For me, the step from a stone to a living being is unimaginable. Never in my life have I seen life emerge from non-life. How is that supposed to work, and has it ever been observed?
(2 votes)
Loading...Can I tell by hydrophilicity/phobia, or what? Are there other characteristics that can help me?
Hello folks, I'm currently completing my secondary school diploma (9th grade) as usual and would like to begin an apprenticeship as a construction mechanic afterward. (Yes, that's right, I'm female.) Since I'm getting pretty good grades and out of interest, I definitely want to continue my education to become a master craftsman, etc. What's the…
…they have a 30% higher risk of death from coronavirus. "Source": TV heute. Is there any truth to this? Is there a link that reveals more while still being understandable to a layperson?
Until week 42? I don't want an induction.
How do you tell what is genetic and what is phenotypic? Is it genotypic from chromosomes 1-22 and phenotypic on chromosome 23? If so, she would be phenotypically ill, because there's a little too much besides the XX.
All life on earth (where else it can be different) is based on the property of the element carbon that it can form from itself quite long chains.
In which other elements can also be incorporated, by chance or because no carbon atom can be grasped.
In the original time of the earth, the composition of the air was quite different, as there was no free oxygen of today many substances almost clumped by oxidation. Rust is a good example, iron + oxygen, open iron deposits start to rust immediately in today’s air.
In the original period, there was no lack of oxygen, so at the time everything could react chemically with everything. And so the carbon (from the air, carbon dioxide was present in the atmosphere, the volcanoes vaporized) and other stuff that was just around at some point molecules that had the property of being able to replicate themselves as long as the raw materials were available and the reaction temperature (important in chemistry!) was very primitive. This happened under water in flat puddles to Smoker (Hydrothermie) – Wikipedia around in deeper layers of water or also, further theory, in ice floes (because of the capillary effect in the ice, other topic).
At least one of these self-reproducing molecules has survived to today’s living beings, greatly improved naturally by countless generations of adaptation, but most of them have died again at the time, because something has not been matched to them or their surroundings, and their building material was later “frowned up” by the surviving variants.
That you can’t observe this is clear, first you don’t have a microscopic sight that can distinguish different types of atoms,
and secondly, the oxygen in today’s atmosphere impedes new developments. Only in rare niches of nature like around the smokers mentioned in the deep sea, where there is hardly any free oxygen and the water almost boils, there could be new developments – but they are then so primitively constructed that they are immediately eaten by better, more modern variants, they cannot resist and simply serve as food.
There is. It did not happen from the stone to a living being, but a chemical peculiarity.
By the way, it is clearly more difficult to imagine that this should have been an almighty being.
aha…
Maybe you know urea synthesis to Wöhler. Before, it was assumed that organic matter was fundamentally different from inorganic matter. But it was able to produce urea from the inorganic ammonium cyanate (a salt). Urea is an organic compound, it was previously only known as a substance which was just contained in urine/urine. But it was clear that there is no fundamental difference, but that it is possible to establish an organic compound from inorganic constituents (which can also occur in organisms).
Urea – Wikipedia
And evolution is only concerned with the development (evolution) of organisms, what you mean is called “Abiogenesis“. And in the context of the abiogenesis it is possible (as above) that organic substances can also be formed from simple inorganic constituents.
By the way, organic substances can also be detected in space.
“InMeteoritecosmochemists even found alkanes such as 2,6,10,14-tetramethylpentadecane, aromatics such as benzene, toluene, xylenes and naphthalene, fatty acids with 14–28 carbon atoms, thiophenes,p.-dichlorobenzene, amino acids such as proline, aspartic acid, glycine, alanine and glutamic acid(Meteorit Murchison, 1969)and even adenine and guanine. The discovery of amino acids of extraterrestrial origin in 1970 was considered to be an established sensation, but they are the basic building blocks of earthly life.”
Cosmochemistry – Wikipedia
amino acids can thus arise (and this is still the before evolution).
Even if this meteorite did not contain life, the presence of amino acids was remarkable.
At the beginning were atoms and molecules. They are not alive, but they are the organic molecular basis for living systems. But there is no empirical data that there has been an evolution at the molecular level for the development of life.
James Tour, Professor Chemistry, for Material Science and Nanotechnology in Texas, said:
Francisco Varela, a Chilean biologist, has coined the term “autopoiesis”.
Autopoiesis describes the self-creation and self-creation of a system.
In general, living organisms are autopoietic systems, networks of processes that are active in delimited units, and which can produce more of themselves and get themselves.
That would be
– Delimited units
– Ability to maintain self
– Reproduction capability
– and do all this from the inside, out of its own drive.
Even if long molecular chains are formed which can adhere to other elements, this is far too little to form a living system.
Carbon chains have no internal drive.
And, no, that doesn’t mean that a God created the world and life on it, but “you still don’t know how life could have been created.” If you don’t know, you don’t have to invent anything. Evolution with selection and mutation is proven, there is it, but it does not prove everything, especially not the emergence of life from mausetoter matter.
