Life cannot come from nonlife

[edhopper]

Last edited Sun Feb 4, 2018, 01:46 PM - Edit history (3)

It cannot just spring up from inorganic matter without something "living" to spark it.

Also, intelligence and consciousness cannot just appear without a larger consciousness bringing it forth.

But wait! We seemed to have answered these previous questions that were formerly unanswerable through science, without positing a God.

But why not move backward to another question we haven't answered yet to squeeze in an unnecessary divine agent into the mix.





Please read my post carefully through. You will see the argument I am making.

My last two sentences explain why I posted the first two.

[PJMcK]

1. Science answers your questions (n/t)

[edhopper]

2. This is a response

to other discussions here about the Big Bang.

I was making a point that not having an answer at this point is not a reason to think a God is responsible.

[PJMcK]

27. Oops. Obviously, I misread your OP

New Rule: No posting until after at least one cup o' joe.

Sorry, edhopper. Enjoy your Sunday afternoon.

[edhopper]

31. No worries

most who responded didn't get what I was trying to say.

I blame the author.

[SWBTATTReg]

3. Your opinion only, of course

No one knows where or how life got started, period. There are speculations of course, but if there was no life before, how did life come about then?

Either from aliens landing on earth, via meteorites, or lightning causing some kind of 'spark of life' followed by
evolution, a long process of over billions of years to happen from slime in the oceans (based on fossil evidence). Then of course there is your theory.

Still no evidence of how/when/where/etc. life got started.

[edhopper]

4. The point is

that there is no need to interject some supernatural cause (God) into the origins of life on this planet.

Once that was the only answer given, now we can answer it without a deity involved.

There has been a larger discussion here about needing faith to reject God as a possible explanation for the Universe.

I was putting that in context with other questions that once were answered with "God".

[Voltaire2]

9. Once explained I get your point. The op is

a bit confusing.

[edhopper]

10. Too cute

for my own good.

[helmedon1974]

17. Actually, there is a lot of evidence

Much of it is unsubstantiated at this point though. It's more common sense and probability based on our current understanding of life. For instance, there's no proof that life can't come from inorganic matter as much as there is supporting that theory.

[still_one]

5. That depends if you believe that it is possible through chemical evolution for life to arise.

[edhopper]

6. That is a theory

with evidence and a good model to back it up.

As opposed to Idontknow...God.

Same can be said for the Big Bang.

[Mariana]

7. Are there only two states, life and nonlife?

I think it may not be that cut and dried. Are viruses alive? They aren't cells, and they can't reproduce independently but require a host cell. Viroids are pretty much free-floating bits of RNA. How about infectious prions? They don't have any nucleic acid, and what they do isn't reproduction in the sense that biologists use the word, and yet, they've found a way to keep on making more anomalous proteins like themselves. Are they therefore alive?

My kid's taking virology this semester. I've been perusing her textbook. Fascinating stuff.

[MineralMan]

15. Perhaps there is just one, continuous state.

People regularly refer to things like stars and galaxies having lifespans. They come into existence and wink out of existence. The rocks you see to day on the surface of the earth will be subducted and reappear as the tectonic plates shift.

So, you're correct. There are not just two states. It's all a matter of what your frame of reference is, really.

[Voltaire2]

8. Re consciousness: it is apparent that consciousness

Evolved from lower levels of experiential states. There is no evidence that a “greater consciousness” is required to produce a lesser consciousness, and plenty of evidence that the progression is exactly the opposite.

[MineralMan]

25. No, see, you're wrong. God put exactly the right amount of

consciousness in all life forms when he created them. The rabbit gets rabbit consciousness, and the slug gets slug consciousness. That's why creation took him seven days. It's a lot of critters to deal with, you know.

[marylandblue]

26. Couldn't have been that complicated

Last edited Sun Feb 4, 2018, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

All the rabbits were created just on day 5. But slugs are more complicated, because he did sea slugs on day 5 and land slugs on day 6. Also, you can't really count day 7, because really he just goofed off on day 7 and called it work.

