first genetic material

Hi dpeele,

Welcome to EvC.

If we are considering RNA as the substance that started the chain, where did the matter necessary to form RNA originate?

If you are simply refering to the chemical compounds, which I believe is what you mean by "matter", or in other words, the elements found on the Periodic Table of Elements, those originate in solar fussion. In the core of stars.

Once a star, given that it is large enough, goes supernova it explodes sending all of these elements into space enriching prestine gas clouds. Which then collapes under their own gravity and form new stars. The left over elelments and "stuff" gets trapped in the stars gravitational pull and forms new planets.

Earth, in it's formation, came convinetly equiped with many elements which now make up all living organisms.

This is of course a quick explanation. Search throughout the rest of this site form more specifics, but I hope this helps get you started.

- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Does anyone have a theory on the origin of the elements?

Yes, I believe I gave it to you.

Here:

Stellar Nucleosynthesis

quote:

---

Stellar nucleosynthesis is the collective term for the nuclear reactions taking place in stars to build the nuclei of the elements heavier than hydrogen.

---

Supernova Nucleosynthesis

quote:

---

Supernova nucleosynthesis is the production of new chemical elements inside supernova. It occurs primarily due to explosive nucleosynthesis during explosive oxygen burning and silicon burning . Those fusion reactions create the elements silicon, sulfur, chlorine, argon, sodium, potassium, calcium, scandium, titanium and iron peak elements: vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel. As a result of their ejection from individual supernovae, their abundances grow increasingly larger within the interstellar medium. Heavy elements (heavier than nickel) are created primarily by a neutron capture process known as the r process.

---

This is where the elements originate.

They then get picked up in the process of planetary formation.

The Earth formed with these elements in it. Natural chemical reactions brought these chemicals together to form, what we refer to as, life.

Do you have any other theories in mind?

This is the ONLY scientific theory there is for the origin of the elements.

I like your Chomsky quote.

Thanks. Good philosophy to live by, in my opinion. Also, I believe it's the philosophy responsible for saving society from religious rule.

- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I don't have any theories... I don't have the intelligence or the vision. I guess we make the assumption that the building blocks,oxygen and silicon within the supernova, was in existence but origin can not be determined.

Origin of what cannot be determined?

You asked where the elements came from, I gave you the answer that science has presented due to the large amount of evidence that supports it. So the origin of the elements, which is what you asked, has been determined.

What other origin are you refering to?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Where did the burning oxygen and burning silicon come from?

You are clearly not reading the links.

Oxygen and silicon originate IN the star. Stars do NOT need oxygen or silicon to form. Oxygen and silicon are the result of a stellar fusion.

A star forms when the hydrogen gas clouds collapes under their own gravity, NOT from oxygen and silicon. Oxygen and silicon, and the other heavier elements come after the star is formed.

Hydrogen originated at the Big Bang, along with helium, as a result of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. Please read the link for full descrpition.

However, here's a quote:

quote:

---

Big Bang nucleosynthesis (or primordial nucleosynthesis) refers to the production of nuclei other than those of H-1 (i.e. the normal, light isotope of hydrogen, whose nuclei consist of a single proton each) during the early phases of the universe. Primordial nucleosynthesis took place just a few minutes after the Big Bang and is believed to be responsible for the formation of a heavier isotope of hydrogen known as deuterium (H-2 or D), the helium isotopes He-3 and He-4, and the lithium isotopes Li-6 and Li-7. In addition to these stable nuclei some unstable, or radioactive, isotopes were also produced during primordial nucleosynthesis: tritium or H-3; beryllium-7 (Be-7), and beryllium-8 (Be-8). These unstable isotopes either decayed or fused with other nuclei to make one of the stable isotopes.

---

So, lets see if you are following.

You asked for the origin of the elements that are found in all living organisms, such as carbon, oxygen, etc. The answer was, they originate in stars by a process called Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

You also asked for how stars form, you thought they needed oxygen and silicon to form, that is wrong. They form when hydrogen collapses: The Sun.

To follow your questions order, you would then ask, where did hydrogen come from? The answer is Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

To summarize: The elements for life originate in stars due to stellar nucleosynthesis, stars form when hydrogen collapses due to the force of gravity, and hydrogen originated at the Big Bang due to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. And there you have the origin of all of it. What other origins do you feel haven't been addressed?

Edited by onifre, : clarify

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi dpeele,

Do you believe this quote to be true. I start have trouble at this point.

As per Coyotes correction we'll go with "accurate".

So, yes, I beleive it to be absolutely accurate.

Why wouldn't you? Perhaps your "trouble" with it stems from a lack of understanding of it. Perhaps not, maybe you've done the research and found a better alternative. If you did, or know of another alternative that has a strong evidence basis then I, and I would expect that everyone, would be all ears. But to place unjust doubt on a theory having nothing to either back up the doubt or to present as an alternative leaves you in a very bad position.

