Where it all began...

Steve01

Hey everyone, I was wondering if you could tell me the general viewpoint among atheists regarding the Big Bang? I understand that life evolved on earth, I don't understand how life could have appeared in the first place. Richard Dawkins seemed unclear on that point in 'The God delusion', or if he explained it then it went straight over my head.
Basically I'm looking for a biological explanation for how DNA (the building block of life presumably) came about at the beginning without the usual 'it must have been God' response, if an explanation exists.
All responses greatly appreciated

Lord Suave

Its quite simple really, the big bang was caused when the mystic invisible pink unicorn (blessed be its name) punctured the hallowed balloon of nothingness with its mystical horn of creation. It got such a fright from the resulting bang that it then put itself beyond creation which is why you can no longer see it.

pH

Strictly speaking the formation of the first replicating chemicals has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

Wikipedia wrote:

There is no truly "standard" model of the origin of life. But most currently accepted models build in one way or another upon a number of discoveries about the origin of molecular and cellular components for life, which are listed in a rough order of postulated emergence:

1. Plausible pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
2. Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
3. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis).
4. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. Thus the first ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
5. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.

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

My guess is that it's all going to be very complex, and will only really understood properly by organic chemists. Somewhere a molecule was formed that could split in two or somehow produce copies of itself, and from then on it's all evolution.

5uspect

The problem with the big bang is no one really knows. Time itself is a property of this universe so it is difficult to imagine a before the big bang scenario.

As regards the evolution of life. Its theorised that life began with self replicating molecules which grew more and more complex to survive as resources became scarcer. Dawkins explains it better in The Selfish Gene (page 12).

Zombrex

Steve01 wrote:

Hey everyone, I was wondering if you could tell me the general viewpoint among atheists regarding the Big Bang? I understand that life evolved on earth, I don't understand how life could have appeared in the first place.

That is not really anything to do with the big bang. The Big Bang is the theory of how the universe as a whole came into existence. Life didn't form on Earth till 6 billion years later.

The formation of life is called Abiogenesis, and the Wikipedia article pH links to is a good summary of how it possibly could have happened.

The most common theory I've read about is that complex molecules started self replicating using the energy from the sun. Once this happens evolution and natural selection kick in, as the molecules increase in complexity.

Goodshape

Steve01 wrote:

Hey everyone, I was wondering if you could tell me the general viewpoint among atheists regarding the Big Bang?

I'd like to think that the general viewpoint among atheists regarding the big bang is that the question is better suited to one of the Science forums.

bonkey

Goodshape wrote:

I'd like to think that the general viewpoint among atheists regarding the big bang is that the question is better suited to one of the Science forums.

Funny you should mention that.

I was perusing the science forums only the other day, amazed at how little traffic they enjoy despite the prolificacy of "science-challenging" and "science invoking" threads elsewhere.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

Funny you should mention that.

I was perusing the science forums only the other day, amazed at how little traffic they enjoy despite the prolificacy of "science-challenging" and "science invoking" threads elsewhere.

Might be the same way we have any number of atheist-challenging Christians on these forums, but they don't post here.

On the other hand, I'm a scientist, but I don't think I've even looked at the science forums...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Lord Suave wrote:

Its quite simple really, the big bang was caused when the mystic invisible pink unicorn (blessed be its name) blah, blah blah.

Not as funny as you think, against the charter too;
"Something that would be seen as a direct insult in, say, the Christianity or Islam forums will be similarly treated here".

Your first warning Lord Suave.

Dades

Steve01 wrote:

Hey everyone, I was wondering if you could tell me the general viewpoint among atheists regarding the Big Bang?

I think the only general viewpoint atheists have regarding the Big Bang is that it's a better explanation than "God did it".

After that, I'd imagine opinion (or knowledge) about it varies as wildly as any other collective group.

Son Goku

Steve01 wrote:

Hey everyone, I was wondering if you could tell me the general viewpoint among atheists regarding the Big Bang?

Why does this stuff never come up in the science forums?

Anyway the Big Bang isn't so much the creation of the universe as the rapid cooling down of the universe from a previous unknown physical regime. Think of it like ice, water and steam. The universe is currently ice, then near the Big Bang it used to be water and "before" the big bang it was steam. We can extend the language used to describe our current ice environment to the water environment that existed billions of years ago, but we can't yet extend the language (or come up with a new one) to describe the steamy conditions of the pre-universe.

(The water stage would have been the time when the world was governed by Quantum Mechanics.)

Tim Robbins

Steve01 wrote:

Basically I'm looking for a biological explanation for how DNA (the building block of life presumably) came about at the beginning without the usual 'it must have been God' response, if an explanation exists.
All responses greatly appreciated

That's a very good question. A few different hypothesis for the origin of DNA.
One is that it is the result of slow chemical reaction of the initial elements in the earth, another is a different type of replicator evolved first and then DNA.
Dawkins does go into this a bit more in the 'Blind Watchmaker'.
I have also read that RNA came first and then DNA.

Steve01

I'd like to think that the general viewpoint among atheists regarding the big bang is that the question is better suited to one of the Science forums.

And the issue of what atheists think of the creation of life has nothing to do with atheism does it? I should have edited my initial post:
All helpful responses appreciated.
But thanks to everyone else who actually put an effort into responding

Scofflaw

Steve01 wrote:

And the issue of what atheists think of the creation of life has nothing to do with atheism does it? I should have edited my initial post:
All helpful responses appreciated.
But thanks to everyone else who actually put an effort into responding

I think the general consensus amongst atheists (as far as such a thing exists) is that the Big Bang is the best available explanation of the beginning of the Universe - although I'm sure there would be others who favour other models.

As to biogenesis, it's difficult to know what to say. There is an emerging picture of some rather complex organic chemistry going on. As far as a "short version" goes: we know that certain organic molecules appear to be generated by normal 'inorganic' or non-biotic reactions - amino acids for example - and that these can be found even in comets whose age is greater than that of the Earth. We know that there are plenty of autocatalytic reactions that feed on themselves. We also, more recently, have discovered that some of the most important chemical cycles in living beings can be started off quite easily by inorganic minerals (sphalerite being the current main contender). Finally, it's worth remembering that DNA and RNA are reasonably simply molecules.

Overall, the emerging picture is that most of the essential building blocks of life are actually quite likely to emerge in an inorganic/non-biotic environment (in a biotic environment, something eats them!), and form a kind of rich chemical 'ecosystem'. After that it becomes a question of how long it is before blocks A, B, and C are thrown together in the right way.

I can strongly recommend this article.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Goodshape

Steve01 wrote:

And the issue of what atheists think of the creation of life has nothing to do with atheism does it? I should have edited my initial post:
All helpful responses appreciated.
But thanks to everyone else who actually put an effort into responding

That wasn't intended as a 'smart comment', I was making a point.

I think it is a fair to ask Catholics, Jews or Muslims what they think about "where it all began" and expect a unified answer, because they've got these things all figured out.

The difference with atheism/agnosticism is that all we're saying, as a group, is that we don't necessarily have it all figured out - and the answers should be sought through good science, not superstition or whimsical fancy.

I've no doubt that many people here will have an opinion on the matter, but unless they've studied the science behind the theories themselves then I'd like to think (obviously it's not always the case) that they're not going to be coming here preaching it as the one true atheist way of thinking.

Hence, it's a question better suited to the science forums. You'll find plenty of opinions here, just like you'd find on the Webmaster / Flash or Music forums.


...if I'm being far too pedantic and you just want a bunch of people to tell you want they personally think might be the answer - then I'm sorry but I just don't have a clue. But I do find it all fascinating.

Steve01

That wasn't intended as a 'smart comment', I was making a point.

I think it is a fair to ask Catholics, Jews or Muslims what they think about "where it all began" and expect a unified answer, because they've got these things all figured out.

The difference with atheism/agnosticism is that all we're saying, as a group, is that we don't necessarily have it all figured out - and the answers should be sought through good science, not superstition or whimsical fancy.

I've no doubt that many people here will have an opinion on the matter, but unless they've studied the science behind the theories themselves then I'd like to think (obviously it's not always the case) that they're not going to be coming here preaching it as the one true atheist way of thinking.

Hence, it's a question better suited to the science forums. You'll find plenty of opinions here, just like you'd find on the Webmaster / Flash or Music forums.


...if I'm being far too pedantic and you just want a bunch of people to tell you want they personally think might be the answer - then I'm sorry but I just don't have a clue. But I do find it all fascinating.

Ok fair enough. Judging by your first post it came across that you were having a go but now I see the point your making.
Of course its true to say that atheists have different theories regarding the creation of life. Scientific analysis opens the door to numerous possibilities. But I think its fair to say that atheists are of one mind regarding the falws of the 'God must have created the world. End of story' hypothesis. We can't find an answer, therefore we invent one. How this weak logic has survived for so long is beyond me.