Does Death Pose Challenge To Abiogenesis

Hi Buzsaw, I would argue that life is a chemical process. What else is your body but a complex chemistry kit? Fair enough. When we're talking about chemistry we usually use the term "organic" to refer to carbon compounds. In that sense, life did not evolve from inorganic matter (it might possibly have used inorganic matter as a vehicle, more on that in the wiki article). I'm not aware of the term "entropy pressure". Entropy applies to everything, including life. Life is a subjective definition of chemical processes. There is nothing qualitatively different about simple replicating molecules and living organisms. Did you read the link I gave you about the experiment with the virus?? Essentially, the 220 nucleotide genome wasn't much more than a simple replicating molecule. Wouldn't you hesitate to call it life? What's so different about a naked viral genome and a simple replicating molecule? (They're really the same thing)

quote:

---

There is no truly "standard model" of the origin of life.

---

This is true. But why exactly is this a problem? If there are hundreds of different possible models and we just can't know for certain which one it actually was, isn't the problem too much possibility??

quote:

---

While features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. For example Martin and Russel show that physical compartmentation by cell membranes from the environment and self-organization of self-contained redox reactions are the most conserved attributes of living things, and they argue therefore that inorganic matter with such attributes would be life's most likely last common ancestor.

---

*Scratches head* Well that explains why you used the term inorganic matter. Don't expect wikipedia to be without its typos and little errors. Considering the fact that even Donald Duck could log on to it and edit a scientific article, it's amazing it stays as accurate as it is.I'm not sure why you gave me that exerpt though. It seems to make a fairly good case for the development of self-replicating molecules.

quote:

---

The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses. Some of these postulate the early appearance of nucleic acids ("genes-first") whereas others postulate the evolution of biochemical reactions and pathways first ("metabolism-first"). Recently, trends are emerging to create hybrid models that combine aspects of both....

---

Unfortunately we can't build a time-machine and actually watch the formation of early biotic molecules (even though we do get them in the lab). In cases like this it is intellectually honest to say "I don't know" and not make assertions about the exact mechanism life originated by. We can make guesses, and good ones at that, but we can't be sure exactly how life formed. If you want certainty, stick with creationists. They're the only ones who "know" exactly how it happened. (Down to the exact hour in some cases)Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Hi Buzsaw, It's easy to make the mistake to think of life as a class of organisms that "want" to survive and therefore strive to develop new traits that will boost their survival. This is a very human way to look at things, as we humans like to attribute will and meaning to processes we see around us (those clouds look angry etc.)However, most life on earth does not have a "will" or even an awareness of its own existence. Bacteria do not, of course, have the ability to think or desire anything. Everything a bacterium does is automatic. Mr Bacterium doesn't care if lives or dies, because he doesn't even know he's alive
Even much more complex organisms like mushrooms, or (some) insects are entirely automatic. An ant doesn't go about thinking, "If I protect the queen I will help ensure the survival of her genes for another generation".
An ant would be more like: "Beep. Intruder detected. Activating defense procedure 2x15. Standby for aggressive engagement."So why do life forms and abiotic molecules evolve if they don't want to? Do they have a "biotic pressure for survival" as you put it? No. An abiotic molecule is just as excited to survive as a bacterium is. The simple truth is that when you have a number of molecules, be they alive or dead, the ones that take over will be the ones that replicate and survive well, regardless of their "will" to do so. This is true of any molecule, biotic, or non-biotic.The "biotic pressure" you describe is actually something inherent in the universe, not something specific to living matter.Respectfully,-MeldinoorPS. It is unfortunate that some members have demonstrated undue hostility towards you. Don't let attacks on your character, including your member rating (which recently plummeted, I have an inkling that it has nothing to do with the quality of your recent posts) scare you away from the science fora. Civil and honest debators, regardless of their opinion or grounding in subject matter, are always a welcome boon to a discussion IMHO.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Good point. But Buz has acknowledged that evolution and chemical reactions are not random. If he ever uses the word random inappropriately again, you can just throw his own words back at him. That should be far more effective than anger. I find it indicative of his honesty that he conceded his mistake.Save your righteous wrath for nutcases like Calypsis.I consider this side-discussion to be a pointless waste of time and will not discuss it further.Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Bingo! So a dead body is indeed different from a living one. If there's cell damage, than the parts are no longer connected, and the cells are ruined. The reason why the animal or person can not come back to life is NOT because a spirit has flown away, but because of irreversible cell damage.Now what evidence do you have that life requires a supernatural component? You keep asserting that life without a supernatural component is dead, but where's the evidence?And where's the connection with abiogenesis? A broken human body that has undergone irreversible damage on the cellular level can not come back to life! This would require restoring many many damaged "parts" back to function. This is not the type of event that abiogenesis describes. Abiogenesis is about the formation of simple replicators. Not about reanimated zombies.Respectfully,-MeldinoorEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Hi Cedre,I'd like to ask you a few questions:1. Do simple microbial life forms requires a life force in able to function? If, for instance, I removed some parts from a bacterium, and then reinserted them, would it come back alive? Or do I need to provide it with spirit?2. Can simple life be synthesized in a lab? Or does it require "spirit"?3. Is there any particular known process within the body of any living organism that can only be explained by "life force".4. You mentioned earlier that the cells of a brain-dead person are still alive. Does this mean the spirit of a brain-dead person has to stay in the body? Dude, seriously, that would suck.(You can ignore question 4 if you want)Before you answer question #2 I'd like you to see what you think of this (clicky)Respectfully,-Meldinoor