Life from non life
Moderator: Moderators
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Life from non life
Post #1In this forum I have heard quite a few times that life cannot come from non life. What does this mean? It seems false to me since life forms are composed of elementary particles that are not alive themselves such as carbon and oxygen.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21073
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 790 times
- Been thanked: 1114 times
- Contact:
Re: Life from non life
Post #2[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]
One definition I found online was ...
... and regarding it "coming from" 'on living matter, think this may mean that there is {quote } ...
“no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup ...� - How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Professor Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
Further Reading
Free Download: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/?start=36
One definition I found online was ...
LIFE
1.
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
... and regarding it "coming from" 'on living matter, think this may mean that there is {quote } ...
“no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup ...� - How Life Began—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Professor Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.
Further Reading
Free Download: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/?start=36
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:03 am, edited 4 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Life from non life
Post #3[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]
Alexandre Meinesz is simply making a false premise based on no evidence and traditional religion and mythologies. One would first have to have a reason to suspect this, and then go prove it.
There is no reason to suspect life doesn't arise from non-life. Especially since there is no good definition of life. Fire, for example, is more alive than a virus.
What we know by observation is that there are elements. Therefore, although we may not understand the mechanism, the first premise we should have is that inorganic elements and carbon DO form life.
This must first be disproved before we go on to wilder hypothesis.
Alexandre Meinesz is simply making a false premise based on no evidence and traditional religion and mythologies. One would first have to have a reason to suspect this, and then go prove it.
There is no reason to suspect life doesn't arise from non-life. Especially since there is no good definition of life. Fire, for example, is more alive than a virus.
What we know by observation is that there are elements. Therefore, although we may not understand the mechanism, the first premise we should have is that inorganic elements and carbon DO form life.
This must first be disproved before we go on to wilder hypothesis.
- Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #4
Life is composed of four basic organic compounds; carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids. In between these simple organic compounds and the prokaryotes, the simplest form of true life (single celled bacteria) which are formed from these organic compounds, there is a stage known as protobiont.
Wikipedia
Protocell
A protocell (or protobiont) is a self-organized, endogenously ordered, spherical collection of lipids proposed as a stepping-stone to the origin of life.[1][2] A central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose and how they could differ in reproductive output, thus enabling the accumulation of novel biological emergences over time, i.e. biological evolution. Although a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal to understand the process appears well within reach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell
Biology Cabinet
Scientists think that the protobionts are the evolutionary precursors of prokaryotic cells. Protobionts may be originated as an array of microspheres of diverse organic and inorganic compounds enclosed by lipidic membranes. Proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and other organic substances were the most important autocatalytic organic compounds. Water was a very important factor in the assembly of the protobionts' endoplasm. After this event, several microspheres could self-organize into organelles that were able to perform specific functions; for example, lysosomes, peroxysomes, vacuoles, etc.
Gradually, some segments of the external membrane would invaginate for forming membranous organelles, like endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus. First protobionts would not have a nucleus membrane (nuclear envelope); consequently, they could be identified like prokaryotes.
http://www.biocab.org/protobiont.html
So we turn to the viruses. The simplest of the viruses are nothing but a chain of molecules that incorporate a simple RNA molecule. Literally, all they do is replicate themselves. They don't respire, they don't excrete, and they don't die, because they were never "living" to begin with. They can be broken apart and destroyed easily enough, but if left intact they can remain inert apparently indefinitely. Then, given the necessary environmental conditions, they replicate themselves. I am not suggesting that viruses represent "first life" either. They are not life at all, for one thing. But it is generally held that something like this, something which blurs the distinction between what is living and what is a result of simple on going process of chemistry rather than organic biology, is responsible for process of becoming earliest life itself. What we clearly observe is that life moved from simple to complex with the passage of time. And that life is composed of nonliving organic compounds which form through natural processes.
The history of planet earth has been the 4.5-5 billion year history of organic chemistry in action. That significant and ever more complex changes would occur over the course of this amount of time is predictable.
Wikipedia
Protocell
A protocell (or protobiont) is a self-organized, endogenously ordered, spherical collection of lipids proposed as a stepping-stone to the origin of life.[1][2] A central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose and how they could differ in reproductive output, thus enabling the accumulation of novel biological emergences over time, i.e. biological evolution. Although a functional protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting, the goal to understand the process appears well within reach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell
Biology Cabinet
Scientists think that the protobionts are the evolutionary precursors of prokaryotic cells. Protobionts may be originated as an array of microspheres of diverse organic and inorganic compounds enclosed by lipidic membranes. Proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and other organic substances were the most important autocatalytic organic compounds. Water was a very important factor in the assembly of the protobionts' endoplasm. After this event, several microspheres could self-organize into organelles that were able to perform specific functions; for example, lysosomes, peroxysomes, vacuoles, etc.
Gradually, some segments of the external membrane would invaginate for forming membranous organelles, like endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus. First protobionts would not have a nucleus membrane (nuclear envelope); consequently, they could be identified like prokaryotes.
http://www.biocab.org/protobiont.html
So we turn to the viruses. The simplest of the viruses are nothing but a chain of molecules that incorporate a simple RNA molecule. Literally, all they do is replicate themselves. They don't respire, they don't excrete, and they don't die, because they were never "living" to begin with. They can be broken apart and destroyed easily enough, but if left intact they can remain inert apparently indefinitely. Then, given the necessary environmental conditions, they replicate themselves. I am not suggesting that viruses represent "first life" either. They are not life at all, for one thing. But it is generally held that something like this, something which blurs the distinction between what is living and what is a result of simple on going process of chemistry rather than organic biology, is responsible for process of becoming earliest life itself. What we clearly observe is that life moved from simple to complex with the passage of time. And that life is composed of nonliving organic compounds which form through natural processes.
The history of planet earth has been the 4.5-5 billion year history of organic chemistry in action. That significant and ever more complex changes would occur over the course of this amount of time is predictable.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Life from non life
Post #5[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]
Molecular soup? Again, is this to say life cannot come from atoms/molecules of elementary non-living particles such as hydrogen, oxygen, carbon etc?“no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup ...�
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense