Origin of Life

Originally posted by agryson
WHAT THE F@%$!

Seriously, I hope that was all a parody? More logical fallacies than I can shake a stick at! Look, Serigado, it was addressed at you, I'm leaving this steaming pile in your lap while I take care of the one left on mine...

But Mr. Awsm, being in the science forum, this is obviously new ground for you, throw me some links to your statistic ...[text shortened]... with a hypothesis in ten minutes, not a working theory) then get out of the science forum.

hahaha
It had so much bad argumentation I gave up. I would need more then 1 hour to write a complete answer to all of that. And I'm sure he wouldn't understand most of it, and the parts he would understand he would deny because it would be against his personal religion.

Originally posted by agryson
I'd disagree with your first point, life is defined as several things, but basing it on DNA is a bit of a tautology.
One of the more general definitions is a system which replicates, metabolises etc,
Wikipedia puts it best:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
Note that there's no mention of DNA or RNA being a requirement.

I agree that there is no mention of DNA, but there is specific reference to "cells" which does rule out a lot of self copying systems.
Many of the other criteria given, actually get a bit hazy or don't apply when we talk about the simplest forms of life such as single celled microbes.

My point is that our definition of life is fairly specific to what we observe in known biological replicating systems on our planet - and even then we single out the more complex ones.
As I pointed out earlier, there are other replicating systems known, but because they have not achieve the complexity of cellular life, we choose not to call them life.

So the origional question should be changed to:
Amongst replicating systems, why are the more complex known ones all DNA based life forms?
and the answer may be as simple as:
chance / environment / competition.

One could similarly ask why the vast majority of complex life forms are eukaryotes. What is so wrong with the prokaryotes?
eukaryotes, prokaryotes and virus' are all very common so why single out the eukaryotes and prokaryotes while ignoring virus' and prions etc?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree that there is no mention of DNA, but there is specific reference to "cells" which does rule out a lot of self copying systems.
Many of the other criteria given, actually get a bit hazy or don't apply when we talk about the simplest forms of life such as single celled microbes.

My point is that our definition of life is fairly specific to what ...[text shortened]... mmon so why single out the eukaryotes and prokaryotes while ignoring virus' and prions etc?

Well, I think the cell is important, though the non-inclusion of certain replicating systems may at times seem a little arbitrary. By cell, it does not necessarily need to be a cell in the sense we know it, but simply some way to regulate its local metabolic environment.
As for why the eukaryotes are complex, I'd pin that one on the nuclear membrane, finer control of protein expression since less of the other metabolic crap is getting in the way.
But you're absolutely right about the enormous fudge facto there is when it comes to the definition of life. I for instance equate a computer virus with a protein based one. Some people find that laughable, but I see no difference between their natures except for one being electrical and the other being wet.
Likewise, once programs start being given the power to replicate with a hereditary code, I'd have little problem referring to them as life. People tend to look at a robot for instance, and say it's not life "because we built it", but look at its properties and there's little fundamental difference. There's a certain gut instinct that limits the interpretation.

Originally posted by serigado
You surely don't understand a lot of things.
It's possible to create life from non-life -> it has been done.
As for making macro-organisms return from the dead, there are a lot more complications.

Your arguments are not very good... you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Take my word: no intelligent design is needed to explain how t ...[text shortened]... wrong and earth was not the center of the universe. Evolution will take longer, I think.

(Answer to line 2)
Its possible to create life from something thats not living? could you give me a source or something to back you up?

(Answer to line 3-4)
bringing back to life something that was dead or non living the same as creating life from something nonliving.

(Answer to line 5-11)
So do you believe that the whole world can be perfectly placed away from the sun, that the gases in earth are just the right amount, that all planets in our solar system travel around the sun and dont crash into each other, that all the things in the world just "happened" by chance and that all the incredible design and ingenueity in life and how it works happened randomly? do you know what the percent that all that would happen by some explosion is? if I am not wrong, the explosion sent TONS of gases and particles flying out, so how did they end up in orbit? that plain doesn't make sense.

(Answer to line 12-16)
I gather you think there is a lot of evidence for evolution. Could you please present solid proof of that? thanks

Originally posted by agryson
[b]WHAT THE F@%$!

I believe swearing is not allowed on RHP.

Originally posted by thorvo
It's possible to create life from something thats not living?

Yes, it is possible. Not yet, perhaps, but none natural law forbids the possibility to create life, atom for atom, molecule for molecule. H*ll, this has already been done, by nature. It can be done artificially, by man.

Life is not more than atoms and molecules, nothing more. There is no essence of life in living matter, that's religious talk.