So you mean abiogenesis would be impossible because there is no cause?
I have a different approach. Actually, 3 approaches:
A fragment of heraclite:
Nature is a child, a child sitting on the throne and playing.
Frederic Vester:
In the universe there are 3 entities: matter, energy and information.
Max Planck:
All matter arises and exists only through a force ……
so we have to accept a conscious, intelligent spirit behind this force. This spirit is the foundation of all matter.
When you look around in nature and look at all the fantastic shapes and shapes, you simply can’t look at all life as a biocomputer, mechanically, automatically functioning…
The universe sounds, even the planets ……… I think the Earth swings on the sound E. So the revolution of the Earth is so often octavitated until it becomes audible for our ears, that sounds like the sound E. All these colors, the beauty, and love and compassion, and knowledge thirst – this is all a consequence of automatic selection and random mutation?
And of course all the destruction, the cruelties………….
A child sitting on the throne and playing, imaginative, imaginative.
At Vester’s three entities, I always crawled around what he thinks about information. Matter – Energy, one into another. And information? How atoms and molecules are formed? Okay, there are protons and neutrons, one with positive charge, the other without charge, and then the electrons with negative charge. This division is information.
But how did the charge come into the particles?
And then Max Planck. Why does a quantum physicist have no problem accepting a conscious mind as a source of matter?
Daoga’s got a few important points. Life is to be defined first, because otherwise one ends up with theses which are then “rejected” by anti-intellectuals.
The minimum definition of life is an autopoietic, i.e., metabolic system that delimits from the environment and at least receives itself, rather grows, and at best completely replicates.
This does not have to be a highly complex cell, because it needed several billion years of evolution. A little like a mixture of carbon components which are suitable for the composition of the essential biomolecules, in a fat vesicle (the lipids are hydrophobic, i.e. they form a compartment, a shell which is delimited by the environment).
Now we look at the simplest metabolites: one-carbon, two-carbon and three-carbon skeletons already form a large part of intermediates between sugars (5-/6 carbon rings) and long-chain molecules.
SIe originates spontaneously from CO2 (from volcanic gases), hydrogen (from oxidation reactions which trigger the oxygen bound in water in heat to minerals) and with the aid of catalysts such as metals, semimetals, i.e. on many rock surfaces, in clay, etc.
From the ingredients: sugar, phosphate and nucleobases, self-replicating RNA molecules can be prepared, the so-called ribozymes, which have autocatalytic activity even at temperatures up to -18° C.
But many intermediate building blocks or auxiliary building blocks that could have existed at that time are no longer available today, as organic material is assimilated by living beings. Such a hypothetical auxiliary molecule could have been the PNA, which is more stable to pH and heat than the RNA and ribozymes could have served as a matrix.
Let’s look at the geochemically plausible molecules that must have existed at the time and the physicochemical conditions (which is much more dense than today!), such as acetic acid, pyruvic acid, folic acid, etc. then we find them in our biochemistry at essential control points. Our Earth recapitulates our biology and vice versa. We are truly out of their lap and the chemical preparations had a few billion years to develop systemically to more complex biology.
The principle, after biochemistry ultimately “functionalized” is the so-called negentropy. The temporary mode of matter is formed into higher structures, which in the process increases the entropy of the environment. These are the basic physical conditions on which life began, as it had to begin with these natural laws! So it’s “no miracle” in a way, but it’s… wonderfulthat today we learn to understand better and better.
All components are present (inorganic) – only on their combination in aqueous solution, and the time required for this was available.
This topic is not part of evolution, but of abiogenesis. Evolution deals with the development of life, not with its emergence.
All life consists of non-living components. If you break down the building blocks of life far enough, you always end up with lifeless matter.
The great thing is that this matter has a natural attraction to each other. In experiments it was possible to prove that in a suitable environment the components for life alone form.
And these seek each other, hold each other firmly and are exposed to external forces, so that only the most stable of these bonds hold.
And so, cell building blocks and everything that is necessary for life slowly emerged.
It is actually unlikely. In laboratory tests it could not be repeated.
I consider that the germ of life came externally and, after all, conditions were in progress.
That wouldn’t need a creator.
Unfortunately, this only shifts the problem, because how did life originate in another place?
we have to or cannot have an answer to everything – I think we are little spirits…
Is not a miracle when considering how small a laboratory is, the earth of the ancient period was a chemical laboratory in planet size with all environmental conditions, from volcanoes to flashes and thunderstorms over land and water areas to the first ice ages that can only be imagined. And this laboratory experiment not only ran days, weeks or a year, but over millennia and millions of years.
Some people have calculated (do not ask me according to the starting figures) that under these conditions it would only take some 180,000 years on average until something surviving proves self-reproducing arises solely from trial and error. Chemical lottery, someday there’s an unavoidable jackpot. Over a couple of million years, the crowd is getting out.
