[DonQuichotte (OP)]

What's The Origin of Life ?

Hi, folks :

Can we really try to explain or find out about the origins of life , just via physics and chemistry , the latter that cannot , per definition and nature , account fully   for such processes such as life , let alone its origins emergence or evolution ...fully .

Do tell me about just all that , please .
Thanks , appreciate indeed .

Cheers .

[alancalverd]

OK, DQ, usual starting rules. Define life, fully, and we'll have a go at explaining its origin.

Frankly, I don't think the "meteorite" source of amino acids gets us very far. Just saying that life, or its fundamental constituents, came from somewhere else, is a bit like a cargo cult explanation for the existence of tinned sardines. 

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The origins of life on earth are a hotly debated topic among scientists. One theory suggests that meteorites brought some of the chemical building blocks for amino acids – the molecules that make up proteins. Now tests on a meteorite provide more evidence that they might have kickstarted the chain of events that led to the evolution of life here.

Read the whole story on our website by clicking here

 [chapter podcast=3024 track=11.03.06/Naked_Scientists_Show_11.03.06_8008.mp3] or Listen to the Story[/chapter] or [download as MP3]

There is nothing new though about that theory that has been circulating around for some time now :
It's pretty possible that life on earth might have originated from other planets , via the "ingredients " of amino-acids transported on board of some meteorites that might have landed on earth ...
Interesting indeed .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

OK, DQ, usual starting rules. Define life, fully, and we'll have a go at explaining its origin.

Frankly, I don't think the "meteorite" source of amino acids gets us very far. Just saying that life, or its fundamental constituents, came from somewhere else, is a bit like a cargo cult explanation for the existence of tinned sardines.

I do think that life is not just a matter of physics and chemistry , as materialists assumes it to be .

Science can tell us only about the biological physical material side of life , so .

I think there is more to life than just that , but then again, that's just my own belief assumption = unscientific , but not necessarily false , as matrialism is .

But ,that above mentioned meteorite theory might be true , who knows ...

[alancalverd]

I didn't ask what life isn't, but what you think it is. And by your rules, I need a full definition.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I didn't ask what life isn't, but what you think it is. And by your rules, I need a full definition.

Read what i said carefully then :
Physics and chemistry cannot account fully for such processes such as life , consciousness , human cognition , feelings ,emotions ....otherwise , we can easily make "sentient alive .." machines = cannot be done, obviously , not now , not tomorrow , and not in a trillion years to come either .

I think science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life  also  , together with the physical biological material ones  as well  .

Science needs to change radically to be able to do just that , starting from rejecting materialism in science and by replacing it by a non-reductionist naturalist conception of nature in science .

How can science approach the non-physical or non-biological sides of reality or sides of life ......? = beat me .

I do not know how ...yet .Does not mean i will not know how ...tomorrow.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Maybe , women just came from Venus , and men from Mars haha  kidding .

[alancalverd]

Still no definition.

[cheryl j]

What's The Origin of Life ?

Hi, folks :

Can we really try to explain or find out about the origins of life , just via physics and chemistry , the latter that cannot , per definition and nature , account fully   for such processes such as life , let alone its origins emergence or evolution ...fully .

Do tell me about just all that , please .
Thanks , appreciate indeed .

Cheers .

"fully" Well, I know where this is going.  Anything that can't be explained now or "fully" proves that materialism is wrong, and western civilization is inferior.  If you think I am over-reacting, wait and read the next 26 pages of this thread. It will have nothing to do with biochemistry or the origins of life.  And you will think I am psychic! 

[Skyli]

I can't help but agree with alancalverd and his sardines; interesting but has nothing to do with the price of eggs. Anyway, we're getting bombarded with micrometeorites every day and, so far, nobody has shown that these result in new life-forms while the presence of organic molecules in said meteorites has been seen many times.

