then protiens.Those organic molecules then combine to form organelles, then prokaryotic cells which combined to form eukaryotic cells.
(That much has been proven by a couple scientists. Nobody knows how DNA and RNA came about, however)

[Rough_ER]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

For life as we know it we need three basic constituents; amino acids, a coding chemical (DNA or RNA) and a lipid bilayer.

Naughty boy, that's phospholipid bilayer!

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Rough_ER

Naughty boy, that's phospholipid bilayer!

Quite right, would you believe i'm tired? Really i'm just lazy and forgetful.

[Rough_ER]

Originally Posted by SerotoninIdler

The most common one I have hear is that a bunch of elements were near each other and a thunder storm occured, which created some organic molecules, which formed amino acids then protiens.Those organic molecules then combine to form organelles, then prokaryotic cells which combined to form eukaryotic cells.
(That much has been proven by a couple scientists. Nobody knows how DNA and RNA came about, however)

Don't say proven, nothing has been proven and it never will be, science is incapable of that.

I would tend to think that lipids and phospholipids are the important part. Due to their polarity phospholipids will arrange themselves into a sphere with a space in the middle. There you are with a cell essentially, with a membrane which is easily permeable to lipid soluble molecules. As to how they then reproduce I have no idea. :s