According to evolutionary theory life began 3.8 billion years ago

>according to evolutionary theory life began 3.8 billion years ago
>human DNA is made up of 2.3 billion base pairs
>the only mechanism for increasing an organism's DNA from nothing is through a copy mutation
>The vast majority of mutations are harmful and lethal to the organism

Do people on Sup Forums seriously believe that we evolved from nothing?

I'm not even a Christian, but the probability that our DNA could have selectively come into existence over billions of years is zero.

How did we go from non-living inorganic matter to the first living cell? This is a feat that not even the best scientists can do in the lab with the most favorable conditions.

So how did life form?

Other urls found in this thread:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-war-is-over-we-won/
youtube.com/watch?v=2KK_kzrJPS8
talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
youtube.com/channel/UCv_PnJwd_q7mAv7nGHw7XHQ/videos
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>So how did life form?
When i fucked your mom and squirted you into existence, fuccboi

Sperm cells are already living, faggot

I believe in creation and microevolution

>ow did we go from non-living inorganic matter to the first living cell

Cells are individual BUT cells are made of non-living

What does that mean ?
That "living" thing is made out of non-living.
The "life" itself is just bunch of chemical reactions.
There also isnt death.
only lost of conciousness. and I am not sure about that one.

kys

That's the end all question isn't it? No one knows the answer to where life came from but that us what makes it so fascinating. You'd be better off looking into the question yourself then asking pol

literally nothing exists, so we should all kill ourselves

C U C K E D B Y C H A N G
U
C
K
E
D

How do you live with yourself?

>I'm not even a Christian, but the probability that our DNA could have selectively come into existence over billions of years is zero.

But it's not.

>How did we go from non-living inorganic matter to the first living cell? This is a feat that not even the best scientists can do in the lab with the most favorable conditions.

How did we go from nothing existing at all to the big bang?

>I'm not even a Christian, but the probability that our DNA could have selectively come into existence over
billions of years is zero.
>hyberbole

Sage

>The vast majority of mutations are harmful and lethal to the organism


uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-war-is-over-we-won/

aboitic genesis, it's possible if you roll the dice enough times

>How did we go from non-living inorganic matter to the first living cell?
I don't know and neither does anyone on this planet. We have theories but we don't know for sure.

>So how did life form?
An absolutely incredibly unlikely event happened (the first very primitive life form came into being), it managed to begin multiplying.

The fact that it used a nucleic acid made it prone to mutations. Due to the massive amount of resources for it to consume and the lack of space constraints, the growth of the first species was exponential.

A lot of organisms developed fatal mutations and died, but some (extremely rare ones, but the amount of organisms alive played in their favor) didn't and went on to spread their genes.

Over massive amounts of time, gradually there were spontaneous improvements. Organisms began to split into species, only the mutations useful to the species in a certain environment were kept, and eventually life evolved into it's current state.

There's a lot of issues with this theory, but they are likelihood issues not possibility ones.

For example, there's a thing called the Fermi Paradox, asking why we haven't detected any signs of life on other planets even though we should (considering the scale of the universe).

All in all, we have completely no idea why we're here or what caused us to be here in complete detail. Maybe our descendants will, but we don't.

That's really just a reason to cherish life though. It's an amazing rare thing and we shouldn't squander it.

Samefag chink.

I havent researched what "existence" is, but I have a theory.
Existing is something you can measure

>the probability that our DNA could have selectively come into existence over billions of years is zero.
You're not a biologist either, clearly.
Or a statistician.
Or a smart guy.

so all of our 2.3 billion base pairs of DNA were created by copy mutations?

Is that the theory?

How does a protein-encoding gene spontaneously get created when a single mutation in the chain breaks the whole damned thing?

>copy mutation
a glitch in the matrix

memes aside, a copy error is the only way to expand the size of the existing genetic code.

We're supposed to believe that incredibly complex genes responsible for encoding proteins necessary to live are the result of copy errors that just happened to line up in a usable form.

Sure thing Susko...you can't even be sure that other people exist, let alone measure it.

do either of you understand how virus' interact with dna and or understand how much dna is actually used and isn't just junk?

