Life from non-life?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by shichimenshyo, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    So, I was thinking about the creation of life and how some would argue that life can not be created from non-life. It got me thinking, if all of us and everything in the universe as we know it right now is built up from the same basic building blocks, atoms and subatomic particles then how can life not come from non-life? It would seem that random combinations of these basic building blocks would eventually yield some type of living thing.


    Please explain this concept further if you can.

    I would like to know more about it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    This universe is cyclic and so are all the concepts in it are cyclic as well. The universe creates itself, the past creates the future, the future creates the past.

    existence of chaos only serves a function for existence of singularity

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    if life (meaning the consciousness) is eternal (much like you advocate subatomic particles are eternal) then it can be more easily understood how life comes from life
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The question is really about the conflict between the word 'random' and the complexity of arrangement.

    Even the most primitive life forms (that have a genetic code and can replicate themselves) are incredibly complicated arrangements of atomic particles.

    That this could simply appear by random chance is thought by some (including myself) to be impossible.

    Labs have artificially created amino acids by random chance under controlled conditions...but this is far from creating anything that could be called 'life'.
     
  8. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    But subatomic particles are not a measure of conciousness, and our concious resides within our brain, which is comprised of the same basic building blocks as everything else. If energy itself is not life, and atoms themselves are not life, but we are made up of these things, why cant they make life?
     
  9. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    certainly

    illumination also resides within a light bulb
    there are more issues to illumination than the material make-up of the light bulb (namely, that of a live current)
     
  10. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    The universe is much larger than any lab, if just a small lab can randomly create amino acids through random chance, then why couldnt vastly more complex things be created by chance in a vastly more complex "lab"?
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,054
    A serious and difficult question for hundreds of years. A major advance in understanding it was made by Charles Darwin in the late 1800s.

    Since then, what had been a mystery has become a technical question of historical fact and event, and an area of research and investigation.
     
  12. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110

    Care to explain this a little further?
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    the dynamic of a lightbulb's illumination is electricity
    without it there is no question of any lightbulb lighting up anything

    similarly the dynamic of the brain's function is consciousness
    without it there is no question of any brain doing anything
    (IOW there is no materially reduced formula on how consciousness can be re-invested into a brain, once it has left a conscious state)
     
  14. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    But concious thought is a result of energy being fired through the synaptic gaps in the brain. So our concious is essentially made up of the same things as a light bulb just in a drastically different number and arrangment.
     
  15. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    the difference is that we can not fire up a brain like we can fire up a lightbulb.

    IOW a brain can not be demonstrated to be switched on or off.
    Once a brain is switched off, there is no standard way to switch it on.
     
  16. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Not that we know of yet. A brain is far more complex then a lightbulb, but if we agree that they are both composed of the same materials is it not possible that we just havent found the right switch yet?
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2008
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    exactly

    the issue is that an analysis of a lightbulb will not enable the engineering of its functionality in the absence of electricity

    similarly an analysis of the brain will not enable the engineering of it's functionality in the absence of consciousness.

    IOW the premise for your understanding .....
    ..... is completely theoretical since there is no " basic building block" model for consciousness, even though there may exists a basic building block model for brains, lightbulbs and electricity.
     
  18. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    EDIT: Double post
     
  19. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    So the fundamental difference is that you dont believe conciousness is a result of the function of the brain?

    Just to clarify...what about those living things that dont have a brain?



    Really? How do you know that ?
     
  20. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    This planet is not the whole universe...unless youre one of those who believes that earth was 'seeded' at some point in its history from outer space.
     
  21. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    I would think the incredible size of the universe makes the random chance concept all the more plausible.
     
  22. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    I know the planet is not the universe, but it is part of it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    in the same way that illumination is not an exclusive function of a lightbulb (a lightbulb without electricity cannot illuminate anything)

    sorry I don't understand your question
    What particular living things are you talking about?



    you have peer reviewed evidence to the contrary?
     

Share This Page