What about bring dead people to life again? Here, I have to say, atom for atom, molecule for molecule, it is possible to reconstruct the man and revive him, not by present science but, again, no laws of nature forbids it, it can be done.
What about his memory? Well, memory that has not been maintained by a living brain are lost (my opinion), only hard wired memories can be rescued, and noone knows how the mery works, yet. Therefor I don't believe in cryotechnology to have people frozen until their cancer can be cured, or something.

But life itself, there is no religious in life, only the laws of nature rules. Everything more than that is religious talk only.

Originally posted by thorvo
So do you believe that the whole world can be perfectly placed away from the sun, that the gases in earth are just the right amount, that all planets in our solar system travel around the sun and dont crash into each other, that all the things in the world just "happened" by chance and that all the incredible design and ingenueity in life and how it works hap ...[text shortened]... ses and particles flying out, so how did they end up in orbit? that plain doesn't make sense.

Your post isn't very clear. Can you break it down into separate clear claims and I will show you why you are wrong.
For example: The earth is not placed 'perfectly away from the sun'.
The planets do crash into each other.
The things on the world do happen by chance with the clause that there are many processes involved which are not equivalent to the role of a dice.
What explosion are you talking about?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your post isn't very clear. Can you break it down into separate clear claims and I will show you why you are wrong.
For example: The earth is not placed 'perfectly away from the sun'.
The planets do crash into each other.
The things on the world do happen by chance with the clause that there are many processes involved which are not equivalent to the role of a dice.
What explosion are you talking about?

Why is the earth not placed perfectly around the sun?
I haven't heard of any planets that do that, only asteroids, yet they come from the asteroid belt thats around the sun. And it's because something sets the asteroid in motion. It's not like there are tons of asteroids fllying everywhere at once.
What things happen by chance?
I am talking about the Big Bang explosion.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, it is possible. Not yet, perhaps, but none natural law forbids the possibility to create life, atom for atom, molecule for molecule. H*ll, this has already been done, by nature. It can be done artificially, by man.

Life is not more than atoms and molecules, nothing more. There is no essence of life in living matter, that's religious talk.

What ious in life, only the laws of nature rules. Everything more than that is religious talk only.

(Answer to lines 1-6)
Life is more than just atoms and molecules. Metal has atoms and molecules but it's not living. For something to have life it needs to have the following things:
1)All living things need energy
2) All living things respond and adapt to their enviroment
3) All living things reproduce
4) All living things grow
5) All living things produce wastes
6) All living things contain DNA

You are very wrong when you say life is nothing else than atoms and molecules. And when you said that "none natural law forbids the possibility to create life, atom for atom, molecule for molecule" it is true, it is possible to create life. But you didn't answer what I asked. I asked if it is possible to create something living from something non-living. You create something living from something else thats living too. It has never been done by man.

(Answer from lines 7-15)
You can reconstruct a dead man, but you can't bring him back to live. And yes there are laws of nature that forbid it. When a man dies, he dies. He is dead, and whats dead stays dead. His life has ended and his body is either too worn out, or damaged too much. Your reconstructing of atoms and molecules isn't going to bring him back to life because life is more than just atoms and molecules. Only the Person who made creation can bring back to life creation. We, man, cannot. We don't have the power, nor the tools.

(Answer to lines 16-17)
Do you believe in evolution? Because evolution is a religion. And if you believe in evolution then you really don't believe what you just said. And just to say you aren't very open minded by saying that only the laws of nature rules. Also, you didn't give me any evidence or proof that something livng can be created from something non-living.

Originally posted by thorvo
(Answer to lines 1-6)
Life is more than just atoms and molecules. Metal has atoms and molecules but it's not living. For something to have life it needs to have the following things:
1)All living things need energy
2) All living things respond and adapt to their enviroment
3) All living things reproduce
4) All living things grow
5) All living things pro ...[text shortened]... e any evidence or proof that something livng can be created from something non-living.

"Life is more than just atoms and molecules."

No it is not. You don't need any magical things more than atoms, like the essence of life, some religious soul and others, atoms are enough. The right configurations of atoms, and the non-living atoms become alive.

"Do you believe in evolution? Because evolution is a religion."

Evolution is science. Those who believe that evolution is false don't believe in science. Or don't know much about evolution.

"And just to say you aren't very open minded by saying that only the laws of nature rules."

Within science only laws of nature applies. Religion says that the laws of nature can be broken. I don't believe that, because I am not religious.

The rest of what you write is pure religion, and this is Science Fourum, so I don't comment that here.

Originally posted by thorvo
(Answer to lines 1-6)
Life is more than just atoms and molecules. Metal has atoms and molecules but it's not living. For something to have life it needs to have the following things:
1)All living things need energy
2) All living things respond and adapt to their enviroment
3) All living things reproduce
4) All living things grow
5) All living things pro e any evidence or proof that something livng can be created from something non-living.

