Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum When did life start on Earth?

sam



the sun and moon were created on the fourth day!
so it was on the fourth day that they first shown light on the earth.
so your sentence should read

so that the Sun and Moon could shine upon the earth

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;

15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so.

16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. {P}

it was on the third day that God Created plant Life.
I propose that it was this plant Life that scrubbed up the excess Co2 from the earths Creation.

but I agree that the fourth day would be a good place to start
if you like.

because it was on the fifth day that God Created Life in the seas.

up until day 4 God's light that he made when he said let there
be light was the only light that shown on the earth.

I propose that God knew that he would be resting in a few days
so the earth would need a static sunlight for plant Life photosynthesis to scrub up all the excess Co2 that the swarms of sea Life produced so that the higher forms of Created Life can Breath the air.

which is the next event on day 5.



your reply has answered my above questions , you want to
start with Life as life started on the 3rd day.

am I correct that you want us to start with Life?

Until there was land life the only life was in the sea. And at first that was mostly plant life, which released oxygen, not Co2. Until there was oxygen breathing animal life the source of CO2 was the primordial atmosphere. The Earth was created with a mainly CO2 atmosphere which was eventually cleared and replaced with Oxygen released by sea living plant life. Even today I believe that the oceanic plant life is one of the major sources of Oxygen.

Just so that people understand that Paul doesn't really understand how the world works.

Bill Gill

Sam

I know that we are in the process of trying to have a discussion that hopefully does not get thrown off on tangents, however Bill did start this thread so should we start a new thread?

He has brought up an important point but perhaps you might want to have a look at the following.

http://www.realclearscience.com/2012/02/13/did_life_begin_on_land_not_in_ocean_245498.html



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21471-russian-hot-springs-point-to-rocky-origins-for-life.html







http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...nimals-science/

Getting back on topic might help.

Whether it started in some littoral setting or in the deep sea, life seems to have proliferated and developed further, in the oceans for billions of years, before specializing enough to colonize the land.
===

Thanks for the neat links:
It's an interesting point, about how the UV was "weeding out" the less stable molecules; but I wonder if, at that time, the atmosphere was too thick and hazy for UV to be much of a problem.

Although, from what I've heard, the original atmosphere was blown off by Late Hadaen bombardments, and then a new atmosphere was generated by volcanic outgassing; so there could easily have been times when UV would be a significant factor.
===

If you're interested in how life started, there is a description of this in the book, "Bacterial Growth and Form" by Arthur L. Koch, which you can get through a library [QR84.5 .K63 2001].
===

It's the part, describing "...what must have happened to create the First Cell," that is really interesting. Search ["first cell" quasi-species] and also ["first cell" hyper-cycles] to get some "sample" book results ...click on pictures too.
===

p.s. Testing that search suggestion, I found a free preview version for, "The Bacteria: Their Origin, Structure, Function and Antibiosis, By Arthur L. Koch [QR75 .K63 2007].
[books.google.com/books?isbn=1402066252] ...with similar info.

~

Thanks Sam, as usual you say it a lot better than I do.

Just as a side note I just signed up for a MOOC (Massively Open On-line Course) about genetics. I hope to learn enough to help me understand how evolution works better than I do now.

Bill Gill

Bill

I'm so happy for you , its always nice to find new things
to explore and study , even if those studies aren't correct.

and upon completion of the course you will have gained more knowledge that will give you a better insight as to
how the world works.

sam



meaning that Life ( on earth ) originated and proliferated on land first.
Life then developed further in the sea.





Genesis clearly states the above in the correct sequence.


1:Life was Created on land first...



2: Life was then Created in the seas...

the below says to me that Life in the seas was due to Life
from the land washing down into the seas where Life could spread widely throughout the earth.



which are the periods known as pre cambrian and cambrian
( the cambrian explosion )

what tickles me is that we recently have found that many dinosaurs developed from birds.

I would propose that the fowl in Genesis 1:20 would have traveled (flown) onto land
in search of food that could be found in plant Life as it is today , and
durring Creation God further developed the fowl into the dinosaurs.

3: Life then further developed on land.



it boggles the mind that the correct sequence found in Genesis written down thousands of years ago supports the later scientific findings.

This makes more sense, if you read "earth" as soil, rather than "dry land." The first soils would form underwater, or in littoral zones.

The seed/fruit reference, which yield herb and tree (after their kind), could simply be a reference to the various reproductive strategies of the early "tree" of life--that eventually lead to the complex terrestrial life we see today--from bacterial and algal spores and fungal fruiting bodies, to the vegetative (asexual) and fruitful (sexual) strategies of today, after their kind.

