Full Version: what is life?
When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism, they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life.While on the other hand they start reacting with a host, or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host,they become alive.The same thing happen with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host, they become alive in a way.
Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue.
What would that mean to the way that we see the world?
First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally dyring a very small period of time,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place chemical reaction inside it.Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell.,but the organism as a whole is alive.Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals. But maybe not.
If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question:what is the least that can be considered as life?For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance.At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considerd life.So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life, or else, the sparkle of life.That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions.
The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.
Another important consequence of the hypothesis is this:Living creatures are the sum of their chemical reactions as we said.While they are getting older,they are suffering a process that is called aging.They are changing especially structurally.Obviously they are getting different.That means that the chemical reactions that are composing their body,are different from that that were before.If the chemical reaction were remaining unchanged forever,then the body would be the same,and that means that the body would stay forever young and forever alive.
Lets see now a simple chemical reaction A+B—}C+D.Lets consider that C and D are gases and are expelled from the place of the reaction.The quantity of A and B will get lesser and lesser because they are becoming C and D,Or else they are suffering a chemical transformation.
Lets see now another chemical reaction:A+B---}C+D--}E+F
Lets consider that E and F are gasses.That means that the quantities of A,B,C,D will be lowering unless we put in the mixture exactly the quantities of A and B that is being transformed into C and D every moment.So there is an exact amount, as well as exact rhythm of adding A and B that would keep the reaction unchangeable.Lets consider now a very simple organism that is composed from the reactions :A+B--}C+D--}E+F…………--}Y+Z.Lets say that A and B are food supplements and Y and Z are compounds expelled from the organism.Of course the real organisms are much more complicated.If that organism eat theoretically a certain amount of food in acertain way, then the reactions of this organism would remained the same forever.[C,D,E,F……are all compounds of the organism.].If we didn't give the exact food ,then the reaction would change ,dependently on the how far we are from that ideal food .In the same manner we can say that all living organisms are a sum of chemical reactions that start with digestion,and end with the waste products of metabolism.
As a result we can say that in a theoretical basis,if an orgasism eated exactly a certain amount,quality and quantity of foods in acertain way,then it could prevent the changing of its reactions and as a result it could prevent the aging process,expanding its lifespan.Of course this is something very difficult to happen in real life because there are numerous things that plays their role and of course things are not that simple.
One important clue that suggests that what we said is true, is the recent discovery that living organisms that follow a calorie restricted diet,can expand their lifetime, in some cases as long as 60 per cent.This is not a proof that what we said is true,but it is positive to find that the changing of caloric menu has as a result a change in the lifespan.Perhaps a certain diet causes an ever greater expansion.It remains to be proved…………..
The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell,in the form of chemical reactions……………to be continued
Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell,which was the first cell on earth, and composed the first thing that was a form of life. The evolution of this cell had as a result the formation of life the way that we know and see today. A problem with this idea is that, as we know, if we had just a single cell in earth right now, and out of it there was nothing, then not only this would not lead to the formation of more complicated forms of life,but this single cell soon would be dead.Despite of that,most scientists accept the single cell theory.The new theory that we introduced claims tha tit was not necessary to be a first single cell to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life.The creation of the first cell actually is the result of the existence of life.
Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today. That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one.This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy{probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life, but also to their evolution.
Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today. That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one.This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy{probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life, but also to their evolution.
As we said, living organisms are a summation of chemical reactions.What happens now when they die? There is a disorder in a system of reactions (for example brain necrosis, which means that in a large number of neural cells there is a stop in the reactions that happen there) that lead in a chain reaction way to a disorder in other reactions and then in others and so on.The final result is that there is a necrosis in the whole body, in a chain reaction way.
This means that if somebody with a magic way made all the chemical reactions of the body started working simultaneously,(or else there was an arousal of all the reactions and all were working again),we woud not have the chain reaction leading to death again, but the organism would gain life again.The question is with which way we would stimulate all the reactions simultaneously.This means that the source of this energy, would give the appropriate energy to the whole volume of the dead cell, with the right timing.One idea is the use of an appropriate form of electromagnetic waves.
QUOTE(minaras @ Oct 1 2007, 11:04 AM) 
Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell,which was the first cell on earth, and composed the first thing that was a form of life.
Perception is everything... Many scientists, quite possibly even the majority, do not accept the view of all life starting from a single cell.
As far as life, some generally accepted qualifications are is:
Must have or be able to
Reproduce -- typically - a more thourough discussion would show mules to be a life-form...
Metabolism.
Growth.
Respond to outside influences.
One can always argue against the typical definition with various straw-man arguements, but common sense comes in handy sometimes.
JS
QUOTE(minaras @ Oct 1 2007, 09:04 AM)
Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell,which was the first cell on earth, and composed the first thing that was a form of life. The evolution of this cell had as a result the formation of life the way that we know and see today. A problem with this idea is that, as we know, if we had just a single cell in earth right now, and out of it there was nothing, then not only this would not lead to the formation of more complicated forms of life,but this single cell soon would be dead.
I don't follow. Why couldn't a single cell survive and reproduce and lead to a population upon which evolution could act?
Life only happen once. All those chemicals had to come together in exactly the right way once. And it went from there....
QUOTE(Captain Kolak @ Oct 5 2007, 08:28 PM)
Life only happen once. All those chemicals had to come together in exactly the right way once. And it went from there....
and it went from there, lived out it's life, and died. Sadly, reproductive capabilities needed a couple more steps of evolution, but each generation died before it could evolve reproduction.
Sad really...
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 6 2007, 05:36 AM)
and it went from there, lived out it's life, and died. Sadly, reproductive capabilities needed a couple more steps of evolution, but each generation died before it could evolve reproduction.
Sad really...
Sad really...
JDL,
Having seen your posts before, I realize you are not motivated by scientific reasoning, rather your religious ones. To start, evolution does not propose the creation of life, evolution acts on things that fit 4 criteria
Evolution needs:
1. Variation.
2. Differential survival (not all the offspring survive).
3. inheritance (some of the variations must be passed on).
4. Extinction (survival and reproduction is random).
I would not expect you to be aware of this, however now you can be. The definitions of life are as follow,
1. Convert one form of energy to another.
2. Excrete waste created by metabolic processes
3. Reproduce with fidelity.
4. Cell is basic unit.
5. Evolves, inherit variability.
As you can see, it is not necessary for something to be alive for evolution to act upon it.
Also, as stated above, evolution does not deal with how life arose, simply what happened after it arose.
As far the arrival of self-replicating molecules on this planet, there is quite a bit more evidence than you probably realize. Chemists have been able to create self-replicating organic molecules for years now. Also, computer simulations have added even more evidence to support replicating molecules. Being unaware of something, does not change the reality of it. Here but a brief few examples.
Wintner, Edward A., M. Morgan Conn, and Julius Rebek, Jr.. "Self-Replicating Molecules: A Second Generation." J. Am. Chem. Soc 116(1994): 8877-8884.
Abstract:
QUOTE
The use of self-complementary structures in replication experiments is discussed, and a second generation
of self-replicating molecules is introduced. Key design elements of the new system are described, specifically a high
affinity (Ka - lo5 M-1 in CDC13) between the two complementary reactive components and the careful placement
of nucleophilic and electrophilic centers within the system. These considerations preclude intramolecular reactions
within two-component complexes, thus minimizing undesirable background reactions. Autocatalysis is observed in the
new systems, and by using appropriate control experiments the autocatalysis is traced to template effects
of self-replicating molecules is introduced. Key design elements of the new system are described, specifically a high
affinity (Ka - lo5 M-1 in CDC13) between the two complementary reactive components and the careful placement
of nucleophilic and electrophilic centers within the system. These considerations preclude intramolecular reactions
within two-component complexes, thus minimizing undesirable background reactions. Autocatalysis is observed in the
new systems, and by using appropriate control experiments the autocatalysis is traced to template effects
Soai, K, T. Hayase, and K. Takai. "Catalytic Chirally Self-replicating Molecule.." Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 6(1995): 637-638.
Abstract:
QUOTE
Isopropylzinc alkoxide of 1-ferrocenyl-2-methylpropan-1-ol was found to be a catalytic chirally self-replicating molecule which produces itself with the same configuration from ferrocenyl aldehyde and diisopropylzinc with 35-39% e.e. in good yields.
Yao, Shao, Indraneel Ghosh, and Reena Zutshi. "Selective Amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system." Nature 396(1998): 447-450.
Abstract:
QUOTE
Self-replication has been demonstrated in synthetic chemical
systems based on oligonucleotides1±7, peptides8±12 and complementary
molecules without natural analogues13±16. However, within
a living cell virtually no molecule catalyses its own formation, and
the search for chemical systems in which both auto- and cross-catalysis
can occur has therefore attracted wide interest17. One
such system, consisting of two self-replicating peptides that
catalyse each other's production, has been reported10. Here we
describe a four-component peptide system that is capable of auto- and
cross-catalysis and allows for the selective amplification of
one or more of the products by changing the reaction conditions.
The ability of this system selectively to amplify one or more
molecules in response to changes in environmental conditions
such as pHor salt concentration supports the suggestion8 that self-replicating
peptides may have played a role in the origin of life.
systems based on oligonucleotides1±7, peptides8±12 and complementary
molecules without natural analogues13±16. However, within
a living cell virtually no molecule catalyses its own formation, and
the search for chemical systems in which both auto- and cross-catalysis
can occur has therefore attracted wide interest17. One
such system, consisting of two self-replicating peptides that
catalyse each other's production, has been reported10. Here we
describe a four-component peptide system that is capable of auto- and
cross-catalysis and allows for the selective amplification of
one or more of the products by changing the reaction conditions.