>so all of our 2.3 billion base pairs of DNA were created by copy mutations?
Yes. The average human body has 37.2 trillion cells in it, each one of which has one chance to mutate.
It's a rare thing, but when you ramp up the scale it becomes very likely.

>How does a protein-encoding gene spontaneously get created when a single mutation in the chain breaks the whole damned thing?
Hundreds of trillions of cells in various organisms develop the gene, a lot die, but a few specific ones get to survive. At that point it's just a question of how long organisms with the mutation can survive.

Again, extremely rare but becomes very common once you rank up the scale of it.

Think about your ancestors, all of them. If you take any person on the planet (yes, ANY person) and look at their ancestral line, you can go up 40 generations at maximum and you'll find out they are related to you.

Sure, there are potentially more ancestors than people on the planet, but eventually you find out that the majority of people on earth have one single common ancestor, and through the marvels of genetic relationship he or she has somehow come to have practically every person on earth as his/her descendants.

It only has to happen once.

I like to refer to a quote by Elon Musk on this: "The first step is to establish that something is possible, then probability will occur."

dick dawkins thinks its aliens or multiverse just anything but god

When you have trillions of organisms dividing every 5 minutes over a period of a billion years, the probabilities begin to stack up

>that just happened to line up in a usable form
define usable

youtube.com/watch?v=2KK_kzrJPS8

>do either of you understand how virus' interact with dna and or understand how much dna is actually used and isn't just junk?
The amount of DNA classified as 'junk' keeps decreasing year by year.

>Yes. The average human body has 37.2 trillion cells in it, each one of which has one chance to mutate.
>It's a rare thing, but when you ramp up the scale it becomes very likely.
But only mutations that happen in sexual cells are passed on to the following generation.

>Yes. The average human body has 37.2 trillion cells in it, each one of which has one chance to mutate.
>It's a rare thing, but when you ramp up the scale it becomes very likely.

spaghetti code from 14 billion years ago is bound to have some hiccups :^)

Damn right, and life has been doing that for 3.8 billion years.

>this is a feat that not even the best scientists can do in the lab
false

also, billions of years is an unimaginable amount of time, give almost anything long enough and it can happen

It is
I R WINRAR

IDs exist for a reason dumbass

>But only mutations that happen in sexual cells are passed on to the following generation.

You first friendo :^)

...

Infinite times? But billions of years is infinitely closer to zero than to infinity years, and billions of events/generations and or quintillions of chemical reactions is also infinitely closer to zero than to infinity

Probably an infinitely unlikely event

how can one possibly change their ID?

>14 billion years

That aside, not really. Genetic evolution is a very good optimiser. Anything that harms an organism's chance of success will generally get wiped out.

I think he was talking about the typical view of organisms, that being ones with dedicated systems for reproduction, IE humans.

forgetting how earth was dominated by basic single celled life forms first

keks were had

>>The vast majority of mutations are harmful and lethal to the organism
How'd that exam go user?

>a leaf

how can one possibly change their ID?

How are you reaching infinity as the upper bounds of the possibility of abiotic genesis? you're pulling it out of your ass? do tell

Ah so scientists can create a living cell in the lab?
And billions of years is not unimaginable. Its 800 million generations in human terms. We have more than 8 billion people living on the planet right now.

>Uses the word 'evolution' but isn't talking about evolution.
>Instead speaks of abiogenesis.

>That aside

As a computer programmer, I view DNA as the most sophisticated hardware platform ever designed.

>more than 8 billion

the vast majority of mutations are not harmful.

talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

>poster can't grasp a simple concept like evolution
>look at flag
of course

You'd have to have an average of one perfect copy mutation per year that gets passed on to the next generation for 2.3 billion years to get to where we are today.

Maybe you could argue that could plausibly happen in single celled organisms, but that would be impossible once to get to primates.

The generational period drops increases to years. Evolution theory also depends heavily on natural selection, so not only would the mutation have to occur, but that particular creature and it's offspring would have to out-survive all it's peers.

Even with billions of years there is not enough time for this to take place.

Probabilities have been calculated for abiogenesis, and they were larger than the estimated number of atoms in the known universe. When you come to the possibility of then having life reproduce successfully, without error (which reduces the possibility of mutation) and then have a whole series of favourable mutations in unfavourable conditions (high rates of UV radiation, low levels of organic material to feed on, and a whole range of variables making early life extremely difficult).

