Why does this pass as science?

From Annihilation. "All cells were ultimately born from one cell."
>Why would you use the term 'ultimately' when speaking of an initial event?
> Why on earth would you not assume that multiple different cells arose independently of one another since you're asserting the single original cell sprang from nothing anyway?
There are billions of people now whose views are informed by this garbage and they think of it as fact because it is sciency.

Attached: science.png (1283x762, 982K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lACC3XMlVgI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor
youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
twitter.com/AnonBabble

> Why on earth would you not assume that multiple different cells arose independently of one another since you're asserting the single original cell sprang from nothing anyway?

Well, considering the odds of abiogensis are basically zero, and it only occurred because the earth had about a billion years of ideal conditions, there really isn't any reason to assume multiple original lifeforms.

I thought it was hilarious that all the students in her class were taking notes too

>the odds are low
The odds of one single cell arising and surviving to reproduce everything would seem a lot lower than multiple different cells arising at all.
You aren't just talking about one cell arising vs multiple cells arising. You're talking about one cell arising and SURVIVING vs multiple cells arising and surviving.

Obv if we're just pulling random odds out of our ass multiple wins.

Are they asserting that the single cell sprang from nothing?
Lots of people consider plausible that the first bioorganism may have come to earth from space debris.

What does "ultimately" even mean?

>earth had about a billion years of ideal conditions,
stopped reading right there.
read The Bible check your facts.

I'm with you. Its just like an ejaculation.

I think to say the argument ends there? There is no disputing the fact?

The Miller-Urey experiment was able to produce amino acids in conditions similar to early Earth's atmosphere.

last

>Why would you use the term 'ultimately' when speaking of an initial event?
Because you're looking at it in reverse, making the way backwards trying to find the last step which, in the normal chronological order, was actually the first. This isn't hard.

youtube.com/watch?v=lACC3XMlVgI

I've watched this vierd presentation the other day and I got this notion:

The first building blocks for life (such as aminoacids) were not spontaniously formed, but rather could be a result of long term inorganic "evolution".

so its more like:

>Long going process in specific and rare conditions leds to aminoacid synthesys
>aminoacids form RNA which leads to first cell-like formations
>could be multiple of those

rather then

>miraculous synthesis of aminoacids in extrimely improbable contitions
>firs cell-like formation is so specificallly rare that it happened only once
>all life came out of that one cell

I have no biology background, but this video was kinda cool and informative anyway.

So tldr from this presentation With his other experiments, he makes Millre-Urey 2.0 which takes linger, but yelds more, so forming multiple "firs cells" is more plausable.

Attached: miller-urey 2.0.png (774x421, 202K)

It's a movie about space cancer. Are writers supposed to consult scientists to write a fucking horror movie script?

>The Miller-Urey experiment was able to produce amino acids

>This is totally the same as producing a structured, reproducing organism that develops DNA

whether it came from "nothing" on earth or from space debris it still came from nothing. or at least 'dead matter'.

You faggots are all dumb. Complex organic molecules like amino acids, proteins and RNA could have formed from inorganic ones multiple times. But a cell itself requires certain things to be considered a cell. A cell membrane for example. Organelles. A complete cell cannot just appear randomly from inorganic building blocks. It has to evolve.

Coupled with the fact that everything alive WITH a cell also has DNA, it seems unlikely that both cells and DNA would evolve pairwise independently multiple times through history.

Or we could just say "All cells were originally born from one cell."
I'm willing to bet they didn't use the word "ultimately" because of your 'looking in reverse' theory but rather because they just used it as a meaningless emote to make it sound more important.
>You can't argue with this, I said ultimate! like this guy said
But not because of 'the end of the argument' but because I said a powerful sounding marketing word.

I don't know about that but I found the bear making the girl noises really creepy

>read The Bible check your facts.

Attached: 1514861855380.png (645x729, 68K)

>Coupled with the fact that everything alive WITH a cell also has DNA, it seems unlikely that both cells and DNA would evolve pairwise independently multiple times through history.
Or it is just the nature of matter to form DNA structures like it is in the nature of matter to form galactic and atomic structures.

The cell is the result of multiple non-cellular entities combining in a symbiotic relationship. The mitochondria found within cells have their own unique dna. Cells are the result of millions if not billions of years of pre-cellular evolution.

All it takes is one self-reproducing chemical reaction to eventually turn into life.

>All cells were ultimately born from one cell
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

...unless you mean for ALL life?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_common_ancestor

>Why would you use the term 'ultimately' when speaking of an initial event?
Do you by chance suffer from autism? It's just being dramatic lmao. Still factual

>Why on earth would you not assume that multiple different cells arose independently of one another since you're asserting the single original cell sprang from nothing anyway?
Do you have any evidence to support that life evolved independently multiple times? Entirely possible that LUCA was the first to be "alive" and reproduce successfully, and we are the end result of many billions of generations.