[Voltaire2]

28. I read somewhere on the internets that some whacko sciencey idiots were experimenting with giving

animal anesthetics to plants and, oh wait here it is:

Anesthetics have the same effects on plants as they have on animals and humans

(well not exactly the same, but read on...)

A new study published in Annals of Botany shows that plants react to anesthetics similarly to the way animals and humans do, suggesting plants are ideal objects for testing anesthetics actions in future.

Anesthetics were first used in the 19th century when it was discovered that inhaling ether gas stopped patients feeling pain during surgery. Since then many different chemicals have been found to induce anesthesia. However, despite the fact that many anesthetics have been used over a 150-year period, little is known about how these different compounds with no structural similarities behave as anesthetic agents inducing loss of consciousness.

Remarkably, as found in the new study, anesthetics also work on plants. Researchers found that, when exposed to anesthetics, a number of plants lost both their autonomous and touch-induced movements. Venus flytraps no longer generate electrical signals and their traps remain open when trigger hairs were touched, and growing pea tendrils stopped their autonomous movements and were immobilized in a curled shape.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171211090736.htm

Puts us veg*ans in a pickle, so to speak. No we haz to eat down the plant chain too. Darn, ethics is hard! No more flytraps in my salad. But peas? Fuck that. I love me my baby peas.

[procon]

11. Unverified assumptions and personal opinions cannot be held up as evidence

to support your assertion that mythical deities with omnipotent powers exist to create life.

Intellect and consciousness is a matter of chemistry and electrical activity within the cellular structure of the brain. This is basic science, not speculative religious theory. Miller–Urey research, and later studies that followed, the Scripps Molecule, and experiments into nucleic acids, RNA and similar molecules have replicated the microscopic chemical reactions that are fundamental to life. Scientists did that, not a paranormal occult spirit.

If you're imagining that a fully formed and self aware human being walked out of the primordial soup, that's a syfy fiction movie. Cutting edge science, not superstitious fairytales from the Bronze Age, has already created all the structural things that make up a replicating organism. The complex stuff like DNA, cells and brains needed to create a living being (be that an amoeba or a human) are built on the back of these chemical strains, but they would come later on the evolutionary path.

[edhopper]

12. Please read my post again

thoroughly.

Don't respond simply to the title. You might find I am saying the opposite of what you think I am saying.

[procon]

18. I read it, and my takeaway was, and still is, that you were being facetious

and attempting to mock science. I just read this thread again, and I'm not the only one who did not see whatever you might have intended to write. Despite the edits that you've added to your post, what you think you've written is still not very succinct or clear to us poor readers trying to make sense of your stream of consciousness.

In adding the additional cautionary disclaimer, you admit to the confusion, so maybe it's time to look for a different avocation than trying to write witty satire.

[edhopper]

19. I was being facetious

and mocking those who claim that God is an equal explanation to the Big bang as any scientific theory.

[procon]

21. An Epic Fail then, sir.

Trash this thread and start over with the above sentence as your crucial opening salvo, not an apologetic afterthought tacked on at the bottom.

[edhopper]

22. I will run everthing by you

the next time.

[procon]

24. Was that you trying to be facetious again? C'mon, you can do better, yeah? nt

[edhopper]

33. Obviously

I can't

[eppur_se_muova]

13. Only a belief, unsupportd by actual facts. nt

[edhopper]

16. read the whole post

please

[MineralMan]

14. What? You expect people to read more than your post title?

Silly rabbit...

[edhopper]

20. Well

it seems I was too obtuse for most.

Especially those just popping in here to chide me.

[MineralMan]

23. Seemed clear enough to me.

Of course, I've also read many of your other posts, so...

DU is full of title readers, it seems. I've noticed that a lot with my own wordy posts.

[edhopper]

34. I was posting this

mainly for the ongoing discussion we have been having here.

Tend to forget that there are members who scan all the new posts.

Some just respond without reading the whole thing or even seeing what forum it is in.

[Pope George Ringo II]

29. According to a standard I saw recently, this post is headed for perfection.

But I get what you were trying to say and agree.

[Ron Obvious]

30. Life cannot come from nunlife either

Since nuns are supposed to be celibate.

[edhopper]

32. you win

the thread