Thread: Did Life ever Begin?

Well, and I'm not sure, but this sounds like my idea that everything is the same age due to the law of conservation of energy, only applied to life.

But there are rules that have been set up:

Here's the generalized definition of an organism:

Originally Posted by Ripped from Google

Conventional definition: Often scientists say that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit the following phenomena:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

I think it is just a matter of setting up a boundary between "living" and "nonliving".

A living organism can do as stated above. Note that this isn't a very specific set, just a general one.

A cell: Can

A rock: Cannot

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

A cell: Can

A rock: Cannot

Thanks for the reply Seis.

A rock is a bi-product, an element rather that separated early on, branched off as i said, one of the first things, there are many variations on rock of course, but the key information is that it is an early product of the development stage. The branches on the tree of development grew, spanned out into different places over time until eventually sprouting into a separate branch which we could label as the human race.

We can all agree on the definition of what living is. But heres where i raise my point, how can we say that we are living when it would not have made a difference if we did not have a consciousness or self awareness. If we did not have these two aspects to us, we would not be able to define life itself.

If they did not evolve as part of us, then we technically could be comparable to that of a rock, but simply a moving rock with more abilities. Of course, that is quite ironic because to say that we are comparable to rocks we would need self awareness and consciousness.

Its a strange one, but it all comes down to a line we have drawn ourselves, a way of separation and categorization. That is living, that isn't living, simple as.

Living is a term at the end of the day, and applying it does outcast the non living, however then you have to go to the point in which when things started living, when and where was that line in which things became living from non living? You cannot say things gradually started living because it would contradict the meaning of living itself, you either live, or you do not, simple as. Where would you categorize the center term, the stage between living and non living. Where to you join up the dots between living and non living?

Interesting thought.

So it's:

-----------=|=~~~~~~~~~

- == Nonliving
~ == Living
= == Grey area.
| == Divider

But what is the grey area?

Maybe... Viruses? Considering that viruses technically aren't alive, they could have been what bridged across from simple proteins and acids into actual life? Just a thought.

Not sure how many other organisms are classified inbetween like that :-\

It would be interesting to find out all the details behind this.

You could look at these parasites that use hosts to live off. When you mention viruses it links back to all the zombies films with the walking dead.

I want to know though how we drew that line because there must have ben a bridge from non living to living. It can't just simply happen without explanation, there has to have been a process involved.

It's definitely a question we're looking to answer.

I mean... how exactly did some random molecules all of a sudden want to consume other molecules and reproduce themselves?

Maybe our universe was meant to have life. The Big Bang provided the necessary materials for the right processes to eventually occur, but then you get to question of: what is meaning of life?

Viruses? Considering that viruses technically aren't alive, they could have been what bridged across from simple proteins and acids into actual life? Just a thought.

I wouldn't really consider viruses the gray area simply because a virus requires that life to present for it to exist. It's like a parasite. A good question is - which came first, the virus or the cell?

I think you missed a major thing though-- It took a long time of jumbling under heat and lightning and plasma before even the first proteins were formed from amino acids.

Then acids and proteins to nucleic acids, which, a remarkable thing, could carry combinations of other base chemicals to, when in contact with other nucleic acids and proteins, can create unique combinations in them to form other chemicals and... Things.

And No, viruses only needed proteins and Nucleic Acids to reproduce themselvs-- They are very much in the "grey area" as what LS was talking about.

I guess the first protocells could be considered in the grey area as well.

I really hate these kinds of questions because our definition of what is living is very earth based

what about alien life?

do we expect alien life to also be composed of cells? what if alien life doesn't reproduce?

what if it doesn't need to consume energy?

what if we found something in the universe that we knew to be conscious but doesn't fit our box of what is a living thing? are we going to continue with our closed minded idea of what is a living thing or realize that currently our definition only works for CERTAIN life forms.

Yes of course.

But if we have only found possible life on other planets, then our system still holds true.

On other planets however, yes, life could be constructed differently, and, if it was, then intelligent design just got taken out of even remote speculation.

I think I've got it!

After careful consideration, I think that the true barrier between inanimate objects and living things is the fact that something living can store, recall, and/or utilize information in any way, shape or form.

At base, an organic thing would have to do that in order to move, reproduce, achieve homeostasis, etc.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

After careful consideration, I think that the true barrier between inanimate objects and living things is the fact that something living can store, recall, and/or utilize information in any way, shape or form.

Are you saying my iPod is alive?

Yes.

But not exactly.

Your iPod cannot do that on its own. Well hold on... Yes. It is alive. It's assisted living.

nope, no beginning, no ending. It just goes. Don't know for sure, don't care, that's the only way to deal with life.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Yes of course.

But if we have only found possible life on other planets, then our system still holds true.

On other planets however, yes, life could be constructed differently, and, if it was, then intelligent design just got taken out of even remote speculation.

Um...wut??????? Hows that rule out intelligent design?? Man, the word creator gets tossed out on everything. You gotta know how the intelligent design thing works before you can rule it out of every single thing.

Because then it finally proves that life adapts to the Universe, not vise vesa as some people would have you think.

But non of this answers the question, when did we technically become what we define as living. How did this transition take place, obviously slowly, but where are the in between links.

Thats my question.

I thought I already had said that:

I think you missed a major thing though-- It took a long time of jumbling under heat and lightning and plasma before even the first proteins were formed from amino acids.

Then acids and proteins to nucleic acids, which, a remarkable thing, could carry combinations of other base chemicals to, when in contact with other nucleic acids and proteins, can create unique combinations in them to form other chemicals and... Things.

And No, viruses only needed proteins and Nucleic Acids to reproduce themselvs-- They are very much in the "grey area" as what LS was talking about.

I guess the first protocells could be considered in the grey area as well.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Because then it finally proves that life adapts to the Universe, not vise vesa as some people would have you think.

That still makes no sense...like i said, you would have to know the design before you can rule it out. You're just thinking of a god we made up thousands of years ago.

So basically Seis, your saying that we were non living material, we then became viruses and then the viruses became living cells and then it became us over millions of years.

I need something solid with evidence to back it up, it seems like guess work to me. I can see how it would work, but has it been proven that viruses and all that are the link between living and non living?

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

That still makes no sense...like i said, you would have to know the design before you can rule it out. You're just thinking of a god we made up thousands of years ago.

So you default yourself to the "Well there is a god, but not what other religions were talking about". Besides, have you READ the Theory of intelligent design? It's just Christian Creationism.

Therefore:

- life on other planet
- life nothing like us
- life where it "shouldn't" be +
----------------------------------

Christianity fails.

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

So basically Seis, your saying that we were non living material, we then became viruses and then the viruses became living cells and then it became us over millions of years.

I need something solid with evidence to back it up, it seems like guess work to me. I can see how it would work, but has it been proven that viruses and all that are the link between living and non living?

Well we can't know for now, but those guesses are the best we have.

Lol, i'm not gonna argue with a 15 year old.

Hohoho! Dats right! I'm fifteen! Can't argue with me because I am just so unintelligent and just can't see from your point of infinite wisdom!

Silly me.

Glad you see it my way.