The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: origin of life:what would be our approach the problem if were not living beings.  (Read 6379 times)

Offline minass

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile

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 happens 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 during 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 any chemical reactions 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 reactions.Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell,which was the first cell on earth, and composed the first thing that was a form of life. The evolution of this cell had as a result the formation of life the way that we know and see today. A problem with this idea is that, as we know, if we had just a single cell in earth right now, and out of it there was nothing, then not only this would not lead to the formation of more complicated forms of life,but this single cell soon would be dead.Despite of that,most scientists accept the single cell theory.The new theory that we introduced claims that the existence a first single cell was not necessary 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.
The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seem

s 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.

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.Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we cultivated 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 things 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.





..entropy of life 1)what is the difference between a man that is alive and a man that is dead?In both cases the body is consisted from the same elements and compounds.But in the first case these compounds are reacting with each other and the structure of the body changes every moment.In the second case the chemical reactions of the body are lead to an equillibrium and so the composition of the body remains unchanged.The structure of a dead man cannot change if there are not microorganisms in its environment.
The relativity of entropy

What happens with the entropy of living systems that are chemical reactions?The energy that comes externally on earth in the form of light could explain the lowering of entropy.However ,if in the beggining there where 2 or 3 reactions and after a while there are more and more ,and more complicated, seems that the entropy of the whole living system on earth or else nature, is raising.But remember that previously we said that human is not a neutral observer of things, but he is changing together with the system.This confuses him.What impact has that?It means that if humans entropy is raising slower than whole living natures entropy ,he will think that his entropy is lowering.Its something like relativity of motion.One exaple is this :Imagine a large number of birds that are flying one next toother to the same direction.If we tell them to fly one far from the other,so the group will start separating, the entropy of the system will start raising.Imagine also that there are three birds that are very close to each other,somewhere in the group.If they separate with less speed than the others and we consider these 3 birds as a system,the systems entropy will actually lower relatively to the whole system of the birds.


the illusion of life

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.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.
the position to answer if the spores that some microorganisms forms(e.g. cryptobiosis,anhydrobiosis etc) are living forms.If their metabolismis not zero, if it exists but it cant be detected because it is so weak, then they dont differ in anything from the other organisms.If their metabolism is absolute zero, then the answer gets more complicated.The fact is that it doesnt matter what it is, because the question is useless.Life as we see it is simply the result of the chemical reactions on earth.As we said ,we are part of the system and we dont realize it, but if we were alien forms of life for example, and we were watching the earth from outer space, then we would see only a very complicated network of reactions that are becoming more and more because of the energy of light.This system would have different structural forms, colours, etc.So, what happens with the spores is that because they face very unfriendly conditions ,the certain chemical reactions stop happening or they are lowering their rate.According to our definition, they are not life, but what is life?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 likeus, 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.

We are the results of all these , and so it is normal to think that if something was not the way it is, WE would not be there, the way we are!So we think that they are essential for us and everything was arranged perfectly, and if something was a bit different ,we would not be there, but as i told everything depends on who is the observer.We are a changing complex, and everything that happens lead to us.We see things from the opposite side though.





 

Offline minass

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
Perhaps the article is way too long or difficult to understand ................................
so the basic idea goes like this:
i am arguing that life is an open system that is getting energy from the sun.BUT i am also arguing that if you consider life as a WHOLE (without dividing it into species ,organisms, etc) ,you get a sum of just RANDOM chemical reactions.
If we were totally objective observers ,or else we had nothing to do with life,we would be able to see it.But unfortunately, we cannot do that, because of our perspective.We are a small part of these reactions and we are living inside the system, so we judge from a perspective that is confusing when you are trying to study what is life.
The natural history of these reactions led to the forms we see today.Through our perspective, while we are studying this history, we see it as evolution. We see everywhere determinism, but its only because we are the results of all these.
I would be glad to discuss  any possible question or comment....(e.g. how this is compatible with the laws of thermodynamics, if it is falsifiable, usable, etc etc)
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
What we look for life is a large part dictated by what we are. 