I don’t think much of the idea of exhaustion, it can’t be ruled out – there’s nix to do with world religions
but also for the species jumps I find no good explanation – micro-evolution is scientifically confirmed.
also I do not believe in soul – due to the quantum restriction there is a possibility – I am not competent
easy to read interesting for me
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Dualism
Thank you, this is also my argument:
“But if any mega-catastrophe would wipe out all the landlords except the insects (butter of the mud jumpers), they would have free path and could trigger a completely new evolution of landlords.”
He is unfortunately caught in his bladder, it is fascinating what he tells even if I call it unfuge. Another discussion with him is unnecessary. I urge him to address his sources as critical as those of current science. 👍
Tiktaalik – Wikipedia the best-known transition form, now you know more.
Even today there are still fish that are such transition forms that “fish that climb on trees” Slurry Springer – Wikipedia ,
which, however, cannot evolve in landlords because they are currently “restricted” in this niche, because all the ecological niches on land are already occupied by developed species that the newcomers would eat shorthand.
But if any mega-catastrophe would eradicate all landlords to insects (butter of mud jumpers), they would have free path and could trigger a completely new evolution of landlords.
Your colleague is on an age-old scale, because for a long time it has been said that the transition forms can be found on former sandy beaches, so for a long time we have been looking for fossils in the wrong place. Today it is known that mangrove forests are the ideal habitat for “fish with legs”, the leg stubs serve to improve the forward movement between the whole root. And since you’ve been looking for such places, you’ve also found the fossils.
Thank you, good bsp.
My sworn colleague said that it was not possible, for example, to prove a transition from water to the first farm animals with fossils.
He has adventurous explanations based on a creator, DNA as conscious programming and materialization from a spirit level.
(He was at Waldorf School, is undiagnosticated and does not take drugs – I had to check it off) 😅
“Artensprung” often go out from a single mutated gene, a good example is the original maize (with even very small pistons) and its ancestor, a grass called Teosinte. Teosinte : Plant Research.de The two are so different externally if one could not compare them genetically, because only known as stones, one would never think that only a single modified gene is responsible for all the differences. The human breeder has then removed the maize plant even further from the Teosinte, because today’s large corn flasks are not a natural product, but have been cultivated in this way.
For the further increase of the new mutant, the properties are then dominant/recessive, so that even a crossing of the mutant with the original form (avoiding inbreeding) no longer ensures that the mutation disappears again when this mutation occurs dominantly.
The corn with its properties can only increase by the help of the human being, because its grains are stuck in the piston and do not sow themselves, as the Teosinte does. From the point of view of nature a non-viviable negative mutation. If man dies or stops planting corn, the species dies.
The scientists therefore argue that life from silicon compounds(stein) is possible, so far there are no definitive findings.
Life is currently only possible and proven on a carbon basis.
This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution describes the mechanisms in the further development of species and the emergence of new species from existing, other species (i.e. already existing life), not the emergence of the first life.
In so far the question makes no sense, because it is based on wrong conditions in terms of the content of evolution.
Oh? It has never happened to him, and NIEMAND has ever claimed that life forms would have evolved from stones.
Think about chemical evolution.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Evolution
https://simpleclub.com/lessons/biology chemical evolution
https://www.chemie.de/lexikon/Chemische_Evolution.html
It’s easy. What’s wrong with you? Water, lightning and then it sparks.. Very good book: Darwins Blackbox. Biologists hate it.
Darwin’s Black Box. Biochemical Objections to Evolutionary Theory: Behe, Michael J: Amazon.de: Books
I don’t know the book, but the description reads as if the term “aid construction” is undermined here. The comparison with the mouse trap that can only work if all parts are present, but these parts do not fall off the sky, so where does the mouse trap come from?
The simple answer: before the final parts take up their function, the biology works with “help structures”. These are sufficient at this time of development – e.g. a simple nerve tube in simple living beings or in early embryonic development instead of the later finished organs in higher developed organisms. The fetal nervous system – brain and CNS (sana.de) As soon as they are no longer needed, they form back again or are converted and absorbed during further development and are no longer found in the final result (the finished mouse trap/the fully developed organism).
There is also an example in architecture: a self-supporting arch of stones.self-supporting arch stone – Google Search How do you build that? For the stones bear one another only when the bow is finished, before that they would always fall down again. Answer: with an auxiliary construction – a supporting framework that holds the individual stones until the last is inserted.Round arch walls | Here John and Hauke wall a round arch ! (youtube.com)
Such support frameworks are always available in biology. But one no longer sees everyone today, because at times evolution found a way to speed up development by allowing the final components to grow directly and simply leaving the necessary auxiliary construction away. The complicated structure of the eye is a good example of this, whose development history is researched. The Amazing Evolution of Eyes – wissenschaft.de