Geofavor:

I see you're taking your time to savour knowledge.

I had a lil bit of necessary distractions, but preparation's still on going slow and steady here, too.

That's great !

Geofavor:

Lol. See as you dey laugh me. We are still on the same page here, boss.
It seems you and the other guys misunderstood what I meant by "explosion" in that context. I didn't mean "blow up". No. I meant a "rampant increase".

If I'm correct, a singularity exploded (or expanded) over billions of years to form the universe -- says the theory.

That singularity itself was the universe at the tiniest miniscule stage, and it was not an expansion of matter but of Space/time itself.

Subsequently, living organism began to emerge. How? They formed themselves from the already existing matter. This, I am not comfortable with.

The universe is ever evolving, newer values emerge from the interaction of older ones.

there were no stars at the beginning of the universe, but through the interaction of hydrogen (matter) and gravity stars were born and this emergence of stars made it possible for planets to form.

And with the activities going on within the star core heavy elements that are the bedrocks of our being came into existence.

Oxygen
Carbon
Nitrogen
(Hydrogen was before)

and from supernovas these elements scattered through the universe and made it possible for planets like earth to form.

With the right condition, water and time and the availability of these required elements life as we know it can emerge...

It is a natural chemistry.

so you are just another product of the universe through different unplanned interactions.

it was not an emergence of a complex functional macro organisms but rather the simplest form of cell.

microbile life forms..

. Definitely I have a lot to learn. If this is so, shouldn't reproduction be made from raw matter then? I think abiogenesis is still a mere hypothesis.

Hahahahahahaha you still have a lot to learn truly but we all do anyway.

Everything is matter ..
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-24/scientists-create-tiniest-life-form-yet-not-sure-what-it-is

life is chemistry, we don't yet know how it happened yet but we are too close to knowing..

Lalasticlala mynd44 UjSizzle do the needful .. we need more audience bosses!!!

I'm patiently waiting for part two.

johnydon22:


That singularity itself was the universe at the tiniest miniscule stage, and it was not an expansion of matter but of Space/time itself.



The universe is ever evolving, newer values emerge from the interaction of older ones.

there were no stars at the beginning of the universe, but through the interaction of hydrogen (matter) and gravity stars were born and this emergence of stars made it possible for planets to form.

And with the activities going on within the star core heavy elements that are the bedrocks of our being came into existence.

Oxygen
Carbon
Nitrogen
(Hydrogen was before)

and from supernovas these elements scattered through the universe and made it possible for planets like earth to form.

With the right condition, water and time and the availability of these required elements life as we know it can emerge...

It is a natural chemistry.

so you are just another product of the universe through different unplanned interactions.

it was not an emergence of a complex functional macro organisms but rather the simplest form of cell.

microbile life forms..



Hahahahahahaha you still have a lot to learn truly but we all do anyway.

Everything is matter ..
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-24/scientists-create-tiniest-life-form-yet-not-sure-what-it-is

life is chemistry, we don't yet know how it happened yet but we are too close to knowing..

hmm. Okay. Lemme stand by and continue learning from you experts,









while I make my deductions.



modified*
@ bolded. What I meant by "raw matter" is non-living matter. Of cause I know everything is matter.
However, I believe that for a living organism to have emerged, there has to have been a pre-existing living thing which brought about its coming to life.

Abiogenesis suggests that life is prolonged by the continual coming to life of inanimate things and not by reproduction of a species by the same species.

Some say abiogenesis was how life began, then later on, the conditions( temperature, elements, energy and so one) favoured procreation. it's all still speculations.

I checked that article; I'm not convinced. true, scientists have done works like that one in the article that makes it close to verifying abiogenesis. But it is still yet to be proven.

Geofavor:

hmm. Okay. Lemme stand by and continue learning from you experts,

while I make my deductions.



modified*
@ bolded. What I meant by "raw matter" is non-living matter. Of cause I know everything is matter.

Living matters are also made of non-living matters, the right words here for matters that can give rise to living organism is Organic

It is an organic chemistry with carbon as a bedrock for building the complex chain.

However, I believe that for a living organism to have emerged, there has to have been a pre-existing living thing which brought about its coming to life.

But you forgot that this pre-existing living organism must also require another to bring it into being.

and this must also require another pre-existing living organism and so it goes into a chain of infinite regress.

of which in this infinite loop there will also get to a point where these pre-existing living organisms will have to emerge from non-living matter.

Abiogenesis suggests that life is prolonged by the continual coming to life of inanimate things and not by reproduction of a species by the same species.

