How did an inanimate object evolve into the first living thing?

>>9158798
Depends where you want to draw the line between inanimate and animate

lightning

>>9158798
are viruses living? depending on your definition an intermediate structure similar to a virus could be considered a middle step between an empty phospholipid bi-layer and a replicating, living, respirating cell

File: 1470938690044.png (806KB, 1001x823px) Image search: [Google]

806KB, 1001x823px

>>9158818

>tfw you realize everything is a living thing

>>9158798
G*d's will

>>9158798
with great difficulty

Amino acids and other substances in earth's oceans randomly combined, broke apart and recombined until one day a particular combination of polymers catalyzed the formation of more polymers, though not exact copies.

The simplest way to replicate is to match molecules to those in the original thereby forming a replica alongside it, the way cytosine bonds with guanine, adenine bonds with thymine/uracil and whatnot. It is possible replication was not precise to begin with and rather a byproduct of polymer formation, likely in crevices near ocean vents where they had accumulated. Eventually in this "primordial soup" a particular arrangement promoted the creation of more like itself and could compete with polymers that formed randomly. The process of evolution had begun at the molecular level.

The first protocells likely didn't have cell walls, rather they were an RNA-like polymer that produced simple substances to help it survive and reproduce. These substances supported the nucleus thereby allowing it to specialize as a store of information and become increasingly complex. Eventually complex cellular processes allowed for the creation of a cell membrane and what we would recognize as life.

>>9158798
I just reversed it's internal entropy enough to make room for gay anime incest cartoons and dragon dildo's

>>9158798
This isn't a question about the theory of evolution btw. It's a question about the theory of abiogenesis.

>>9158904 here
note: polymers of a particular arrangement that could not replicate accurately would not compose much of the future primordial soup, thus selecting for traits that allowed accurate replication

>>9158798
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1XWtezOTvY

>>9158904
Lipid vesicles containing those nucleotide polymers explains how these polymers could "survive" in the harsh chemical environment. So there is no need to explain cell walls as a later development.

>>9158798

all theories on this are pulled right out of someones ass so take your pick

>>9158798
>implying living things arent just as inanimate as rocks

File: brain.jpg (59KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1200x630px

>>9158863
>tfw you realize nothing is

>>9158904
>Supported the nucleus
Then how do you explain Prokaryotic cells?

>>9158798
Plants are inanimate right? Or do you call them immobile?

>>9159032
From what I can see they have a single chromosome or something. That might count as a nucleus but not necessarily

>>9158911
/thread

>>9158911
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQrCsPrh11M

>>9158798
Eventually

>>9159492
>>9158911
hydrogen bond < covalent bonding < ionic bonding

>>9159474

The technical term is reserved exclusively for animals as opposed to plant-y things, and is called /locomotion/. This covers rapid motions where the whole entire organism-thing moves from one place to the next, and might be walking, flying, jumping, and so on.

The planty-y fungus-y things move quite often of course, growing bigger and smaller as it might be of a day or a few days. They might even pop out some seeds which themselves end up traveling. But the thing about the planty things is that they inevitably stay physically rooted to some such-and-such a spot, and go about their whole business much more slowly than animals of course, and so these are some of the reasons why it is natural for us, as thinking judgers of the world, to judge animals and planty things to move in fundamentally different ways from one another.

>>9158798
Lightning striking the ocean caused organic chemicals in the water to bond into nanomachines which developed self replication creating the first life bacteria.

>>9158798
would have initially been closer to a continuous simple chemical reaction than life in the present time. Of course between the two, it is hard to really define life.

Here you go OP:
youtu.be/K1xnYFCZ9Yg
This video neatly breaks down the RNA world hypothesis
/thread

File: wojak-chan.png (112KB, 645x1242px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 645x1242px

>>9158798
It didn't, Louis Pasteur established life only ever comes from life. Abiogenesis is an atheist meme with zero evidence.