What is the origin of life according to ToE?

[freethinker44]

What is ToE?

Theory of evolution.

 

[McBell]

What is ToE?

In this thread it means Theory of Evolution.
In other threads it might mean Theory of Everything.

 

[Mark2020]

Thanks
It looked more lite 'toe' from the first sight

 

[McBell]

No problem

 

[SkyWriting]

The TOE does not deal with the origin of life at all.<snip>

There is an overlap though, this overlap is dealt with in subjects such as biochemistry, but the ToE is not involved.

I'm impressed that you can claim both exclusivity and overlap in the same post.
Ab-gen is considered a sub topic on 100's of websites and there are even books on the two subjects together. While a strict definition may wedge a difference between the two, most people do not. The topics are separate, as are male and female.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, that's where you make a big mistake. The fossil evidence shows the first cellular organisms. You can't deny evidence, whether you would like to or not. Unless you want to deny that those fossils exist.

We can deny that you provided any links to support your claim.
Then I can provide some support.
marcobeltrando.com/geophotography/fossils.html
Then I can point out that the support is more an impression of
brain waves on rock than actual evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's difficult to define life. There is no universally accepted definition. I define life as an open system of less entropy than its environment, which must consume outside energy tomaintain itself. It must reproduce. It must react to changes in the environment.

Our first common ancestor was not alive. It was an evolving biopolymer.

Science can't put OJ in jail. Why trust your SWAG's from before he was born even.

 

[SkyWriting]

...
The ToE still has got nothing to do with the origin of life.

The theory of anything, usually includes it's background or origins as a base.
It's like saying the layout of a good photograph has nothing to do with the camera.
It's a true, but irrelevant distinction.

 

[camanintx]

The theory of anything, usually includes it's background or origins as a base.

Does Circuit Theory explain where electrons come from?
Does the Kinetic Theory of Gases describe where molecules come from?
Does the Theory of Plate Tectonics explain where the Earth came from?

It's like saying the layout of a good photograph has nothing to do with the camera.
It's a true, but irrelevant distinction.

But a good photograph doesn't explain how a camera works either. While evolution doesn't work without life coming into existence somehow, it doesn't matter what process may have started life in the first place.

 

[idav]

I'm impressed that you can claim both exclusivity and overlap in the same post.
Ab-gen is considered a sub topic on 100's of websites and there are even books on the two subjects together. While a strict definition may wedge a difference between the two, most people do not. The topics are separate, as are ma and female.

You would have to specify which theory of evolution your talking about since evolution in itself is outside of biological evolution. There is the chemical evolution theory for example which gets more into the orgins of life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The theory of anything, usually includes it's background or origins as a base.

Then please show us where the theory of gravity explains the origin of mass.

 

[Yerda]

You've now had three people explain it to you, including our resident biologist.
Can you now please accept that TOE is not about the origin of life?
Again: that is not what it's for.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, if anyone wishes to discuss Abiogenesis, we can do that, and it might even be an interesting discussion, but just be aware that we are not then discussing TOE.

I started a thread on something relevant to this here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-technology/118260-evolution-abiogenesis.html

ScottySatan has already responded (it must be something they teach us in the schools here), but I'd like it if anyone interested could contribute.

Takers?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I started a thread on something relevant to this here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-technology/118260-evolution-abiogenesis.html

ScottySatan has already responded (it must be something they teach us in the schools here), but I'd like it if anyone interested could contribute.

Takers?

I'll take a look, although, since I am visiting my mother at the moment and have a somewhat shaky internet connection, I don't know how active I can be over the next few days.

 

[Alceste]

I will assume that we have descended from a common ancestor that we share with apes, but what is the origin of all life forms? Where did the original ancestors come from?

Our earliest ancestors lived 4,500 million years ago and were single celled, sexually reproducing organisms which - like everything else in the universe - appear to have been subject to natural laws of observable cause and effect.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Our earliest ancestors lived 4,500 million years ago and were single celled, sexually reproducing organisms which - like everything else in the universe - appear to have been subject to natural laws of observable cause and effect.

Where did they come from? If everything has cause and effect, then surely that applies to them too (like you already mentioned)?

 

[logician]

I will assume that we have descended from a common ancestor that we share with apes, but what is the origin of all life forms? Where did the original ancestors come from?

Not part of evolution, as it only deals with change of life through time, not the origin of life.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Where did they come from? If everything has cause and effect, then surely that applies to them too (like you already mentioned)?

Naturally formed, I don't think science has uncovered exactly what caused them, otherwise we could be creating cells now

 

[otokage007]

LUCA, known as "Last Universal Common Ancester" is the ancestor of us all. It is a still unknown creature possibly close to archea. There's also the hypothesis that there could have been more than one LUCA in the ancient Earth, and therefore, more than one origin of life.

How LUCA was born is a matter of discuss in modern science. We know it was made out of chemical components, like minerals/elements, electricity, heat, etc. That ended up creating amino-acids, hidrocarbure, oil, etc. And the complexity growed and growed till the first living cell was created (LUCA), but of course don't think about a complex cell like those in our body, but in a primitive cell that is quite dificult to tell if it's alive or inert.

There have been some experiments that created that kind of cells imitating the conditions of ancient Earth.

I suggest you do a little research on Alexander Oparin's work and the experiments that demonstrated his theories.

 

[idav]

LUCA, known as "Last Universal Common Ancester" is the ancestor of us all. It is a still unknown creature possibly close to archea. There's also the hypothesis that there could have been more than one LUCA in the ancient Earth, and therefore, more than one origin of life.

The math says different. It is far far far more likely it is from one common ancestor. 1 in 10 to the power of 2680 times more likely it was one common origin.

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

 

[Alceste]

Where did they come from? If everything has cause and effect, then surely that applies to them too (like you already mentioned)?

There's no evidence-based reason to suspect anything other than natural chemical reactions were responsible. Research is ongoing and great progress has been made in inderstanding how it might have played out. In science, not having a definitive answer is a good thing - it provokes investigation and investigation reveals the nature of the universe.