Which came first, the egg or the chicken?

"Miller proved that with those conditions, life appeared."
That is the statement that I can't understand, because I read the article and I haven't come to the same conclusion. Which is normal, 'cause I don't study biology and my English obviously failed me this time...so if you can just explain me some things...Am I being wrong with the following:
He ended up with some amino acids in the experiment...and that proves that life is "born" from inanimate matter?
Heh, yes, but that theory (panspermia) can't tell you how viruses originated in the first place.

No, no... the amino acids are the inanimated matter!! All life is based on amino-acids... Amino acids, are often called "the building blocks of life"!!! After their formation, life is a possible thing to happen!! And as i have said before, that no longer happens because present Earth have Oxygen.. an atmospheric oxygen prevents the synthesis of certain organic compounds that are necessary building blocks for the evolution of life, like the amino acids!!

A scientist named Oparin argued that a "primeval soup" of organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere through the action of sunlight. These would combine in ever-more complex fashions until they formed coacervate droplets. These droplets would "grow" by fusion with other droplets, and "reproduce" through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which those factors which promote "cell integrity" survive, those that do not become extinct. Many modern theories of the origin of life still take Oparin's ideas as a starting point!!

EDIT: And yes panspermia can not explain how viruses formed... its hard to do that anyway, because its dificult to study space with the available technologies
And do not forget that evolution is a long process (millions of years)... its impossible to see amino acids (a.a.) evolve into life as we know!! But the chemical reactions to that are in a sincrony with the laws of the modern science, so we know that is possible...

S| DeRa wrote:The dinosaurs.

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking.

But really, it was the egg. Whatever creature that was by that time almost exactly a chicken had to have laid the egg carrying a chicken inside it...unless the chicken...but really it depends on how you look at it.

The chicken embryo is developed before it is covered by the egg (so the chicken will come first)...but sometimes unfertilized eggs are laid...so if that happened first then the egg came first.

hey Neodemon, but is the exact process of th origin of life known?

its one of the best accepted theories in all scientific comunity!!
of course that i just put the basic stuff... the chemical reactions themselves are to complicated to understand...LOL

That was basic stuff??

4Neodemon wrote:No, no... the amino acids are the inanimated matter!! All life is based on amino-acids... Amino acids, are often called "the building blocks of life"!!! After their formation, life is a possible thing to happen!! And as i have said before, that no longer happens because present Earth have Oxygen.. an atmospheric oxygen prevents the synthesis of certain organic compounds that are necessary building blocks for the evolution of life, like the amino acids!!

A scientist named Oparin argued that a "primeval soup" of organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere through the action of sunlight. These would combine in ever-more complex fashions until they formed coacervate droplets. These droplets would "grow" by fusion with other droplets, and "reproduce" through fission into daughter droplets, and so have a primitive metabolism in which those factors which promote "cell integrity" survive, those that do not become extinct. Many modern theories of the origin of life still take Oparin's ideas as a starting point!!

EDIT: And yes panspermia can not explain how viruses formed... its hard to do that anyway, because its dificult to study space with the available technologies
And do not forget that evolution is a long process (millions of years)... its impossible to see amino acids (a.a.) evolve into life as we know!! But the chemical reactions to that are in a sincrony with the laws of the modern science, so we know that is possible...

But those are just theories and presumptions.
"Its impossible to see amino acids (a.a.) evolve into life as we know!"
That is what I wanted to hear. No scientist was able to create any life form from chemical reactions. So scientist are just having faith that that's the way it is.

easy, team rocket confirmed it when they came up with a smart(-ish) invention...

"... ♪ even more genius than the chicken who invented the egg ♪"

ningen wrote:
But those are just theories and presumptions.
"Its impossible to see amino acids (a.a.) evolve into life as we know!"
That is what I wanted to hear. No scientist was able to create any life form from chemical reactions. So scientist are just having faith that that's the way it is.

Its impossible to see evolution in our life time!! it takes millions of years... yet the fossils (not only those arguments, but at the moment i do not remember anything else..lol) prove that evolution exists!! in bacteria we can see them evolve, when they become resistent to antibiotics!! that happens because they are simple and a very small organisms... for example humans are much more complex beings , and to evolve, it take a lot of years..lol (that may explain those FOX assholes... )

There are no fossils to support the a.a. evolution into life, in the same way, we only found 2 to 5% of all dinossaurs species in the fossils!!! We do not even found all animal or vegetal species that are living in this moment on the planet (every day we discover something new) BUT the chemical reactions are possible (there is nothing that prevent that to happen... because of some complicated laws of science )... scientists proved that (in the same way Einstein prove the relativity of time)!!

we can not prove that with "real" arguments besides numbers or letters in a reaction... because we can not travel to time to see for ourselves.. BUT the theory i showed to you its a well substancied explanation to the origin of life and its a possible thing to happen, but of course the origin of life could happened in a different way!! As you say those are only theories and presumptions... and every scientist defend the theories they think that have better arguments... i do not know if that is called faith perhaps it is

sonaditya wrote:That was basic stuff??

You sound like Goku in the anime..eheheh
yes... i really chose something difficult to learn But its only basic stuff if we compare it to chemistry, physics or mathematics (i hate those... i simply can not understand that..lol)

to ningen: some scientist (forgot his name) ran an electric current through a solution he made and got amino acids. not only is it possible to see evolution, its possible to see life being created. amino acids, the building blocks of life.

secor wrote:to ningen: some scientist (forgot his name) ran an electric current through a solution he made and got amino acids. not only is it possible to see evolution, its possible to see life being created. amino acids, the building blocks of life.

yes, that is true, but we can not actually see the amino acids evolve into life, like primitive bacterias (it is needed millions of years)!! that is why its just a possible theory!!

@secor
The guy was mentioned in the discussion.
Sorry, but it takes more than just "building blocks of life" to amaze me.
That's not life...
@Neodemon
I know that I'm setting the impossible task. And I knew that you would mention "millions of years", but do you know how that sounds to some average human: Good conditions + some complex chemical reactions (the exact process unknown) + unknown period of time = Life

Don't get frustrated or something, I hope that you know that we're just talking here. The only thing that I'm trying to say is that scientists often criticize people that "blindly" believe in something that can't be proved, but they also believe in their theories, their work is often based on rather radical theories, "facts" change as our perception of the world changes. I'm sure that there's no one happier than the scientist that manages to prove something that was a while ago considered to be only a theory. And so the point of perception changes a bit.
Evolution...that is a very interesting issue. A lot of scientists think different and had devoted their lives in proving that that theory is wrong just as others are so devoted in proving that it's right and consider it to be a fact.
"BUT the chemical reactions are possible (there is nothing that prevent that to happen." Yes, yes they are possible, but somebody would tell you- "It's possible that the Lord would come again."
"In bacteria we can see them evolve, when they become resistant to antibiotics!" - That's adaptation. It's just like when you take drugs or some poison in small quantities and your body adapts, so that in time your body can process larger quantities.

ningen wrote:@secor
The guy was mentioned in the discussion.
Sorry, but it takes more than just "building blocks of life" to amaze me.
That's not life...

dude, goin from nothing to something, defying physics, that shit is like the big bang, how is that not amazing?

ningen wrote:@secor
The guy was mentioned in the discussion.
Sorry, but it takes more than just "building blocks of life" to amaze me.
That's not life...
@Neodemon
I know that I'm setting the impossible task. And I knew that you would mention "millions of years", but do you know how that sounds to some average human: Good conditions + some complex chemical reactions (the exact process unknown) + unknown period of time = Life

Don't get frustrated or something, I hope that you know that we're just talking here. The only thing that I'm trying to say is that scientists often criticize people that "blindly" believe in something that can't be proved, but they also believe in their theories, their work is often based on rather radical theories, "facts" change as our perception of the world changes. I'm sure that there's no one happier than the scientist that manages to prove something that was a while ago considered to be only a theory. And so the point of perception changes a bit.
Evolution...that is a very interesting issue. A lot of scientists think different and had devoted their lives in proving that that theory is wrong just as others are so devoted in proving that it's right and consider it to be a fact.
"BUT the chemical reactions are possible (there is nothing that prevent that to happen." Yes, yes they are possible, but somebody would tell you- "It's possible that the Lord would come again."
"In bacteria we can see them evolve, when they become resistant to antibiotics!" - That's adaptation. It's just like when you take drugs or some poison in small quantities and your body adapts, so that in time your body can process larger quantities.