Life is more than just chemical reactions.  Lactase, which is a natural enzyme, is functional and will react with lactose sugar whether or not it is inside of a living organism.  And, a pitcher of milk with the lactase enzyme added wouldn't necessarily be termed alive.

Likewise, when a person "dies", there are may organisms in the GI system, from the mouth to the anus that are very much still alive.  Some cells may in fact continue catabolic behavior, even if left sterile, and the stomach acid may react with the stomach itself.

Postmortom electrical discharges are not uncommon, and many intro biology labs will explore muscular contraction from electrically stimulating severed and skinned frog legs.

As far as abiogenesis, and which cell was the "first life", it would be hard to say.  There likely was an evolutionary process, including several cell-like organisms that never quite made it.  If one defines a cell as needing to reproduce its internal structure, and divide.  Doesn't that imply that the cell already has that ability, inherited from a parent cell?  Perhaps the first cell divisions were accidental when pieces were broken from the parent cell, some inheriting enough cellular machinery to survive, some not.
 

Offline minass

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
What is life is ONLY dictated by what we are....
If we could be able to completely free ourselves from our perspective, and become objective outsider observers, then the borders between living and non living things would be blurred....
In fact , we call life everything that looks like us.The complex of lactase that you mentioned, is a far too simple system to call it life, because it is not quite similar to us....
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
I have no doubt that if we encountered an intelligent alien species, we could determine it was "alive" even if it had a completely different cellular structure.

However, there are some things that would be difficult to judge.  Could a planet be "alive"?  A few of the Star Trek episodes dealt with planet sized or nebula sized life forms. 

Likewise, we have a metabolic rate giving us a lot of movement and a lifespan of about 100 earth-years. 

It would be hard to judge intelligence in something that moved at the rate of an Oak Tree, or conversely with a lifespan of a few seconds.

We also have great difficulty in judging the intelligence of non tool building species such as the blue whale, right hear on Earth.
 

Offline Raphael

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
I have no doubt that if we encountered an intelligent alien species, we could determine it was "alive" even if it had a completely different cellular structure.

However, there are some things that would be difficult to judge.  Could a planet be "alive"?  A few of the Star Trek episodes dealt with planet sized or nebula sized life forms. 

Likewise, we have a metabolic rate giving us a lot of movement and a lifespan of about 100 earth-years. 

It would be hard to judge intelligence in something that moved at the rate of an Oak Tree, or conversely with a lifespan of a few seconds.

We also have great difficulty in judging the intelligence of non tool building species such as the blue whale, right hear on Earth.

hey Clifford can we forget Star Trek for a moment?
you are quoting a future event that has not happened?
Star Trek is FICTION not science.
when we/they manage to put a space station more than 300 miles above terra firma, let me know.

how did Frank Drake/Carl Sagan suggest we try to 'communicate' with aLIEns?
why does this professor suggest we use the number 1/137 to 'communicate' with aLIEns?


namaste
« Last Edit: 16/01/2013 15:16:37 by Raphael »
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Yes, Star Trek is fiction, but it does bring up, at least a few ideas that would be worth considering.  And, while most of their "aliens" look very much like humans, some don't.  Not that everything is believable.

As far as the number 137, or 1/137.  It is only being used as an estimate of an irrational number.

Likewise, one might choose to send the number 22/7. 
Which, of course, is also an estimate for a better known irrational number.  However, one wouldn't wish to convey to the "aliens" that we did not understand the fundamental difference between rational and irrational numbers.

If we were able to in fact make contact via radio, that in itself would be a feat which would demonstrate an amount of intelligence.  One wouldn't have to send math puzzles to convince them of intelligence which would be obvious from the ability to make contact.

What will be the cycle time between sending a message and getting a response?  50 years?  Plenty of time to send an unabridged dictionary, and every page on Wikipedia while waiting for the next response.
 

Offline Raphael

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Yes, Star Trek is fiction, but it does bring up, at least a few ideas that would be worth considering.  And, while most of their "aliens" look very much like humans, some don't.  Not that everything is believable.

IF you continue to mention the science fiction called Star Trek, I will continue to bring the bible into this conversation okay?

As far as the number 137, or 1/137.  It is only being used as an estimate of an irrational number.


only??
hahahaha

incorrect
try again Clifford, I suspect you are getting in over your head.

1/137 is connected to the ability of an electron to absorb or emit a photon so it can move up and down energy levels.
it is used because it is a DIMENSIONLESS constant.
do you know what that means?
I don't think you do.

The magic of 1/137 is this....the three constants that make up the fine structure constant can all be measured.
The e^2 coupling, the speed of light, and the Planck constant BUT when they come together it becomes a dimensionless constant and that is the magic and the AHA because it says that no matter where you are in the universe, and no matter what units you use to measure all of the above ... the answer will always be '1/137'.

Likewise, one might choose to send the number 22/7. 

I like how 22/7 yields the three numbers 3 1/7 >> 137
It might mean nothing or it could mean something...?

How long was Noah's Ark btw?
300 cubits = 450 feet = 137.16 meters
Hebrew science called the QaBaLaH also collides with '137'
How?
Q = 100
B = 2
L = 30
H = 5


So it all adds up to a science called '137' that we can connect to the spectral lines of the primal hydrogen atom which is the SEED for all stars that form in the universe - I do hope you take this bait mate.

Which, of course, is also an estimate for a better known irrational number.


But 22/7 is not irrational (it has a repeating pattern) and it is the pi RATIO used to build the Great Pyramid.

however pi = 3.1415 .... is irrational

Lets be rational about the fact the Egyptians liked to use RATIOS.

However, one wouldn't wish to convey to the "aliens" that we did not understand the fundamental difference between rational and irrational numbers.

Frank Drake and Carl Sagan thought this through, clearly you have not given it much thought Clifford.
Clearly given a choice I would rather do lunch with them.

If we were able to in fact make contact via radio, that in itself would be a feat which would demonstrate an amount of intelligence.  One wouldn't have to send math puzzles to convince them of intelligence which would be obvious from the ability to make contact.

hahahaha that is obviously your opinion shared by you and the man in the mirror.
Max Planck, Frank Drake, Carl Sagan and many other great minds today are all waiting for you to die so the future can move forward.
So am I, no offence, just the way it is....each generation builds on the next.
Science is on a learning curve btw.

The fact Kurt Godel and others have concluded INFINITY will never be understood by our feeble minds means science like religion has hit the wall in regards to interpreting reality.
All science has to offer is their version of science gods....(science is a religion IMHO)

So shall we draw a line in the sands of time and place GOD and INFINITY and STAR DREK nonsense on the other side of this line and lets talk RATIONALLY not irrational science mumbo jumbo.

What will be the cycle time between sending a message and getting a response?  50 years?  Plenty of time to send an unabridged dictionary, and every page on Wikipedia while waiting for the next response.


50 years?
Actually do you know where they sent the Arecibo message?
Max Planck and me will make a science prediction and suggest you will be dead IF we ever get a response from deep space.

Quote
The Arecibo message was broadcast into space a single time via frequency modulated radio waves at a ceremony to mark the remodeling of the Arecibo radio telescope on 16 November 1974. It was aimed at the globular star cluster M13 some 25,000 light years away because M13 was a large and close collection of stars that was available in the sky at the time and place of the ceremony.

selah V
ox
« Last Edit: 20/01/2013 15:41:55 by Raphael »
 

Offline minass

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
Current definitions of life find it difficult to normally include viruses and prions without adding sub-definitions, exceptions, etc.  Viruses and prions are the simplest known organisms and one idea is to study the functions of the most simple organisms and let them dictate what is life and build a new model and accommodate it in the larger scale.
We showed that life exists only in a changing state and living material can be further reduced and divided till the point we have a single chemical reaction. So , life is a sum of countless chemical reactions. Obviously in the past they were much fewer so we must assume that a source of energy (sun) caused a burst of reactions in terms of number and complexity. But giving energy to increase the number of reactions just leads to mindless chaotic and random reactions. It also suggests that each organism is a system of random chemical reactions, or else a chemical mindless automaton.
This seems pretty naÔve as a conception because we know that reactions follow very precise patterns and in fact, can be viewed as being directed by other complex processes and pattern driving structures. But..a) If we consider the whole living system as a unique individual entity, it seems not to have any specific pattern and b) remember who is the reference frame! YOU! Orelse a sum of chemical reactions, inside the system which it judges. The cause observed by the result.
After all, what would happen in a growing number of random chemical reactions after billions of years?  A) Eventually some sticky reactions would lead to adhesion of molecules that would attract others as well, converting the procedure from diffuse to multifocal, allowing forms to be created, B) the reactions with repeatability that occur in a somewhat cyclical manner would survive in the long term, because they will not lead to a dead end and c) the reactions that will survive after billions of years  will do it because these specific reactions pose surviving capacities over other. From our point of view (perspective) B is perceived as reproduction and C as evolution. What I try to say is that even we were indeed some automaton chemical reactions, even the fact that these reactions continue to happen makes them successful to our eyes regardless of how this happened. These reactions survived and there was a history behind this.
Human position in the system can explain everything. Both life and fire are chemical reactions but fire is very simple with no functional resemblance with us to perceived as life.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

Quote
How long was Noah's Ark btw?
300 cubits = 450 feet = 137.16 meters

Let's hope the aliens aren't accountants. They would spend the next million years asking who pocketed the last 160 centimeters. Though if they had never heard of the French Revolution they wouldn't have any concept of the meter. Which makes one wonder about Noah: 1% tolerance on "as built" length is pretty good for a wooden boat, but if he knew about the fine structure constant and the SI units, why did the Omniscient God specify the damn thing in cubits? Look what happened to that Mars probe, or indeed the lawnmower shed at Riyadh airport.     

Quote
no matter where you are in the universe, and no matter what units you use to measure all of the above ... the answer will always be '1/137'.

except that it isn't. 1/137.035 999 074 is the current value. And if the little green accountants don't have ten fingers, they will be completely mystified, assume that it is a message from God, and use it as an excuse to slaughter each other. Intelligent life in the universe? You must be joking!
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
The definition of life in most zoology texts books is usually something like: 1) can replicate and reproduce, 2) has a metabolism 3) can grow, develop, replace parts, maintain homeostasis, 4) responds to stimuli. None of these alone is sufficient, but together they equal life, which is why a cell is alive and and a crystal isn't.

A virus may be borderline, lacking a metabolism and a means to replicate without the host cell.

Something that is also characteristic of life, and perhaps those hypothesized pre-life forms, is  a boundary of some kind, a skin, a semipermeable membrane, that isolates the molecules and chemical reactions from the outside chemical milieu, and also keeps them in  proximity with one another. I don't know how that affects entropy, but somebody here more knowledgeable in chemistry and physics might.

But I don't really feel our definition of life is tremendously biased by the fact that we are also alive, and we are just being snobby about other chemical reactions in our definition of it. Although, CliffordK's examples of possible life forms that are either very big, or happen very quickly, or very slowly, might be life forms that would escape our notice. Supposedly, the largest living thing is some kind of moss (?), which people did not previously consider a single entity.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 17:56:00 by cheryl j »
 

Offline minass

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
If you attempt to study in details the physiology of a system in human body, for instance acid-base balance from the kidneys, etc, what you get is millions of properties that even a lifetime is not enough for you to learn everything. The most amazing thing however, is that everything is arranged perfectly in a way that even if a single property was different, the whole system would have been in real trouble. Everyone knows things are complex regarding animal (and plant) physiology, but a real study will make you realize that things are much more complex that you have ever even imagined.
And my question is: How tempting it is to simply assume that all these procedures are random and gain a meaning only because we (the final result) are the reference frame (e.g the observer)?
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
I agree. It's insanely complex. I look at the diagrams in biology journals for just one cellular process, and I just laugh sometimes, it's so complicated. In a sense, you're right, we are the only ones that can even begin to appreciate our own complexity. The rest of the animal kingdom does just fine without understanding the krebs cycle.
 