However, the role of science in the quest for the origins of life has, once again, raised its head. This time, absence of definition aside, the debate seems somewhat more level-headed. So, not a bad place to have another go at drawing the line between Science and other avenues of research into existence.

I agree with DonQuichottes comment that, "Science can tell us only about the biological physical material side of life" and I, personally, also believe that there is more to life than this. I also recognise this belief to be unscientific but, I stress, it is a belief; it is not Faith. I may be wrong but it will not affect my life either way.

However, I disagree adamantly with DonQuichotte that, "science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life". This is most certainly NOT within the remit of Science; it does not deal with the "observable". There are other disciplines, such as theology or philosophy, that handle these areas of research.

Simply put, I do not believe that Science can tell us everything about the origin of life, but it should certainly try to. I could say the same about the two disciplines mentioned in the previous paragraph. There is no "materialist" conspiracy here, just confusion over the role of Science since we went forth and multiplied.

Sorry for not using the quote feature but I took extracts from two posts.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I agree with DonQuichottes comment that, "Science can tell us only about the biological physical material side of life" and I, personally, also believe that there is more to life than this. I also recognise this belief to be unscientific but, I stress, it is a belief; it is not Faith. I may be wrong but it will not affect my life either way.

Exactly :
That's 1 of the reasons why i did try to post a whole thread concerning the 'origins of life " = it is indeed ludicrous and even unscientific to try to trace back the origins of life to just the 'emergence " of its  alleged physical biological material genetical amino-acids , RNA , DNA ....so-called "building blocks "  = to try to explain life ,its evolution or origins just in terms of physics and chemistry = there is obviously more to life than just the latter = physics and chemistry alone cannot account fully for the nature of life as such , let alone its evolution , emergence or origins ...fully .
But , materialism reduces life and reality  as a whole  to just physics and chemistry though , to just material physical biological processes ,including consciousness, feelings , emotions, human reason, human conscience ....including human language ,the latter's origins evolution and emergence , and including the rest = that's just the materialist core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality as a whole = the materialist mechanistic false conception of nature that dates back to the 19th century(The materialist false and unscientific conception of nature in science that considers reality as a whole as just a matter of matter , as just allegedly and exclusively being physical material ) ,and that has been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere since .
Worse : the materialist false exclusive physical material biological conception of nature has been taken for granted by most scientists without any question,since the 19th century at least thus  .
Science is indeed concerned only about the material physical biological side of reality , but that's not all there is to reality as a whole of course , as materialism wanna make people believe it is .

However, I disagree adamantly with DonQuichotte that, "science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life". This is most certainly NOT within the remit of Science; it does not deal with the "observable". There are other disciplines, such as theology or philosophy, that handle these areas of research.

Science can try to approach the non-physical and non-biological non-material side of reality as a whole , indirectly : see Sheldrake's work regarding telepathy , for example ...
The immaterial side of reality is in fact normal, not paranormal = just the other side of the same coin of the same reality .

Simply put, I do not believe that Science can tell us everything about the origin of life, but it should certainly try to. I could say the same about the two disciplines mentioned in the previous paragraph. There is no "materialist" conspiracy here, just confusion over the role of Science since we went forth and multiplied.

Nobody is saying that there is a materialist 'conspiration " : all i am saying is that materialism has been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere , by imposing its own mechanistic false world view ideology as ...science , since the 19th century at least .
Science can indeed just tell us about the physical material biological side of reality as a whole, of life ......the rest is a matter of belief each one of us should decide for himself/herself .
Science can thus cover only a tiny piece of reality effectively , the known part of the material side of reality thus  .

Sorry for not using the quote feature but I took extracts from two posts.

Don't worry about it ...

[alancalverd]

science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life

Only if you have a nonphysical and nonbiological definition of life. To my mind it is nothing more than the abstract quality demonstrated by all living things, and all definitions of living things seem to come down to observed physics and chemistry. It's a pretty useless word.   