A few thoughts:

Of the characteristics you listed, I can think of many exceptional organisms that most people would still identify as "life" but do not have certain traits, such as: coma patients (who do not responds or adapt to their environments); mules (which don't reproduce); old people (who shrink); and yeasts (which produce carbon dioxide as their "waste" ).

The idea that "life" is something other than just a collection of atoms and molecules is partially right and partially wrong. It's true that a system can accomplish things that the individual parts of the system cannot, but the difference in behaviour arises from the interaction of the parts, which the parts themselves don't have the luxury of exploiting on their own. Similarly, humans are constructed out of atoms and molecules that interact in an amazingly complex fashion, but the difference between the living and the non-living also arises from the interaction of the parts, notably through the enormous complexity of the living body and its innumerable systems.

(Incidentally, we may not currently have the tools to construct a living organism, but that's a far cry from not having the power. If everyone thought that way, no tools would ever get built!)

Evolution is not a religion. Evolution has been observed empirically in the laboratory (through the successive breeding of fruit flies, rats, etc...), in everyday life (think of the traits you inherited from your parents, picking the proper seeds for gardening, and the breeding of dogs for show), and in fossil records, all of which support the theory of evolution. Religion is a set of beliefs held without, or sometimes in spite of, factual evidence.

Originally posted by PBE6
A few thoughts:

Of the characteristics you listed, I can think of many exceptional organisms that most people would still identify as "life" but do not have certain traits, such as: coma patients (who do not responds or adapt to their environments); mules (which don't reproduce); old people (who shrink); and yeasts (which produce carbon dioxide as their "was Religion is a set of beliefs held without, or sometimes in spite of, factual evidence.

Exactly, or as I like to put it, the only "thing" which life has that other lumps of matter have is that it is organised. That organisation is information. At a very crude level, life is simply something which preserves its order and information even though the constituent parts may change (which is what differentiates it from an ordered crystal for instance). The maintenance of such order is a natural consequence of evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
[b]"Life is more than just atoms and molecules."

No it is not. You don't need any magical things more than atoms, like the essence of life, some religious soul and others, atoms are enough. The right configurations of atoms, and the non-living atoms become alive.

"Do you believe in evolution? Because evolution is a religion."

Evolution ...[text shortened]... ou write is pure religion, and this is Science Fourum, so I don't comment that here.[/b]

You cant just put several atoms of this and some molecules of that and BINGO have somethign living. it requires a whole lot more than that. Get ur facts straight. If it were the case that atoms and molecules were alive, then is metal alive? is a piece of thread alive? how about a cardboard?

Ok, true, evolution isn't really in the religion category. Sorry about that. yet it is a belief, and it is A science, not the only science. Science hasn't got much to back up evolution anyway. I dont believe in evolution, but I do believe in science. Evolution isn't all science. It's a scientific hypothesis that Darwin proposed by his own thoughts or reasoning. How reliable is that? I have an eyewitness account of creatoin, and somehow thats more convincing than what one man thinks up.

How does religion say that the laws of nature can be broken? could I have a specific example? thanks

Science and religion go together. Science is the study of nature. Religion, or at least my religion, is the belief in the God who made nature.

Originally posted by znsho
But, does DNA reproduce itself? It needs enzymes to reproduce.

RNA can both serve as template and catalyst. Thus, a purely RNA solutions should be able to self-replicate given the materials to do so.

Originally posted by thorvo
You cant just put several atoms of this and some molecules of that and BINGO have somethign living. it requires a whole lot more than that. Get ur facts straight. If it were the case that atoms and molecules were alive, then is metal alive? is a piece of thread alive? how about a cardboard?

Ok, true, evolution isn't really in the religion category. Sorry a ...[text shortened]... tudy of nature. Religion, or at least my religion, is the belief in the God who made nature.

"You cant just put several atoms of this and some molecules of that and BINGO have somethign living."

Why not? Nature did just that.

"If it were the case that atoms and molecules were alive, then is metal alive?"

I haven't said that. Please, don't read things that is not written.

"Ok, true, evolution isn't really in the religion category. ... yet it is a belief"

As the same category as atomic theory, relativity, and a lot of other branches in science. People belives in them, but taht doesn't make them religions. Don't bend the definition of science.

"How does religion say that the laws of nature can be broken? could I have a specific example? thanks"

Easy. Miracles. Like turning water into wine, walking on the surface of water, life after death. Even in non-christian religions appear elements of laws of nature that is broken. That's how I define religion.

"Science and religion go together."

Not so. There is a definite border between the two.

I will not discuss religion per se in the Science Forum. Religious matters I discuss in Spirituality Forum.