I also don't really get the "nothing exploded and created the universe" theory.Maybe it's like trying to explain to a cat how an internal combustion engine moves a car and we'll never understand.

An 'infinity' is implicitly the 'upper bound' of the possibility of anything. Your post is syntactically meaningless

I'm talking about both you idiot.

Ok Heman, its a while since I checked, but no doubt you can answer my other points if you aren't retarded

Not in the OP.

you have no idea how to create useful percentages do you? please cite me where you saw these probabilities that have been calculated. Point is chemists believe that with the right mixture it is possible, which puts the bounds at anything but infinity. Also infinity is not implicity the upper bound, because then everything would be meaningless.

>increases to years
It's not really that bad though. Humans are genetically optimized to breed every 12-13 years. It's entirely possible to have a lot of change.

>Probabilities have been calculated for abiogenesis, and they were larger than the estimated number of atoms in the known universe.
Is that in parallel with every single organism on the planet or is that for a single organism?

>create a living cell
We've actually made ""living"" cells by loading artificially created DNA into the cell bodies of single celled bacteria. It's not that hard to imagine making a completely artificial cell from there.

The origin of life is definitely a problem in terms of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. While studying it, it was always at the back of my mind. Most of the problems OP brought up are irrelevant. You can test evolution through mutation in a standard undergrad Microbiology experiment through the use of mutatgens on Bacteria or Yeast.

>How did we go from non-living inorganic matter to the first living cell?
This is the bigger problem is how life actually started. RNA almost certainly evolved first and it can catalyse its own formation and this is likely how the first self-replicating nucleic acids formed. But there are still problems because Molecular Biology is so interconnected it is almost impossible to think of one thing existing without the other. Even if you could get a membrane around self-replicating RNA, you still need protein channels to get many things into the cell (especially charged things like Phosphate). Then of course you've got to be able to divide that cell somehow, which as far as we know requires proteins. This is probably the biggest problem. You need protein to do just about anything, and you need DNA to make protein (as well as proteins to make proteins because making a protein is energetically unfavourable). To make DNA, you also need proteins.

It's a huge headfuck and the more you think about it and learn about it, the more of a problem it becomes. It really is easier to just assign the origin of life to divine intervention. Unfortunately it is quite a difficult thing to study because we're trying to work our back through billions of years of evolution to that point where you did not need all of these extras that are so essential to modern prokaryotes.

RNA is the key I think and we are learning a hell of a lot about that at the moment.

They aren't helpful either. Nor are they particularly significant. The more significant the mutation, the far likelier they are to be harmful. Also we don't always know whether a mutation might be harmful under certain circumstances.

This website repeats the absolute and unadulterated bullshit that the favourable survival prospects for black moths in sooty fog conditions is somehow mutative. A fact for you pathetic ignorant fags, it is not.

Also for the moron who thinks scientists have created cells in a lab, you suck

>Slovenia

Backward ass country riding on donkeys and surrounded by shit

>It's entirely possible to have a lot of change.

But it doesn't happen. Humans don't spontaneously mutation complete new sections of DNA and pass it on.

Instead we get things like albinism, down syndrome, tay sachs disease. etc.

Jesus youre retarded.

Do you really think the very first DNA sequence is still existent today? Mutations happen, mutations that benefit the species tend to stay while ones that detriment it generally die off, though not all of them.

See: Down Syndrome, the mirror

Mother nature put those animals here to show us the diversity of mutations and how we alone amongst an almost infinite number of organisms are the ones capable of knowing that, you could've been any of those but you're lucky enough to know you're not and you still want to be a nigger and make a false equivelance about how that somehow means we came from nothing. how we came from nothing is different from how did we evolve, so fuck you.

That's comparing apples and oranges. Infinity isn't a number, it's a concept.

One could potentially say we're messing with evolution by allowing people with faulty genomes to reproduce, but I'm not going to go full 14/88 here.

This user speaks the truth, the ultimate problem is how life started to begin with.

Also senpai, I'm 23 at the moment and I've been working since 14 (bad family life), do you recommend I go into microbiology or some other course like that as an adult student?

This sort of shit interests the fuck out of me.

A single organism

No known process to make a cell from scratch. Even if we could, this only proves that mind is required to make life. But even in controlled conditions at this stage with the best equipment after thousands of years (billions, really from an evolutionary perspective) we can't do this. So how are highly random processes going to achieve this?

I'm pointing out it's entirely implausible that the amount of DNA we have could have been created by mutations in the given time period. How is that retarded?

>One could potentially say we're messing with evolution by allowing people with faulty genomes to reproduce, but I'm not going to go full 14/88 here.

Yes, allowing these people is dysgenic, it's the opposite of evolution which demands that faulty specimens are ruthlessly purged from the gene pool. We have the oppose taking place.

Well yeah senpai, a single organism doing what you're describing is going to take an extremely long fucking time.

Read about exponential growth, apply THAT to your measurements, and it all should fall in line.

>So how are highly random processes going to achieve this?
Lots of chances, lots of time, and a non-zero chance for something to happen mate.

orly? where's the proof?

Some species exist that have been around for billions of years.
Plz die

Believes in "Mother Nature"
Doesn't believe in God

Infinity is both a number and a concept. Eviloonies have used it as part of their theorizing as a 'proof', eg. the infinite monkies, which some in this thread are trying to recreate

I didn't know Hamada was Puerto Rican.

sometimes common sense has to trump statistics and probability.

If I empty a box of nails on the ground, they will never all land standing on their head now matter how many times I do it.

Holy shit.
This is. Big deal. A really fucking big deal.
Everyone in this thread and everyone everywhere needs to read this.
It's almost like the opening scene to Prometheus was just proven.
>tl;dr
>how is babby formed
>either God or ayy

>...into the cell bodies of single celled bacteria...
>single celled bacteria
there are no multicellular bacteria

No, Hoyle and others made calculations about the possibility of a *single living cell* to appear abiogenetically. Talking about exponential growth, since we literally do have trillions of reproduction events to observe, surely the amount of significant evolution events observable should skyrocket?

Your postings, for example. Aren't you the guy who wants communism to return? I realize now that /pol is an echo chamber with the same posters all the time

Natural selection. Most mutations kill organisms, the ones that don't though continue to evolve.

Let's say there's a million copies of a single celled organism that have mutated. Only 0.01% of these copies survive the mutation. This leaves 100 copies that have successfully mutated and survived.

These 100 copies then go through cell division, and over the course of a few months, their numbers are in the millions. Then another mutation happens, killing off 99.9% of the population.

It goes on and on forever.

that's why my official stance is that I believe in some sort of creationism (not young earth) and I also believe in regressive evolution that occurred and still occurs after creation.

The evolutionary mechanisms are real, they're just not capable of creating entirely new genes.

>I'm not even a Christian, but the probability that our DNA could have selectively come into existence over billions of years is zero.

I'm not sure if you fully comprehend just how long a billion years is.

You can dump a whole heap of building material on a patch of dirt and they'll never arrange into a house. Life is far more complicated than a house, especially self reproducing life. Its more like IT than construction. The earliest life had to have code. Now random code always has errors (good for mutation, probably) but error in code always causes breakdown of systems. Error in code is fatal, always

I'm not sure if you fully understand just how much DNA we have.

>Some species exist that have been around for billions of years.

And so many more are now nonexistent. Are you suggesting that these primordial organisms did not mutate even once?

I'm pointing out it's entirely implausible that the amount of DNA we have could have been created by mutations in the given time period. How is that retarded?

Explain why you think it's not possible within the given time? Do you comprehend how long it has been?

I fucking love studying it, especially Biochemistry. I got hooked on Molecular Biology in Year 12 Bio and enjoy it a lot. Aside from the occasional rote learning, which gets quite tiresome.

Job wise in Australia it's a problem. I'm going into teaching because the reality is that unless I want to go into academia or medical research, which I don't really want to, job prospects aren't amazing in this country.