That there can be another explanation is not out of the realm of possibility, even though the evidence is so strong. However, until evidence is shown to the contrary, the theories surrounding the origin of the elements is all we currently have.

However, I would suggest that before you seek out alternetive theories you get fully familiar with the current, accepted theories that way you have a basis for your rejection of them.

- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I have a hard time believing that 113 unique elements were created by superheated oxygen and silicon

I'm also having trouble understanding why you are not reading the links that I provide.

The elements are not "created" by superheated oxygen and silicon. In fact, elements aren't "created" at all, they are fused from smaller elements/atoms. If you work it backwards, from the larges elements to smallest, you get to one single element/atom, hydrogen.

So, 113 elements are not the result of hot oxygen and silicon. It is the accumulated combination of elements through the proccess of fusing at high enough temps. 1 element fuses to make 2 elements - (hydrogen makes helium), 2 fuse to make 3, 3 make 4, 4 make 5, and so on. It is the result of billions of years of this process that reaches 113 elements.

As far as I know scientist can not recreate an event to produce even one element.

Then you are limited in what you know on this subject and again I suggest you read the links, properly.

See.. my doubt is based on claims that I feel have not been proven.

You see, it doesn't matter what you doubt, it has been proven, observed and recreated, your ignorance on the subject doesn't change that.

Now, you can either do the research and get educated on it, which I tried to help you with, or, you can remain ignorant on the subject and "believe" whatever you want. No one cares either way.

One position is continuing to search while the other has settled on fabrication.

The only fabrication is in your ridiculous attempts to discredit the work done by scientist much more educated than you and I in this subject. Your ignorance is evident.

Darwin challenged the accepted creationist theory of his day. I am just asking questions.

I don't care that you ask questions, I care that you reject the answer for no reason what so ever. You just "feel" it's wrong, well, what the fuck do you know?

You came here with little to no knowledge about any of it, then I try to steer you in the right direction and you present a position of incredulity and ignorance. I don't much care for it.

If you have something substancial to show as evidence against these long standing theories I'm ready to read it, if not then what are you claiming? That you don't "get it"? Well, too bad I guess, for you.

Ask questions, listen to and accept the answers. OR. Prove it wrong with counter evidence to the contrary. Don't tell me what you feel is wrong or right, because no one cares.

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"

I question your steadfast unwillingness to learn and happyness in your ignorance.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I noticed you chose not deal with "few minutes" and "is believed to be" in your quote explaining the Big Bang.

The reason being that those are layman terms. We're not supposed to get hung up on key words like that from a wiki link.

The proper method of calculating what happened seconds after T=O is beyond my knowledge and I would assume beyond yours as well. So I figured the wiki links were easier for you to read and for me to answer from.

I don't accept the time frame - could have been 15.756489347 seconds or a billions years - face it...they don't know.

"They" do, they understand it very well. Physicist have no need to explain it to someone like you or I who wouldn't "get it" to begin with, thus layman books are produced to explain it in easier terms. But, like you have done, people who lack even basic physics(not thet I think you do) will get confused by what they read in layman books and get hung up on terms like "believed to be".

This is the down side of these books. It also should be above use to dismiss the work done by highly intelligent people working very hard in their respective fields, who then take the time out to write these books to help those with a lesser understanding. I would say just read it, try to understand it, ask as many questions as possible, but under no circumstance try to dismiss any of it, you(and I) lack the knowledge to be able to do that.

I personally know very little about String Theory. I have read 2 books on it specifically and still know very little. How would it look if someone on this site who DID understand it very well was explaining it to me and I told them "I don't believe you"? It would be well within that persons right to tell me to piss off and don't come to them with questions anymore, don't you think? SO my job as a layman is to listen and try to learn, not reject the information and question the credibility of science/scientist.

They are not sure that this process produced the elements by their own admission - "is believed to be"

That is not their own admission, that was a wiki link.

We have a few resident physicist here on this site, you can ask them if they "believe" it happened or if they "know" it happened. However, what they'll explain to you and the mathematics they'll use to explain it will be beyond your ability to understand so it makes no sense to delve that deep. But, by all means delve.

Propose a new thread and simply ask how do cosmologist know that hydrogen was produced at the big bang?

And also ask how do we know that the elements originate in the core of a sun?

Trust me you will have no shortage of people willing to help you.

The simple question "Where did that come from?" will take you back far enough into the theory that you will have to say "I don't know how that happened or where it originated".

This is too generalized. Where did what specifically come from? Everything after the Big Bang is understood how it originates, before that is complicated, however, there are many threads on this site dedicated to explaining just that.

EVs have to believe it was just there and IDs believe it was spoken into existence from nothing. Either way... you don't know.

By EV's do you mean evolutionist? Irrelevant. Evolution and cosmology are worlds apart. A biologist weighing in on matters dealing with cosmology, unless he actually studied the subject, is a layman like you or I.

Don't get used to throwing out those creationist labels like "evolutionist". Our opinions don't dictate what occurs in nature.

