# Survival of life

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by timojin, Jan 29, 2016.

1. ### timojinValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,252
Are we programmed to carry on life ?

2. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.

Messages:
4,849
Yes.

4. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
5. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,235
$Yes^2$

6. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
7. ### timojinValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,252
Looking from an atheist point.
What does the chemical structure knows about life . It is just a molecule that is broken down into components with in the cell, when the cell dies , and there is no purpose reassemble
But there is something , that there is programmed in us . Self preservation , a reproductive system is programmed in us , that life should go on and passed on .
I think this is something beyond the atoms and molecules ensemble in that life have to go on and be preserved and not just become one time ensemble and fall apart.

Messages:
3,252
I agree.

9. ### spidergoatValued Senior Member

Messages:
52,750
DNA doesn't have to know anything. It leads to structures in the brain that cause feelings of desire and pleasure around reproduction. It's a strong instinct. Do you know absolutely nothing about evolution?

10. ### timojinValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,252
The brain is composed of cells the cells have DNA and there are mechanism un the cell to function . DNA is as dumb as a piece of rock. .
Once you have life you can think all sort of wondrous thinks , an justify our thoughts.

11. ### spidergoatValued Senior Member

Messages:
52,750
You haven't refuted anything I just said. DNA doesn't think, it guides the building of structures that think.

12. ### sculptorValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,849
The structure of DNA lends itself easily to replication.
Accurate?
if so
Then DNA itself also has a tendency for reproduction.
How much different from our desires for replication is that really
.................
also:
If DNA is the structure that allows us to think, could it also be a limiting agent of thought by the nature of it's structure?

13. ### spidergoatValued Senior Member

Messages:
52,750
It's axiomatic. Any structure that didn't reproduce itself would become less and less common in the environment until it was gone completely. Any structure that is successful in reproducing itself becomes more and more common, and the basis for further variation.

And yes, in a general sense, DNA does limit an animal's capacity for thought. A mouse must have less sophisticated thoughts than a human.

14. ### timojinValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,252
DNA have been made in such a way that it will create other structures that will contribute , then in combination will create a process to think.

Messages:
52,750
Correct.

16. ### originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,235
Just evolution. A species that did not have a strong sense of self preservation or the strong desire to reporoduce would become extinct. Simple common sense.

17. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,222
You need four things:
1] A self-replicating molecule.
2] A margin of error in that replication.
3] Consumable resources.
4] Time.

18. ### timojinValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,252
It is easy use the word evolution after you have life. Someone had to create and produce life, that is the true beginning. Let say Mars had or have its water, Sister Venus ended up with sulfate blanket . We don't know how long earth was without life ( we only speculate ) Here we are . thank God for life.

19. ### spidergoatValued Senior Member

Messages:
52,750
No, someone didn't need to create life. There is no evidence of that.

And I don't even trust you to know what we don't know.

20. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
8,222
False.

We've actually got it nailed down pretty darned close.

Remains of biotic life have been found in 4.1 billion year old rock in Western Australia.
The Hadean eon (a time when Earth was still too hot and unstable to support) ended 4.0 billion years ago.
These two events actually overlap, meaning there must be some margin of error, but the time frame in which life arose must fall within that error. (It is quite possible it arose multiple times in different areas, but many got snuffed out through geologic instability.)

The implication is that, the moment the conditions allowed for life to arise, it promptly did so.

21. ### timojinValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,252
The evidence is that we have intelligent life . To produce a molecule like DNA you need a little more then shake a bottle with carbon , oxygen, hydrogen, phosphate , some clay and heat, or make it easy some Pyridine phosphate and Ribose or deoxyribose, clay . and before that how do you get Ribose or deoxyribose .
Beside is there any evidence that there is no creator ?

22. ### spidergoatValued Senior Member

Messages:
52,750
The first life probably wasn't based DNA, but on a simpler molecule. Have you heard of the Miller-Urey Experiment? They reproduced the electrochemical conditions that were likely present on the early Earth, and they got organic molecules at the end of a week.

There is plenty of evidence that life was not designed by an intelligent creator. There are structures present that no intelligent being would plan, but could only come about as a result of an evolutionary process from previous forms, a necessarily limited kind of design.

23. ### timojinValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,252
I know about the life on the rocks un Australia . But tell me , did it come from some place ? Since 1950 The muller experiment that 65 years ago U am sure there are and there were anxious researcher would like to put some queasy living organism together . Let me make something easier , synthesise Ribose from carbon oxygen and hydrogen ., or let see if we can get it from the space.