xela
Meteorite
Posts: 1
|
Post by xela on Apr 22, 2010 16:00:05 GMT -5
My idea(because I'm entitled to in):
What the the world? What is everything? Who am I? I am merely text on a web site. Only what effects you actually exists. The person who wrote this, xela, doesn't actually exist because you will probably never meet him.
Before you were born you exist in a state of absolute power; having this power is fun for a while but eventually you get board. So you create a universe (our universe), give up your power, and enter the universe you have created. When you die you regain your power to do/create anything and the cycle starts again. Because this process has no start point and no end point life has no origin it just is.
You exists because it is necessary, without you nothing exists.
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on Apr 23, 2010 4:32:02 GMT -5
We have no scientifically verifiable way to say with certainty how life began on the planet Earth (or elsewhere), though there is some evidence to support the idea of abiogenesis. There are unscientific claims from the perspective of Philosophy/Theology, which lack supporting evidence and must be taken on faith.
The idea of Panspermia (life coming to Earth from somewhere else) has been mentioned, but that's not really an answer to the origin of life. The question remains: How did life begin? Whether the origin was here on Earth or somewhere else is incidental to the question.
My personal belief on the matter is that systems of life are a natural occurrence of the Universe. Experiments on the abiogenesis hypothesis have shown that under the correct atmospheric conditions, amino acids will spontaneously generate following the application of electric current. Given the large number of planets in the Universe, it would statistically follow that the planet Earth is one such world possessing the correct chemical and astronomical conditions to spontaneously give rise to life without the interference of an outside force.
|
|
Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
Post by Silverrida on Apr 25, 2010 8:42:25 GMT -5
koralth, thank you for pointing out the replication process, I might have to look into that. You know how it is, with those theories created in less then 15min, most of them are just wrong. Silverrida, "I disagree with this as viruses don't reproduce sexually which would mean evolution would be impossible based on the theory of Natural Selection." I am pritty sure that evolution accurs in viruses just like in any other living organism. When they copy the RNA into a host cell mutation is still possible. This is how the viruses become more deadly. "Also, if I may correct you, viruses are not considered life-forms as they don't have similar characteristics to lifeforms in any way. there are lifeforms that are not composed of multiple cells, the cellular slime mold coming to the forefront of my mind. Part of why it is technically cell theory." Thank you for poining that out, but I pointed that in my previous post. "(you should also know that viruses are not considered life forms, as they don't have cells). " This is actually under a constant debate, and there is many scientists that point out that since viruses carry RNA/DNA and replicate themselves they should be considered alive. I apologize that I wasn't clear enough. It was my fault. Viruses don't reproduce outside of a living host cell. If we claim that viruses were the first thing then there is no way they would reproduce. And my comment about them not being life-forms was more about WHY they aren't considered life-forms. Not being composed of cells alone is not what makes it a life-form as we consider another thing that is not composed of multiple cells to e a life-form and certain things with nuclei to be life-forms. It's due to a number of things, including not respiring, not photosynthesizing, not producing waste, etc.
|
|
|
Post by erin132 on May 6, 2010 9:17:43 GMT -5
We have no scientifically verifiable way to say with certainty how life began on the planet Earth (or elsewhere), though there is some evidence to support the idea of abiogenesis. There are unscientific claims from the perspective of Philosophy/Theology, which lack supporting evidence and must be taken on faith. The idea of Panspermia (life coming to Earth from somewhere else) has been mentioned, but that's not really an answer to the origin of life. The question remains: How did life begin? Whether the origin was here on Earth or somewhere else is incidental to the question. My personal belief on the matter is that systems of life are a natural occurrence of the Universe. Experiments on the abiogenesis hypothesis have shown that under the correct atmospheric conditions, amino acids will spontaneously generate following the application of electric current. Given the large number of planets in the Universe, it would statistically follow that the planet Earth is one such world possessing the correct chemical and astronomical conditions to spontaneously give rise to life without the interference of an outside force. Well if the De Novo or abiogenesis is the one then that would give us an answer, but I have my doubts.I mean there are still problems with the time interval between Earth's creation and the first cellular signals that have been found. For me I think it would make more sense if the first amino acids came from elsewhere. I mean is 1.2 billion years enough that Nucleic acids could have come out of nothing? Francis Crick himself supported the panspermia theory. I don't think that this is something that we will ever really be able to answer because there isn't enough evidence.
|
|
|
Post by erin132 on May 7, 2010 10:55:12 GMT -5
Just like we can't be certain whether jumping from a plane at 30,000ft will kill us, we can't be certain that evolution happened. well honestly after studying how Darwin came to his theory I really find it hard to understand how you can think it doesn't happen
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on May 8, 2010 0:18:20 GMT -5
One thing i have never understood about evolution is that how would we have evolved eyes without knowing there is light in the first place, ears without knowing there's sound, etc. etc. I think you misunderstand Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as the Origin of Species. It is not a matter of us knowing something exists and then evolving a way to detect it. Evolution is not a conscious process. We now know that microwave radiation and x-ray radiation exist, but we are not consciously evolving biological senses to detect them. Natural selection shows the evolution of the senses occurred as such: Light exists in the Universe. Via random mutation, a being came into existence that could detect light, whereas the rest of its species could not detect light. This ability ultimately proved advantageous, allowing the genetic coding for light detection to be passed on to future generations.
|
|
|
Post by IMAGINARYphilosophy on May 8, 2010 0:23:23 GMT -5
For me I think it would make more sense if the first amino acids came from elsewhere. I mean is 1.2 billion years enough that Nucleic acids could have come out of nothing? They did not come out of nothing. If Abiogenesis is correct, they were produced by the introduction of electrical current (most likely an electric charge from the atmosphere, e.g. a bolt of lightning) being introduced into a chemical mixture that could have been present on primordial Earth. Beyond that, why do you assume that it would have taken longer than 1.2 billion years?
|
|
|
Post by erin132 on May 17, 2010 6:40:50 GMT -5
well obviously they didn't literally come out of "nothing" but that's kind of my point! I just don't see how living matter, like RNA and other nucleic matter could have arisen from purposeless inorganic matter. I mean it must have taken something to start it all off and would an electric current really be able to do this? The one thing about life is that spontaneous generation just doesn't happen, so for it to have happened in the beginning, I imagine it would have taken some fluke! To me the panspermia hypotheses just makes more sense
|
|