The ability of this system selectively to amplify one or more
molecules in response to changes in environmental conditions
such as pHor salt concentration supports the suggestion8 that self-replicating
peptides may have played a role in the origin of life.
Bachman, Pascale Angelica, Peter Walde, and Pier Luigi Luisi. "Self-Replicating Reverse Micelles and Chemical Autopoiesis ." J. Am. Chem. Soc 112(1990): 8200-8201.
Abstract
QUOTE
Whether or not and to what extent synthetic chemical structures
are able to self-replicate is a fascinating and important question,
as it binds chemistry with one of the most basic cell processes.
A few ingenious chemical structures endowed with the property
of self-replication have been proposed over the year~,l-s~om e of
them including nucleotides as basic units.
The analogy with cell replication would be stronger if the
self-replicating structure would be closed, Le., provided with a
geometrically defined boundary. It has been proposed recently,
in a theoretical paper,4 that reverse micelles can be good models
for such a closed, self-replicating structure.
are able to self-replicate is a fascinating and important question,
as it binds chemistry with one of the most basic cell processes.
A few ingenious chemical structures endowed with the property
of self-replication have been proposed over the year~,l-s~om e of
them including nucleotides as basic units.
The analogy with cell replication would be stronger if the
self-replicating structure would be closed, Le., provided with a
geometrically defined boundary. It has been proposed recently,
in a theoretical paper,4 that reverse micelles can be good models
for such a closed, self-replicating structure.
Natasha, Paul, Gerald F. Joyce, and "A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(2002): 12733-12740.
Abstract:
QUOTE
A self-replicating molecule directs the covalent assembly of component molecules to form a product that is of identical composition to the parent. When the newly formed product also is able to direct the assembly of product molecules, the self-replicating system can be termed autocatalytic. A self-replicating system was developed based on a ribozyme that catalyzes the assembly of additional copies of itself through an RNA-catalyzed RNA ligation reaction. The R3C ligase ribozyme was redesigned so that it would ligate two substrates to generate an exact copy of itself, which then would behave in a similar manner. This self-replicating system depends on the catalytic nature of the RNA for the generation of copies. A linear dependence was observed between the initial rate of formation of new copies and the starting concentration of ribozyme, consistent with exponential growth. The autocatalytic rate constant was 0.011 min-1, whereas the initial rate of reaction in the absence of pre-existing ribozyme was only 3.3 × 10-11 M·min-1. Exponential growth was limited, however, because newly formed ribozyme molecules had greater difficulty forming a productive complex with the two substrates. Further optimization of the system may lead to the sustained exponential growth of ribozymes that undergo self-replication.
Anyway, you should get the point. There is plenty of evidence for self-replicating molecules.
QUOTE(camlax @ Oct 6 2007, 11:08 AM)
As you can see, it is not necessary for something to be alive for evolution to act upon it.
Ahh... so then after that first cell died, it could still evolve the ability to reproduce... Thanks for the enlightenment!
JS
QUOTE(camlax @ Oct 6 2007, 11:08 AM)
JDL,
Having seen your posts before, I realize you are not motivated by scientific reasoning, rather your religious ones. To start, evolution does not propose the creation of life, evolution acts on things that fit 4 criteria
Evolution needs:
1. Variation.
2. Differential survival (not all the offspring survive).
3. inheritance (some of the variations must be passed on).
4. Extinction (survival and reproduction is random).
I would not expect you to be aware of this, however now you can be. The definitions of life are as follow,
1. Convert one form of energy to another.
2. Excrete waste created by metabolic processes
3. Reproduce with fidelity.
4. Cell is basic unit.
5. Evolves, inherit variability.
As you can see, it is not necessary for something to be alive for evolution to act upon it.
Also, as stated above, evolution does not deal with how life arose, simply what happened after it arose.
As far the arrival of self-replicating molecules on this planet, there is quite a bit more evidence than you probably realize. Chemists have been able to create self-replicating organic molecules for years now. Also, computer simulations have added even more evidence to support replicating molecules. Being unaware of something, does not change the reality of it. Here but a brief few examples.
Wintner, Edward A., M. Morgan Conn, and Julius Rebek, Jr.. "Self-Replicating Molecules: A Second Generation." J. Am. Chem. Soc 116(1994): 8877-8884.
Abstract:
Soai, K, T. Hayase, and K. Takai. "Catalytic Chirally Self-replicating Molecule.." Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 6(1995): 637-638.
Abstract:
Yao, Shao, Indraneel Ghosh, and Reena Zutshi. "Selective Amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system." Nature 396(1998): 447-450.
Abstract:
Bachman, Pascale Angelica, Peter Walde, and Pier Luigi Luisi. "Self-Replicating Reverse Micelles and Chemical Autopoiesis ." J. Am. Chem. Soc 112(1990): 8200-8201.
Abstract
Natasha, Paul, Gerald F. Joyce, and "A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(2002): 12733-12740.
Abstract:
Anyway, you should get the point. There is plenty of evidence for self-replicating molecules.
Having seen your posts before, I realize you are not motivated by scientific reasoning, rather your religious ones. To start, evolution does not propose the creation of life, evolution acts on things that fit 4 criteria
Evolution needs:
1. Variation.
2. Differential survival (not all the offspring survive).
3. inheritance (some of the variations must be passed on).
4. Extinction (survival and reproduction is random).
I would not expect you to be aware of this, however now you can be. The definitions of life are as follow,
1. Convert one form of energy to another.
2. Excrete waste created by metabolic processes
3. Reproduce with fidelity.
4. Cell is basic unit.
5. Evolves, inherit variability.
As you can see, it is not necessary for something to be alive for evolution to act upon it.
Also, as stated above, evolution does not deal with how life arose, simply what happened after it arose.
As far the arrival of self-replicating molecules on this planet, there is quite a bit more evidence than you probably realize. Chemists have been able to create self-replicating organic molecules for years now. Also, computer simulations have added even more evidence to support replicating molecules. Being unaware of something, does not change the reality of it. Here but a brief few examples.
Wintner, Edward A., M. Morgan Conn, and Julius Rebek, Jr.. "Self-Replicating Molecules: A Second Generation." J. Am. Chem. Soc 116(1994): 8877-8884.
Abstract:
Soai, K, T. Hayase, and K. Takai. "Catalytic Chirally Self-replicating Molecule.." Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 6(1995): 637-638.
Abstract:
Yao, Shao, Indraneel Ghosh, and Reena Zutshi. "Selective Amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system." Nature 396(1998): 447-450.
Abstract:
Bachman, Pascale Angelica, Peter Walde, and Pier Luigi Luisi. "Self-Replicating Reverse Micelles and Chemical Autopoiesis ." J. Am. Chem. Soc 112(1990): 8200-8201.
Abstract
Natasha, Paul, Gerald F. Joyce, and "A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(2002): 12733-12740.
Abstract:
Anyway, you should get the point. There is plenty of evidence for self-replicating molecules.
Ok, some serious questions.
Do any of these self-replicating molecules use their own material for the new molecule? That is what 'life' does.
Are you proposing that a self-replicating molecule was the direct precursor to the first living cell?
Do any living cells use the same mechanism for self-replicating as these non-living self-replicating cells?
If the mechanism is not the same, then to draw a connection is really quite silly. If it is the same, then we've got something to go on... unfortunately, we already know (even before you answer) that it's really not the same...
JS
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 6 2007, 02:13 PM)
Ahh... so then after that first cell died, it could still evolve the ability to reproduce... Thanks for the enlightenment!
JS
JS
Do you like misinterpreting things to push your ID/Creation agenda?
Something does not need to be alive for evolution to act upon it. If you doubt this, try this out.
Go to a HIV research facility, break in. Steal HIV, inject it into yourself. Watch in amazement as the virus evolves in your body to circumvent antivirals.
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 6 2007, 02:45 PM)
Do any of these self-replicating molecules use their own material for the new molecule? That is what 'life' does.
Does a virus? Self-replication can occur many ways, something does not have to pass on part of itself to be self-replicating, just replicate itself, and in the process introduce some kind of change/variability.
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 6 2007, 02:45 PM)
Are you proposing that a self-replicating molecule was the direct precursor to the first living cell?
We don't currently know what the precursor to a cell was. This does not mean, a designer must have done it. Actually, cell membranes have almost been solved. And many self-replicating molecules produced. As well as artificial nucleic acids that reproduce. How life first arose will not remain a mystery forever, probably within this next decade.
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 6 2007, 02:45 PM)
Do any living cells use the same mechanism for self-replicating as these non-living self-replicating cells?
Does it matter? No. Do your osmoregulate the same as elasmobranches? No. You don't. Thats the beautiful part about evolution, it allows for new structure to arise. Also, not all things on earth replicate the same, this does not stop evolution from acting upon it.
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 6 2007, 02:45 PM)
If the mechanism is not the same, then to draw a connection is really quite silly. If it is the same, then we've got something to go on... unfortunately, we already know (even before you answer) that it's really not the same...JS
JS, you have show nothing but a very very limited understand of what evolution is, how evolution works, biology and what life is. Look above at the post I made. Evolution is those 4 things. There is no statement in inheritance that says all inheritance must arise through such and such process. Because we don't the exact mechanism does not mean it has not happened, however much you may wish it did not. Furthermore, replication does not have to be the same in both the first life and latter life, as I said above, the beauty of evolution: Variation.
This means, that the way life replicates now (still different for different organism) probably arose by variation of the first life. No big deal, that is what evolution does. It changes things over time...
QUOTE(camlax @ Oct 6 2007, 11:25 PM)
JS, you have show nothing but a very very limited understand of what evolution is, how evolution works, biology and what life is. Look above at the post I made. Evolution is those 4 things. There is no statement in inheritance that says all inheritance must arise through such and such process. Because we don't the exact mechanism does not mean it has not happened, however much you may wish it did not. Furthermore, replication does not have to be the same in both the first life and latter life, as I said above, the beauty of evolution: Variation.
The problem is, you have to go from not living to living, and in the process, without missing a beat, modify the mechanics of cell replication. You and I both know that makes it basically impossible. To get not only first life, but also, in the same step, first mutation to reproduction the way living cells do it, is beyond what anyone ought to be able to logically wrap their minds around.
To not have both steps at once requires either A - precursor to life reproduced in the same way the first life did Or B - First life didn't reproduce and simply died. Obviously you believe A or that both steps happened at once. It must be one or the other. Which do you think is more likely?
QUOTE(camlax @ Oct 6 2007, 11:15 PM)
Do you like misinterpreting things to push your ID/Creation agenda?
It was a joke. Sorry you didn't find it funny...
Your statement was really quite amusing and I couldn't help responding appropriately.QUOTE
Something does not need to be alive for evolution to act upon it. If you doubt this, try this out.
Go to a HIV research facility, break in. Steal HIV, inject it into yourself. Watch in amazement as the virus evolves in your body to circumvent antivirals.
Go to a HIV research facility, break in. Steal HIV, inject it into yourself. Watch in amazement as the virus evolves in your body to circumvent antivirals.
Actually, I think the definition of life, including whether the virus should be considered alive, is part of the discussion of this thread... Is the virus alive?
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 7 2007, 04:00 AM)
The problem is, you have to go from not living to living, and in the process, without missing a beat, modify the mechanics of cell replication. You and I both know that makes it basically impossible. To get not only first life, but also, in the same step, first mutation to reproduction the way living cells do it, is beyond what anyone ought to be able to logically wrap their minds around.
I would not say it was a problem, because evidence is starting to pile up that it did. Look JDL, I realize that there are some types of people in the world who would rather believe "because we don't understand it god must have done it". And I realize you are one of these people from reading your other posts. However, life starting on its own is not impossible, but rather probable as our understanding of early earth increases.
Your bolded comment shows how little you are understanding here. The mechanism is not known, that means there are lost of ways life could have arose, there is required 1 step for it all to happen in. As I stated above, evolution can work on biologically non living things. If you understand how evolution works then the development of more complex things, such as how cells reproduce should be no surprise to you.
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 7 2007, 04:00 AM)
To not have both steps at once requires either A - precursor to life reproduced in the same way the first life did Or B - First life didn't reproduce and simply died. Obviously you believe A or that both steps happened at once. It must be one or the other. Which do you think is more likely?
Actually you are wrong again, and you again show your ignorant arguments how evolution works with your typical "such and such had to arise at the same time argument". We know self-replicating molecules exist. No one is saying evolution had to start acting on these molecules right away, as there may have been no mechanism for variation. Then something on earth changed and variation occurred. How? Thats not known, but that hardly requires a designer because it is unknown. Once you have variation, replication and a degree of inheritance, you are on your way.
Also, you seem to have missed some fundamentals of biology here. I think you are of the mind that first organisms on earth used sexual reproduction, meaning "there had to be two for it to work". The earliest organisms from Prokaryota and Archaea did not reproduce sexually, they more or less clone themselves (like they still do today). So the whole 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4 thing going on here.
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 7 2007, 04:05 AM)
It was a joke. Sorry you didn't find it funny... Your statement was really quite amusing and I couldn't help responding appropriately.
Actually, I think the definition of life, including whether the virus should be considered alive, is part of the discussion of this thread... Is the virus alive?
Your statement was really quite amusing and I couldn't help responding appropriately.Actually, I think the definition of life, including whether the virus should be considered alive, is part of the discussion of this thread... Is the virus alive?
No a virus is not alive. The definition of life has its squibbing among biologists but the list of criteria are the general accepted criteria.
1. Convert one form of energy to another. (Actually I should add, "Contain mechanisms for" to this) Not done by virus or prions
2. Excrete/Deal with waste created by metabolic processes Not done by virus or prions
3. Reproduce with fidelity.
4. Cell is basic unit. Not done by virus or prions (they are not cells).
5. Evolves, inherit variability.
Notice that for something to be alive it also needs to have inherit variability. But evolution can act on things that are non-living as well. Being alive and being able to evolve are two different things.
We don't have any real evidence that life only happened once, neither do we have any real evidence that all life originated from a single cell. Life may have spontaneously originated in many places at different times. I'm talking of Earth only here of course. We have no evidence so far for life elsewhere.
As for my opinion as to what life is, I'd speculate it is the energy that allows a biological machine to function.
As for my opinion as to what life is, I'd speculate it is the energy that allows a biological machine to function.
QUOTE(Leonardo @ Oct 7 2007, 08:47 AM)
We don't have any real evidence that life only happened once, neither do we have any real evidence that all life originated from a single cell. Life may have spontaneously originated in many places at different times. I'm talking of Earth only here of course. We have no evidence so far for life elsewhere.
As for my opinion as to what life is, I'd speculate it is the energy that allows a biological machine to function.
As for my opinion as to what life is, I'd speculate it is the energy that allows a biological machine to function.
You are quite correct, Leonardo. At this point, we really only have speculation for how life began, unless you go the 'faith' route. What we have is a fight to say "But it could have happened this way." Sadly it often comes off as "It happened this way, and that's a fact." That statement takes 'faith', whichever way we say it happened.
QUOTE(camlax @ Oct 7 2007, 08:41 AM)
I would not say it was a problem, because evidence is starting to pile up that it did. Look JDL, I realize that there are some types of people in the world who would rather believe "because we don't understand it god must have done it". And I realize you are one of these people from reading your other posts. However, life starting on its own is not impossible, but rather probable as our understanding of early earth increases.
Your bolded comment shows how little you are understanding here. The mechanism is not known, that means there are lost of ways life could have arose, there is required 1 step for it all to happen in. As I stated above, evolution can work on biologically non living things. If you understand how evolution works then the development of more complex things, such as how cells reproduce should be no surprise to you.
Actually you are wrong again, and you again show your ignorant arguments how evolution works with your typical "such and such had to arise at the same time argument". We know self-replicating molecules exist. No one is saying evolution had to start acting on these molecules right away, as there may have been no mechanism for variation. Then something on earth changed and variation occurred. How? Thats not known, but that hardly requires a designer because it is unknown. Once you have variation, replication and a degree of inheritance, you are on your way.
Also, you seem to have missed some fundamentals of biology here. I think you are of the mind that first organisms on earth used sexual reproduction, meaning "there had to be two for it to work". The earliest organisms from Prokaryota and Archaea did not reproduce sexually, they more or less clone themselves (like they still do today). So the whole 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4 thing going on here.
Your bolded comment shows how little you are understanding here. The mechanism is not known, that means there are lost of ways life could have arose, there is required 1 step for it all to happen in. As I stated above, evolution can work on biologically non living things. If you understand how evolution works then the development of more complex things, such as how cells reproduce should be no surprise to you.
Actually you are wrong again, and you again show your ignorant arguments how evolution works with your typical "such and such had to arise at the same time argument". We know self-replicating molecules exist. No one is saying evolution had to start acting on these molecules right away, as there may have been no mechanism for variation. Then something on earth changed and variation occurred. How? Thats not known, but that hardly requires a designer because it is unknown. Once you have variation, replication and a degree of inheritance, you are on your way.
Also, you seem to have missed some fundamentals of biology here. I think you are of the mind that first organisms on earth used sexual reproduction, meaning "there had to be two for it to work". The earliest organisms from Prokaryota and Archaea did not reproduce sexually, they more or less clone themselves (like they still do today). So the whole 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4 thing going on here.
Ok, let's go back... since I moved too fast the first time.
Assumption: non-living cells replicate via outside material (catalyzing or some similar process)
Assumption: living cells reproduce via their own material
Assumption: Evolution requires it's starting cell to be able to reproduce
Conclusion: the first living cell must have a different method of reproduction than any cell before it
Ok, the logic is not flawed, I know that.
Which assumption is wrong?
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 7 2007, 04:50 PM)
Ok, let's go back... since I moved too fast the first time.
Assumption: non-living cells replicate via outside material (catalyzing or some similar process)
Assumption: living cells reproduce via their own material
Assumption: Evolution requires it's starting cell to be able to reproduce
Conclusion: the first living cell must have a different method of reproduction than any cell before it
Ok, the logic is not flawed, I know that.
Which assumption is wrong?
Assumption: non-living cells replicate via outside material (catalyzing or some similar process)
Assumption: living cells reproduce via their own material
Assumption: Evolution requires it's starting cell to be able to reproduce
Conclusion: the first living cell must have a different method of reproduction than any cell before it
Ok, the logic is not flawed, I know that.
Which assumption is wrong?
1. not non-living cells necessarily, as we see with virus and molecules something does not have be a "cell".
2. Living cells don't reproduce with their own material. This is silly, Do you also believe you can grow flies out of aged honey and sunlight in a jar with cheese cloth over the top? Living cells take up new material for reproduction.
3. Evolution does not require a cell. Evolution requires replication with variation.
4. Even if the first cell that arose had a different mechanism of reproduction, that poses no problems. If the cells were self-replicating, they simply divide into 2, 4, 8, etc. Each time variation can allow for changes to be made.
QUOTE(camlax @ Oct 7 2007, 04:11 PM)
1. not non-living cells necessarily, as we see with virus and molecules something does not have be a "cell".
2. Living cells don't reproduce with their own material. This is silly, Do you also believe you can grow flies out of aged honey and sunlight in a jar with cheese cloth over the top? Living cells take up new material for reproduction.