If early life was on land at all, it would have been within a liquid film or layer of some sort. Without that "layer," soil (earth) is needed. That "layer" could have been a rock powder, eroded by acids from the environment or from bacteria, but some sort of organic debris [dust] needs to combine with the rock powder (ashes] before soil [earth] is formed... and can "let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding...." [New World Translation, 1984]

Note how Dust (carbon, silica) + Ashes (salts, metals) = Earth
We are literally, the salt of the earth....



Wow! I'd like to hear more about this. Can you put up some links?

~

sam





the first soils / earth did form underwater as Genesis clearly describes.







List of dinosaur species preserved with evidence of feathers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

Phylogeny and the inference of feathers in other dinosaurs



Avimimus portentosus (inferred 1987: quill knobs)[12][13]
Pelecanimimus polydon? (1994)[14]
Sinosauropteryx prima (1996)[15]
Protarchaeopteryx robusta (1997)[16]
GMV 2124 (1997)[17]
Caudipteryx zoui (1998)[18]
Rahonavis ostromi (inferred 1998: quill knobs; possibly avialan[19])[20]
Shuvuuia deserti (1999)[1]
Sinornithosaurus millenii (1999)[21]
Beipiaosaurus inexpectus (1999)[22]
Caudipteryx dongi (2000)[23]
Caudipteryx sp. (2000)[24]
Microraptor zhaoianus (2000)[25]
Nomingia gobiensis (inferred 2000: pygostyle)[26]
Psittacosaurus sp.? (2002)[27]
Yixianosaurus longimanus (2003)[28]
Dilong paradoxus (2004)[29]
Sinornithosaurus haoiana (2004)[30]
Pedopenna daohugouensis (2005; possibly avialan[31])[32]
Jinfengopteryx elegans (2005)[33][34]
Juravenator starki (2006)[35][36]
Sinocalliopteryx gigas (2007)[37]
Velociraptor mongoliensis (inferred 2007: quill knobs)[5]
Similicaudipteryx yixianensis (inferred 2008: pygostyle; confirmed 2010)[38][39]
Anchiornis huxleyi (2009)[40]
Tianyulong confuciusi? (2009)[41]
Concavenator corcovatus? (inferred 2010: quill knobs?)[42]
Xiaotingia zhengi (2011)[43]
Yutyrannus huali (2012)[44]
Microraptor hanqingi (2012)[45]
Sciurumimus albersdoerferi (2012)[46]
Ornithomimus edmontonicus (2012)[47]
Ningyuansaurus wangi (2012)[48]
Eosinopteryx brevipenna (2013)[49]
Citipati osmolskae (inferred 2013: pygostyle)[50]
Conchoraptor gracilis (inferred 2013: pygostyle)[50]

But Paul, your link says: "Due to these similarities and through developmental research, almost all scientists agree that feathers could only have evolved once in dinosaurs. Feathers would then have been passed down to all later, more derived species, unless some lineages lost feathers secondarily." & "They suggested that all of these structures may have been inherited from a common ancestor much earlier in the evolution of archosaurs, possibly in an ornithodire from the Middle Triassic or earlier."

Thanks for the wiki list of those dinos where: "Plumaceous feathers are found in nearly all lineages of Theropoda common in the northern hemisphere;" they sound like one branch of a tree.

Whenever feathers first arose, we don't need to have the fowl "start" in the sea; although technically everything arose from their own kinds, which all seem to have started in the sea, so that could make sense from that perspective.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder how much difference there was between the oceans and "dry land." With such a thick atmosphere back then, the surface may have been awash with condensed chemicals, like dew, making the surface fairly muddy. Also most of the continents had to form, as the cooling crust equilibrated, so there must have been some time when the continents were just under the ocean surface, and then some time when they were breaking through the surface and rising farther up--from normal geological buoyancy forces.

~

and the oldest found would probably be the ancestor or the species that later became birds.


1: flying fish Potanichthys , Potanichthys xingyiensis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potanichthys_xingyiensis

237 to 228 million years ago






2: the oldest dinosaur embryo ever found

197 to 190 million years ago.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=oldest-dinosaur-embryo-fossil-discovered-china




the oldest dinosaur fossil ever found is apx 250 million years old.



jawed fishes date back apx 450 million years , so the above found
flying / gliding fish may not be the oldest animal flight experiment that we know of.

we may never find the oldest until the sea levels decrease






larger image here
http://ww2.tnstate.edu/ganter/Geologic-Time.gif



the below pictured individuals are related believe it or not!
and crocodilians and birds are the only surviving dinosaurs.




4.5 billion years ago

hadean: no life , "now the the earth was unformed and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep"

3.8 billion years ago

archaen: first microfossils of prokaryotes / eukaryotes origin unknown , And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so.

loads of volcanic activity and tectonic activity occurring.