Evolution happens whether you are an "evolutionist" or a "creationist". It's a natural process of adaptation, it's biological, it occurs at the genetic level, whether people accept it or not. It's like gravity. It happens whether you believe the theory that explains it or not.

IDs want to prove creation; Humanists want to prove evolution.

First, what do you mean by "humanist"?

The only thing that science is doing is explaining what is observed. In the theory of evolution there is an explanation for the observed phenomenon. Now, whether the theory fully explains it, partially explains it, or doesn't explain it at all, is secondary to the observed phenomenon.

IF the theory of evolution is wrong then scientist will eventually figure that out by doing science and propose a *new* theory of evolution to explain it better. The same goes for gravity for example. IF the theory of gravity is wrong then scientist will eventually figure that out by doing science and propose a *new* theory of gravity to explain it better. But, neither gravity or evolution stop happening just because humans can't fully explain how it happens.

I can understand your frustration, but the use of "street language" is not necessary and beneath a person of your intellect.

They're just words but if they bother you then I apologies and won't use them when repling to you.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

They are not just words. You have wide variety of words at your disposal and you choose the one that best expresses your emotion at the moment. They give insight to who you are...

They are just words, used to express emotion and whatever else I'd like it to express.

If you want an insight into who I am you won't get it from me using the word "fuck". I hope you don't think I'm that superficial to be defined by certain words?

I'm from the streets. I was alone at a young age. I talk like that in normal conversation. I hang out with people who do the same. All of which are highly intelligent people and that part of their vocabuary says nothing about who they are.

If I offended you then AGAIN I'm sorry. If you want to drag it out further then I promise I'll eventually offend you again, OR, we could just stick to the thread and the topic.

Your call.

- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

What is the origin of the primeval atom?

If you're just going to quote mine wiki then you are not here for honest inquery.

Your question is off topic, as Theo pointed out to you.

You don't even understand what Lemaitre's theory explains and what the "primeval atom" actually signifies. Once again your layman senses have failed you. Instead of asking "where did it come from", like you know or you have some secret to share, try asking WHAT IS IT, first?

But, not on this thread.

(1) Are you satisfied with how the elements originate?

(2) How these elements get to be part of a planets make up?

(3) How these elements in proper combination form genetic structures?

Those 3 questions are related to THIS topic. Stick to it that way we can get past the original misconceptions in your initial questions.

- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

however, neither of us have the answer to the "something", so we will have to wonder what that "something" was and believe what we believe.

What made the Sun rise?

What made the planets orbit?

What made billions of galaxies?

What made a solar eclipse?

What made H2 O water?

What made trees grow?

What made the moon?

What is expanding the universe?

There... There are a bunch of things of which you can either answer "God did it" or "I don't know, but lets research it"...

Would you like to jump to conclusions and say "God did it all", "God did some of it", or wait for the results from the folks studying it?

- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I've taken a shot at your question... now tell me where did the "primeval atom" originate?

NOT ON TOPIC

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

The point is we don't know.

I think the point is that YOU personally don't know and figure no one else knows either. But people do know, are well educated on it, and owe you and I nothing in regards to having to justify what they know.

We can re-engineer the universe back to a certain point and then have to say "I don't know what this is, how it got here or how it works".

Followed by...

"So let's continue to study it until we do know and not make any assumtions".

When we started our thread my purpose was never to dispute scientific facts.

Yet you disputed the facts:

dpeele writes: Do you believe this quote to be true. I start have trouble at this point.

The "quote" was the scientific explanation of nucleosynthesis. So you disputed the facts.

dpeele writes: Very well... do you believe the statement to be accurate?

You dispute the facts again.

dpeele writes: See.. my doubt is based on claims that I feel have not been proven.

...and again.

dpeele writes: I don't accept the time frame - could have been 15.756489347 seconds or a billions years - face it...they don't know.

...and again.

Need I go on?

Face it, your attempt was to pose the question with the intent to disagree with any scientific explanantion that was given to you. However, perhaps you didn't anticipate the fact that it was so well documented and evidenced that now you have back peddled and waved a white flag.

Do you disagree with the origin of the elements?

In other words, do you disagree with the theory explaining nucleosynthesis?

I have posed similar questions to creationists and they go back as far back as a Being with no beginning, no end, all powerful, etc... with no other explanation.

Ok. But from the moment that the Big Bang "occurs" and matter forms - til today - every single element that composes up all of life is understood how it originates. If you are seeking the origin of the universe you are in the wrong thread.

Both positions appear to build on or back into unapprovable assumptions.

The origin of the universe is still being studied.

However, and I know this is off topic, but who do you think will eventually give us the answer, a scientist or a clergyman?

I'm in the "I don't know, but let's research it camp", but I can't tell someone this is how it happened when there are so many unknowns.

Fair enough, but there is still no reason to invoke god(s)/supernatural entities/metaphysical energies/etc. Point being it will have arose through natural forces like everything else. There has never been any reason to think otherwise other than wishful thinking.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky