I don't know how. I can offer a plausible explanation. But that is not the same topic as evolution. Why change lanes so quickly? You asked a question and got an informative answer....then you ignore it and change topics? That's not polite, and such behavior would lead one to believe that you are not asking questions in an honest effort to seek honest answers.
Not at all, I'm just trying to cut to the chase. Instead of going through each stage of your theory, let's just go straight to the first link. If everything evolved, what was the first creature and what did it evolve into? If you can't answer that question, you have nothing.
If you are "trying to cut to the chase", then you need to stop and reconsider the difference between the topics of evolution and abiogenesis. You clearly are not aware of this difference.
The "first creature" is a somewhat meaningless idea, and even more meaningless is your question about it, as stated.. You would first have to define "creature". Can you do that?
Also,, you can stop calling it "my theory". What an odd and absurd thing to say. It's no more "my theory" than is the theory of general relativity.
Yeah, I get it. You can't answer a simple question that is the basis of the whole theory. If you can't explain the origin of life, how do you expect to convince anyone that they evolved? Instead of answering these basic questions you come back with BS like "define creature". Seems like every time you're asked a question you can't answer you throw crap like that out to muddy the waters so you can avoid answering. I think we're done here.
You're still making the same mistake. No, the origin of the first single celled creatures is not only not the basis of evolution, it's not even a part of it. Evolution explains the diversity of species, not the origins of the first cells.
And yes, I can provide a plausible explanation. In fact, any 5 year old with google can look up "abiogenesis" to learn where scientists are with that topic today. The key to their explanations is selection. The more persistent molecules persisted. That's about it, in a nutshell.
And I didnt "muddy those waters", they came already muddied. Define "creature". Hard, isn't it? Would you consider a strand of self-replicating DNA inside a primitive cell membrane to be "a creature"? How about, with no membrane?
I can define the primordial type of "creature" simply by following back the "tree of life" as we know it. Until we can't follow any longer for lack of evidence.
Abiogenesis sucks as an answer for where life came from. Because EVERY form of life in that tree of life contains DNA. And every creature shares a significant portion of that chemical design.
The biochemistry for even CONSTRUCTING that "substance" is still in it's scientific development phase. And it's a simple 4 protein recipe. BUT you gotta ask how many TIMES did that abiogenesis happen? Why does every thing share SIGNIFICANT fractions of the coding. ??
Seems to point to the fact that this happened just ONE TIME under exceptional conditions. OR by cosmic or other unworldly intervention.. Why JUST those 4 proteins? They have no special significance to the universe of proteins. Why aren't there alternate cell building structures that evolved under abiogenesis? It seems abiogenesis is a fancy name for a "One Trick Pony"..
"I can define the primordial type of "creature" simply by "
That's not what was asked, though. It is being asked to define "creature". Or, better, "life". You have pointed out "earliest observed creature". Not the same. Another way: if you followed that treee of life backwards, without constraint, where would you stop?
Personally, I think the idea of "first life" is nonsensical. It's a continuum. We could arbitrarily ascribe a definition and use that as the standard of life/not life, but even then we would have trouble with the intermediates.
I can see what you are trying to say about abogenesis, but I would argue against it thusly:
There is only so much available organic mass on the planet. It would only make sense that one type of life would come to dominate others, if that one were very successful before other types flourished as well. Perhaps there is some truth to the idea that different types of life formed through abiogenesis and were then absorbed by or made extinct by competition. Maybe some of it even still exists.... but, would we even know it, if we saw it? So, knowing that the only life WE know of is DNA-based in no way necessarily makes abiogenesis a "one trick pony".
And then there's the idea that the only alternative to abiogenesis is magic, which is nothing but a white flag and not worthy of consideration in a discussion of explaining the origin of life. So we're stuck with abiogenesis. You casting dispersion at it is appeal to emotion.
And, to be clear: Abiogenesis is not "an
explanation of the formation of life", it IS the formation of life. An explanation of of how abiogenesis occurred would be an explanation of the formation of life.
"Why just those 4 proteins"
You should google that. There has been plenty of scientific discussion on exactly why, and I don't think it's a mystery. I think it's a selection issue dealing with efficiency. I'll go read up, too...
Why does DNA only use 4 nucleotides?