3. Evolution does not require a cell. Evolution requires replication with variation.
4. Even if the first cell that arose had a different mechanism of reproduction, that poses no problems. If the cells were self-replicating, they simply divide into 2, 4, 8, etc. Each time variation can allow for changes to be made.
2. Living cells don't reproduce with their own material. This is silly, Do you also believe you can grow flies out of aged honey and sunlight in a jar with cheese cloth over the top? Living cells take up new material for reproduction.
3. Evolution does not require a cell. Evolution requires replication with variation.
4. Even if the first cell that arose had a different mechanism of reproduction, that poses no problems. If the cells were self-replicating, they simply divide into 2, 4, 8, etc. Each time variation can allow for changes to be made.
Ok, you're still missing it.
1. Ok, cell, molecule.. whatever you want to call it.
2. Yes, living cells use their own material. First, they absorb it, then they split (Mitosis or Meiosis). A non-living 'cell' does not absorb, it merely catalyzes.
3. Evolution eventually requires a cell. There had to be one, if evolution is true.
4. At some point, there had to be a switch from non-living (catalyst reproduction) to living (Mitosis or Meiosis)
Now, again... which assumption was wrong?
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 8 2007, 01:55 AM)
Ok, you're still missing it.
1. Ok, cell, molecule.. whatever you want to call it.
2. Yes, living cells use their own material. First, they absorb it, then they split (Mitosis or Meiosis). A non-living 'cell' does not absorb, it merely catalyzes.
3. Evolution eventually requires a cell. There had to be one, if evolution is true.
4. At some point, there had to be a switch from non-living (catalyst reproduction) to living (Mitosis or Meiosis)
Now, again... which assumption was wrong?
1. Ok, cell, molecule.. whatever you want to call it.
2. Yes, living cells use their own material. First, they absorb it, then they split (Mitosis or Meiosis). A non-living 'cell' does not absorb, it merely catalyzes.
3. Evolution eventually requires a cell. There had to be one, if evolution is true.
4. At some point, there had to be a switch from non-living (catalyst reproduction) to living (Mitosis or Meiosis)
Now, again... which assumption was wrong?
JDL,
Mitosis and Meiosis, are pathways for eukaryotic cells to replicate. Mitosis has nothing to do with variation and meiosis is how variation is introduced for sexual reproduction. Both of these arose long long long after the first cell was on earth. It is hard to talk evolution when you keep showing limited understandings of rather basic biology...
No, living cells dont use their own material. Do you think repeating an incorrect statement makes it true? Autotrophic cells use inorganic components with sunlight to manufacture more complex organic molecules. Heterotrophic organisms require organic molecules. Nutrients for heterotrophs come in two flavors, Essential and Non-essential nutrients. Some nutrients the cells are incapable of making at all, those nutrients are the essentials, an example; Phenylalanine in humans. Other nutrients are non-essential, which means that the organism is able to make it out of lesser building blocks (still normally some prior organic, rarely an inorganic combination of building blocks), or more likely is able to convert a organic molecule to it by a biosynthetic pathway.
In both cases these cells are rearranging preexisting material that hardly belongs to them. Also, you pointed out that "non-living things" merely catalyze reactions for replication....What do you think living cells do? The only difference is one is in a tightly controlled (well for some cells not well controlled) environment created by the plasma membrane.
Your next statement there that "Evolution eventually requires a cell", is also, untrue if you are using it in the way I think you are. We know a cell was eventually created, hence our being here. Evolution though, is only a process, the process does not actually require a cell. Nor does it require DNA for that matter, evolution only requires variation that is partially conserved from generation to generation and replication.
For your fourth point, you are correct. Eukaryotic cells (with mitosis and meiosis) did come about eventually, some 1-1.5 billion years after the first cells left fossils on this planet....Again, you show a very large lack of understanding of cellular reproduction. I mean no offense, but its rather hard to score your points on an K-12 biology education.
So which assumption is wrong? Well considering the amount of errors in each of your 3 assumptions and conclusion, I would give you an F on all of them.
QUOTE(camlax @ Oct 8 2007, 01:39 AM)
JDL,
Mitosis and Meiosis, are pathways for eukaryotic cells to replicate. Mitosis has nothing to do with variation and meiosis is how variation is introduced for sexual reproduction. Both of these arose long long long after the first cell was on earth. It is hard to talk evolution when you keep showing limited understandings of rather basic biology...
No, living cells dont use their own material. Do you think repeating an incorrect statement makes it true? Autotrophic cells use inorganic components with sunlight to manufacture more complex organic molecules. Heterotrophic organisms require organic molecules. Nutrients for heterotrophs come in two flavors, Essential and Non-essential nutrients. Some nutrients the cells are incapable of making at all, those nutrients are the essentials, an example; Phenylalanine in humans. Other nutrients are non-essential, which means that the organism is able to make it out of lesser building blocks (still normally some prior organic, rarely an inorganic combination of building blocks), or more likely is able to convert a organic molecule to it by a biosynthetic pathway.
In both cases these cells are rearranging preexisting material that hardly belongs to them. Also, you pointed out that "non-living things" merely catalyze reactions for replication....What do you think living cells do? The only difference is one is in a tightly controlled (well for some cells not well controlled) environment created by the plasma membrane.
Your next statement there that "Evolution eventually requires a cell", is also, untrue if you are using it in the way I think you are. We know a cell was eventually created, hence our being here. Evolution though, is only a process, the process does not actually require a cell. Nor does it require DNA for that matter, evolution only requires variation that is partially conserved from generation to generation and replication.
For your fourth point, you are correct. Eukaryotic cells (with mitosis and meiosis) did come about eventually, some 1-1.5 billion years after the first cells left fossils on this planet....Again, you show a very large lack of understanding of cellular reproduction. I mean no offense, but its rather hard to score your points on an K-12 biology education.
So which assumption is wrong? Well considering the amount of errors in each of your 3 assumptions and conclusion, I would give you an F on all of them.
Mitosis and Meiosis, are pathways for eukaryotic cells to replicate. Mitosis has nothing to do with variation and meiosis is how variation is introduced for sexual reproduction. Both of these arose long long long after the first cell was on earth. It is hard to talk evolution when you keep showing limited understandings of rather basic biology...
No, living cells dont use their own material. Do you think repeating an incorrect statement makes it true? Autotrophic cells use inorganic components with sunlight to manufacture more complex organic molecules. Heterotrophic organisms require organic molecules. Nutrients for heterotrophs come in two flavors, Essential and Non-essential nutrients. Some nutrients the cells are incapable of making at all, those nutrients are the essentials, an example; Phenylalanine in humans. Other nutrients are non-essential, which means that the organism is able to make it out of lesser building blocks (still normally some prior organic, rarely an inorganic combination of building blocks), or more likely is able to convert a organic molecule to it by a biosynthetic pathway.
In both cases these cells are rearranging preexisting material that hardly belongs to them. Also, you pointed out that "non-living things" merely catalyze reactions for replication....What do you think living cells do? The only difference is one is in a tightly controlled (well for some cells not well controlled) environment created by the plasma membrane.
Your next statement there that "Evolution eventually requires a cell", is also, untrue if you are using it in the way I think you are. We know a cell was eventually created, hence our being here. Evolution though, is only a process, the process does not actually require a cell. Nor does it require DNA for that matter, evolution only requires variation that is partially conserved from generation to generation and replication.
For your fourth point, you are correct. Eukaryotic cells (with mitosis and meiosis) did come about eventually, some 1-1.5 billion years after the first cells left fossils on this planet....Again, you show a very large lack of understanding of cellular reproduction. I mean no offense, but its rather hard to score your points on an K-12 biology education.
So which assumption is wrong? Well considering the amount of errors in each of your 3 assumptions and conclusion, I would give you an F on all of them.
In order for reproduction in eithe r autotrophic (typically plant) life or hetertrophic (typically animal) life, an organism, or if that organism is a single cell a cell, must get nutrition, grow, and then give a part of itself (it's own material) to the progeny. I know of no plant or animal that reproduces using only outside material. The suggestion that there is such a thing is totally preposterous.
JS
Edit: in single celled organisms, this using of the organisms own material in reproduction is acheived often through splitting... that's about as basic as it gets, right?
For you to miss my point, it seems like maybe you need that K-12 biology I seem to understand so well.
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 10 2007, 12:40 AM)
In order for reproduction in eithe r autotrophic (typically plant) life or hetertrophic (typically animal) life, an organism, or if that organism is a single cell a cell, must get nutrition, grow, and then give a part of itself (it's own material) to the progeny. I know of no plant or animal that reproduces using only outside material. The suggestion that there is such a thing is totally preposterous.
JS
Edit: in single celled organisms, this using of the organisms own material in reproduction is acheived often through splitting... that's about as basic as it gets, right?
For you to miss my point, it seems like maybe you need that K-12 biology I seem to understand so well.
JS
Edit: in single celled organisms, this using of the organisms own material in reproduction is acheived often through splitting... that's about as basic as it gets, right?
For you to miss my point, it seems like maybe you need that K-12 biology I seem to understand so well.
If you want to retype that in something more comprehensible, feel free.
As I told you before JDL, saying something incorrect many times does not make it correct. I understand your simplistic view point here, it is wrong at the fundamental level however. If cells were reproducing with their own material, they would be creating matter. However they are not, they take up material, rearrange it (not all the time either) and reproduce....
They catalyze reactions on their inside (also not always the case).
Also, heterotrophs and autotrophs are much more distributed then "typically plant life, typically animal life".
Also, I did not miss your point. It was incorrect, both your statements on evolution, abiogenesis and self-replicating molecules.
