Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

Life happens spontaneously, you'd have to agree with that. The processes that lead up to that ultimate creation may be slow, but there is a moment in time when something was non-living then became living within the theory. No way of getting around that inescapable conclusion. It may lessen the blow to talk about the developing mechanisms over a long period of time, but it is hard to get around the spontaneity of its ultimate and immediate cause. I know it's not used in the modern-day vernacular because it is embarrassing. The term abiogenesis is an antiquated theory disproven a long, long time ago. Your meaning may be something totally different. My usage of the word, however, is accurate. I am aware that you often can't pinpoint the second something happened. That doesn't, however, negate the point that at some finite point in time that it would logically have had to have happened in that manner. I just mean the people who refuse to think there is any way other than their own. I am referring to staunch evolutionists/creationists ruling out possibilities beforehand that philosophically conflict with their beliefs. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

Can you support that statement with evidence?Not human reproduction, life as in 'the origin of it'...how do you know it happens spontaneously without any evidence?That's the point of the field of abiogenesis, to study this emergence. How can you make non-evidenced statements, then accuse people of making non-evidenced claims?As an analogy: does the spectrum from color to color happen spontaneously, or is there a gradual change from one color to the other? Embarrassing to who? Who are you speaking for? Another non-evidenced statement?How is it even an embarrassment? It was an experiment that failed to meet it's predicted outcome, that's science, dude. That's the scientific method at it's best. That's not a source for embarrassment, and I don't think anyone feels that way - except you, for some reason. You show me a dictionary definition?See RAZD's latest thread on this Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks, Part II , so you can understand what the field of abiogenesis is doing, currently.I don't mean anything totally different. We're talking about the study of the emergence of life. This, in science, is refered to as the field of abiogenesis. And again, you have absolutely no objective evidence to support that. The current evidence shows that you are wrong, though.There's no logic about it. Evidence is the only thing one can use to make an absolute claim like what you are making. Especially when all the current evidence points away from your "logic."I direct you to RAZD's thread. In science and matters of fact, there is no pre-philosophical position that one needs to hold to to get the right answers; the evidence points to what the evidence points to, period.What "staunch" evolutionist? What does that even mean? That they accept the theory? Are there any "staunch" gravityist?Now you're throwing in words like "evolutionist" in a discussion about abiogenesis? I think your true colors are starting to come out, Hydro.Accepting the theory of evolution does not in anyway mean you accept any of the hypothesis of abiogenesis, nor does it mean that you are an atheist and remove god from the equation. Please clarify what you mean by "evolutionist."- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Please, we don't have a clear cut distinction now, yet alone at the beginning. Are viruses alive? How about prions?

1. Abiogenesis is an empirical event.
2. Abiogenesis is a field of study into an empirical event.
3. Abiogenesis is a synonym for spontaneous generation.

A is absolute: Life come into existence.
B is tentative: The nature of the scientific process disregards the god hypothesis as nonproductive; however, it does not currently claim to have resolved the issue.
C is equivocation: It is disingenuous to use one definition to discredit another.AbE: To next post:Not true, not true, not true, not true, not true. Nothing nearly so complex as a prokaryote was the first life.Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Because every reproductive instance is immediate cause and effect, as in every action has opposite and equal reaction. It's never been demonstrated to do anything other than that. No, I think you misunderstand. A law of physics doesn't have to prove why it doesn't ever break its own law. The fact that it doesn't break is what makes it a law in the first place. If you think it differently, then it is up to you to prove that. Bad analogy. When a living thing is created, does it take aeons to form? No, it takes hundredths of a second. What takes a long time to form are different species through successive gradations. But that has nothing to do with abiogenesis.True or not true: The shift from non-living to the first prokaryote was instantaneous? It's embarrassment for many evolutionists since creationists incessantly refer to abiogenesis being impossible. It's one of their small victories. Click on the link I embedded in that very paragraph. Then do we agree on the latin root words meanings?

A = a negative; no; not

Bio = Life; live; living

Genesis = Creation, beginning

​

Non + living + creation

​

And again, you have absolutely no objective evidence to support that. The current evidence shows that you are wrong, though.

​

Life has never happened in any other way! Why would it be up to me to provide evidence to refute something you are alleging that is contrary to everything we know? The ONLY reason life happens is a reaction due to an action taken by one or more living things.

