The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Parsimony]

The life from non-life argument confuses me. Because would we say that DNA is alive? I don't think it's counted as a living thing. How about proteins? Or the Chemical pathways? They are not alive, they are non-living yet without them what we call "life" can't exist.

Abiogenesis isn't a critical pillar of evolution anyway. It's only at the level of hypothesis at this point. I think we may be able to prove abiogenesis some day, though.

The line between Life and Non-Life isn't so clearcut.

Yep. I would consider viruses to be stradling the line.

 

[Ouroboros]

The life from non-life argument confuses me. Because would we say that DNA is alive? I don't think it's counted as a living thing. How about proteins? Or the Chemical pathways? They are not alive, they are non-living yet without them what we call "life" can't exist. The line between Life and Non-Life isn't so clearcut.

Exactly.

All is alive in one sense or another. It becomes more and more complex on "higher" levels, but there's nothing that is completely dead.

For instance, the elementary particles are in constant motion. They never stop moving. Light is always traveling. Energy doesn't rest. There's no stillness except for one point. The only stillness, center of the storm, is you. And that stillness, that's God.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Abiogenesis isn't a critical pillar of evolution anyway. It's only at the level of hypothesis at this point. I think we may be able to prove abiogenesis some day, though.

Oh no I understand that. I meant that the distinguishing line isn't all that clear. The argument Life must come from Life is not necessarily "correct". The most basic unit of life is the cell everything that however makes up the cell is not.

Yep. I would consider viruses to be stradling the line.

They are very interesting creatures but I think that they fall more towards the alive category.

 

[Skwim]

They are very interesting creatures but I think that they fall more towards the alive category.

It pretty much depends on how one chooses to define "life." As Lynn Margulis/Karlene V. Schwartz observe in their "Five Kingdoms" 3rd. ed. 1998, p.17.

"All organisms in the five kingdoms either are cells or are composed of cells. The arguably living forms that do not fit this description are the viruses. Composed of DNA or RNA enclosed in a protein coat, viruses are much smaller than cells. Although viruses replicate, they can only do so by entering a cell and using its living machinery. Outside the the cell, viruses cannot reproduce, feed, or grow. Some viruses can even be crystallized, like minerals. In this state, viruses can survive for years unchanged---untl they contact the specific living tissues they require.

Viruses are probably more closely related to the cells in which they replicate than to one another."
​

 

[outhouse]

This one is for the dogs come from dogs guy [FACEPALM}

Genes suggest dogs descended from a now-extinct breed of wolf - NBC News.com

Genes suggest dogs descended from a now-extinct breed of wolf

 

[Runewolf1973]

It is my belief that the same fundamental forces in nature which cause subatomic particles (quantum fields) to interact are the same animating forces from which life-like forms first emerged. To me there is no such thing as "inanimate". Everything that exists, all matter is in some way animated by those same interactive, fundamental forces. All that was needed was enough time and the right conditions for those changes and those interactions to take place. As matter changed form, new forms emerged. As those new forms emerged, they began interacting in more complex and different ways...they began to evolve and in the process becoming more "animated" and even more life-like. As long as those fundamental forces exist in nature and in matter, the "potential" for life-like forms to emerge is always present. The "animate" part, that potential for life is always there.


---

 

[Looncall]

Exactly.

All is alive in one sense or another. It becomes more and more complex on "higher" levels, but there's nothing that is completely dead.

For instance, the elementary particles are in constant motion. They never stop moving. Light is always traveling. Energy doesn't rest. There's no stillness except for one point. The only stillness, center of the storm, is you. And that stillness, that's God.

I think you are stretching the notion of life beyond the breaking point. Please supply a definition.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think you are stretching the notion of life beyond the breaking point. Please supply a definition.

Life is complexity. The outcomes on multiple levels of natures processes.

Life comes from nonlife on a daily basis, so where exactly is the line? I don't think the categorical thinking in black-and-white really portrays the underlying reality. Everything is alive to some extent.

But that's my opinion. You can of course be of a different opinion than mine.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I would say that viruses are definitely not alive. They have no activity apart from what goes on at the atomic level.

I do like the perspective of looking at everything being at least a little bit alive and treating 'non-living' and 'living' as a spectrum with two ends rather than two sides to a coin. In that case if nothing is 100% non-living, then it probably means nothing is 100% living either.

If I were to rank viruses on this spectrum though, I would not put them above basic molecules, atoms or any object we generally don't consider alive. i.e. rocks, plastic, a couch. And heck, it gets more fuzzy with things like technology. Is a cell phone alive? How about the Sun. Is that alive?

We often describe these things as being alive under certain contexts. "Ahh crap, my battery is low and my cell phone is gonna die." "In X billion years, the Sun will turn into a White Dwarf and die.". In the end, instead of getting caught up in the words "dead" and "alive", I think it's best just to consider that regardless of it all, before Earth-life, systems have always existed that have and still have high energetic activity.

It just so happens that a certain type of system arose on Earth that has a big involvement with carbon and self replication.

 

[metis]

I definitely do believe viruses are alive since they have basic biological functions, multiply, and mutate.

 

[Iti oj]

I would say that viruses are definitely not alive. They have no activity apart from what goes on at the atomic level.