If you simply want to learn about it, there is an unbelievable amount of info online that I use a lot to supplement Uni material.
This is a great one that I recommend to people when they say they're going to study Biochem:
youtube.com/channel/UCv_PnJwd_q7mAv7nGHw7XHQ/videos
This covers everything I learned in second year Biochemistry, and bits and pieces of Genetics and Molecular Biology.

Khan Academy is also great.

I fucked up when I was younger and had to do VCE as an adult and then Uni. Doing this is a major financial burden and the fact that I won't be financially stable until I'm into my 30s eats away at me. So unless you are really, really keen on learning this stuff and really, really want to go on to do Honours and a PhD and then academia or research, it is a bit risky. Lots of my peers will not get jobs in this area. Being a teacher won't be the greatest job in the world, but I love talking about the content and I want to be the teacher I never had in high school. Plus it's reasonably secure once you get your foot in the door.

>If I empty a box of nails on the ground, they will never all land standing on their head now matter how many times I do it.
Actually yes, if you do it enough it will happen.

If I had hundreds of quadrillions of chances, I could very conceivably put a rock on the ground in Sydney and end up having Donald Trump praising it as the true god on top of the whitehouse by the end of the month. It's just a matter of how many chances you can get.

Sorry senpai, typo. It's 1:37 AM and I'm fucked up from an accident at work yesterday.

>No, Hoyle and others made calculations about the possibility of a *single living cell* to appear abiogenetically.
Throw a link over then senpai. Also, that's one of the one issues in science that hasn't actually been solved yet mate. We don't know how life came to be.

>Talking about exponential growth, since we literally do have trillions of reproduction events to observe, surely the amount of significant evolution events observable should skyrocket?
You have a lot of reproductive events, but you also have a lot of faulty ones and a lot of organisms that straight up die after creation.

Plus, mutations are small things that either end up with the organism dead or slightly different with not much of a change. You're not going to see major changes in short timespans like the human lifespan.

...

Everyone who unironically believes in evolution should read the bible.

Not according to traditional definitions of what is 'life'.

it's not that nothing exploded, it's that matter was there but crushed into an extremely tiny ball which then rapidly expanded outwards. the cause of this sudden expansion is unknown. it may have been caused by the collision of two branes.

there's not single example of this that involves the creation of new genetic code.

All the so called 'beneficial' mutations involve a mis-copy or a loss of information.

To go from single cells to primates requires millions upon millions of new base pairs that didn't used to exist.

>Aren't you the guy who wants communism to return?
not really, no

OP said it in his post.

2.3 billion base pairs.
3.8 billion years.

That's one new base pair of DNA every 1.6 years.

And most of evolution we're talking about single celled organisms with a life-span measured in days or hours. And there's not just billions of them, there's trillions of them, all over the earth, constantly reproducing DNA non-stop.

Considering that it doesn't seem too much of a stretch that these trillions of single-celled organisms reproducing non-stop could develop, on average, a single new base pair of DNA every 1.6 years.

What are missense, nonsense, frameshift and insertion mutations.

Give up on genetics and biology, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Minor mutations are irrelevant. I'm saying that there is no evidence that things like stromatolites have evolved significantly over eons of time. Just as turtles have remained incredibly stable. Indeed, any one of the basic genera now existing has been incredibly stable over time. They appear fully developed in the fossil record (despite rather dubious 'missing links' which are almost always fallacious) and do not change in their morphology significantly over time. There may be significant variety though in terms of colouring and size.

Go read a Biology Textbook.

In fact, all of you should read a fucking biology textbook. I'm not saying your argument is wrong OP, I'm just saying that this lack of understanding between what is organic and inorganic is pissing me the fuck off.

Organic just means a compound is carbon based. Inorganic means it isn't. Life, to keep it simple, fills a list of criteria that changes when a bunch of eggheads decide so (life needs to adapt, needs to convert energy, etc). Life and death are metaphysical concepts, the makeup (molecules, organelles, etc) are physical. It actually gets really philosophical.

Evolution is just a model we use out of convenience. As soon as a more probable theory comes along it will get rejected like all the rest, but right now it's the most probable and sensible so it's accepted, it doesn't necessarily mean it is so just the most currently.

t. Biochemist

those are all examples of copy errors

The case could potentially be made for single-celled organisms. Not once you get to primates.