​

Never, ever, ever has it been demonstrated that non-livings become living things. Even now and under pristine and ideal laboratory conditions! So how is it up to me to demonstrate why that isn't true as opposed to you proving to me why it is!?!?

​

I direct you to RAZD's thread.

​

That's fantastic. I once read a lot about the subject and came away as empty-handed on answers as when I began. Not only is it incredibly dry subject material, but it is a lot of empty words and empty meanings. I know about the theoretical side. If they can demonstrate that life comes from non-life, I'll be the first to concede the point. I literally have no problem with it. In the meantime, don't tell me that I'm wrong when there is zero, zilch, nil evidence supporting that life either came from non-life in the past when it can't even be demonstrated now! That seems like a reasonable request to me, but maybe I'm biased.

​

In science and matters of fact, there is no pre-philosophical position that one needs to hold to to get the right answers, the evidence points to what the evidence points to, period.

​

Sadly there is, though. Think about it. The genesis of time has all sorts of philosophical underpinnings that may cloud the judgment of many, if not most, scientists.

​

What "staunch" evolutionist? What does that even mean? That they accept the theory? Are there any "staunch" gravityist?

​

Now you're throwing in words like "evolutionist" in a discussion about abiogenesis? I think your true colors are starting to come out, Hydro.

​

I'm talking about the ones who, just like creationists, refuse to even entertain a thought that slightly differs with their own ideologies. I'm talking about the assholes out there. ALL creationists have an agenda. Every single last one of them, which means they've lost all ability to objectively study science with any integrity. Not all evolutionists do this, but many, many, many of them do. That's a problem.

​

If you can't tell from my first post, I am calling in to question one's right to bash "faith" when all they have to do is examine their own beliefs a little more closely to see that they are hypocrites.

​

Does that shed a little more light on the subject?

​

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Any cellular organism is by definition a living organism. That's a quick and easy way to determine living from non-living. Undetermined, but thus far discredited. It is a theoretical field of study. Not exclusively, but commonly, yes. Yes, life has come in to existence. That's a beautiful thing! But why then are some people here claiming that is true? Definitions are all we have to understand one another. I already provided the definition. My definition seems to be far more common than the one you hold to.Use abiogenesis in a Sentence
—noun Biology.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

False.The problem is that there isn't a 'fine line' between living and non-living. We can't get it clear now when organisms have had lots of time to sharpen the line, it would have been even fuzzier as life got going.The spectrum analogy is a very good one. There is no sharp line that says you have crossed from red to orange. There is also no sharp line to say that something is now 'life' rather than non-life, especially at the beginning.

Earlier, I stated

quote:

---

True or not true: The shift from non-living to the first prokaryote was instantaneous?

---

So then there is a transitional period where something is half living and half non-living... Kinda like a zombie! Cells versus no cells. That seems simple. No need to over-complicate it. One can reproduce the other cannot. Simple. Yes, there is a sharp line. One is alive and the other is not. Not a whole lot of gray area there.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Because it is true. You yourself just said so:Presto! abiogenesis if fact.Do you not recognize your equivocation? Fascinating.AbE: Sorry, I guess I should explain: A≠B. In your first statement you agreed to A. By definition A "Life came into existence" equals "abiogenesis". In you second statement you're referring to two different definitions:So long as you refuse to separate the two you'll be running in circles. One can agree with the first without regarding the god hypothesis as nonproductive.Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Life coming in to existence doesn't equal abiogenesis. That's not my equivocation, it's yours.You do know what the word abiogenesis means, right? It doesn't mean life coming in to existence. It means living matter coming in to existence specifically by non-living matter. Huge difference.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Abiogenesis has only one possible connotation (as defined by Hyroglyphx in Message 69) from the beginning of the world to the end, padlock, no key. You win.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

You are creating a false dilemma via a non sequitor. You say I'm using two different definitions. Do you hold the same when we speak of evolution?Consider this: You ask a creationist if he believes in evolution.What will his answer be?He can say both yes and no through the semantics you've created.Evolution is a field of study, but in the broader context it is a physical process.Do you believe in evolution?Yes, I believe there is such a field devoted to studying the process of evolution.(Same question worded exactly the same with a different response)Do you believe in evolution?No I don't. I don't think such a physical process is possible.So, do I believe there is a field of study devoted to studying the process of living matter coming from non-living matter? Yes. Do I believe that life comes from non-living matter? No, it has never been empirically demonstrated.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Hi Hyroglyphx, Is a virus a zombie?Where you draw the line depends on how you define "life" - however there was likely a period of time when pre-biotic chemicals exhibited some of the features we normally consider part of life as we know it.There are several viruses today that display some attributes of life, as they are able to replicate molecules. They are not normally considered "life" because they don't use a cell membrane. Both can replicate molecules. There are many self-replicating molecules, and there are RNA molecules that work in tandem with a sister molecule - each replicates the other.See the Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) thread for some details on this process and how it fits into the "RNA world" hypothesis for the development of life from chemicals. Define life. Cite your sources. Show us the line. Message 69
I agree that in science No webpage found at provided URL: abiogenesis, or origin of life, is generally considered to be the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.Personally, I am not in favor of equating supernatural creation of life with abiogenesis, and would rather state that:(1) 4 billion years ago there was no life on earth
(2) 3.5 billion years ago there was life on earth
(3) there is no known record of the beginning of life, no fossil evidence between (1) and (2)Therefore, either (A) life developed from inanimate matter (abiogenesis) or (B) life was brought here (creation or panspermia).(A - abiogenesis) can be studied by science, (B₁ - creation) cannot, (B₂ - panspermia) could be studied if there was a second example of life.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : clrty

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

It's not a matter of where I draw the line, but where science does. Only organisms have cells, would you agree? Anything cellular and can reproduce is living. That is a classical, no nonsense definition of what constitutes life or living matter. Molecules are non-living. All matter is made of molecules, so that really isn't a qualifier. Replication is not the same as reproduction, I'm sure you would agree. I glanced at it. It looks very involved, so I will peruse it at greater length at a later date. Looks like some good work, though. Sure, but before I do, I would also like you to do the same, for if you are able to critique my definition with integrity, you must also have a definition in mind of what constitutes life. I also will require a source from you, especially if one is able to define abiogenesis as life coming from non-life, then one has to reasonably distinguish between the two."... biological sciences are sharply marked off from the abiological, or those which treat of the phenomena manifested by not-living matter, in so far as the properties of living matter distinguish it absolutely from all other kinds of things, and as the present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the not-living...The Properties of Living MatterThese distinctive properties of living matter are 1. Its chemical composition -- containing, as it invariably does, one or more forms of a complex compound of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, the so-called protein (which has never yet been obtained except as a product of living bodies) united with a large proportion of water, and forming the chief constituent of a substance which, in its primary unmodified state, is known as protoplasm.

​

2. Its universal disintegration and waste by oxidation; and its concomitant reintegration by the intus-susception of new matter.

​

A process of waste resulting from the decomposition of the molecules of the protoplasm, in virtue of which they break up into more highly oxidated products, which cease to form any part of the living body, is a constant concomitant of life. There is reason to believe that carbonic acid is always one of these waste products, while the others contain the remains of the carbon, the nitrogen, the hydrogen, and the other elements which may enter into the composition of the protoplasm. The new matter taken in to make good this constant loss is either a ready-formed protoplasmic material, supplied by some other living being, or it consists of the elements of protoplasm, united together in simpler combinations, which consequently have to be built up into protoplasm by the agency of the living matter itself. In either case, the addition of molecules to those which already existed takes place, not at the surface of the living mass, but by interposition between the existing molecules of the latter. If the processes of disintegration and of reconstruction which characterize life balance one another, the size of the mass of living matter remains stationary, while, if the reconstructive process is the more rapid, the living body grows. But the increase of size which constitutes growth is the result of a process of molecular intus-susception, and therefore differs altogether from the process of growth by accretion, which may be observed in crystals and is effected purely by the external addition of new matter so that, in the well-known aphorism of Linnaeus, the word "grow," as applied to stones, signifies a totally different process from what is called "growth" in plants and animals

​

3. Its tendency to undergo cyclical changes.

​

In the ordinal course of nature, all living matter proceeds from pre-existing living matter, a portion of the latter being detached and acquiring an independent existence. The new form takes on the characters of that from which it arose; exhibits the same power of propagating itself by means of an offshoot; and, sooner or later, like its predecessor, ceases to live, and is resolved into more highly oxidated compounds of its elements.

