Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MarkNigro

What was the first living thing like according to evolutionists

Recommended Posts

What was the first living thing (if you can call it living) like?

 

Was just comprised of proteins and other atoms?

If so how many amino acids were in each protein?

What was the sequence of the amino acids?

 

Or

 

Was it composed of RNA and proteins?

For the proteins,

 

how many amino acids were in each protein?

What was the sequence of the amino acids?

For the RNA,

How many nucleotides total was there?

What was the sequence of nucleotides?

 

Or

 

did it have DNA and all the other things needed to be DNA based?

 

How many nucleotides total was there?

What was the sequence of nucleotides?

 

The answer to these should be known by now.

 

Any answer will help.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know if life from just atoms and molecules is true?

 

How can you even look at the odds?

 

If the first living thing has DNA and the other things to support it, it would have to have on the order billions of atoms.

 

If it was RNA and proteins, it would still be extremely large. It would then have to develop DNA afterwards. That is a very large step.

 

If it was proteins only, it would still be very large. It would have to develop RNA and DNA afterwards.

 

All of these have enormous odds.

 

Also to be a theory does it not have to actually exist. Without any answer to this conundrum, why do you believe that the atoms to mankind theory is even remotely possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know if life from just atoms and molecules is true?

 

Isn't that what every living thing is made of?  

 

How can you even look at the odds?

I asked you previously for your calculations and you ignored it.  If you're going to cite probabilities, then you need to show your calculations.

 

If the first living thing has DNA and the other things to support it, it would have to have on the order billions of atoms.

 

If it was RNA and proteins, it would still be extremely large. It would then have to develop DNA afterwards. That is a very large step.

 

If it was proteins only, it would still be very large. It would have to develop RNA and DNA afterwards.

All of these have enormous odds.

You've not shown any calculations to support that. 

 

 Also to be a theory does it not have to actually exist. Without any answer to this conundrum, why do you believe that the atoms to mankind theory is even remotely possible.

 

 

There is no such thing as "atoms to mankind theory".

Edited by Gerald McGrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How can you even look at the odds? ...

 

 

All of these have enormous odds.

 

 

 

If you throw the multiverse theory into the equation then odds are it was going to happen somewhere, sometime.  Why not here?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How do you know if life from just atoms and molecules is true?

 

Isn't that what every living thing is made of?  

 

That is a kind of a silly answer. Obviously a billion or more of those atoms must be arranged in a certain way at a certain instant in time and even if that happens

 

How can you even look at the odds?

I asked you previously for your calculations and you ignored it.  If you're going to cite probabilities, then you need to show your calculations.

 

I wanted to get an idea of where to start at.

 

 

 

If the first living thing has DNA and the other things to support it, it would have to have on the order billions of atoms.

 

If it was RNA and proteins, it would still be extremely large. It would then have to develop DNA afterwards. That is a very large step.

 

If it was proteins only, it would still be very large. It would have to develop RNA and DNA afterwards.

All of these have enormous odds.

You've not shown any calculations to support that. 

 

For a total protein sequence of 50,000 amino acids long, the total number of sequences is 39^50,000 (counting left handed and right handed amino acids) . That is approximately equal to 10^80,000.  If you divide all the universe into boxes a Plank length long and time into small

 

units the size of the time it takes for light to traverse a Plank length, then there are only 10^250 points in all space for all time. So at best the odds that it happened once at all in all the universe for all time is 10^79,750 to one. Now of course I have greatly underestimated the odds by quite a bit. 50,000 amino acids do not usually come all together by chance vey often, if ever. I also did not consider the odds of all the other atoms of the exact kinds which are needed to build and maintain the structure. Finally that many amino acids do not make a creature that could sustain itself and certainly not duplicate itself. Finally I gave it all of the universe. But in much of that space the creature could not live. Of course that is just a first step protein based creature without RNA and DNA. And even then it is just a one cell organism.