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

science should try to look for non-physical and non-biological explanations for life

Only if you have a nonphysical and nonbiological definition of life. To my mind it is nothing more than the abstract quality demonstrated by all living things, and all definitions of living things seem to come down to observed physics and chemistry. It's a pretty useless word.

[/quote]



Non-sense :   reality as a whole,  life , consciousness ,memory,  human reason,feelings , emotions , ....cannot be accounted for just via physics and chemistry , obviously,no way .
Let me try to rephrase it or reformulate that differently ,as follows :
Has science ever proved the materialist "fact " to be "true " , or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is just exclusively physical material ? Obviously ...not .
Do the maths then ...
God...

[Skyli]

Science can try to approach the non-physical and non-biological non-material side of reality as a whole

And there, I believe, is the rub. Yes, Science can, but then it wouldn't be Science. It comes back to the confusion about what "science" is that I mentioned in my last post.

Science is not and never will be the spring of all knowledge. The correct term for this is Learning and its goal is, basically, knowing all there is to know. Its a pretty big area so, in order to acquire Learning, we break it down in to various areas. Science is just one, along with many others, both respectable and not. Science deals with the observable, basta! There may come a day when our descendants can tick of the "science" box in Learning because science has done its job. It has classified everything that can be observed. Perhaps, along the way, we will evolve additional sensory mechanisms and science will need expanding; who knows where such an expansion could lead?

In the meantime it is Sciences job to define the origin of life according to what it can observe and test. Science is not there yet but it is making great headway. It is counter-productive to muddy the boundaries between science and other areas of Learning, unless one is selling sensational books or videos; I have no time for Shelldrakes or any of the myriad psuedo-scientists of the religious press who are constantly using this tactic to denigrate science. It is what it is.

[Skyli]

Has science ever proved the materialist "fact " to be "true " , or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is just exclusively physical material ?

Why on Earth would science even be interested? Science doesn't deal with "reality as a whole", Learning does. Science deals with "Observable Reality".

For example, I believe in God, but I do not believe that science can or will ever prove or disprove God. Of course, God is not observable and, consequently, science is not in the least interested in proving or disproving God. My concept of Reality - my areas of Learning, if you like - encompass more than science, but I consider them all equally valid and quite distinct.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Science can try to approach the non-physical and non-biological non-material side of reality as a whole

And there, I believe, is the rub. Yes, Science can, but then it wouldn't be Science. It comes back to the confusion about what "science" is that I mentioned in my last post.

Science tries to deal only with the observable empirical faslifiable verifiable reproducible part of reality  indeed  , so, science can therefore also study  telepathy , pyshic and other claims of some people via trying to test them to see if those claims can be reproducible verifiable falsifiable  testable  ....but , science can say indeed nothing regarding the nature of telepathy , the nature of the alleged psychic skills ....
There are many forms of the scientific method , not just one thus : cosmologists , for example , cannot put stars , planets , galaxies ...the sun haha ...into the lab to study them..........they have their own scientific ways of studying them as you know .

Science is not and never will be the spring of all knowledge. The correct term for this is Learning and its goal is, basically, knowing all there is to know. Its a pretty big area so, in order to acquire Learning, we break it down in to various areas. Science is just one, along with many others, both respectable and not. Science deals with the observable, basta! There may come a day when our descendants can tick of the "science" box in Learning because science has done its job. It has classified everything that can be observed. Perhaps, along the way, we will evolve additional sensory mechanisms and science will need expanding; who knows where such an expansion could lead?

Science is indeed not the only valid source of knowledge , science has no monopoly of the truth either , science can only cover a tiny piece of reality , the known one so far at least , that does not mean that all what science cannot observe test verify falsify reproduce ....is false or that that does not exist as such  , as materialism in science assumes so wrongly of course , for obvious materialist ideological reasons thus= materialists assume thus that the whole reality is just physical material , and therefore reject God, religions , telepathy , psychic powers ...but , pure science or science proper can neither prove nor disprove the existence of the immaterial side of reality in fact thus , the existence of God ....= do you see here the major difference between materialism as a false belief and science ? materialism that gets sold to the people as science by making science reduce verything= the whole reality  to just physics and chemistry thus , including life , consciousness, memory , human love , human spirituality , human reason , human conscience ...