Do not forget that evolution is a mutation in our genes!!
In bacteria the mechanism is not the same when we take drugs or something like that!! Bacteria DNA completelly changes... BUT when our body adapts to a cold or some poison, our DNA is still the same, its only our immune system make his work!!

"Evolution...that is a very interesting issue. A lot of scientists think different and had devoted their lives in proving that that theory is wrong just as others are so devoted in proving that it's right and consider it to be a fact" - That is how science works must be in that way... if not, even in the present day we would still think that Earth is the center of the universe and its the sun that moves around our planet.. because some scientist made a mistake (lack of technology)

"BUT the chemical reactions are possible (there is nothing that prevent that to happen." Yes, yes they are possible, but somebody would tell you- "It's possible that the Lord would come again." - Its different because no one prove that the Lord were on our planet (its pure faith... its a myth like the vampires or demons or even roswell aliens)... meanwhile the chemical reactions are proved (and theories are made based on that)
For example: Mathematics and physics proved the relativity of the time, BUT we can not see it... still its not faith... it was Einstein nobel prize (its only numbers and letters)!!! I do not know about you, but im not a genious... i can not understand the Einstein works.. its way beyond me For Average humans like me that maybe way to fantastic and unreal , but we are not at the same level than those guys... they are freaks of nature!!! they are like Broly, but instead of muscles they have brain power Their purpose is to unlock the universe mysteries... for them those numbers, letters and chemical reactions makes all sense... for us its just something like because we do not understand!!

I do not know if i am expressing it right to make you understand my point... even in portuguese i have some difficulty to explain this matters..

Oh it has to be Dinosaurs from hell

@secor
"Dude, going from nothing to something, defying physics, that shit is like the big bang, how is that not amazing?"
He started with something and ended up with something, but I don't find such results amazing.
@Neodemon
"Do not forget that evolution is a mutation in our genes!!
In bacteria the mechanism is not the same when we take drugs or something like that!! Bacteria DNA completelly changes... BUT when our body adapts to a cold or some poison, our DNA is still the same, its only our immune system make his work!!"
Yes, but it's the normal thing for a bacteria to do. Mutations happen all the time, they can be the cause (you know that much better than me, of course ) of genetic disorders. Our organism adapts, our immune system adapts, so sometimes we became immune to some diseases. Now we can call it evolution, of course.
Yes but what I'm trying to say is that scientists come to the different conclusions based on the same "facts" all the time. I agree with you, somebody in the end will be wrong.
You say that no one can't prove that God was here, but for a lot of believers there is the Bible( or some other written, or non-written "fact"), miracles, thousands of theological discussions...they all take that as a "fact". I take this beautiful, complex universe as a "fact" that God (Potent force that caused it's creation) exists. And scientists say- Look here are some chemical reactions, we can prove their existence, they are a "fact", a "fact" on which we base our further theories. The faith and the hope are the same, the theories are different and the "facts'' we base them on. Now someone could say - but some "facts" can't be proven, or some "facts" are interpreted in the wrong way. But I will say this - those two statements never held down scientists, if they did we would never have scientific breakthroughs.
Sorry if I have bothered you in any way with our little digression, and thank you for it.

