origin of life:what would be our approach the problem if were not living beings.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-11-2012, 01:39 AM
origin of life:what would be our approach the problem if were not living beings.
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 happens 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 during 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 any chemical reactions 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.


..The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell,in the form of chemical reactions.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 that the existence a first single cell was not necessary 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.
The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seem

s 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.

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 survival of the first forms of life, but also in their evolution.Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we cultivated 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 things 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.

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.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.

We are the results of all these , and so it is normal to think that if something was not the way it is, WE would not be there, the way we are!So we think that they are essential for us and everything was arranged perfectly, and if something was a bit different ,we would not be there, but as i told everything depends on who is the observer.We are a changing complex, and everything that happens lead to us.We see things from the opposite side though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2012, 05:12 AM
RE: origin of life:what would be our approach the problem if were not living beings.
K, so I'm not sure, but I'll approve this account. Possibly a bot.

If not....um....wow. That was quite the wall of gibberish.

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2012, 06:33 AM
origin of life:what would be our approach the problem if were not living beings.
Credit must be given, when due, for all that copying and pasting.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2012, 11:37 AM
RE: origin of life:what would be our approach the problem if were not living beings.
About half of what you said is wrong. I recommend getting a college level bio textbook and studying up on cell biology, then read a molecular biology textbook (if you can manage it), and THEN go and study abiogenesis, reading the actual current work being done in that field.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2012, 02:21 PM (This post was last modified: 09-11-2012 02:24 PM by thirdangletheory.)
RE: origin of life:what would be our approach the problem if were not living beings.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think he's making an argument for intelligent design. Another 'life is too complicated to have started on it's own' type thing. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-11-2012, 04:32 PM
RE: origin of life:what would be our approach the problem if were not living beings.
Wait, since when does chemical reaction = life? Does this mean that fire is a living being? Because fire elementals are some tough enemies, dude.

[Image: s1hlsk.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 08:51 AM
RE: origin of life:what would be our approach the problem if were not living beings.
stark raving: this is not a bot!!well done!!


le proyon:hmmmm........the whole idea is that the definition of life is made only because we are a part of it..We call life everything that looks like us.As long as a virus or a spore has metabolism and make similar processes like us, we call it alive, but when they have zero metabolism, we find it hard to consider it alive.Fire on the other hand doesnt look enough like us to consider it alive.


thirdangletheory:actually YOU are arguing that there are intelligent laws in nature that create life.
I argue that things are way simplier that we think.

phaedrus: oh really??as far as i know, there is not a satisfactory explanation about how life emerged from non life!
And dont worry about my knowledge.I am already a life science professional....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2012, 04:03 PM
RE: origin of life:what would be our approach the problem if were not living beings.
With that writing proficiency, I doubt it. Certainly you couldn't get a PhD with writing skills like that. If this is just how you write on the internet, then I suggest you start writing, you know, coherently so that your points can actually be understood.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phaedrus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: