Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 63 (9159 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 914,821 Year: 2,078/9,624 Month: 1,511/567 Week: 119/338 Day: 3/41 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   THEORY OF LIFE
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 16 of 28 (706438)
09-11-2013 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by minaras
09-11-2013 3:24 PM

If you go to a biology lab and put some living cells in a flask and you return after some days, how can you distinguish which cells are alive and which are dead? The answer is that living cells attach strongly to the flask wallls, while dead cells are floating in the fluid.
That would depend on the organism... many of them would just be suspended within the fluid.
This is done by reactions that promote the function of adhesive molecules.
I doubt it. Evidence?
Cell-cell adherence is one of the basic properties of living cells.
Um, most life is single-celled. So no, that would not be a basic property.
This is the reason why our body is held together and not spontaneously decomposed
There's a lot more to it than that. Your skin is held together by connective tissue, which is held together by fibroblast cells. They have fibers that connect to a gel-like substance between them, so its not cell-to-cell adhesion.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by minaras, posted 09-11-2013 3:24 PM minaras has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by minaras, posted 09-19-2013 3:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 25 of 28 (708315)
10-08-2013 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by minaras
10-08-2013 5:55 AM

I am using this only to show that there are existing properties in chemical reactions that can make them hold together in groups and create distinct creatures rather than diffusing around...
Sure, there's things like stable emulsions.
One of the major problems with the current interpretations of life has to do with this: how did the eye or the ear evolved?
You could've just googled that. I mean, there's even a wiki page on the evolution of the eye.
Random mutations were supposed to slowly cause the evolution of a process that lead to the creation of eyes, ears, etcBut if this took millions of years to happen, what about all these years? Did organisms had a limited visual capacity or limited interpretation of visual stimuli?
Of course! We even have extant orginisms with limited visual capacity. Here's a little chart for you:
So the random chemical reactions point of view suggests that living creatures had perfect visual and auditory capacities throughout the ages and its our own place in the system that makes us idealize our current model.
Oh, I dunno; A lot of people have to wear glasses and we know that eagles can see waaay better than we can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by minaras, posted 10-08-2013 5:55 AM minaras has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024