Eh eh... No problem

But you are wrong about the immune system and the evolution process.. you have an wrong concept like almost everyone..lol
Immune system adaptation is not an evolution!! Evolution is only considered on populations and not on a single organism... plus to be also considered evolution the mutation in the genes must be passed to the offspring (the "sons") and the evolution not always means an upgrade... sometimes they are not usefull in the environment where it takes, and thats one cause of why natural extinction happens!!
our (humans) evolution process can not be done in our life time as i have said... if i get immune to some disease i did not evolve (it do not happen any mutation)... and my sons will not going to be immune to the same disease.. as i said to you its a different thing (Even the creationism scientists and defenders already accepted that... well only in the bacterias case, because we actually can see bacteria evolve in our life time... to the human evolution they just do not accept the fossils... so for them, no human came from a monkey, and all species were the same, millions years ago... its their faith preventing them to see the truth)

ningen wrote:
You say that no one can't prove that God was here, but for a lot of believers there is the Bible( or some other written, or non-written "fact"), miracles, thousands of theological discussions...they all take that as a "fact". I take this beautiful, complex universe as a "fact" that God (Potent force that caused it's creation) exists. And scientists say- Look here are some chemical reactions, we can prove their existence, they are a "fact", a "fact" on which we base our further theories. The faith and the hope are the same, the theories are different and the "facts'' we base them on.

that also happens with the Roswell aliens (if you see the documentary about it and the movie they made based on that documentary you are going to say WOW)...lol....and the bible, the theological discussions are not facts!! because they do not prove nothing... A fact is a certain thing.. yes some have different interpretations, but the bible its only a book with a fantastic story... its the same thing as Buda in china... you can not make a theory based on something only because someone wrote that... you need proves
Einstein tried to prove god (yes, he was a believer... not the god we all know from the bible, but god as a natural force in the universe) and he fail!!! i also believe in the same god as Einstein... that is faith, because there are no theories about it... and no one proved its existence!! Chemical reactions are a concrete thing... i make them in the university lab...lol... i think that you are making the same mistake as you done to evolution.. wrong concepts most everyone that do not study that shit do that...

^ I wasn't clear about some things. What I wanted to say is that- we humans do adapt and so do bacterias. It's just that bacterias don't have much options.
So when one mutates it's normal that that one (if that mutation has something to do with the bacteria's resistance to a certain medicine)will survive and multiply, thus passing it's genes.
As for the evolution of the human race, I'll just say- when I see the "missing link" I'll believe...because what we see now are just the results which are interpreted in different ways. In that way it's similar to religion, which sees the results and interpret them.
But those people in the Roswell case have their "facts" and you can't prove them wrong, just like they can't prove that they are right.
Bible is a "fact". It's a "fact" for all of those that are interested in hystory (thus scientists), because it gives a lot of informations about a certain age. Now we can't go back into past and see if it's true.
Actually, thousands of different theories proves that you can. Although I understand why some scientist are not interessted. They want their "facts", things which existence you can prove. But ''facts'' change as our perception of the world changes. Something that has been considered to be a "fact" is no longer one. So, yeah, you can say chemical reactions are something which existance we can prove, we can run experiments, we can study them, but when you say that life originated form them- I would say that that is possible. But that, as you know, is not a fact.

Yes, i understand what you are trying to say

but that is not faith, because we know that is scientific possibility (possibility, because there are a lot of other theories and not "possibility" like if i say God exists you can not prove me wrong, so its possible!!)... the bible God its only a story from a book.. we do not have any scientific evidence of his existence!! as i told to you..eistein tried to prove God, but he failed... so God being a powerfull force in the universe its a not a scientific theory, but only an possible interpretation from the bible with no proves... that is faith!! So i agree with you...scientists also have faith, BUT maybe only in the beggining... they just think in a possibility an try to prove that... and if they prove that its no longer faith, but a possible reality translated into a solid theory!!


In the evolution the "missing link" of the humans still wasnt found, but for example the link between dinossaurs and birds was recently found!!! but fossils are not the only evidence!!! ... cell, anatomy, embryology or even biochemists studies can encourage the evolution...

EDIT:LOL... THE PRECIOUS LINK WAS IN PORTUGUESE
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent (only the basic stuff)