Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

[Thief]

Good point!

You could however take some DNA from that dog and clone it to make a copy.

Would that be the same dog with the same personality but not the same memories?

I might dig a little deeper....

an experiment done decades ago can demonstrate the formation of amino acids in natural surroundings
but the experiment failed to produce life

there is a point of transition.
and I say.....substance does not beget the living.
there is a difference between chemistry and life.

 

[Thief]

Sure you can ... you just need to be more careful. I knew someone who did heart lung transplants on two pairs of dogs per day, for rejection suppression drug studies. I guess he knew how to be more careful.

no silly......
kill the dog.....dismember the poor thing

then try to do the Frankenstein routine

 

[Sapiens]

no silly......
kill the dog.....dismember the poor thing

then try to do the Frankenstein routine

No silly, if you are not careful taking the car apart it's not going to work when it goes back together. I know lots of folks who disassembled a car expecting to do a frame up restoration and broke something critical in the process.

 

[Thief]

I can and have repaired vehicles......I can.....really!

but I think cutting my dog up in little pieces would be .......final

 

[Dante Writer]

I might dig a little deeper....

an experiment done decades ago can demonstrate the formation of amino acids in natural surroundings
but the experiment failed to produce life

there is a point of transition.
and I say.....substance does not beget the living.
there is a difference between chemistry and life.

"an experiment done decades ago"

Yes and the fact that it took place in a lab under created conditions means anything that came out was intelligently designed not evolved.

I lean towards organic life somehow got to earth to start the process either accidentally or intentionally.

 

[Thief]

"an experiment done decades ago"

Yes and the fact that it took place in a lab under created conditions means anything that came out was intelligently designed not evolved.

I lean towards organic life somehow got to earth to start the process either accidentally or intentionally.

I believe Spirit is required to have the chemistry.....live

 

[Dante Writer]

I believe Spirit is required to have the chemistry.....live

We may define spirit differently but I can accept that term.

Universal laws and energy creates direction all the time in the universe.

 

[Sapiens]

I can and have repaired vehicles......I can.....really!

but I think cutting my dog up in little pieces would be .......final

It is all a question of your skill set.

 

[leibowde84]

Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

If you walk back the Evolutionary theories to their beginning at some point you have to deal with this question.

Even if that first life in the form of bacteria came from some other planet hitched to an an asteroid or meteor you still have to get to the point of answering the question of how did that organism form.

If you do believe in spontaneous life then please tell us how that happened and evidence for that theory.

If not then please tell us what other mechanism could have produced that first life or theory for how it happened.

This is my discussion so any theory including religious and philisophical will be allowed.

Evolution ONLY refers to speciation and diversification of life. It in no way speaks to the origin of life. It is absurd to claim that those who believe in evolution must have an answer for this question. We, as a species, merely have yet to figure it out. But there is no reason to assume that we won't be able to in the future.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you believe in spontaneous organic life from non living elements?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replication
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/simplest-self-replicating-molecule.645213/

(Simon Bridge posts "Hexadeoxynucleotide looks like 23 atoms. The thing at slide 24 looks like 24 atoms...)

If inert molecules self-replicate, what is the problem in "spontaneous organic life" (though it is not so spontaneous like a human jumping up from clay).

 

[Thief]

We may define spirit differently but I can accept that term.

Universal laws and energy creates direction all the time in the universe.

as in motion?

a chemistry that moves should not confused with a chemistry alive.

 

[Thief]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replication
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/simplest-self-replicating-molecule.645213/

(Simon Bridge posts "Hexadeoxynucleotide looks like 23 atoms. The thing at slide 24 looks like 24 atoms...)

If inert molecules self-replicate, what is the problem in "spontaneous organic life" (though it is not so spontaneous like a human jumping up from clay).

if the molecule is inert it is not chemically reactive.

if the item at hand has a sense of 'self'......it might be able to know 'itself' to reproduce true to form?

I don't believe in humans jumping from clay.....however....
we are made of such.....each one of us.....
and back to the ground we will go

 

[Thief]

It is all a question of your skill set.

my skill set?....or God's?

 

[Aupmanyav]

as in motion? a chemistry that moves should not confused with a chemistry alive.

There is nothing in the universe that does not move. The electron in an atom of carbon in your finger is whirling around the nucleus (randomly, you can either know its speed or its position, never both of them) with the speed of 2,200 kilometers per second.

"A calculation shows that the electron is traveling at about 2,200 kilometers per second. That's less than 1% of the speed of light, but it's fast enough to get it around the Earth in just over 18 seconds." Search Google for "speed of electron".

if the molecule is inert it is not chemically reactive.

Inert or not depends on what confronts it. In suitable circumstances, there will be a reaction.

.. and back to the ground we will go

Only a small portion of me will go to ground, the rest will go up as water vapor and carbon-di-oxide. The Calcium/bone part which will change into lime.

 

[Thief]

There is nothing in the universe that does not move. The electron in an atom of carbon in your finger is whirling around the nucleus (randomly, you can either know its speed or its position, never both of them) with the speed of 2,200 kilometers per second.

"A calculation shows that the electron is traveling at about 2,200 kilometers per second. That's less than 1% of the speed of light, but it's fast enough to get it around the Earth in just over 18 seconds." Search Google for "speed of electron".

and all of this motion is life?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes. Motion, attraction, repulsion.

 

[metis]

My position is not rigid so explaining it would be ALL OF THE ABOVE.

I look at all mechanisms for life on earth and evaluate them based on how they could happen.

All of them answer a portion of the problem and none of them answer everything so it is probably a combination and still mechanisms we don't understand.

What you see as nit picking is challenging your rigid position to see if you have substance and it may broaden your horizons and certainly broadens mine.

LOL! Wow, that's the very first time that anyone here at RF referred to my "position" as being "rigid". I think you better hold off on swallowing that until you actually get to know me better.

 

[Thief]

Yes. Motion, attraction, repulsion.

I don't confuse a moving object with an life that moves of it's own volition

 

[Desert Snake]

Evolution ONLY refers to speciation and diversification of life. It in no way speaks to the origin of life. It is absurd to claim that those who believe in evolution must have an answer for this question. We, as a species, merely have yet to figure it out. But there is no reason to assume that we won't be able to in the future.

It isn't a bad question, though, semantics aside. Why aren't you answering it?

 

[Parsimony]

Who created that definition?

Was it created by organisms that barely evolved to fit their idea of intelligence based on their extremely limited capacity and lack of any experience outside their tiny globe of existence?

The fact that humans created that definition is the whole point. Words and definitions are human inventions. If it doesn't fit the definition of intelligence, then it isn't intelligent. It might be something else or it might even be something greater than intelligent (whatever that is), but since humans create words we get to define them.

You do know man just barely learned how to fly about a hundred years ago.

Irrelevant to the fact that particular words have particular meanings.

You try to give people labels so you can either accept or dismiss their ideas without considering them. That is obvious from your posts.

Whether I accept or dismiss an idea is dependent upon the evidence presented, not who proposes the idea.

I gave you the only answer I can give at this point because like you I am still evolving in my understanding. At least I hope you are evolving!

I am learning new things all the time. I also see that you didn't answer my questions about the intelligent designer. Is the creator of natural laws or is it the natural laws themselves? Is it energy or is it the laws?