Rather it suggests the emergence of life (simplest form of cell) came from non-living but organic elements.

the development of this cell to different species and the attainment of complexity is now dubbed evolution

Some say abiogenesis was how life began, then later on, the conditions( temperature, elements, energy and so one) favoured procreation. it's all still speculations.

Those conditions are from our own judgments as Earth based and Carbon based life forms.

we know Oxygen, water, right temperature etc are necessary for our own forms of life so that's why i said Life as we know it those are not speculations but holds true in terms of most earth life forms.

There are also some organisms that exist and thrive in earth conditions we may consider impossible, like extremely high and low temperature, absence oxygen, some can even live in the vacuum of space comfortably.

Abiogenesis is hypothetical, nobody knows for sure how life began and that is why study is still on going in that area..

We are this close to knowing

I checked that article; I'm not convinced. true, scientists have done works like that one in the article that makes it close to verifying abiogenesis. But it is still yet to be proven.

Lol.. That article was not a meant as a proof of abiogenesis but rather to show you life is a chemistry.

We are close enough to synthesize life in a lab showing we sooner or later can demonstrate how with the right elements, conditions and time Life can emerge from Organic non- living matter contrary to your belief.

Science is the philosophy of discovery while belief is that of uncertainty..

johnydon22:


Abiogenesis is hypothetical, nobody knows for sure how life began and that is why study is still on going in that area..

voila!

Lemme stand by and learn.

Registering...
This will be cool for the holidays.
Kudos Johnny.

How did thread on newton's laws end up with discussions of abiogenesis?

Johnydon, sir, keep up the good work. You are really trying for this section. Effort and inspiration and all.

Teempakguy:
How did thread on newton's laws end up with discussions of abiogenesis?

Bros e tire me ooo

Johnydon, sir, keep up the good work. You are really trying for this section. Effort and inspiration and all.

Bosses Lalasticlala and mynd44 don't want to help us out though!

johnydon22:


Bros e tire me ooo



Bosses Lalasticlala and mynd44 don't want to help us out though!

I am here, looking for a whatsapp science group tho. Any ideas?

Teempakguy:
I am here, looking for a whatsapp science group tho. Any ideas?

None unless a BBM group by RobinHez for thinkers and science lovers, i'd prefer another science discussion thread on NL though!!

johnydon22:


None unless a BBM group by RobinHez for thinkers and science lovers, i'd prefer another science discussion thread on NL though!!

you know it will be closed. I have my eyes on NDC. A whatsapp group I'm being called to.

Great piece mate..

Geofavor:

Lol. See as you dey laugh me. We are still on the same page here, boss.
It seems you and the other guys misunderstood what I meant by "explosion" in that context. I didn't mean "blow up". No. I meant a "rampant increase".

If I'm correct, a singularity exploded (or expanded) over billions of years to form the universe -- says the theory.

Subsequently, living organism began to emerge. How? They formed themselves from the already existing matter. This, I am not comfortable with.




. Definitely I have a lot to learn. If this is so, shouldn't reproduction be made from raw matter then? I think abiogenesis is still a mere hypothesis.

I trust the hypothesis od abiogenesis , 'cause living compounds(complex protein compound) have been successfully recreated in laboratories ,by making a kind of parody of the early stages of the earth, one thing bothers me. How was life able to replicate, I understand the process though, what I mean is why? Why were organisms able to reproduce, what prompted this action?

CltrAltDelicious:
It a pity our educational system is not encouraging when it comes to science most of us would have been science students, I regret not being a science student
Good job my fine sire

Haha, not too late nah.

rhizoidz:
I trust the hypothesis od abiogenesis , 'cause living compounds(complex protein compound) have been successfully recreated in laboratories ,by making a kind of parody of the early stages of the earth, one thing bothers me. How was life able to replicate, I understand the process though, what I mean is why? Why were organisms able to reproduce, what prompted this action?

nice initiatives.
I have some thoughts that could keep expanding and expanding just like I did with the Op, however, I wouldn't want to derail this thread from the main course.

Lalasticlala can we get this to the front page please?

Geofavor:

It still doesn't make sense to me. That's one scientific theory I refuse to agree on. I haven't really delved into it, though (maybe because I'm not intrigued by the Idea). I don't really like the Idea that living matter came out of a mass of energy and non-living matter.