Science cannot , per definition , make us know thus all there is to know out there , simply because science deals only with that tiny piece of reality it can observe test reproduce verify falsify ....

Science is a human limited tool instrument to understand and explain reality thus , the part of reality it can deal with , science is thus no magic or no Alaaddin magical lamp ,despite its huge achievements , despite its highly effective and unparalleled method (s) that's like no other , despite its high descipline ....
Those science's ideals of unbiased objective disciplined methodic approaches  of reality are rarely reached by scientists humans : proof ? : that false materialist belief in all sciences and elsewhere that gets taken for granted without question as science , by the mainstream scientific establishment or community = objectivity is a myth .

Do not forget either that science is just a human social activity, a form of culture , practiced by scientists humans via their limited faculties, flaws ,shortcomings , beliefs (see the materialist belief that's been dominating in all sciences for that matter and elsewhere , materialist belief that gets presented and sold to the people as science , while materialism as a false world view has nothing to do with science , science has never proved , and can never prove the materialist "fact ", or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is exclusively material physical , simply because science deals only with the observable testable verifiable empirical ...side of reality , and therefore science can say nothing , per definition, regarding the other potential part of reality = that does not mean that the latter does not exist as such .), science is practiced thus by scientists humans through their whole beings ,objectivity in science is a myth in fact : proof ? = the  false and , per definition, unscientific materialist belief that's been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere , and that gets taken for granted as science by the majority of scientists today .

Maybe , in the future , it's highly probable indeed in fact that man will be able to extend or broaden his/her understanding of what science is , what the scientific method is , through developing an extended scientific method through its epistemology that might deliver some new understandings of science and its core epistemology , via highly probable undersandings of what man is , what man's consciousness might be,relatively speaking  , what man's reason emotions feelings intuition and senses are really = that might deliver some advanced forms of the scientific method or methods ...
Technology might also broaden our own understanding of man , nature , the universe ....= in still unimaginable ways-to-all-of-us yet .
Only time will tell then indeed , but we might be not there to witness just that ourselves, who knows .

In the meantime it is Sciences job to define the origin of life according to what it can observe and test. Science is not there yet but it is making great headway. It is counter-productive to muddy the boundaries between science and other areas of Learning, unless one is selling sensational books or videos; I have no time for Shelldrakes or any of the myriad psuedo-scientists of the religious press who are constantly using this tactic to denigrate science. It is what it is.

As long as science will keep on reducing the whole reality to just physics and chemistry (thanks to materialism ) , including life , consciousness , emotions feelings , human reason , human conscience ....science will just be giving us a distorted reflection of reality as a whole  ,unfortunately enough .
Only when science will reject materialism , an inevitable fact , simply because materialism is outdated false and has been superseded by the physical sciences themselves even , and simply because science's self-rejuvenating and self - cleansing , self - regenerating critical powers faculties and inrinsic properties can enable science to reject all false assumptions , including and mainly those of materialism , when science thus will be able to do just that , whole   unimaginable new vistas will open up for science , when science will cease thus to "see " the whole reality as just a matter of physics and chemistry thus.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Has science ever proved the materialist "fact " to be "true " , or rather the materialist belief assumption to be "true " that reality as a whole is just exclusively physical material ?

Why on Earth would science even be interested? Science doesn't deal with "reality as a whole", Learning does. Science deals with "Observable Reality".

For example, I believe in God, but I do not believe that science can or will ever prove or disprove God. Of course, God is not observable and, consequently, science is not in the least interested in proving or disproving God. My concept of Reality - my areas of Learning, if you like - encompass more than science, but I consider them all equally valid and quite distinct.