 

 Also to be a theory does it not have to actually exist. Without any answer to this conundrum, why do you believe that the atoms to mankind theory is even remotely possible.

 

 

There is no such thing as "atoms to mankind theory".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How can you even look at the odds? ...

 

 

All of these have enormous odds.

 

 

 

If you throw the multiverse theory into the equation then odds are it was going to happen somewhere, sometime.  Why not here?  

 

How do you know of any other universe? How many are there? Has anybody been to any and made a measurement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

How can you even look at the odds? ...

 

 

All of these have enormous odds.

 

 

 

If you throw the multiverse theory into the equation then odds are it was going to happen somewhere, sometime.  Why not here?  

 

How do you know of any other universe? How many are there? Has anybody been to any and made a measurement?

 

 

:biggrin2: I called it a theory.  I'm just playing the 'if ________, then __________' game.  Playing with ideas is fun!  For example, here is a fun idea to play with; if Einstein's Theory of Relativity is true, then time cannot be linear.  Only our perception of time is linear, for we are limited beings of limited capacity to process information.  It is also the most practical way for us to process events if we have to choose just one way.  There's no use seeing the tiger before after it's eaten us!   If time is not linear then one view is that everything that has happened is happening now, and everything that will happen is also happening now but outside our perceptual view.  Don't you think this theory shows how God can be omnipresent, and have a perfect knowledge of all that will come to pass while maintaining the freedom of choice for those with a more limited perceptual view along the path of time?  It brings the doctrines of free will and predetermination into perfect balance with one another, don't you think?  if.. then!  See, it's fun!  Another fun game is, 'What if?'

Edited by TsukinoRei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a kind of a silly answer. Obviously a billion or more of those atoms must be arranged in a certain way at a certain instant in time and even if that happens

 

When we look at all life on earth, everything we see and have ever seen is made up of atoms and molecules, with no exceptions.  So why is it "silly" to conclude that the first life was also made up of atoms and molecules?

 

For a total protein sequence of 50,000 amino acids long, the total number of sequences is 39^50,000 (counting left handed and right handed amino acids) . That is approximately equal to 10^80,000.

 

 

Hold on a second there.  First, why are you starting with a protein, and what do you mean by "the total number of sequences" and what does "10^80,000" refer to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is a kind of a silly answer. Obviously a billion or more of those atoms must be arranged in a certain way at a certain instant in time and even if that happens

 

When we look at all life on earth, everything we see and have ever seen is made up of atoms and molecules, with no exceptions.  So why is it "silly" to conclude that the first life was also made up of atoms and molecules?

 

For a total protein sequence of 50,000 amino acids long, the total number of sequences is 39^50,000 (counting left handed and right handed amino acids) . That is approximately equal to 10^80,000.

 

 

Hold on a second there.  First, why are you starting with a protein, and what do you mean by "the total number of sequences" and what does "10^80,000" refer to?

 

I started with a protein based creature to help your odds out as much as possible. DNA and RNA based first creature is much larger and more unlikely.

 

In a first creature there has to be a total number of amino acids in the first creature. 50,000 amino acids probably is too small but again I wanted to help you out.

 

there are 39 different amino acids in living things counting both left and right handed which do make a difference in the actual physically structure.

 

For 50,000 amnio acids the total number of sequences is 39^50,000 which is about 10^80,000 sequences. So even if 50,000 amino acids come together this one sequcne is only one of 10^80,000 sequences.

 

I gave you many other breaks to help as much as possible. I listed them in the post.

 

For example:

 

Now of course I have greatly underestimated the odds by quite a bit. 50,000 amino acids do not usually come all together by chance vey often, if ever.

 

I also did not consider the odds of all the other atoms of the exact kinds which are needed to build and maintain the structure.

 

Finally that many amino acids do not make a creature that could sustain itself and certainly not duplicate itself.

 

Finally I gave it all of the universe. But in much of that space the creature could not live.

 

Of course that is just a first step protein based creature without RNA and DNA. And even then it is just a one cell organism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...