Origins of life

[havoc64]

Good thread and it's a refreshing breeze that this topic hasn't gotten heated.

I look at it this way..First, Earth's days are 24 Hours. Who know's how long God's day it. When it says he created everything in 7 days..maybe his days are 2 million Earth years? And who's to say that he didn't create man by starting him off as a little single cell creature.

Breeds of Dogs are not created in one litter? Take Australian Cattle Dogs, they are a combination of Several different breeds.. My look at things is god did the same thing, and still is, the whole Melting Pot thing.

As for intelligent life on other planets..I likes the way Carl Sagan said it.."Billions and Billions" I believe that the odds are in all those Billions, there has to be another guy somewhere sitting on his computer at work, checking out a forum similar to this one, commenting on God and life on other planets...LOL

Happy Meading everyone! ;D

 

[AToE]

Since entropy keeps coming up I managed to find a wiki page that discusses life's relationship with entropy (doesn't seem perfect, but some of the linked papers I skimmed and are improvements). Just in case anyone is curious and wants a quick link to some starter reading.

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

 

[Medsen Fey]

Since entropy keeps coming up I managed to find a wiki page that discusses life's relationship with entropy (doesn't seem perfect, but some of the linked papers I skimmed and are improvements). Just in case anyone is curious and wants a quick link to some starter reading.

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

Technically speaking, I think the Universe is a closed system.

Defining life as negative entropy is interesting. However to hypothesize that life starts spontaneously whenever a stew of chemicals sits for long enough sort of flies in the face of random motion and the tendency for things to break down when exposed to the environment. Organic material degrades under heat, UV light, oxygen radicals, etc. You have to hypothesize that there is an organizing principle in which organic molecules continue to aggregate in ever-more-complex forms just through natural motions. If that is in fact a law of nature, that "organic molecules will form together rather than being randomly spread and dissociated," then that is the coolest organizing principle in the natural world. To me that is more evidence of a plan than anything else - it would be sort of like looking at the technical drawings of the 747.

If we use the 747 example (which I know it isn't perfect), the chemical level discussion allows us to have the windshield occur separately where sand and heat could be alone for a while to create glass while iron and heat were alone somewhere else to create the steel beams. But I still find myself, looking at scientific evidence, thinking that it is impossible for it all to have occurred by pure chance.

How do the rest of you handle this concern?

As above, if it happens that way through spontaneous organization, that's the most incredible piece of engineering I can imagine. If we were created through a more direct means, if couldn't be any more spectacular.

I handle it by merely saying "Thank you."

I like the way Benjamin Franklin said it in one of the early versions of his will:

And now humbly returning sincere Thanks to God for producing me into Being, and conducting me hitherto thro’ Life so happily, so free from Sickness, Pain and Trouble, and with such a Competency of this World’s Goods as might make a reasonable Mind easy: That he was pleased to give me such a Mind, with moderate Passions, or so much of his gracious Assistance in governing them; and to free it early from Ambition, Avarice and Superstition, common Causes of much Uneasiness to Men. That he gave me to live so long in a Land of Liberty, with a People that I love, and rais’d me, tho’ a Stranger, so many Friends among them; bestowing on me moreover a loving and prudent Wife, and dutiful Children. For these and all his other innumerable Mercies and Favours, I bless that Being of Beings who does not disdain to care for the meanest of his Creatures. And I reflect on those Benefits received with the greater Satisfaction, as they give me such a Confidence in his Goodness, as will, I hope, enable me always in all things to submit freely to his Will, and to resign my Spirit chearfully into his Hands whenever he shall please to call for it; reposing myself securely in the Lap of God and Nature as a Child in the Arms of an affectionate parent.

 

[AToE]

Technically speaking, I think the Universe is a closed system.

Yes but it still doesn't apply to individual planets, pools of water, life forms etc because they are not closed systems.

What was the organizing force in the universe was gravity, on a molecular level it's obviously just bonding.

Neither the formation of stars/planets, nor life itself violates the second law of thermodynamics - but it's gotta be one of the single most used arguments I've ever heard in these discussions, I'm guessing because the surface logic of it seems to so completely prove a creator!

