[_ Old Earth _] Question

[Pard]

I have some questions for evolutionists. Well, right now I only have one, but I always get them popping up in my head, so I figured I'd make a thread where I can ask them all...

Question: How did reproduction evolve? I mean, the very first organism had to somehow, almost "magically", be equipped with a means of reproduction. It had to already have a system in place that would allow it split into two... Does anyone else see some glaring problems with this?

 

[Rhea]

Depending on how you define "reproduction" I can propose some possibilities.

If you call reproduction the act off growing large and then splitting into two smaller parts that are able to grow large again, and you're interested in how this might happen in pre-life or proto-life, then I would suggest mechanisms like surface tension and adhesion. So for example, a collection of chmeicals forms a mass, and then the mass grows, acquires new chemicals to make it bigger, etc. Then at some point the forces that hold it together cannot operate over this mass and it will split at the point of the most stress, typically in the center-ish. Think of a rope being pulled harder and harder until it splits. Then it continues to increase in size. Thi8s kind of organism-splitting is what would have happened prior to the firm existence of cell walls and organism units bounded by walls. And long before sexual reproduction.

If you call reproduction the splitting of amoeba-like organisms, then a similar force would be at play; namely that the cell wall would become too weak to contain the structure at a certain size and it would tend to break apart. Those amoebae which had chemicals that sought re-closing (i.e. strong bonds with some elasticity and a larger distance interaction) would be more likely to take over an energy-rich area because more of them would "survive" the split. They would become the dominant species, possibly completely crowding out a weaker reproducer, thereby creating a single stronger "species" that no longer shows evidence of the less robust precursor.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

I think a better question to answer is how life actually came on Earth and how a single celled organism made life. It's "convenient" that we're the only planet in the Universe with life on it. Given there are trillions of planets out there.

 

[Rhea]

It's "convenient" that we're the only planet in the Universe with life on it. Given there are trillions of planets out there.

Out of curiosity, how did you come to know we're the only planet with life on it? Not ONLY are there

So an average galaxy contains between 10^11 and 10^12 stars. In other words, galaxies, on average have between 100 billion and 1 trillion numbers of stars.

Now, how many galaxies are there? Astronomers estimate that there are approximately 100 billion to 1 trillion galaxies in the Universe. So if you multiply those two numbers together, you get between 10^22 and 10^24 stars in the Universe. How many stars? There are between 10 sextillion and 1 septillion stars in the Universe. That’s a large number of stars.

(source http://www.universetoday.com/24328/how-many-stars/ )

...probably a lot more planets than a trillion, there is ALSO a lot more time than "now", so you can multiply that 10 sextillion (or up to a septillion) times another 10 billion because this life could have happened 8 billion years ago.

So given all those stars which might have planets, and all those years of past time as well as present, I'm curious what made you conclude that you knew we were the only planet with life?

I think a better question to answer is how life actually came on Earth and how a single celled organism made life.

That is indeed a great question! An exciting one. I've read several different ideas on how it could have happened using mechanisms that we understand. Any one of these could describe what actually happened, and I wait with excitement as I read new experiments trying to demonstrate each theory to see if they can reproduce (if you'll pardon the pun) the event.

Several of these experiments have shown that the individual steps are quite possible. Excitement abounds as scientists continue the work. It's fascinating stuff!

You may enjoy reading at Science News to browse articles on current science experiments. It's not an anti-religious, it's just straight science.

 

[Pard]

I think a better question to answer is how life actually came on Earth

G-O-D

 

[lordkalvan]

G-O-D

But which god?

 

[Pard]

But which god?

Why Elohim of course. :D

 

[lordkalvan]

Why Elohim of course. :D

I thought maybe you were referring to Atum.....

 

[EricTheBaptist]

But which god?

Well there is only one God when you talk about any other god it is simply god. They call him God in the Bible so I'm going off of that. But if you want a real name then Yahweh.

 

[lordkalvan]

Well there is only one God when you talk about any other god it is simply god. They call him God in the Bible so I'm going off of that. But if you want a real name then Yahweh.

But which god is the 'only one God'? Is Allah the 'only one God'? What about Vahiguru? Do you make any meaningful distinction amongst monotheistic religions' concepts of God?

 

[Deavonreye]

But which god is the 'only one God'? Is Allah the 'only one God'? What about Vahiguru? Do you make any meaningful distinction amongst monotheistic religions' concepts of God?

This is the most valid point . . . and why I can't accept the answer to the above question that was given [G O D]. It isn't an avenue of knowing, but the end of the road to discovery. If supernatural agents were in play in making life, then there would be no way to test for it scientifically, and the end of knowledge would have been reached.

But if we come to that conclusion, and a deity was the cause, yet because all that is useful is "faith", we are left with the daunting task of determining WHICH of the many deities was the cause. I understand that, being a Christian based forum, then it MUST be Yahweh and Yahweh alone who was the cause.

This is where I have a problem. For me, attempting to gain an undenyable experience with the Christian god for ~30 years [always in vane], then FOR ME there is no reason to believe that Yahweh was the cause over any of the other gods believed by faith by countless cultures. Therefore, we are at an impass when it comes to this line of questioning.

I have no idea how the first life came to be. It isn't my field of study. But NOT knowing cannot automatically [then] assume that a deity was the cause.

Good topic.