Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9028 total)
46 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 45 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 884,103 Year: 1,749/14,102 Month: 117/624 Week: 1/95 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THEORY OF LIFE
Agobot
Member (Idle past 4357 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 7 of 28 (466232)
05-13-2008 6:34 PM


quote:
When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism, they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life.While on the other hand they start reacting with a host, or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host,they become alive.The same thing happen with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host, they become alive in a way...
Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue.
What would that mean to the way that we see the world?
First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally dyring a very small period of time,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place chemical reaction inside it.Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell.,but the organism as a whole is alive.Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals. But maybe not.

If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question:what is the least that can be considered as life?For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance.At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considerd life.So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life, or else, the sparkle of life.That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions.

The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.

The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell,in the form of chemical reaction.

The new theory that we introduced claims tha tit was not necessary to be a first single cell to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life.The creation of the first cell actually is the result of the existence of life.

Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today. That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one.This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy{probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life, but also to their survival of the first forms of life, but also in their evolution.

1)Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we cultivate in a way,some chemical reactions in a small place.After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated.Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated.We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes.This is life.But human is a part of this complicated system which means that he sees thing in a mirror like way,because he is in the system.so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way.2)Nature does not promote a certain form of life,but what we see,is the result of the sum of the reactions that happened through history.

2)The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seems to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening.Life continues because chemical reactions continue.Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.

1)living organisms normally are not dying because the chemical reactions that are composing them are continuing happening.if we analyze all these reactions we will have a very good view to their homeostasis.As we said we are seeing the world from the inside , or else in a mirror like direction, because we our selves are part of things, so we appreciate things from its results.We think that homeostasis is a very magical and perfect mechanism, because we are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the cataloge of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive.

2)the complex organic compounds that are composing living creatures probably are the results of many years of reactions, or else they are the fingerprints of the reactions from the beginning of all the reactions till today.

Life seems to be more an invention of us,or else a term that we use to describe anything that looks like us.There is not such a thing as life, its an illusion.An organism is the reactions that we see, and we think they are something amazing because we see them separately from all the other reactions that are happening in the world.We judge them from their reult, which is that they become like us.We are a part of the reactions that are happening as well, and while we see organisms that look like us, we think they are independent creatures, but actually they cant be separated from the whole soup of reactions.The spores are becoming as they were before because their reactions start happening, and they start looking like us.There is not such a thing as homeostasis.So tthe existence of their reaction gives the illusion that we called life.


Good viewpoint. It deserves no less attention than most other well established hypothesis about life. Life exists only for us the living and once we die life stops existing. Thus, we have absolutely no verifiable way of knowing if life exists beyond our scope of perception.

Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AshsZ, posted 05-19-2008 4:52 AM Agobot has responded

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 4357 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 10 of 28 (467343)
05-21-2008 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by AshsZ
05-19-2008 4:52 AM


The question is...
The question is... is life just a mental state(illusionary, a dream) or is it real? As i pointed earlier, we have no real way of knowing that, since our perceptions are confined only to this (real or illusionary) world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AshsZ, posted 05-19-2008 4:52 AM AshsZ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AshsZ, posted 05-21-2008 5:32 AM Agobot has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Omnivorous, posted 09-10-2013 8:58 PM Agobot has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021