Whats right about your edit? Is that a question.... I guess you could simplify the word reproduction to mean splitting...
Feel free to keep dazzling me with your scientific understandings
QUOTE(camlax @ Oct 10 2007, 07:26 PM)
If you want to retype that in something more comprehensible, feel free.
As I told you before JDL, saying something incorrect many times does not make it correct. I understand your simplistic view point here, it is wrong at the fundamental level however. If cells were reproducing with their own material, they would be creating matter. However they are not, they take up material, rearrange it (not all the time either) and reproduce....
They catalyze reactions on their inside (also not always the case).
Also, heterotrophs and autotrophs are much more distributed then "typically plant life, typically animal life".
Also, I did not miss your point. It was incorrect, both your statements on evolution, abiogenesis and self-replicating molecules.
Whats right about your edit? Is that a question.... I guess you could simplify the word reproduction to mean splitting...
Feel free to keep dazzling me with your scientific understandings
As I told you before JDL, saying something incorrect many times does not make it correct. I understand your simplistic view point here, it is wrong at the fundamental level however. If cells were reproducing with their own material, they would be creating matter. However they are not, they take up material, rearrange it (not all the time either) and reproduce....
They catalyze reactions on their inside (also not always the case).
Also, heterotrophs and autotrophs are much more distributed then "typically plant life, typically animal life".
Also, I did not miss your point. It was incorrect, both your statements on evolution, abiogenesis and self-replicating molecules.
Whats right about your edit? Is that a question.... I guess you could simplify the word reproduction to mean splitting...
Feel free to keep dazzling me with your scientific understandings
So you believe a cell never has material? Is it some spiritual composition with no physical reality?
See, a living cell is made up of material. It uses this material in reproduction. A non-living cell is also made up of material, but it does not use this material as the basis for it's progeny. Would you agree with that? Or is that too generalized?
You charge that something using it's own material for reproduction would be creation of matter, but you misunderstand how that organism comes to possess the material it then uses. I'm beginning to think you simply don't want to admit that I'm right, therefore you misinterpret and accuse me of bad semantics.
JS
QUOTE(camlax @ Oct 10 2007, 07:26 PM)
Also, heterotrophs and autotrophs are much more distributed then "typically plant life, typically animal life".
That's a rather spurious argument... generally speaking that's the way it breaks down. Technically it's a producer versus consumer split, but plant/animal is usually sufficient unless you just like the jargon.
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 7 2007, 03:50 PM)
Ok, let's go back... since I moved too fast the first time.
Assumption: non-living cells replicate via outside material (catalyzing or some similar process)
Assumption: living cells reproduce via their own material
Assumption: Evolution requires it's starting cell to be able to reproduce
Conclusion: the first living cell must have a different method of reproduction than any cell before it
Ok, the logic is not flawed, I know that.
Which assumption is wrong?
Assumption: non-living cells replicate via outside material (catalyzing or some similar process)
Assumption: living cells reproduce via their own material
Assumption: Evolution requires it's starting cell to be able to reproduce
Conclusion: the first living cell must have a different method of reproduction than any cell before it
Ok, the logic is not flawed, I know that.
Which assumption is wrong?
Assumption: non-living cells replicate via outside material (catalyzing or some similar process)
Assumption: living cells reproduce using material from their own bodies
Assumption: For evolution to be responsible for life on earth, the first living cell in the chain must have been able to reproduce
Conclusion: the first living cell must have a different method of reproduction than any cell before it
I think that takes care of th semantics... does it not?
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 10 2007, 09:36 PM)
Assumption: non-living cells replicate via outside material (catalyzing or some similar process)
Assumption: living cells reproduce using material from their own bodies
Assumption: For evolution to be responsible for life on earth, the first living cell in the chain must have been able to reproduce
Conclusion: the first living cell must have a different method of reproduction than any cell before it
I think that takes care of th semantics... does it not?
Assumption: living cells reproduce using material from their own bodies
Assumption: For evolution to be responsible for life on earth, the first living cell in the chain must have been able to reproduce
Conclusion: the first living cell must have a different method of reproduction than any cell before it
I think that takes care of th semantics... does it not?
I can agree, that clears things up better for semantics but your point is still moot. The first living cell would not have to have different method before any before it. What you are failing to grasp is that whole small change thing.
You make the assumption that the "first" cell had to arise by one method with one mechanism. In reality, nothing in biology is that simplified. What if two different types of self-replicating molecules became incorporated a proto-membrane? What if one of these molecules was able to replicate itself out of the other? What if it was a regular occurrence for multiple types of SRMs to become "trapped" in membranes?
Your conclusion is wrong, none of the assumptions. Because we don't know something does not mean we can say what it was. The method for reproduction could have just as easily arose outside the cell in an almost complete form before being incorporated into a membrane.
QUOTE(camlax @ Oct 11 2007, 07:53 PM)
You make the assumption that the "first" cell had to arise by one method with one mechanism. In reality, nothing in biology is that simplified. What if two different types of self-replicating molecules became incorporated a proto-membrane? What if one of these molecules was able to replicate itself out of the other? What if it was a regular occurrence for multiple types of SRMs to become "trapped" in membranes?
What if? What if pigs can fly? Do we SEE any evidence that would lend credence to the idea that "two different types of self-replicating molecules became incorporated (sic) a proto-membrane"? Or is this merely speculation because it's what you would 'Need' to have happen to support evolutionary theory?
I think a little more reality based theorizing could prove helpful. And I think it's quite obvious that to go from non-living to living, growing, feeding, reproducing, moving, etc... is a bit too much of a jump. Actually, any of those steps is too much of a jump, let alone all of them together.
JS
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 12 2007, 01:25 AM)
What if? What if pigs can fly? Do we SEE any evidence that would lend credence to the idea that "two different types of self-replicating molecules became incorporated (sic) a proto-membrane"? Or is this merely speculation because it's what you would 'Need' to have happen to support evolutionary theory?
I think a little more reality based theorizing could prove helpful. And I think it's quite obvious that to go from non-living to living, growing, feeding, reproducing, moving, etc... is a bit too much of a jump. Actually, any of those steps is too much of a jump, let alone all of them together.
JS
I think a little more reality based theorizing could prove helpful. And I think it's quite obvious that to go from non-living to living, growing, feeding, reproducing, moving, etc... is a bit too much of a jump. Actually, any of those steps is too much of a jump, let alone all of them together.
JS
JDL,
I am almost tired of saying this to the ignorant. Because we do not know something currently does not mean it will never be known, nor does it mean a "designer" had to do it. Yes those ideas were speculation. The reality is though, self-replicating molecules exist. Many, many, many types of them. If you are interested to see the vast number of them simply google scholar "Self replicating molecules".
Each day, each month, each year, biology, chemistry, physics and geology understand early earth more and more. Not only that, but we are building more evidence on the origins of life.
This is not speculation that because its "what I needed for evolution". I understand you are dumb and unwilling to budge in your silly beliefs, thats fine. Understand your beliefs, are simply beliefs. Also, evolution does not require a natural origin, no where in the theory of evolution is there a disclaimer that a "god" could have not provided the first cell. I however disagree with that belief, nothing has ever been shown to be of supernatural origin. I don't think that is going to change anytime soon.
Reality based theorizing? Do you really just how stupid you sound? You want reality based theorizing, yet you have stated that you believe it was god who created. So let me get this straight. You want more reality based theorizing, yet you want to appeal to the supernatural to solve your problem of the origin of life? Jesus.
QUOTE(camlax @ Oct 12 2007, 10:00 PM)
JDL,
I am almost tired of saying this to the ignorant. Because we do not know something currently does not mean it will never be known, nor does it mean a "designer" had to do it. Yes those ideas were speculation. The reality is though, self-replicating molecules exist. Many, many, many types of them. If you are interested to see the vast number of them simply google scholar "Self replicating molecules".
Each day, each month, each year, biology, chemistry, physics and geology understand early earth more and more. Not only that, but we are building more evidence on the origins of life.
This is not speculation that because its "what I needed for evolution". I understand you are dumb and unwilling to budge in your silly beliefs, thats fine. Understand your beliefs, are simply beliefs. Also, evolution does not require a natural origin, no where in the theory of evolution is there a disclaimer that a "god" could have not provided the first cell. I however disagree with that belief, nothing has ever been shown to be of supernatural origin. I don't think that is going to change anytime soon.
Reality based theorizing? Do you really just how stupid you sound? You want reality based theorizing, yet you have stated that you believe it was god who created. So let me get this straight. You want more reality based theorizing, yet you want to appeal to the supernatural to solve your problem of the origin of life? Jesus.
I am almost tired of saying this to the ignorant. Because we do not know something currently does not mean it will never be known, nor does it mean a "designer" had to do it. Yes those ideas were speculation. The reality is though, self-replicating molecules exist. Many, many, many types of them. If you are interested to see the vast number of them simply google scholar "Self replicating molecules".
Each day, each month, each year, biology, chemistry, physics and geology understand early earth more and more. Not only that, but we are building more evidence on the origins of life.
This is not speculation that because its "what I needed for evolution". I understand you are dumb and unwilling to budge in your silly beliefs, thats fine. Understand your beliefs, are simply beliefs. Also, evolution does not require a natural origin, no where in the theory of evolution is there a disclaimer that a "god" could have not provided the first cell. I however disagree with that belief, nothing has ever been shown to be of supernatural origin. I don't think that is going to change anytime soon.
Reality based theorizing? Do you really just how stupid you sound? You want reality based theorizing, yet you have stated that you believe it was god who created. So let me get this straight. You want more reality based theorizing, yet you want to appeal to the supernatural to solve your problem of the origin of life? Jesus.