I do like the perspective of looking at everything being at least a little bit alive and treating 'non-living' and 'living' as a spectrum with two ends rather than two sides to a coin. In that case if nothing is 100% non-living, then it probably means nothing is 100% living either.

If I were to rank viruses on this spectrum though, I would not put them above basic molecules, atoms or any object we generally don't consider alive. i.e. rocks, plastic, a couch. And heck, it gets more fuzzy with things like technology. Is a cell phone alive? How about the Sun. Is that alive?

We often describe these things as being alive under certain contexts. "Ahh crap, my battery is low and my cell phone is gonna die." "In X billion years, the Sun will turn into a White Dwarf and die.". In the end, instead of getting caught up in the words "dead" and "alive", I think it's best just to consider that regardless of it all, before Earth-life, systems have always existed that have and still have high energetic activity.

It just so happens that a certain type of system arose on Earth that has a big involvement with carbon and self replication.

For me viruses straddle or are the line. At the very least the blur the line.

 

[metis]

For me viruses straddle or are the line. At the very least the blur the line.

Now that I'll definitely agree with.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It seems that viruses are considered by many to be "organisms at the edge of life". They exhibit some life-like qualities while lacking in others. It is as I was describing, the more complex those interactions within matter, the more lifelike or animated things become. Not everything we see can be considered Life in the conventional sense, but even down to a subatomic level everything that exists is in some way animated. Over time things just became more lifelike.

 

[Iti oj]

It seems that viruses are considered by many to be "organisms at the edge of life". They exhibit some life-like qualities while lacking in others. It is as I was describing, the more complex those interactions within matter, the more lifelike or animated things become. Not everything we see can be considered Life in the conventional sense, but even down to a subatomic level everything that exists is in some way animated. Over time things just became more lifelike.

like is our planet alive. It has organs and properties like a living organism. Oceans and forests that breath, circular systems that move air and water a molten core, mountains rise and fall and land mass move grow and shrink.

 

[Looncall]

like is our planet alive. It has organs and properties like a living organism. Oceans and forests that breath, circular systems that move air and water a molten core, mountains rise and fall and land mass move grow and shrink.

Our planet lacks an important feature of living things: it does not reproduce! I don't see how it can be said to metabolize either.

 

[Iti oj]

Our planet lacks an important feature of living things: it does not reproduce! I don't see how it can be said to metabolize either.

The Earth has a child called the moon. Hmm well does the earth not turn things into energy?

 

[idav]

Our planet lacks an important feature of living things: it does not reproduce! I don't see how it can be said to metabolize either.

The earth doesnt need to reproduce, the earth produced life to begin with, from there life reproduces life.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I would not say that our planet is alive in the typical sense that a plant or animal is alive and conscious, but our planet is most definitely animate in the sense that it is very dynamic, imparts motion, and undergoes many changes. Living (alive) creatures are made of the same general "stuff" as all the stars, planets, and galaxies...matter, but are arranged in such a peculiar way (through evolution) as to impart even more dynamic properties, more complex motions, and undergo even more changes. To be genuinely alive or conscious requires highly complex interactions and just the right conditions to support and sustain those complex interactions. Those particular interactions which result in alive, conscious creatures do not happen just anywhere. All that said, does that which we call Life truly exist as some separate thing apart from non-living matter, or is all matter in some way lifelike? I tend to believe that everything (all matter) is in some way life-like and animate, but some things simply evolved in such a way as to become even more lifelike and more animate.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't believe evidence is of truth value...the alleged evidence is only the interpretation.

Sure you do, just not when it comes to evolution.

You believe evidence is of truth value every day, as you go about your life. If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to navigate through your environment. If you believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning, you're believing that based on prior evidence that the sun always rises in the morning. You do things like this all day long, and I bet you think that evidence is of truth value to you. Or is it just your interpretation?

I can do you one better. About 30 or so years ago (give or take a year or two), I was born, and I "cracked" open my eyes...and day after day, year after year, since I opened by eyes, I've only saw animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. So I've drawn the conclusion that dogs will only produce dogs, and cats will only produce cats, and so on and so forth. This is the only thing I ever saw.

Wow, how scientific of you! Maybe it takes a bit more than "cracking open your eyes" to understand the complexities of the world we live in.

I'm gonna stick with scientists who spend their lives investigating the world around us, using independently researched empirical data and evidence to draw rational conclusions about how it all works.These people can actually demonstrate to us that what they say is a factual representation of reality. Your conspiracy theory is inane.

Evolutionists would like us to believe that long ago, when no one was around to see it, there were quite a few exceptions, and once man came on the scene all of this macroevolution stuff stopped...that is about as fraudulent as any con-scheme as I've ever seen. "You will never see it happen...but it happens".

You really shouldn't go on about things you don't understand. That is, unless you're perfectly happy making yourself appear foolish.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah..so let me see if I get this straight...abiogenesis, on your view, is a mindless and blind process. Yet, this mindless and blind process was able to do something that intelligent humans with eyes hasn't been able to do, and that is produce life from nonliving materials? So a mindless and blind process is more smart than intelligent humans? Wow.

Do you know how babies are made?