given:
1. large population of identical single-cell organisms, all dependent upon the same environment for nourishment and habitat.
2. ambient radiation
3. time
result:
1. large population of non-identical single cell organisms, with a wide range of genetic mutations (some lethal, some maladaptive, some trivial, some advantageous in one way, some advantageous in another way, some simultaneously advantageous AND disadvantageous, etc...), all competing in the same environment for nourishment and habitat.
2. a changed competitive paradigm
that was a ridiculously easy exercise of basic theory.
given? you mean guessing:
Not only that, what norishment? no cells have divided at this point so what were they feasting on? Enviroment= Space? A bare rock earth yet to develop one?
Theory isn't FACT. PROVE IT.
Ironically, many scientists have once again returned to the belief that life came from non-life. . . in spite of the fact that there is no experimental evidence to show how that could have happened. The reason this unsupported belief has returned is that science has been defined as to eliminate the consideration of the only other alternative-the creation of life by an intelligent designer.
No Chance of Life by Chance Author: Bruce Malone In the 1700's many scientists believed that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter (such as raw meat or sewage). In the 1800's, using careful experimentation, Louis Pasteur proved this concept wrong and verified that life only comes from previously existing life. Ironically, many scientists have once again returned to the belief that life came from non-life. . . in spite of the fact that there is no experimental evidence to show how that could have happened. The reason this unsupported belief has returned is that science has been defined as to eliminate the consideration of the only other alternative-the creation of life by an intelligent designer. Search for the Truth This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth. Even the simplest living cell is an incredibly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and making copies of itself. Man has never succeeded in building a machine capable of these same functions.
Yet most scientists accept the belief that life arose from non-life (in spite of the evidence clearly indicating that it did not and could not happen). This incredible belief is as absurd as finding a complex chemical manufacturing facility on Mars and assuming that it built itself.
One classic experiment which is used to support the belief that life "built itself" is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by itself. Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported.
For instance, our early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. However, with no oxygen, there would be no ozone shield. With no ozone shield, life would also be impossible. Furthermore, oxidized rocks throughout the geologic record indicate that oxygen has always been present.
In addition to this, the same gases which can react to form amino acids undergo known reactions in the presence of sunlight which remove them from the atmosphere. The required gases would not have been around long enough for life to have developed! In addition, a cold trap was used to keep the reaction products from being destroyed as fast as they formed.
The biggest problem is that the amino acids formed in this experiment are always a 50/50 mixture of stereotypes (L and D forms). Stereotypes are like a drawer full of right-hand and left-hand gloves, identical in every way except a mirror image of each other. Life contains only L stereotypes of these randomly produced amino acids. Yet equal proportions of both types are always produced. How could the first cell have selected only L stereotypes from a random, equally reactive mixture? No answer to this has ever been found.
These are just a few of the problems with the fanciful idea that life generated itself. The linking of these randomly produced amino acids into the required proteins is an even more overwhelming impossibility.
No experiment has ever shown that the matter has the ability to come alive. The best explanation for life is still that "life only comes from pre-existing life". As you search for truth, perhaps you should consider the possibility that the source of all life... is GOD.
Try again prout.
Then it should be easy to prove up. Prove it.
BTW you assume that there was a large population of identical single cell organisms. Where did that population come from? You also assume that ambient radiation will account for a cell developing a self replicating mechanical system. There is no evidence for such a mechanism. You also assume that time is unlimited. But you don't have unlimited time unless the earth itself has been capable of supporting life for an infinite amount of time.
Your theory is dependent upon three assumptions that you simply can't assume
1) you have no evidence that a large population of single cell organisms evolved themselves out of random chemicals.
2) You have no evidence that ambient radiation would account for the development of a self replicating mechanism, and
3) You don't have enough time.
Try again.