Well, that's the core issue here : the core materialist belief assumption is that the whole reality is exclusively material physical = everyhting can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone , so science has been assuming the same false materialis assumption since the 19th century at least

That the whole reality is physical material = there is no God, no immaterial side of reality ...=  all sciences under the exclusive monopoly and supremacy dominance of materialism thus have been assuming therefore that the whole reality is exclusively material physical = there is no God, no immaterial side of reality ...even though science , per definition, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of neither God nor that of the  immaterial side of reality thus  .
But , proper science as such can indeed thus neither prove nor disprove God or the immaterial side of reality : materialism has thus been making science go beyond its own relam and jurisdiction .

Science proper must and will get rid of that false materialist conception of nature indeed .

If you trace back materialism to its historic cultural ideological political philosophical economic ...Eurocentric roots , you would notice that materialism has been just a product of medieval 's Europe religious conflicts : materialism that has been anti-religion since then, by rejecting anything that is not observable testable empirical .... : materialism goes thus beyond science and its scientific method, beyond both the realm and jurisdiction of science , while imposing all that as science  :
materialism that , per definition, can only lead to atheism  and reductionism by reducing everything to just physics and chemistry , by rejecting christianity  and all other religions as well  = there is no God , no immaterial reality ...= materialist ideological belief assumptions that have been imposed on science since the 19th century at least as science , for obvious ideological materialist purposes , in order for materialism to "be able to validate itself as being true " through science as science : so, science has been assuming that the whole reality is material physical thus , thanks to materialism thus , science has been therefore assuming, since the 19th century at least , thanks to materialsm thus ,  that everything = the whole reality thus can be explained in terms of physics and chemsitry only : an obviously false assumption in all sciences and elsewhere , science gotta get rid of , and science will indeed = inevitable = just a question of ...time thus .
Only time will tell then ....

[alancalverd]

the core materialist belief assumption is that the whole reality is exclusively material physical = everyhting can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone , so science has been assuming the same false materialis assumption since the 19th century at least

Repeating this absurd assertion does not make it true or even meaningful. Science is an inanimate process, not a sentient being, so it cannot have any beliefs or assumptions.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

the core materialist belief assumption is that the whole reality is exclusively material physical = everyhting can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone , so science has been assuming the same false materialis assumption since the 19th century at least

Repeating this absurd assertion does not make it true or even meaningful. Science is an inanimate process, not a sentient being, so it cannot have any beliefs or assumptions.

[/quote]

Science is a human social activity , a form of culture , practiced by scientists humans .............Science is just the scientific method (s) practiced by scientists humans ...
So, science is no "entity " ...
It is a simply obvious and an undeniable fact   that the materialist dogmatic belief system has been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere=( =including in the so-called human sciences , in plolitical science thus , in economics , in anthropology ,sociology, ,in the so-called evolutionary psychology ...and in the rest , including in literature , art ...), since the 19th century at least : see also the materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere ,while you are at it :
So much for a so-called scientist ,,,pfff...

The mainstream scientific establishment or community has been dominated by materialism since the 19th century as well thus ...

[Skyli]

Where on Gods Earth did you come up with such an idea of the purpose and use of science? It is a technique to acquire Learning, a tool, no more. It is not an "ism", not subject to "isms", any more than a hammer is.

I don't give a damn what Materialism assumes, and neither does science, and the idea that science follows the same assumptions is, frankly, ridiculous. Does a hammer "assume" that, "this is gonna hurt"?

And people practising science are simply doing their jobs - normal workers. To think that they have all been seduced by some deviant philosophy is the height of paranoia.

"see also the materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all sciences and elsewhere ,while you are at it :
So much for a so-called scientist ,,,pfff..."

Scientists are great! And science cannot be dominated, only wielded. The whole idea is preposterous.

Do I need tongs to hold the hammer before I drive in the nail?