Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
minaras

what is life?

63 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life only happen once. All those chemicals had to come together in exactly the right way once. And it went from there....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

:(

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:

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

Soai, K, T. Hayase, and K. Takai. "Catalytic Chirally Self-replicating Molecule.." Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 6(1995): 637-638.

Abstract:

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:

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.

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

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.

Natasha, Paul, Gerald F. Joyce, and "A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(2002): 12733-12740.

Abstract:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahh... so then after that first cell died, it could still evolve the ability to reproduce... Thanks for the enlightenment!

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.

Edited by camlax
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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.

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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.

Edited by camlax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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.

Edited by camlax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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. ;)

Edited by jdlsmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. ;)

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

Edited by camlax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.