>t. microbio

Considering its a situation where there isn't much to threaten a single arisen cell, the odds of survival are pretty high.

because of autism

Who are you quoting.

Yes, some shit stuck together, and eventually it started doing stuff that it wouldn't have done independently, and eventually enough of it stuck together to form something moderately cohesive and functional and eventually that came to be the original cell.

inorganic evolution is just a pretty way to say it.

Its a step in a sequence. If one step in the sequence is possible, the next step must also be possible, so on, so forth, and eventually you've got a retarded faggot sitting with an illuminated rectangle in his hand talking about how God made the world in 7 days six thousand years ago.

And I fucking hate it when movies mention god. When will you retarded americans get over this cultural meme?

>> Why on earth would you not assume that multiple different cells arose independently of one another since you're asserting the single original cell sprang from nothing anyway?
couldn't we just investigate mitochondrial DNA to reach a verdict on that?

Probably only when we start mentioning allah at least once a minute.

Mang, unless its derived from something other than GATC, there's no to think it isn't just a progression of abiogenesis

the science, logical thinking or proper decission making weren't the strongest parts of this film

maybe even the acting wasnt the finest

but it still worked pretty well for me

Just give it 750 million years user

>pretend living cells came from non living material
>try not to focus too hard on the how part cause we don't have any idea whatsoever

Remember religion's the one you're supposed to believe in because blind faith

>tfw no sequel ever
Feels bad, also this movie feels like dark souls, a fucked up world full of weird shit

All life on earth developed because I shot a load into a puddle of primordial ooze

The how is the fact atoms are constantly colliding with one another and forming molecules.

You don't need a skydaddy for this.

you dumb brainwashed piece of shit

Its a western knockoff of made in abyss.

>pretend living cells came from non living material
Isnt living material made of the same stuff as non living material?

>pretend living cells came from non living material

I like this argument because it implies people only ever eat living organisms.

yes, nice unliving molecules

if that process can actually form living matter it or anything remotely similar to it has certainly never been observed or reproduced

>The single original cell sprang from nothing anyway

Nobody who knows what they're talking about makes this claim. You need to research the theory that you're criticizing.

Attached: 1504482319032.jpg (400x400, 17K)

Do you think living organisms are the only things capable of movement?

Every single day thousands of meteors with bug bears and other organisms crash into our planet.
All of which can survive in space without their cellular integrity being damaged.
Most die due to the heat via friction upon entering our atmosphere.
A large asteroid though could have enough mass to not overly heat and kill off everything if it was inside the asteroid.
Suddenly millions upon millions of organisms are on a planet that may or may not have the elements to ensure their survival.

and you're telling me a single cell magically just appears on our planet and withstands all odds against it to successfully reproduce and multiply at all.
Let alone multiply to the extent to allow evolution to naturally process.

It's much more believable that simplistic life forms that can stand nearly all variations of Earth's biosphere somehow survived a crash landing and had enough genetic diversity already to successfully breed until evolution took place.

>magically just
I'm describing the exact opposite of magic, friend. I'm describing chemistry.

For me it felt like one episode of an anime named Shinsekai yori, specifically one in which a boy starts to turn the world around him all weird because of some mental abilities.

>For their current study, Sutherland and his colleagues set out to work backward from those chemicals to see if they could find a route to RNA from even simpler starting materials. They succeeded. In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland’s team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids. That suggests a single set of reactions could have given rise to most of life’s building blocks simultaneously.

>hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulfide
Goodness me, aren't those difficult to find....

No, you're describing magic.
Things don't magically happen.

You're missing the catalyst to life itself.
A single cell can not have enough genetic diversity to survive in all of Earth's changes.
Even the most simplistic organisms on our planet (to which there are still untold amounts undiscovered) have much diversity to them.
Which allows for the ability of sudden changes in evolution, when most creatures would die these very few will survive and allow just enough genetic diversity to repeat this process over and over again until the organisms eventually adapt enough to multiply in great numbers and create the many animals and life we know today.

It's nearly inconceivable by the smartest minds of our entire world how life started on Earth. Since the majority of our galaxy is carbon it makes sense that we are carbon creatures, yet Earth has almost no carbon in comparison to other planets. Further explaining the need for genetic diversity from an early start. Since any life that made its way here would be found with almost a toxic reaction to our planets lack of carbon in comparison to what was its native home.
Since we know carbon life is possible and since we know the rest of the galaxy is mostly carbon. Life outside Earth is almost a guarantee somewhere and the theory that life crashed into our planet is much more likely compared to the very implausible chemical reaction you're stating.
Viruses are the only thing that even resemble at all what you're talking about and they still need actual life to reproduce successfully.

>chemistry magically made life XDDD
Building blocks does not equate to the will to use them.
see my post
Even viruses the only thing resembling anything close to life that fits into your agenda. Still need actual life to use these chemicals.

What is RNA
What are cosmic rays
What is UV light

>Earth has almost no carbon
>Viruses are the only thing that even resemble at all what you're talking about
Now I know you're trolling

Where did matter come from?

>the will to use them
Now you're being retarded on purpose

It also produced a bunch of toxic crap that had to be filtered out so it didn't degrade the good stuff.

From energy

Where did energy come from?

youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

>expecting a science FICTION movie to be scientifically accurate
You a stupid hoe

there is a desire to use the highlight reel when referring to origins of life on earth within pop culture. gross oversimplifications emerge

organelles are believed to have existed before fully formed cells. these carry out basic processes. they could have sprang from the primordial ooze independently from each other. its a unknown. some may be variants of each other ect. its like a form of single celled pseudo life

expecting it all to originate from 1 instance is the desire to simplify the explanation. there is some data to indicate that life may have existed earlier than we expect to see life at a single celled level then a planetoid hit the earth and made the moon. so how many times did life start on earth. currently we have 2 known instances that can be proven to not be connected because of legacy dna. no clue how many have never been found but existed

>Or it is just the nature of matter to
lol

You realize that the soyboys and faggots that watch this use this pseudoscience to fuel their "no such thing as race but wypeepo" dementia, right?

we aren't asking why, but where

do you think movement somehow makes something a living organism?

You want like coordinates then, center of the universe?
Or were you asking *why* there is energy instead of nothing?

People took this bait... i feel weird

We are asking for an origin, or say, a first cause.

Tough question without a metric for "beginning"

In terms of time, the energy and everything in the universe existed in a single point

You could say, all the energy in the universe always existed, as there is quite literally no time "before" the big bang

Where did life come from and how did it come to Earth?

he's saying that according to the law of conservation of energy energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another where did it originate to begin with as the third law of thermodynamics(entropy) suggests that everything has to have a set ending and thus a beginning

see
"Before" or outside of time is sort of a meaningless question really

The big bang was literally the beginning

>Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backward in time toward the beginning of the universe, we would note that quite near what might have otherwise been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless. According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the universe has no origin as we would understand it: the universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. Thus, the Hartle–Hawking state universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time nor space.

The Hartle–Hawking state is the wave function of the Universe.

>No time existed at the beginning, but time exists in all physical laws after that, including in the wave theories

There's a bunch of theories including string theory, but I don't buy into that hand-wavy shit

Dude you're fucking trolling.
Carbon is the most abundant resource in our entire galaxy. OUR ENTIRE GALAXY.
Yet it's not even in the top ten most available resources on our planet.
1% difference in chemistry is enough to ignite our atmosphere or poison us.
Yet you don't think a drastic difference between 1st most abundant element and Earth's ranking of carbon which is like 11th or 12th?
Are you really that fucking stupid?
Also what is this dribble you're spewing in your post.
All life has a basic program, a line of code that tells it how to use elements and process them to ensure its health and reproduction.
Viruses are the only things on our planet that describe what you are talking about. Viruses are not living, yet they simulate life.
Life has a will of its own, choices are made even if they are the most simplistic of choices. Move to the sun or shade, eat more of this or that, reproduce now or later. A choice is fucking made.
Random elements and materials thrown together do not do this.
No scientist ever has put together a bunch of materials and created a unique life form, even that other fucking user's shit citation from (((Sutherland))) has no clear statement on them being able to create life from their dumb fucking experiment.
If you're really this retarded to believe that you can throw some carbon and proteins together and a life form will appear you need to off yourself. Because you're a fucking waste to the human species.

>meaningless question really
Not at all. Proposing an eternal universe violates occam's razor just as readily, if not more, than proposing it had a creator

It still had to come from somewhere at some point

All energy is essentially "borrowed". I'm not sure the question of where it has been borrowed from is currently an area of scientific interest.

Oh ok so were there just one each of all the multiple non-cellular entities that formed the only one first cell? Or were there many proto-mitochondrias before they ever became the original cell? And if there were many of those proto things, then why did they only form one cell and not others?
>Do you have any evidence
Nigger, YOU ain't got shit for evidence. We're talking fantasy here. And the truth is the 'one cell' theory is inspired by bullshit theological thinking anyway.
The "One became two, and the two became four" is standard neoplatonic monadology reframed as science.

>There are billions of people now

Lol netflix wished its audience were that big

>Occam's razor
You're the one with the fanciful idea that an intelligent being meticulously gifted souls to oddly shaped monkeys on floating rocks in space to kill each other and worship him

If you want to apply occams razor, the beginning is the beginning
Asking what came before is your human brain needing answers on an existential quest for purpose

Not a big deal really. I was more annoyed by how pretentious that scene was overall. They are supposedly grad students or upper year med, but she is just going on a rant about basic bio 101 shit, and all the students are furiously taking notes. It's just a dumb scene.

you're choosing to ignore the question

Sure we're interested, we just currently have no idea of how to answer that question. The Big Bang is not the start of matter and energy, but it is the start of time and thus "information". It's like asking what happens before the start of a movie. There is nothing before the start of a movie, the record only starts then, with everything already existing then, with it shapeshifting from thereon into whatever the movie becomes or whatever our existence is today.

How are organisms on meteors if that single cell originated on earth? Or do scientists think the original cell originated elsewhere and traveled to earth?

>I don't like your answer
You asked for the beginning and I told you
There is no before, the energy in terms of beginning always was

>the energy in terms of beginning always was
see

hey cool it is even easier to generate life then we thought
yet still we have this massive universe and we're apparently the only life here.
It is pretty obvious that the "bazillion year old universe" hypothesis was created specifically to have enough time for generation of life and evolution to make sense since we can't observe it in any serious form.
But once you start arguing that it is easier to generate life then the super old universe starts looking a little fishy cuz why come thar no other lifes but us den?

>I dont like you answer again
Kek
>Where did energy come from?
>It was there at the very begining

Its not a philosophy question, its a scientific question. If you want to ask *why* there is energy, or *who* created it, ask someone else

I can see this. An explosion of cells occurring because of some particular event like an ejaculation coming out of one of those deep sea vents

Hence, your ignoring of the question.

Attached: you took it.jpg (624x628, 20K)

Are you telling me that Lucy ruined millions of people's lives because of its meme premise of the "100% brain usage"?

It's a fucking movie dude.

You do realize how lucky we are that water expands when it freezes making it float
How close we are to the sun
We have a molten iron core
We spin at just the right speed
etc
These conditions are very rare

even so, you're right "fermi's paradox"
However proponents of this always seem to forget how far apart space is and how many resources it would consume to find make contact and visit

Why are there so many science dropouts here

What question am I avoiding?
I answered and you don't like it.

>t. never studied microbio/molecular bio/biochem but still feels qualified to dispense criticism

I think your issue is more with modern scientific thought on the origins of life, rather than the movie itself. In which case this belongs on not Sup Forums.

Here's my 2 cents:
I think you have no idea what you are talking about, and I think you made this thread here rather than on you would've gotten sat the fuck down in a brutal and hilarious fashion.

I'm not going to bother trying to teach you anything because you don't want to actually learn about abiogenesis, you just want to keep believing what you already believe.

those are conditions for Humans to live dummy. Tons of organisms that can survive much harsher conditions. What is critical here is the formation from acids into a cell. So long as conditions for that are present, cells can evolve into super tardigrades or some bullshit and eventually end up somewhere with better conditions to evolve into something more like humans.

But the best answer for "Fermi's Paradox" is Occam's Razor: Science is just wrong about a ton of shit and God made humans and gave us a big empty universe to explore and colonize forever for fun.

Attached: HUMANSAREEVIL.png (1649x756, 1.46M)

>From Annihilation
Stopped reading right there.

>But the best answer for "Fermi's Paradox" is Occam's Razor: Science is just wrong about a ton of shit and God made humans and gave us a big empty universe to explore and colonize forever for fun.
Science by definition can't be wrong lol its continuous process of trial and error, slowly brute forcing answers from the universe

Why do pseudo intellectuals always use Occam's razor to justify even more complicated scenarios that require even more assumptions

Attached: alien tits.png (737x701, 867K)

>The first building blocks for life (such as aminoacids) were not spontaniously formed, but rather could be a result of long term inorganic "evolution".

This is because retards give magical significance to the "living" status of cells but not the living status of rNA and viruses.

That is exactly how all life on Earth came from, generated right here on Earth, from simple chemicals and processes. The "primordial soup gets struck by lightning to make the first cell" is just Atheist creationism. It's amazing how stupid people really are.

Attached: don't talk to me you fucking imbecile.gif (480x480, 2.56M)

"The one begat two, two begat four"
This is literally pythagoreanism/neoplatonism. If you think replacing "Monad" with "Cell" and adding some dressing makes "Modern Scientific Thought" legit when it is LITERALLY rehashed paganism, then you're a sad little man, my boy.
>I'm the one who doesn't want to learn.
Your science is just the onto-theology of the pagans you ignorant fuck.

>Science by definition can't be wrong
nice bate mate. autists doing mental gymnastics .