Defining life as negative entropy is interesting. However to hypothesize that life starts spontaneously whenever a stew of chemicals sits for long enough sort of flies in the face of random motion and the tendency for things to break down when exposed to the environment. Organic material degrades under heat, UV light, oxygen radicals, etc. You have to hypothesize that there is an organizing principle in which organic molecules continue to aggregate in ever-more-complex forms just through natural motions. If that is in fact a law of nature, that "organic molecules will form together rather than being randomly spread and dissociated," then that is the coolest organizing principle in the natural world. To me that is more evidence of a plan than anything else - it would be sort of like looking at the technical drawings of the 747.

This again to me doesn't in any way hint at a creator, and we do know that sometimes matter will just do goofy things that look "designed" to us humans simply because of that matter's inherant properties. Look at some crystal formations, totally look like they had to be designed, but they're totally natural (extremely simplified example of course, but it fits the bill).

Yes things break down and there is random motion, that doesn't mean that life can''t form on it's own - ASSUMING that whatever forces are involved in creating the bonds that lead up to life are powerful enough to exceed the destructive forces. That's not even really an assumtion, because up to a certain complexity we've seen it occur. And a good analogue would be gravity - sure, there are lots of destructive and randomizing forces/events in the universe, but gravity has managed to keep up!

Also what you say about that "potential" law of nature doesn't really make sense. They don't have to form together, they just have to form often (not necessarily together, though random chance would occasionally have that occur) and then be capable/likely to recombine (which we know they can form often and do recombine on their own, so all you need then is a few million years and eventually random chance will take it's course).

There doesn't need to be any "new" organizing factor that that we haven't discovered beyond random chance and atomic bonding. That's my understanding anyways, and I've had great discussions with biologists and chemists who say this is totally a very natural process. I haven't met/read a non-fringe scientist who thought we were missing a piece that would make the formation of life possible according to the laws of physics. We don't know HOW it happened yet (we may never!) but all the mainstream scientists (including creationists) I've ever heard of say that there's no violation of physics happening here.

Now, if all those coincidences lining up starts looking like a blueprint for life, I can't argue with that. To me that's reversed logic, but you you my logic is reversed, so it's pretty hard for us to say who has it right!

It's a tough thing for either of us to convice each other, kinda a chicken/egg discussion.

Like when I'm talking with a creationist and they say "if Earth wasn't where it is in the solar system then we wouldn't exist, therefor Earth was placed here to have life on it" and I'd say "Yes, if we were too hot or cold we wouldn't exist, but somewhere out of the trillions of billions of star systems at least a few million other planets ARE going to be in just that right spot, around just the right star, with just the right atmosphere, it's simple statistics - and THOSE planets might have life arise and become sentient one day, and those people might easily come to the same creator conclusion based on the same thing and they'd be basing that decision on the wrong data, so it's possible you're doing that here too!" - the same true data on each side, just different ways of looking at it.

Plants need light to live, therefor light was designed to allow plants to live would be another good one that's come up before, but I think we can all see the problem with it! All these other arguments to me are exactly the same problem as this statement, it just doesn't work for my personal logic.

It's fun to agree to dissagree though, I'm always up for more questioning my beliefs.

I believe that until you question a belief you don't really have that belief. (And yes, I have questioned THAT belief itself many time! ).

 

[AToE]

I just thought of a great (in my opinion) idea about a creator that came from a wonderful series of Science Fiction novels, the Rama series by Arthur C Clarke. He was an atheist, but was really interested in religion and I think wrote some of the most thought provoking things about the subject that anyone ever has written.

In the Rama series (spoiler alert!) it turns out that the universe was in fact created by God (not the Christian God or any specific god, just God). But, all life in the universe, all planet formation, everything was totally unguided.

You see, God had a problem. God existed alone, and had no idea where he/she/it had come from, how he/she/it came into being.

So what God did was start experimenting. God came up with the Big Bang scenario and just set it off and started watching. Never interfering (except in cases like the Rama series, but that was more of a fact finding mission, not evolutionary guidance or anything), just watching.

God was trying to figure out if something like the universe could naturally evolve into another God. The whole thing is just an attempt by God to understand God's own creation/formation.


I found that very deeply provoking and emotionally satisfying a concept. ;D

 

[Echostatic]

I look at it this way..First, Earth's days are 24 Hours. Who know's how long God's day it. When it says he created everything in 7 days..maybe his days are 2 million Earth years?

Your thinking on this is right in line with what the Bible says :thumbsup:

Most overlook the opening words of the Bible, Genesis 1:1. "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It's so simple, yet so powerful. The earth was created before the first creative "day" began, in verse 3. There is nothing in Genesis that contradicts the scientific conclusion that the earth and universe may be thousands of millions of years old.

As for the length of the creative days, it's important to understand that the word "day" doesn't have to be literal. Genesis 2:4 states "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."

All six creative "days" were referred to collectively as one "day". It's also important to note that the seventh "day" has no reference to having an evening and morning like the other six, indicating that the "day" of rest has not ended. The Bible gives strong evidence to a figurative use of "Day", and not a literal one.

Haven't you ever heard an old fogey complain about how much better things were back in his "day"?

 

[AToE]

I'm trying to remember my western religions class, I think that whole "day" thing might be disputable from a linguistic point anyways. (Could totally be out to lunch on that though!)

 

[Echostatic]

I'm trying to remember my western religions class, I think that whole "day" thing might be disputable from a linguistic point anyways. (Could totally be out to lunch on that though!)

The hebrew word used in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 is "yohm", and can have different meanings. Proverbs 14:8 refers to it as the period of daylight, Genesis 7:17 uses it to refer to a 24 hour day, Zechariah 14:8 uses it to refer to summer and winter, the passing of seasons. Isaiah 49:8 uses it to refer to a day spanning thousands of years.

The real clencher, though, is Genesis 2:4 referring to all creative days as one day. The misunderstanding of a literal 24 hour creative day has, unfortunately, done a lot of damage to the reputation of the Genesis account.

 

[AToE]

Thanks for some clarity!

What's the general take on the first part of Genesis saying animals first, then man and woman created at once, versus the more well known Adam and Eve story, where man was first, then animals then women (holy sexist batman! Women aren't just second to men, they're second to the freaking animals!).

I've always wondered what the classic and modern ways of rationalizing, or philosophizing (think I just made up a word...) these two completely contradictory accounts.

 

[Riverat]

So my stance becomes this - I've got a lot of respected scientists saying that this is nowhere near as unlikely as people seem to think (most believe that life is downright likely to come into being in the right circumstances, and that the stars probably are host to billions of other living worlds), and they're making no claim for or against a creator. . ;D

Well if you just consider the reactivity inherent in oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, phosphorus and their periodic families, the abundance of organic chemistry not only isn't supprising, it's inevitable, I mean you find formaldehydes, cyanides, amino acids, the percursors of nucleotides everywhere you look, from moleculer clouds in space to the gunk baked on comets, I mean, just look at Triton. These are not exactly nice, warm, wet inviting places, so put that chemistry on a little better real estate....

 

[Riverat]

And Genesis (I'm having fun here, not trying to be heretical, laugh with me) hey, that's not too bad if you were trying to explain the formation of the solar system (earth without form?) then light (the sun would have torched off after the protoplanetary forms) then that which creepeth (germs? simple life?) fish (still OK with that) then birds (dino's?) finaly beasts and then us LOL that's pretty good!

 

[Echostatic]

Thanks for some clarity!

What's the general take on the first part of Genesis saying animals first, then man and woman created at once, versus the more well known Adam and Eve story, where man was first, then animals then women (holy sexist batman! Women aren't just second to men, they're second to the freaking animals!).

I've always wondered what the classic and modern ways of rationalizing, or philosophizing (think I just made up a word...) these two completely contradictory accounts.

On the surface, this may seem contradictory, but in reality this is the same account being discussed from different viewpoints. Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 describes the creation of the heavens and earth and everything in them. The second account from Genesis 2:5 to 4:26 focuses on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.

The first account is written chronologically, divided into the six creative "days". The second is written in order of topical importance. It has a short prologue, then goes straight to the creation of Adam, as he and his family are the subject of what follows. It then introduces other information as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam is to live in a garden in eden. Therefore it then mentions the planting of this garden. God told Adam to name "every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens." Now, therefore, is when it mentions that God was forming those creatures from the ground, though their creation began long before Adam was made.

 

[AToE]

Doesn't it specifically say though that animals were made to be companions to Adam (after his creation) and that since they weren't good enough God created Eve?

Definitely seems to completely contradict the first part with animals first then men and women as equals...

It's been a couple years since I read Genesis (holy crap, the atheist read the BIBLE?!?!) though so maybe I need a refresher.

 

[akueck]

I wanted to add a bit to the entropy discussion, since it's come up again.

Given that the universe is a closed system (seems logical, though of course unprovable), the second law says that the entropy in the universe cannot, as a whole, decrease. Exchanges of entropy are allowed, meaning you can have local decreases in entropy and still be following the second law as long as somewhere else there is a corresponding increase. The earth is definitely not a closed system, so stating that biology causes entropy to decrease is totally in keeping with the second law, no problems there. [whether or not it does change the entropy of the planet is another discussion.]

What seems to be glossed over is that by saying "the universe is closed, entropy must go up", you're assuming that we can actually account for all the entropy in the universe and track which way its going. We're still finding new kinds of energy (dark energy & matter), so even suggesting we know where all the entropy is is kind of funny.

The entropy argument is certainly thought-provoking, but it is well past unprovable and will probably remain so. In such a large system of unknown entropy, finding pockets of very ordered systems is pretty likely IMO. Also remember that the influence of entropy on the energy of a system scales with temperature. 300 K is pretty warm compared to empty space, but it's nothing compared to the interior of a star.

 

[Echostatic]

Doesn't it specifically say though that animals were made to be companions to Adam (after his creation) and that since they weren't good enough God created Eve?

Definitely seems to completely contradict the first part with animals first then men and women as equals...

It's been a couple years since I read Genesis (holy crap, the atheist read the BIBLE?!?!) though so maybe I need a refresher.

I find that many atheists make it a habit of trying to be well aquainted with the Bible. They have to if they are going to explain to religious types why they don't put faith in the Christian religions, and I'm certainly glad to hear that you do read it.

There is no mention of animals meant as companions to Adam. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, but if you mean reproduction, God had already ruled this possibility out in Genesis 1:24 when he said "Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind." And we see this today. A fish cannot reproduce with a snake, nor can a human reproduce with anything but another human.

God didn't have Adam go seeking a mate from among the animals, as the scriptures say, they were brought before him to name them. Adam wasn't inclined torward beastiality and was able to determine that that there was no suitable companion for him among the animals. (Genesis 2:19,20: "So the man was calling the names of all the domestic animals and of the flying creatures of the heavens and of every wild beast of the field, but for man there was found no helper as a complement of him")

If I missed your meaning, or if you were thinking of a specific scripture, or if there is some other contradiction I didn't address, just say so.

 

[wayneb]

OK, although I find this topic exceedingly interesting, I have refrained from adding to it until now. But, with respect to the statement that Adam had the animals to interact with before he got Eve, read (or re-read) Genesis 2:18 thru 2:24. Seems to me the order of things is pretty unambiguous there - the animals came before women, and were considered as "helpers" (or workmates, or companions, depending on the translation that you're reading).

BTW - while I am yet another amateur biblical scholar, I approached my study from a broader context of the investigation of all major world religions. I came to be interested in the study of comparative religions in a Catholic High School class on the subject, taught by of all folks, a Dominican priest. Yes, I was raised in a very traditional Catholic household - we're Polish, after all! I am not a fundamentalist by any means, I do find it difficult to get my head around any literalist interpretations of scripture, and much of Catholic dogma and doctrine is also open to serious debate, but I still feel a spirituality that can be intense at times - so I can't say that I ever seriously considered atheism as a choice for me. I suppose I'm still searching for my spiritual path, and I believe that I still don't know whether I'm an avowed theist, or if I'm more leaning to a "interconnectedness of all things - Force like" agnostic spirituality where there really doesn't need to be a creator of all things. But it sure would be a hoot to encounter he/she/it if the opportunity ever presents itself! ;D

 

[AToE]

If I missed your meaning, or if you were thinking of a specific scripture, or if there is some other contradiction I didn't address, just say so.

My fault for being unclear, absolutely did not mean animals for mating! I meant just to hang out with (I guess, I don't know what the heck God was up to frankly in that story). Like Wayne said, I'd had to go grab the text, but I'm really sure the animals were there before Eve.

By comparison, the first part of Genesis says the animals came before man, and that woman wasn't the last thing, but created at the same time as man.

This is pointless for me to do by memory, I'll go research and post the text I'm talking about!

Wayne - yours is an aproach I deeply respect, questing and searching, looking without and within. I also feel deeply "spiritual" (damn this language for not having a non-supernatural synonym!!!!) at times, and I think I grasp a tiny bit of what those like yourself are going through.

 

[Echostatic]

OK, although I find this topic exceedingly interesting, I have refrained from adding to it until now. But, with respect to the statement that Adam had the animals to interact with before he got Eve, read (or re-read) Genesis 2:18 thru 2:24. Seems to me the order of things is pretty unambiguous there - the animals came before women, and were considered as "helpers" (or workmates, or companions, depending on the translation that you're reading).

The animals certainly did come before Eve, as we all seem to agree on. As for the animals serving as companions/helpers/what-have-you, what of Genesis 2:20? "So the man was calling the names of all the domestic animals and of the flying creatures of the heavens and of every wild beast of the field, but for man there was found no helper as a complement of him."

 

[Echostatic]

My fault for being unclear, absolutely did not mean animals for mating! I meant just to hang out with (I guess, I don't know what the heck God was up to frankly in that story). Like Wayne said, I'd had to go grab the text, but I'm really sure the animals were there before Eve.

By comparison, the first part of Genesis says the animals came before man, and that woman wasn't the last thing, but created at the same time as man.

This is pointless for me to do by memory, I'll go research and post the text I'm talking about!

Wayne - yours is an aproach I deeply respect, questing and searching, looking without and within. I also feel deeply "spiritual" (damn this language for not having a non-supernatural synonym!!!!) at times, and I think I grasp a tiny bit of what those like yourself are going through.

Ah I see. Yes the animals were there before Eve. I don't see anything stating that man and woman were created at the same time, though. It says God created man, male and female, but I don't see how this is stating they were created at the same time.


I can certainly respect people pursuing spiritual things Wayne. I have done so myself, following a "crisis point" in my life, and over the course of years, not through blind faith but through research and study was able to come to the conviction that I had found the truth. I view accurate Bible knowledge as being very important, so I am always happy to discuss and help clarify the meaning of scriptures.

 

[AToE]

Alright, sorry for the length (nobody ever said the OT was short!) First off we'll look at the very very beginning of the Bible, first thing in genesis.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Okay, so animals first.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Bam, man and woman at the same time, on the same "day".
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


-----------

Now let me find the later part of Genesis where it COMPLETELY changes this order of creation:

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Man first... kinda seems like this is after the 7 days too, didn't notice that before.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. Totally unrelated, is this a weird translation? Because Ethiopia is thought to be the cradle now, but I do NOT remember mention of Ethiopia in the Bible... am I losing my mind?
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Here you go, animals created second.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. Ahah! Companion was the wrong word I guess, apparently Adam needed a helper and that's what the animals failed at.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And here we have woman, created after man and after the animals.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.


So yeah, we have chapter one which explicitly states the order was animals then man and woman at once. Then we have chapter two which explicitly states that this is inside out, man first, then animal, then woman.