"What if God created?" makes at least as much sense as "What if a self-replicating molecule became a living, reproducing, growing, cell?"
I understand that self-replicating molecules exist.. you can stop trying to win that point, b/c I've agreed with you from the start. I know how they reproduce. We aren't arguing that either. I know how living cells reproduce, we agree on that as well. In fact, I think you've conceded each point so far... except that you think multi-step evolution had to happen, and I think it's literally impossible. There are things your theory cannot answer (what was the origin of matter/energy?) and things mine can't answer (what's the origin of God).
Neither belief is stupid, in my opinion. You simply believe what you've been taught by the sources you trust (you didn't do all the research yourself) and I believe what I've been taught by the sources I trust. We both used multiple methods of examination and study to determine which sources we would trust, and the ones you trust are different from the ones I trust. You think I am ignorant and stupid, uneducated and stubborn... I think you are gullible in a sense as well as stubborn. But, here's the key difference... I respect your beliefs and opinions and you don't respect mine. You, my friend, are arrogant.
Lastly, I hope that anyone who reads this can discern the truth...
JS
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 14 2007, 04:06 AM)
"What if God created?" makes at least as much sense as "What if a self-replicating molecule became a living, reproducing, growing, cell?"
I understand that self-replicating molecules exist.. you can stop trying to win that point, b/c I've agreed with you from the start. I know how they reproduce. We aren't arguing that either. I know how living cells reproduce, we agree on that as well. In fact, I think you've conceded each point so far... except that you think multi-step evolution had to happen, and I think it's literally impossible. There are things your theory cannot answer (what was the origin of matter/energy?) and things mine can't answer (what's the origin of God).
Neither belief is stupid, in my opinion. You simply believe what you've been taught by the sources you trust (you didn't do all the research yourself) and I believe what I've been taught by the sources I trust. We both used multiple methods of examination and study to determine which sources we would trust, and the ones you trust are different from the ones I trust. You think I am ignorant and stupid, uneducated and stubborn... I think you are gullible in a sense as well as stubborn. But, here's the key difference... I respect your beliefs and opinions and you don't respect mine. You, my friend, are arrogant.
Lastly, I hope that anyone who reads this can discern the truth...
JS
I understand that self-replicating molecules exist.. you can stop trying to win that point, b/c I've agreed with you from the start. I know how they reproduce. We aren't arguing that either. I know how living cells reproduce, we agree on that as well. In fact, I think you've conceded each point so far... except that you think multi-step evolution had to happen, and I think it's literally impossible. There are things your theory cannot answer (what was the origin of matter/energy?) and things mine can't answer (what's the origin of God).
Neither belief is stupid, in my opinion. You simply believe what you've been taught by the sources you trust (you didn't do all the research yourself) and I believe what I've been taught by the sources I trust. We both used multiple methods of examination and study to determine which sources we would trust, and the ones you trust are different from the ones I trust. You think I am ignorant and stupid, uneducated and stubborn... I think you are gullible in a sense as well as stubborn. But, here's the key difference... I respect your beliefs and opinions and you don't respect mine. You, my friend, are arrogant.
Lastly, I hope that anyone who reads this can discern the truth...
JS
There is a difference between us though, you seem to not be able to reconcile with. You think I need to have faith that the life on earth had a natural origin. I enjoy kicking around ideas, but I do not have faith it happened this way. Unlike you, I can admit I don't know how life started, science it seems can admit this as well. The only person with beliefs and faith in this regard is you, as you make the assumption because we don't know, it must have been god.
Yes both beliefs are stupid, if you do not know something, why believe it happened one way or the other.
I don't think your ignorant and stupid JDL, don't be so hard on yourself. I just think you don't know about evolution or biology (as evident from some of your posts). Remember ignorance is a state of mind, not a debilitation of ability. Just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean you cannot fix the problem.
QUOTE(camlax @ Oct 14 2007, 09:46 AM)
There is a difference between us though, you seem to not be able to reconcile with. You think I need to have faith that the life on earth had a natural origin. I enjoy kicking around ideas, but I do not have faith it happened this way. Unlike you, I can admit I don't know how life started, science it seems can admit this as well. The only person with beliefs and faith in this regard is you, as you make the assumption because we don't know, it must have been god.
Yes both beliefs are stupid, if you do not know something, why believe it happened one way or the other.
I don't think your ignorant and stupid JDL, don't be so hard on yourself. I just think you don't know about evolution or biology (as evident from some of your posts). Remember ignorance is a state of mind, not a debilitation of ability. Just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean you cannot fix the problem.
Yes both beliefs are stupid, if you do not know something, why believe it happened one way or the other.
I don't think your ignorant and stupid JDL, don't be so hard on yourself. I just think you don't know about evolution or biology (as evident from some of your posts). Remember ignorance is a state of mind, not a debilitation of ability. Just because you are ignorant of something, does not mean you cannot fix the problem.
Heh, you do have faith, as much as I... maybe more. You believe self-replicating molecules became reproducing, living, cells through the process of evolution. You have argued that point hard, and lost fairly soundly.
I am not hard on myself, but your opinion of me is obvious. Sadly, many atheistic scientists have that same attitude for anyone that doesn't believe the way they do.
I am not ignorant about evolution, as you keep repeating (and repeating, and repeating), I simply think your faith is misplaced, and that the people you learned from and trust didn't know what they were talking about...
JS
QUOTE(jdlsmith @ Oct 15 2007, 06:52 PM)
Heh, you do have faith, as much as I... maybe more. You believe self-replicating molecules became reproducing, living, cells through the process of evolution. You have argued that point hard, and lost fairly soundly.
I am not hard on myself, but your opinion of me is obvious. Sadly, many atheistic scientists have that same attitude for anyone that doesn't believe the way they do.
I am not ignorant about evolution, as you keep repeating (and repeating, and repeating), I simply think your faith is misplaced, and that the people you learned from and trust didn't know what they were talking about...
JS
I am not hard on myself, but your opinion of me is obvious. Sadly, many atheistic scientists have that same attitude for anyone that doesn't believe the way they do.
I am not ignorant about evolution, as you keep repeating (and repeating, and repeating), I simply think your faith is misplaced, and that the people you learned from and trust didn't know what they were talking about...
JS
JDL, are you reading disabled? I did not say I believe it happened this way with the self-replicating molecules, I mentioned it could have happened this way. How did it happen? I don't know. No one does.
Allow me to quote myself
QUOTE
Unlike you, I can admit I don't know how life started, science it seems can admit this as well.
The only one with a belief here is you sir. You are making an ad nauseum creationist argument, that everyone has to have a belief on how life started. I have stated many times to you now, that I do not know, this however does not mean god did. Lack of knowledge is not proof of religious hunch.
How have I lost? Because told you there were many ways for it (life) to be possible? Because I told you there is mounting evidence of for life having natural origins? And your oh so elite defense to go "(Sticks fingers in ears) La La La, I can't hear you, You don't know so god did it, La La La". Yea bud, you got me good there.
You are not ignorant about evolution? JDL, I have read numerous posts of yours now since you have been here on UM. You effectively fall between a small-word-using-creationist and I-can-use-kind-of-big-words-creationist. Your knowledge of evolution (however fun it maybe to indulge your own little fantasy) seems to be about a 6th or 7th grade level. No joke, that is what it sounds like. Right now you are trying to argue against evolution by arguing that origins of life are unknown. Seriously, I want you to stop and think about this.
You are saying evolution is wrong, because we don't know the origin of life.....
You came to the radiometric thread, asked what I presume to be your best "stumper" question, then got your science handed to you. You came on the Evolution vs creationism thread touting a global Noahide flood, which again your science was handed to you. You attempted some lame post at explaining NS, which someone should have handed your science too you (frankly I think people in the know realized you would be too ignorant and unwilling to listen). And finally you make comments like this:
QUOTE
Of course, I believe that Young Earth is really the 'best fit' with science, I suppose however, that I could be proven wrong.
Which really proves my point. You simply have no idea what you are talking about and I mean that in the nicest way possible.
Now, I want you to tell me, how in the world is it possible for anyone with any kind of proper science education to conclude that you are "not ignorant" of evolution (Or geology, physics, chemistry and biology, for that matter)?
I know you feel the word ignorant is an insult, but it is not. Maybe it could motivate you to learn something? I suppose that would ruin your self-delusions of grandeur, can't have that as a Christian now can we?
To your final point there, I'll say it one more time. Evolution does not require faith, radiometric dating does not require faith, I have no faith in evolution, radiometric dating etc. You are the only one in this conversation with faith on how life began. Me? I simply do not know as there is not enough evidence to say how the mechanism of origins worked.
I've heard that it is in fact very similar to a box of chocolates.
QUOTE (camlax @ Oct 15 2007, 09:24 PM)
The only one with a belief here is you sir. You are making an ad nauseum creationist argument, that everyone has to have a belief on how life started. I have stated many times to you now, that I do not know, this however does not mean god did. Lack of knowledge is not proof of religious hunch.
Last time: You believe evolution. You don't know how it happened, have no proof that it did, have some pretty insurmountable evidence against it, yet you believe 'in' it anyway. I've seen enough of your posts on UM to know that... you can't hide it. You, sir, have a 'belief'.
QUOTE
You came to the radiometric thread, asked what I presume to be your best "stumper" question, then got your science handed to you. You came on the Evolution vs creationism thread touting a global Noahide flood, which again your science was handed to you.
Wrong. I came to the thread, asked a few questions and even gave evidence 'against' my position in with my question for you, because I really don't know the answers and try to be objective. I can admit when something doesn't fit with science... something you seem incapable of.
