A question for evolutionist,serious replies only.?

Question

if we all came from the big bang and there was nothing before, and the heat from the explosion must have been extreme, and nothing can live in the vacuum of space, how do you or informed people like you think life started? basic single cell life? in science you can neither create or destroy, only change a form. no hate on my part or yours. thanks

Answer 1

You can neither create nor destroy by conventional means. In nuclear reactions, matter is continually destroyed, which is the reason energy is released.

How exactly life started is unknown. It is not unthinkable that the right conditions were there, and that some higher power animated it. But it is also possible that, at the right time and the right place, several chemicals came together and started to replicate, then developed further over countless millennia into the creatures populating Earth, including humans.

Answer 2

The Big Bang was not an explosion.  I've never heard anyone claim there is life in the vacuum of space, though certain simple amino acids have been found on meteorites.  Science doesn't say you can't create or destroy.  The subject of the origin of life isn't evolution, it's abiogenesis.  And science has only the faintest of guesses about how life might have started.  Science doesn't even have a guess about where the energy for the Big Bang (or the intersecting M-branes) came from.

Answer 3

What the others have said. However your original statement is insulting by using the term "evolutionist." This is only used by people trying to posit evolution as a belief, which it is not. It is a set of scientific theories about how organisms change over time.

Answer 4

Correction: no one was saying there was nothing before the big bang. The actual concept is that there was nothing that could influence our universe and that we can observe.

As for the origin of life, there is the issue that earth was not a vacuum, once it had formed. There was an atmosphere, just like there is one on Venus (toxic) or Mars (tenuous) or Jupiter (crushing). And there were enough chemicals present, and enough energy to stir the pot, and enough time (billion of years) so that at some point, at some place, the right chemicals were in the right proportions to start something, a very primitive life. It took a billion years before this primitive life passed the stage of being a mere bacteria to something more advanced, and another billion before these more advanced micro-organism changed just enough (and actually, it only needed a single one to do this once) to start going multi-cellular.

For the record, the big bang occurred around 13 billion years ago. The solar system (a 3rd generation star actually) formed about 4.5 billion years ago; by that time, the extreme heat of the big bang was a bit more bearable, hardly hotter than it is today.

So, we did not come from the big bang, our nucleons did (not even most of our atoms, which had to be formed by the fusion of lighter elements,and then scattered by exploding supernovae). The big bang was more or less just setting up the grocery list; there are a lot of steps between setting up a grocery list and having a cake ready to eat.

Edit: well, there are dust cloud in space. We can even observe them now, in some stellar nursery (check out the dramatic Orion Nebula pictures that Hubble took, stars are being born there as we speak). Gas will coalesce into dust particles in the cold interstellar space, and when a dust cloud gets large enough, and gets hit by the shockwave of an exploding star, of be affected by the gravity of a passing body, it will start collapsing, eventually forming a star and its planets.

Answer 5

Life is a chemical process.  It is a complicated, to be sure, but it is just chemistry.  If you get the right chemicals together (ammonia, water, carbon dioxide, etc) with the right heat and pressure, it can just happen.  It's just little pieces at first, but the tend to stick together.  That is why astronomers are so interested in finding water on other planets.

Answer 6

> "if we all came from the big bang and there was nothing before, and the heat from the explosion must have been extreme, and nothing can live in the vacuum of space, how do you or informed people like you think life started?"

Firstly, theories involving the origins of life and involving the origins of the universe are NOT pert of evolution.

Evolution describes how life changes over time. Not how it began (this is "abiogenesis"), and definitely not how *everything* began ("cosmology").

That said - you seem to be under the impression that science thinks that life already existed when the Big Bang occurred. This is NOT the case - *matter* didn't even exist at the Big Bang.

The Big Bang occurred about 14 Billion years ago, and life didn't arise on earth until about 4 Billion years ago. There was 10 billion years of time when there was no life (and for most of it, there was no "earth" either).

> "basic single cell life?"

This is thought to have arisen on earth about 4 Billion years ago. There are several different suggested mechanisms for how it arose (see the wikipedia entry on Abiogenesis for a decent primer), but none are well-accepted in the scientific community yet (though the "RNA world" hypothesis is possibly the best-accepted).

> "in science you can neither create or destroy, only change a form."

???

I think you mean "by the laws of physics, as we currently understand them, it is not possible to create matter or energy, only to change the form."

This is (largely) correct - but what does this have to do with either evolution or abiogenesis?

> "my point on the vacuum of space is the transfer through of all these things we need for life to exist, was through space when there was no atmosphere. how did anything survive the explosion and the travel through space."

As I said above - it didn't (at least, not according to Abiogenesis). Life arose on earth (within its atmosphere) about 10 billion years after the Big Bang occurred.

If you are asking about "Panspermia" - the hypothesis that life arose elsewhere in the universe and was somehow carried to earth - then the answer is "inside cometary debris".

Panspermia is not, however, well-accepted scientifically (even less than abiogenesis).

Answer 7

It doesn't matter if it was hot after the big bang or if it was a vacuum, because life on earth didn't form until at least 10 billion years after the big bang.  That's a lot of time spent cooling down, and planets forming and developing an atmosphere, and now we have an environment that's neither hot nor a vacuum.  And that's when earth life formed.  And it came from nonliving molecules.  If you pressed rewind and went back to the time of the first life, there would be no point where you could stop and say 'This thing right here is the first lifeform.'  We humans life to think in black and white terms, where something is either alive or not alive, but nature doesn't work that way.  Nature doesn't have clear dividing lines.  Take a virus for example, it fits under some definitions of life and not others.  Even a star fits some definitions of life (it generates energy, it reproduces.)

Answer 8

Well, the big bang and creating life has little to do with evolution in terms of scientific fields of study.

The Big Bang falls under the category of astronomy and cosmology.

Creating life from molecular matter falls under biological abiogenesis.

Evolution is the idea that life evolved into its present forms from common ancestors, through processes such as natural selection, genetic variation, random mutation, etc

Also, did you know that water bears, a relatively complex type of "mite" can live in the vacuum of space? If a mite can survive in space, then single celled organism would have no problems. But what does survival in space have to do with evolution?