Offline minass

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
Furthermore, for observers not involved in the living system (e.g a stone), Krebs Cycle reactions are only meaningless reactions!! It is funny that we are the ones that study the process. In other words, the causes are judged by the result....
 

Offline minass

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
as about testing and predictions:
  A If a living organism is a sum of chemical reactions, then the components of food intake are the first substrates and the excreted products are the last elements. By changing the food and also the pace of feeding, one can observe the way the organism performs some functions, for instance if the organism is an automaton, in certain feeding conditions one can observe extreme outlier values. The latter wonít be observed if the organism is self-regulating (self sustained).
B) Testing if feeding identical organisms (clones) with the same food in an identical manner and under identical conditions would produce exactly the same amount of waste products plus the error factor ε, or noise, produced by various unpredictable factors. Only if the organism is a system of random chemical reactions, it will behave mechanistically and will produce reproducible results.
The factor ε must follow a normal distribution as known by statistics.
c) One can also test the way the living forms and their functions are decaying when they move to more hostile conditions on earth, such as extreme temperatures, deep ocean etc. Do they decay as if they where random chemical reactions or in an other way, e.g. self-sustaining organsms?
 

Offline minass

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
1)   Can random reactions create life? Answer: In a system of reactions that are becoming more and more complex, the ones with repeatability (reproduction) would not lead to a dead end and will continue happening. Also, the ones that could promote their our existence would prevail and continue to exist and with the help of repeatabilty, they would continue indefinetely to happen. The end result of all these is us. Therefore, all reactions that compose us have the property to promote what is there, or else, the existense and survivorhip of living creatures. In other words, evolution and random chemical reactions are the two different sides of the same coin if the observer is the end result of the reactions and judges the system from the inside..The cause judged by the result.
To put it simple in a mathematical formula:
Evolution is called the study of the randomly occuring events that lead to the transformation of A to B, where B=[B1,B2,B3...Bv], when things are seen from the perspective of either B1, or B2, or B3...or Bv.
   
2) Definitely human cannot be an absolute objective observer for everything, because he is a part inside a system. For instance, he cannot realize the motion of earth, or the motion of the solar system, because he himself is moving with them. Also, in case of a stroke or during drug abuse, the fact that he perceives something, doesn't mean that is a reality only because its in his mind. Reality is there irrespective of what we think.
But can there be truly objective observer? I quess that the fact that the quantum principle assumes that light wave lenght is a kind of limit in nature, and also speed of light is another limit, and even space and time stretches so as light cannot be "fooled", suggests that if there is an objective reference frame, then light is the most likely candidate for that.. In this case physical laws can only be defined using this frame...Any thoughts?
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
No scientific theory has ever been made that focuses mainly on the creation of life, Darwinism focuses mainly on the evolution of life but comes up short when you talk about creation of life.

Then there is that primordial ooze stuff which I personally don't buy.

then there is the idea of panspermia which begs the question were the aliens came from.

then there is religious theories which I personally don't buy but other then that there isn't much, nobody can come up with a solid theory on the creation of life. But life is the most complex thing in the known universe so it's not like it's an easy question to answer.

What if this whole thing is like a video game, a world created and the laws of physics created by some properties of another dimension, with different laws that govern dimensional exchange. you see that makes no sense but honestly that's the best theory I got on the subject. even if you did answer that question it's not like people would believe it. What then? you would be like I answered that age old question, big woop want to fight about it?  people do fight about stuff like this many of the wars in history were fought on the subject so just let it be unknown, it's better for everyone.
« Last Edit: 16/03/2014 03:23:29 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline minass