While I may not be as scholarly as you would prefer, you seem to have an innate ability not to see the 'other side' of any argument... this is a serious flaw, and one which, when I was learning logic, we found to be a serious problem when trying to argue a specific point. From your perspective all your arguments make perfect sense. They also make perfect sense to anyone else with only that same perspective. To the undecided, or anyone else with a different perspective (whether the opposing belief or not) they don't make sense. It's obvious, over and over in this thread, that you did not understand what I meant about cell replication until I said Meiosis and Mitosis (which aren't really accurate terms for the discussion, but I think it finally sunk in). And that's because you could not fathom my perspective the way I can understand yours. If you want to become more effective in your discussions, you'll need to learn this...
Best of luck to you... and I'll see you around.
QUOTE (jdlsmith @ Oct 20 2007, 05:00 AM)
Last time: You believe evolution. You don't know how it happened, have no proof that it did, have some pretty insurmountable evidence against it, yet you believe 'in' it anyway. I've seen enough of your posts on UM to know that... you can't hide it. You, sir, have a 'belief'.
Evolution does not require belief or leaps of faith. There is plenty of evidence it happened in the past. And we know it happens in the present, that is an observable fact. There have been pages and pages of posts on this board with intelligent people providing you evidence for evolution, you simply choose to ignore it so you can persist in your own delusion.
No biggie I guess. Waste of your time, not mine.
QUOTE (jdlsmith @ Oct 20 2007, 05:00 AM)
Wrong. I came to the thread, asked a few questions and even gave evidence 'against' my position in with my question for you, because I really don't know the answers and try to be objective. I can admit when something doesn't fit with science... something you seem incapable of.
Radiometric dating fits very well with science....
I love how you crackpots think there is some great global conspiracy of science to force "non-scientific" things into science. In hindsight this dialog was about as pointless as one with some of the ET worshipers found here.
QUOTE (jdlsmith @ Oct 20 2007, 05:00 AM)
While I may not be as scholarly as you would prefer, you seem to have an innate ability not to see the 'other side' of any argument... this is a serious flaw, and one which, when I was learning logic, we found to be a serious problem when trying to argue a specific point. From your perspective all your arguments make perfect sense.
You are not scholarly in anyway, no need to kid yourself. Nor have you shown any kind of logical conclusions for your belief other than to blunderously state "Evolution it not real, LALALAL, there is no proof, no evidence, LALALA, The universe is complex, LALALA, there was a firmament of water, LALALA". Yea, how scholarly of you JDL...
QUOTE (jdlsmith @ Oct 20 2007, 05:00 AM)
They also make perfect sense to anyone else with only that same perspective. To the undecided, or anyone else with a different perspective (whether the opposing belief or not) they don't make sense. It's obvious, over and over in this thread, that you did not understand what I meant about cell replication until I said Meiosis and Mitosis (which aren't really accurate terms for the discussion, but I think it finally sunk in).
Nooooooo, it was obvious you have no idea about biology....Don't lump me in with your misunderstanding to make yourself feel better. If you are going to be willfully ignorant at least wear it on your shirt like a man.
QUOTE (jdlsmith @ Oct 20 2007, 05:00 AM)
And that's because you could not fathom my perspective the way I can understand yours. If you want to become more effective in your discussions, you'll need to learn this...
Been there, done that. I do fathom your perspective, it saddens me, I cannot understand how some people would willingly lie to themselves and others simply to promote a belief they have no evidence for and were likely indoctrinated into.
QUOTE (camlax @ Oct 20 2007, 09:15 PM)
Evolution does not require belief or leaps of faith. There is plenty of evidence it happened in the past. And we know it happens in the present, that is an observable fact. There have been pages and pages of posts on this board with intelligent people providing you evidence for evolution, you simply choose to ignore it so you can persist in your own delusion.
So you don't believe evolution happened or you do? I'm getting confused...
Or maybe you are?
QUOTE (jdlsmith @ Oct 21 2007, 04:26 AM)
So you don't believe evolution happened or you do? I'm getting confused...
Or maybe you are?
Or maybe you are?
No, I don't need to believe in it, we know it happens, we observe it happens, we have mountains of evidence it happens. You can play your word games all day, that does not change the fact that evolution happens. It takes no belief system to understand a factual observation.
QUOTE (camlax @ Oct 6 2007, 12:08 PM)
Anyway, you should get the point. There is plenty of evidence for self-replicating molecules.
You are merely casting pearls before swine (<=== A jesus quote) by trying to explain known scientific facts to dogma-riddled religious freak trolls.
IS This AbOUT LIFE, I,m wondering!, conception's of misreality are apparent , whatislife? gdhh..WE aRE that's life, biology Is, Realism is, We are a Being, and so is the rest of LIFE, apparently!?..
Jdl never said he doesn't believe in evolution happening, his point which you missed for the first 2 pages of this was that the chances of a single cell being born on earth with the ability to reproduce, (which would be needed at some point to start the evolution of life.) is extremely low.
So your arguements against what he said camlax are pointless .but anways you both are correct there was just a misunderstanding on what was being said.
So your arguements against what he said camlax are pointless .but anways you both are correct there was just a misunderstanding on what was being said.
1)Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we <> in a way,some chemical reactions in a small place.After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated.Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated.We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes.This is life.But human is a part of this complicated system which means that he sees thing in a mirror like way,because he is in the system.so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way.2)Nature does not promote a certain form of life,but what we see,is the result of the sum of the reactions that happened through history.
QUOTE (camlax @ Oct 7 2007, 01:41 PM)
I would not say it was a problem, because evidence is starting to pile up that it did. Look JDL, I realize that there are some types of people in the world who would rather believe "because we don't understand it god must have done it". And I realize you are one of these people from reading your other posts. However, life starting on its own is not impossible, but rather probable as our understanding of early earth increases.
Your bolded comment shows how little you are understanding here. The mechanism is not known, that means there are lost of ways life could have arose, there is required 1 step for it all to happen in. As I stated above, evolution can work on biologically non living things. If you understand how evolution works then the development of more complex things, such as how cells reproduce should be no surprise to you.
Actually you are wrong again, and you again show your ignorant arguments how evolution works with your typical "such and such had to arise at the same time argument". We know self-replicating molecules exist. No one is saying evolution had to start acting on these molecules right away, as there may have been no mechanism for variation. Then something on earth changed and variation occurred. How? Thats not known, but that hardly requires a designer because it is unknown. Once you have variation, replication and a degree of inheritance, you are on your way.
Also, you seem to have missed some fundamentals of biology here. I think you are of the mind that first organisms on earth used sexual reproduction, meaning "there had to be two for it to work". The earliest organisms from Prokaryota and Archaea did not reproduce sexually, they more or less clone themselves (like they still do today). So the whole 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4 thing going on here.
Your bolded comment shows how little you are understanding here. The mechanism is not known, that means there are lost of ways life could have arose, there is required 1 step for it all to happen in. As I stated above, evolution can work on biologically non living things. If you understand how evolution works then the development of more complex things, such as how cells reproduce should be no surprise to you.
Actually you are wrong again, and you again show your ignorant arguments how evolution works with your typical "such and such had to arise at the same time argument". We know self-replicating molecules exist. No one is saying evolution had to start acting on these molecules right away, as there may have been no mechanism for variation. Then something on earth changed and variation occurred. How? Thats not known, but that hardly requires a designer because it is unknown. Once you have variation, replication and a degree of inheritance, you are on your way.
Also, you seem to have missed some fundamentals of biology here. I think you are of the mind that first organisms on earth used sexual reproduction, meaning "there had to be two for it to work". The earliest organisms from Prokaryota and Archaea did not reproduce sexually, they more or less clone themselves (like they still do today). So the whole 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 4 thing going on here.
entropy of life
1)what is the difference between a man that is alive and a man that is dead?In both cases the body is consisted from the same elements and compounds.But in the first case these compounds are reacting with each other and the structure of the body changes every moment.In the second case the chemical reactions of the body are lead to an equillibrium and so the composition of the body remains unchanged.The structure of a dead man cannot change if there are not microorganisms in its environment.
2)The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seems to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening.Life continues because chemical reactions continue.Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.
3)The relativity of entropy
What happens with the ntropy of living systems that are chemical reactions?The energy that comes externally on earth in the form of light could explain the lowering of entropy.However ,if in the beggining there where 2 or 3 reactions and after a while there are more and more ,and more complicated, seems that the entropy of the whole living system on earth or else nature, is raising.But remember that previously we said that human is not a neutral observer of things, but he is changing together with the system.This confuses him.What impact has that?It means that if humans entropy is raising slower than whole living natures entropy ,he will think that his entropy is lowering.Its something like relativity of motion.One exaple is this :Imagine a large number of birds that are flying one next to other to the same direction.If we tell them to fly one far from the other,so the group will start separating, the entropy of the system will start raising.Imagine also that there are three birds that are very close to each other,somewhere in the group.If they separate with less speed than the others and we consider these 3 birds as a system,the systems entropy will actually lower relatively with the whole system of the birds.
1)what is the difference between a man that is alive and a man that is dead?In both cases the body is consisted from the same elements and compounds.But in the first case these compounds are reacting with each other and the structure of the body changes every moment.In the second case the chemical reactions of the body are lead to an equillibrium and so the composition of the body remains unchanged.The structure of a dead man cannot change if there are not microorganisms in its environment.
2)The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seems to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening.Life continues because chemical reactions continue.Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.
3)The relativity of entropy
What happens with the ntropy of living systems that are chemical reactions?The energy that comes externally on earth in the form of light could explain the lowering of entropy.However ,if in the beggining there where 2 or 3 reactions and after a while there are more and more ,and more complicated, seems that the entropy of the whole living system on earth or else nature, is raising.But remember that previously we said that human is not a neutral observer of things, but he is changing together with the system.This confuses him.What impact has that?It means that if humans entropy is raising slower than whole living natures entropy ,he will think that his entropy is lowering.Its something like relativity of motion.One exaple is this :Imagine a large number of birds that are flying one next to other to the same direction.If we tell them to fly one far from the other,so the group will start separating, the entropy of the system will start raising.Imagine also that there are three birds that are very close to each other,somewhere in the group.If they separate with less speed than the others and we consider these 3 birds as a system,the systems entropy will actually lower relatively with the whole system of the birds.
1)living organisms normally are not dying because the chemical reactions that are composing them are continuing happening.if we analyze all these reactions we will have a very good view to their homeostasis.As we said we are seeing the world from the inside , or else in a mirror like direction, because we our selves are part of things, so we appreciate things from its results.We think that homeostasis is a very magical and perfect mechanism, because we are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the cataloge of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive.
2)the complex organic compounds that are composing living creatures probably are the results of many years of reactions, or else they are the fingerprints of the reactions from the beginning of all the reactions till today.
3)because human is a very complicated system of reactions that all depend from each other, its very loggical to say that it is almost impossible to treat compeletely a chronic disease with a single drug.The human body is not a car that we fix the part that is wrong and everything is ok.Instead, its reactions are so complicated, that (unless the illness is caused by a foreign agent e.g. a microbe, or by that lack of a substance that can be replaced), if there is a problem with a reaction this will lead to a chain reaction way problem to other reactions of the body as well.This mechanism is responsible for chronic diseases.The only way to treat compeletely this disease is to put back the initial reaction with the problem the way it was.Every other method will reduse symptoms, but not heal.Or it may theat a problem and create another.A good example for this is the treatment of high blood pressure or cholesterol.This are much more complicated that we though, that ever with the proper treatment of high blood pressure or cholesterol, we are not talking about healing, but for statistically significant improvement.Some studies also shows that there is no decrease in mortality even with the treatment of the risk factors.Another good example are rheumatic diseases.No complete cure exists.Drugs have many side effects.One hole is closed, and another is opened. Even in major diseases there is a big dissosiation between the pathogenetic mechanisms that are discovered and treatments.This diference will continue growing if we dont realize that the mechanism that organism works is more complicated.
2)the complex organic compounds that are composing living creatures probably are the results of many years of reactions, or else they are the fingerprints of the reactions from the beginning of all the reactions till today.
3)because human is a very complicated system of reactions that all depend from each other, its very loggical to say that it is almost impossible to treat compeletely a chronic disease with a single drug.The human body is not a car that we fix the part that is wrong and everything is ok.Instead, its reactions are so complicated, that (unless the illness is caused by a foreign agent e.g. a microbe, or by that lack of a substance that can be replaced), if there is a problem with a reaction this will lead to a chain reaction way problem to other reactions of the body as well.This mechanism is responsible for chronic diseases.The only way to treat compeletely this disease is to put back the initial reaction with the problem the way it was.Every other method will reduse symptoms, but not heal.Or it may theat a problem and create another.A good example for this is the treatment of high blood pressure or cholesterol.This are much more complicated that we though, that ever with the proper treatment of high blood pressure or cholesterol, we are not talking about healing, but for statistically significant improvement.Some studies also shows that there is no decrease in mortality even with the treatment of the risk factors.Another good example are rheumatic diseases.No complete cure exists.Drugs have many side effects.One hole is closed, and another is opened. Even in major diseases there is a big dissosiation between the pathogenetic mechanisms that are discovered and treatments.This diference will continue growing if we dont realize that the mechanism that organism works is more complicated.
1)lets come now to the position to answer if the spores that some microorganisms forms(e.g. cryptobiosis,anhydrobiosis etc) are living forms.If their metabolism is not zero, if it exists but it cant be detected because it is so weak, then they dont differ in anything from the other organisms.If their metabolism is absolute zero, then the answer gets more complicated.The fact is that it doesnt matter what it is, because the question is useless.Life as we see it is simply the result of the chemical reactions on earth.As we said ,we are part of the system and we dont realize it, but if we were alien forms of life for example, and we were watching the earth from outer space, then we would see only a very complicated network of reactions that are becoming more and more because of the energy of light.This system would have different structural forms, colours, etc.So, what happens with the spores is that because they face very unfriendly conditions ,the certain chemical reactions stop happening or they are lowering their rate.According to our definition, they are not life, but what is life?Life seems to be more an invention of us,or else a term that we use to describe anything that looks like us.There is not such a thing as life, its an illusion.An organism is the reactions that we see, and we think they are something amazing because we see them separately from all the other reactions that are happening in the world.We judge them from their reult, which is that they become like us.We are a part of the reactions that are happening as well, and while we see organisms that look like us, we think they are independent creatures, but actually they cant be separated from the whole soup of reactions.The spores are becoming as they were before because their reactions start happening, and they start looking like us.There is not such a thing as homeostasis.So tthe existence of their reaction gives the illusion that we called life.
2)Another implication of the theory is that because the sum of the chemical reactions is a chain, it means that the cause of a disease maybe come from the organ that has the symptoms, but maybe not.An initial problem causes its irregularity, but depends of the vulnerability of each organ to see in which organ the symptom will be seen, because all the reactions communicate with each other, and when a problem exists its like a volcano and we dont know where will it explode.For example a psychic disorder can cause a problem from the liver for example
2)Another implication of the theory is that because the sum of the chemical reactions is a chain, it means that the cause of a disease maybe come from the organ that has the symptoms, but maybe not.An initial problem causes its irregularity, but depends of the vulnerability of each organ to see in which organ the symptom will be seen, because all the reactions communicate with each other, and when a problem exists its like a volcano and we dont know where will it explode.For example a psychic disorder can cause a problem from the liver for example
Dear Friends,
The evolution of life and the origin of life are two different concepts in science. We may wish for the general concept of evolution to be either true or untrue. I wish only to point out a scientific principal that proponents of " Intelligent Design ", " Creationism" , or " Classical Religions" fail to understand.
One of your very bright young creationist scientist could tomorrow morning devise a proof of the invalidity of Evolution and natural selection. It could possibly be shown to represent incontrovertible evidence of the falseness and errors of modern science and the mistakes and misapplications of science that led us down the false road of Evolution for almost 200 years.
It is indeed sad that such a marvelous and astounding discover would do absolutely nothing to prove creationism or to breathe life back into a dead god.
You see Evolution is a positive assertive theory theory, all of the contra evidence that has ever been opposed and stacked against it, has only been an attempt to disprove the theory of Evolution.
If you could disprove carbon dating would that prove the " divinity of Christ " . If you could eliminate the archaeological evidence of Eons, would that be proof of a God that was his own father.
If I were able to " really show " that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics. Would this make the story of the parting of the Red Sea even a bit more true.
You see my friends you are not in a battle with science, you are not in a battle with the principalities of darkness, you are in a battle with your own reason and common sense.
Were you to successfully knock down the straw man of science then what ?. Is sickness again caused by an evil spirit ? Does a man again gain the ability to live for days in the stomach of a big fish and be spit upon the shore unharmed?.
If the earth were to be re flooded. Would the millions of species and all the resources to feed and reestablish them now be possible to be be put on a little wooden boat.
If all Scientists just gave up our reasoning and worldly thoughts and embraced what you would have us believe.
Tell me what to believe about the origin of life and the development of animal, plant, and human diversity of life on this planet. I want to know what you would have me believe?
Tell me your replacement theory.
Thank You,
The evolution of life and the origin of life are two different concepts in science. We may wish for the general concept of evolution to be either true or untrue. I wish only to point out a scientific principal that proponents of " Intelligent Design ", " Creationism" , or " Classical Religions" fail to understand.
One of your very bright young creationist scientist could tomorrow morning devise a proof of the invalidity of Evolution and natural selection. It could possibly be shown to represent incontrovertible evidence of the falseness and errors of modern science and the mistakes and misapplications of science that led us down the false road of Evolution for almost 200 years.
It is indeed sad that such a marvelous and astounding discover would do absolutely nothing to prove creationism or to breathe life back into a dead god.
You see Evolution is a positive assertive theory theory, all of the contra evidence that has ever been opposed and stacked against it, has only been an attempt to disprove the theory of Evolution.
If you could disprove carbon dating would that prove the " divinity of Christ " . If you could eliminate the archaeological evidence of Eons, would that be proof of a God that was his own father.
If I were able to " really show " that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics. Would this make the story of the parting of the Red Sea even a bit more true.
You see my friends you are not in a battle with science, you are not in a battle with the principalities of darkness, you are in a battle with your own reason and common sense.
Were you to successfully knock down the straw man of science then what ?. Is sickness again caused by an evil spirit ? Does a man again gain the ability to live for days in the stomach of a big fish and be spit upon the shore unharmed?.
If the earth were to be re flooded. Would the millions of species and all the resources to feed and reestablish them now be possible to be be put on a little wooden boat.
If all Scientists just gave up our reasoning and worldly thoughts and embraced what you would have us believe.
Tell me what to believe about the origin of life and the development of animal, plant, and human diversity of life on this planet. I want to know what you would have me believe?
Tell me your replacement theory.
Thank You,
what makes you think that human is the head of evolution?if you go with your dog for a walk and you meet another dog, i think that the dog will pay more attention to the other dog rather than you!!you may say that we are higher in evolution because we dominated on earth, but i am not so sure about that, because dinosaurs were the dominated species once.can you consider them higher than human?
Life is to live, only we define it accordingly as we have a full conscientious perspective thanks to our ability to think and reason. 
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.