​

Thus an individual living body is not only constantly changing its substance, but its size and form are undergoing continual modifications, the end of which is the death and decay of that individual; the continuation of the kind being secured by the detachment of portions which tend to run through the same cycle of forms as the parent. No forms of matter which are either not living, or have not been derived from living matter, exhibit these three properties, nor any approach to the remarkable phenomena defined under the second and third heads. But in addition to these distinctive characters, living matter has some other peculiarities, the chief of which are the dependence of all its activities upon moisture and upon heat, within a limited range of temperature, and the fact that it usually possesses a certain structure, or organization.

​

As has been said, a large proportion of water enters into the composition of all living matter; a certain amount of drying arrests vital activity, and the complete abstraction of this water is absolutely incompatible with either actual or potential life. But many of the simpler forms of life may undergo desiccation to such an extent as to arrest their vital manifestations and convert them into the semblance of not-living matter, and yet remain potentially alive. That is to say, on being duly moistened they return to life again. And this revivification may take place after months, or even years, of arrested life. -SOURCESo a quick recap:

Contains cells

Growth, as opposed to grows

Capable of reproducing

Capable of changing its state, as in death or decay

​

Inorganic material can do none of these things and are therefore distinguished from simple compounds.

​

Hope that clarifies my position.

​

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

Yes, there is a sharp line. One is alive and the other is not. Not a whole lot of gray area there.
  —Hyroglyphx

---

Not for one who sees all things in black and white.First life is a human construct. For millennia all we knew were rocks and birds. That dividing line is quite clear.With the advances in the last 200 years the line between life and non-life becomes quite blurred. And the abiogenic hypotheses belie your insistence that there must have been a stark line between those pre-proto cells considered non-life from those more complex cells we would recognize as life.Trying to define that finite point in time when the simple chemical processes that we would define as non-life suddenly became so complex that they took on the mantel of life is like trying to define the finite point in time between the early-bronze age and the middle-bronze age. Good luck with that.The complexity of the chemical processes that evolved were built over many millions of years. If some line was crossed somewhere along the way no one noticed. It was only when humans arrived that some arbitrary lines were drawn owing to our complete ignorance of reality. Whether we call it life or not means nothing. All is chemistry in action. The universe doesn't care how many lines we draw or where.Second, your insistence that abiogenesis equals spontaneous generation and that abiogenesis is only defined by pop culture vernacular (truncated common internet dictionaries) is not only ludicrous but speaks a great deal to your intellectual dishonesty.I suggest you use the accepted scientific definitions of scientific terms or stop participating in scientific forums.

I have made no either-or argument, false or otherwise; nor by way of an unrelated issue or otherwise. You are creating word salad. No, I'm saying you are referring to two different definitions. If I make a statement using definition A, and you counter using definition B, it is not counter to the statement I made. No one has disagreed with the statement that the study of abiogenesis is unresolved. I'd bet you'd have a hard time finding a qualified someone to contend that we're on the cusp of resolution.As to your analogy; I am not the one having a hard time getting around this. Is there someone denying this? For either you or themselves? This is yet a third bit of catawampus thinking. A-bio-genesis: Not-life-beginning.Mr JACK in Message 18:

Wrong. Abiogenesis is an empirical fact. We know that there was no life 13.7 billion years ago, and no life on Earth 4.5 billion years ago. We also know there is life on Earth now. Thus, by simple deduction, at some point in the last 13.7 billion years life formed from non-life - abiogenesis - further, given the remarkable unlikelihood of life surviving to cross space and seed earth, it's most likely to have formed on Earth in the last 4.5 billion years.

This is the statement you have been arguing with. Mr Jack has defined his meaning within his statement. He was not referring to the study of abiogenesis coming into existence within the last 13.7 billion years, but life coming into existence.Near the end of RAZD's Message 72 he says "Personally, I am not in favor of equating supernatural creation of life with abiogenesis" This is perfectly acceptable to me, and I would incorporate this restriction into any argument I had where RAZD set the stage. But Mr Jack clearly meant otherwise.If this were not just the silliest semantic argument I've involved myself in in a coon's age it should have been its own topic long ago. As it is, it shouldn't be a topic at all.AbE: I've just gone back and read Message 1 and want to apologize to Filameter for the large part played in this distraction. Sorry, Filameter. You had an interesting perspective, and I should not have stepped on it.Edited by lyx2no, : Style.Edited by lyx2no, : AbE and a few other bits of stuff.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.