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
Lets see some more implications and extensions of the presented model
1)   It means that 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. 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 catalogue of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive. Its only a matter of our specific "inside the system" point of view.
2)   Due to the fact that human is a very complicated system of reactions that all depend from each other, its logical to assume that it is almost impossible to treat compeletely a chronic disease with a single drug. The human body is not a car that we fix the part that is wrong and everything is ok. Instead, its reactions are so complicated, that (unless the illness is caused by a foreign agent e.g. a microbe, or by that lack of a substance that can be replaced), if there is a problem with a reaction this will lead to a chain reaction of problems to other reactions of the body as well. This mechanism is responsible for chronic diseases. The only way to treat compeletely this disease is to put back the initial reaction with the problem the way it was. Every other method will only reduce symptoms, but not cure. Additionally, it may treat a problem and cause the creation of  another. A good example for this is the treatment of high blood pressure or cholesterol. We are not talking about healing, but for statistically significant improvement. Some studies also shows that there is no decrease in mortality even with the treatment of the risk factors. Another good example are rheumatic diseases. No complete cure exists. Drugs have many side effects in such a way that while one hole is closed, another is opened. Even in major diseases there is a big dissociation between the pathogenetic mechanisms that are discovered and effective treatments. This diference will continue growing if we dont realize that the mechanism that organism works is more complicated.
3)   Another implication of the theory is that because the sum of the chemical reactions is a chain, it means that the cause of a disease maybe come from the organ that has the symptoms, but maybe not. An initial problem causes its irregularity, but depends of the vulnerability of each organ to see in which organ the symptom will be seen, because all the reactions communicate with each other, and when a problem exists its like a volcano and we dont know where will it explode.
 

Offline minass

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
This particular viewpoint that life was developed in a kind of evolution and natural selection of random chemical reactions on earth that were becoming more and more over time in term of numbers and complexity with the help of external energy coming to earth mainly as solar energy has 2 basic philosophical implications. If life is seen as a whole, there is a constantly growing entropy as the system of random reactions is becoming more and more complex. Also the system of reactions continues to be random actually. We are a sum of chemical reactions inside this system and we view the whole system from an inside-out viewpoint. This particular perspective is the critical factor why we perceive a totally random system as sophisticated, deterministic, etc etc. (What is the value of living chemical procedures for a non living object (e.g. a stone) apart from meaningless random reactions?)

1)This seemingly obvious viewpoint can have major influence in other aspects of human knowledge apart from biology as well.  In physics for instance. We are composed of some matter and we are participating in various moving systems that we donít realize, like the motion of earth, the solar system motion, the galaxy etc etc. Thus we donít have a totally objective viewpoint. In other words, we are not the perfect reference frame. This means that perhaps in physics, research should be focused in finding simple physical laws for more objective reference frames than us, instead of trying to invent more and more complicated mathematical models under the assumption that we have an objective viewpoint of things.

2)Life occurred in a system like our solar system that has some properties that can support it. Thus we are trying to find other systems out there with similar properties as candidates for extra-terrestrial life. However, our above mentioned viewpoint suggests that it is not the particular conditions that support life formation, but the fact that life was formed and we judge the system from our particular perspective. Thus, life can be formed anywhere theoretically.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Too many unjustified assumptions in this thread!

Without a definition and metric of complexity, you can't assert that life evolves to increasing complexity.

Without questioning a dog or a spider, you can't assert that homo sapiens is the only species that asks the question.

You can't assert that life is too complex to have evolved by chance unless you have independent evidence of some other origin.

And above all, we don't have a consistent definition of life. The only absolute assertion we can make is that life, however we care to define it within the boundaries of our atmosphere and observations, is inevitable - because it happened. 
 

Offline minass

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
There are some absolute assertions about life that are unquestionable.
1)Life is composed of chemicals and chemical reactions.
2)We are the reference frame when judging what is life, or else the perspective is that of our own.
3)We are a part of the whole system of life. This means we are not a distinct entity.
4)Living systems are more complicated that a simple chemical reaction.
5)Life is inevitable on earth because it happened.
If you combine all these, what is the most obvious way to combine them, providing you have the ability to be as simple and objective as possible at all costs? That life is actually our own specific perspective of some chemical reactions that are naturally occurring and random.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length