-> Co2 abundant in the atmosphere.

-> uv rays could not penetrate to the oceans floors where life is purported to have developed.


2.5 billion years ago

proterozoic: o2 accumulates in atmosphere , And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so.

-> recent discoveries show that life developed
first on land.

algae.


floats on top of water.





algae floating on top of water would be exposed to uv rays
and would be less agitated in ponds on land than in oceans.

as Genesis states that life first developed on land I
logically arrived at the view that Genesis was correct in that
plant life would more readily develop in and around or in the vicinity of these motionless ponds of life than around an always in motion sea shore.

but for now I have plastic to lay down in my garden so if
you will accept the above as an incomplete reply I
will add more later.

Thanks Paul, so it would seem that...
Whether it was on the muddy seafloor or on the muddy land, Life had to arise from whatever "earth" was accumulated there--as soil--as minerals (ashes) and humus (dust).



Ashes and dust are accurate metaphors for the different chemicals that comprise soil (earth); from which life (biomass) arises, and to which it returns.

~

sam

ah , I see.



I don't think the earth could cause

that would be Life coming from non Life.

Life is waaay too intelligent to come from non intelligence.

have you been able to teach your pet rock any tricks?

I never bought one myself.

I never bought one either. I preferred to adopt some wild rocks.

Bill Gill

yes , much cheaper and before and after they have become domesticated
they behave the same exact way as store bought pet rocks.

I don't let mine in the house however, I prefer to keep
my pets outside.

You must be right; nobody could create their own "pet rock." It would take an omnipotent omniscience to bring together various ashes and dusts in such a way as to cause Life to abiogenically shoot forth.
===

Of course just mixing some mineral ashes and organic dusts, to create soil, will not generate life; energy also needs to be added.

Paul, you are the light of the world. All life, even the fossilized sunlight we call petroleum, is some aggregated, concentrated, form of energy, which started as the "light" of the world.

Ashes + Dust + Light = Life

Just search "dissipative systems" (dissipative systems prigogine) and then (dissipative systems abiogenesis) to see what energy does when it is mixed with a soup of minerals and organics.

~

sam



If something has developed recently as the above seems to imply
I really would like to read about it , were scientist able to
create life?

personally I don't respect the origin of life myth.

however if some person has gained the ability to create Life
by mixing non living compounds with energy ( that holds no living organisms in it ) that would be a first and I would
enjoy reading about it , I haven't had my laugh yet today.

could you post a link , please.

I hope you've been enjoying those links, and suggested searches, from above.

Nobody has reproduced history in the laboratory, so I'm not sure why you'd think I found "a link" to some new discovery, but feel free to "get a laugh" from the links you can find yourself from the search suggestions above. Did you try pasting this [books.google.com/books?isbn=1402066252] into a search? I got the free preview, which provides amazingly extensive and in-depth (or laughable?) details.

If you expect to see, in one instantaneous comprehension, how life starts, then it is no wonder you find only good laughs. The building blocks of comprehension exist in understanding enough about Chaos Theory to see how "simple, robust, chaotic systems" lead to "emergent behaviours." The Web of Life, by Fritjof Capra, is a good way to learn about that particular basic building block.

Other necessary basics, such as chemistry and thermodynamics, are important to know about, or at least accept as valid to the extent the "laws" are experimentally verified. And, when combined with knowledge about the early "reducing" conditions of the planet, the revelations of how dissipative systems work should make the possibility of abiogenesis obvious--if not unavoidable.

I'll admit that I did get a long laugh, from reading the introductory line in the section about those early "reducing" condition. In the middle of reading a good review about those basics previously mentioned, he started the next section with "In the beginning, there was a 'big bang'...." Well, even though I could expect this lead into a discussion on chemistry, it struck me as the sort of comment you'd certainly enjoy.

Paul, read; it's free! It's all about primitive "cell" walls, surviving osmotic changes, and achieving growth (to the consequent point of division)... and how that would arise naturally, as nature unfolds, and energy runs downhill (entropy increases); especially with the conditions way back then, with all that (high energy) reduced iron floating around.
===

But enjoy laughing and pointing....

~

sam

so your telling me that no person has ever created life. ( something I already knew )

that life just created itself. ( which I don't believe is possible )

that I should spend my time reading about how people think life created itself. ( )

but its all about cell's. ( which are more complicated and show more intelligence than all books combined ever written by mankind ever since history began here on earth )



laughter is good for the soul , I wouldn't be laughing at you btw I think your relatively smart compared to others , its just the way science always seems to use the word create , when they
never have Created , jealousy perhaps?