The big bang theory explains how the universe began from the expansion caused by the cataclysmic explosion of a primordial infinitely dense atom of infinitesimally small dimensions resulting in the creation of matter, space and time. It has nothing to do with life.
Evolution on the other hand explains how matter given time and space with the right amount of energy can spontateously combine to form a self replicating organic entity aka living organism.

dorox:


The big bang theory explains how the universe began from the expansion caused by the cataclysmic explosion of a primordial infinitely dense atom of infinitesimally small dimensions resulting in the creation of matter, space and time. It has nothing to do with life.
Evolution on the other hand explains how matter given time and space with the right amount of energy can spontateously combine to form a self replicating organic entity aka living organism.

clap for yaself, stephen hawking.

Before rushing into discarding what I said in a flash, pause and think. The bigbang suggests the inception of everything -- the begining of the universe, right?

Now, if the universe didn't come to be, subsequently, would there be life? The answer to this is what I was talking about.

What you said is just like saying fire has nothing to do with a cooked food because it isn't part of the ingredients in the cooked food.

Geofavor:

clap for yaself, stephen hawking.

Before rushing into discarding what I said in a flash, pause and think. The bigbang suggests the inception of everything -- the begining of the universe, right?

Now, if the universe didn't come to be, subsequently, would there be life? The answer to this is what I was talking about.

What you said is just like saying fire has nothing to do with a cooked food because it isn't part of the ingredients in the cooked food.

Hello my friend, there is no need for the attitude. We are all here to discuss our individual understanding of science and in the process learn from each other. It is expected of a forum like this to generate lots of disagreement, but to go about calling someone you disagree with names is uncalled for and does not help our discussion but derails it.

Your analogy about cooked food and fire does not apply because they are two separate things related by fire cooking food, one does not constitute the other.
A better analogy will be the relationship between the earth and man. Every elements present in our body is from the earth, so one can theorise that a human can be made from the earth if a process can be found that will combine materials from the earth in exactly the same shape and form of a human atom by atom.
Now evolution is just one process, maybe it is wrong, but there are others and one of them has to be right because man exist. Which brings me to the point I made earlier that the theory of how the eatrth came to be is a different subject matter to how the elements of the earth combined to form the first man in the same way that the theory of how the universe came to be is a different subject from the theory of how life came about.

dorox:

Hello my friend, there is no need for the attitude. We are all here to discuss our individual understanding of science and in the process learn from each other. It is expected of a forum like this to generate lots of disagreement, but to go about calling someone you disagree with names is uncalled for and does not help our discussion but derails it.

Your analogy about cooked food and fire does not apply because those are two seperate things related by fire cooking food, one does not constitute the other.
A better analogy will be the relationship between the earth and man. Every elements present in our body is from the earth, so one can theorise that a human can be made from the earth if a process can be found that will combine materials from the earth in exactly the same shape and form of a human atom by atom.
Now evolution is just one process, maybe it is wrong, but there are others and one of them has to be right because man exist. Which brings me to the point I made earlier that the theory of how the eatrth came to be. is a different subject matter to how the elements of the earth combined to form the first man. in the same way that the thery of how the universe came to be. is a different subject from the theory of how life came about.

sorry If I seemed a bit cranky earlier.

@ the bolded, I'm not disputing that. True, they're different subject matters. But without the first one, there wouldn't be the second. This is why I took the theories as a single whole; a single whole which is just subdivided (if i may say).


Maybe you don't see it, but there is a link between the two theories -- abiogenesis is a spin-off of the bigbang.

Geofavor:

sorry If I seemed a bit cranky earlier.

@ the bolded, I'm not disputing that. True, they're different subject matters. But without the first one, there wouldn't be the second. This is why I took the theories as a single whole; a single whole which is just subdivided (if i may say).


Maybe you don't see it, but there is a link between the two theories -- abiogenesis is a spin-off of the bigbang.

Can you tell me the link please?

dorox:

Can you tell me the link please?

"Abiogenesis is a spin-off of the bigbang."

Geofavor:

"Abiogenesis is a spin-off of the bigbang."

I heard you the first time, my question was how are they linked? While on the subject I will like to know which theory about the birth of the universe and the creation of life appeals to you the most.

Interesting convo here enjoying it ...

dorox:

I heard you the first time, my question was how are they linked?

... The theories both explain a genesis: after the bigbang explained how the universe came about, abiogenesis further explained how living organisms in the same universe came about.

While on the subject I will like to know which theory about the birth of the universe and the creation of life appeals to you the most.

well, there's a little sense in abiogenesis.

Cc. lalasticlala can you do the needful for us here for once

johnydon22:
Cc. lalasticlala can you do the needful for us here for once

Keyword: Tiwa and Teebillz