Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9159 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 914,822 Year: 2,079/9,624 Month: 1,512/567 Week: 120/338 Day: 4/41 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THEORY OF LIFE
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 1 of 28 (464964)
05-01-2008 12:02 PM


Message 3 has become the defacto opening post. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide contents, add forwarding note.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-03-2008 9:07 AM minaras has replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 3 of 28 (465229)
05-04-2008 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
05-03-2008 9:07 AM


THEORY OF LIFE
Please see Message 5 for the opening post. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Add note, hide contents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-03-2008 9:07 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 05-05-2008 9:34 AM minaras has replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 5 of 28 (465357)
05-05-2008 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
05-05-2008 9:34 AM


Re: THEORY OF LIFE
When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism, they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life.While on the other hand they start reacting with a host, or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host,they become alive.The same thing happen with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host, they become alive in a way...
Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue.
What would that mean to the way that we see the world?
First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally dyring a very small period of time,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place chemical reaction inside it.Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell.,but the organism as a whole is alive.Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals. But maybe not.
If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question:what is the least that can be considered as life?For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance.At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considerd life.So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life, or else, the sparkle of life.That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions.
The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.
The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell,in the form of chemical reaction.
The new theory that we introduced claims tha tit was not necessary to be a first single cell to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life.The creation of the first cell actually is the result of the existence of life.
Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today. That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one.This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy{probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life, but also to their survival of the first forms of life, but also in their evolution.
1)Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we cultivate in a way,some chemical reactions in a small place.After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated.Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated.We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes.This is life.But human is a part of this complicated system which means that he sees thing in a mirror like way,because he is in the system.so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way.2)Nature does not promote a certain form of life,but what we see,is the result of the sum of the reactions that happened through history.
2)The property of reproduction in living beings that are chemical reactions seems to actually be a result of the energy that forces the chemical reactions to continue happening.Life continues because chemical reactions continue.Reproduction seems to be one of the most ancient properties.
1)living organisms normally are not dying because the chemical reactions that are composing them are continuing happening.if we analyze all these reactions we will have a very good view to their homeostasis.As we said we are seeing the world from the inside , or else in a mirror like direction, because we our selves are part of things, so we appreciate things from its results.We think that homeostasis is a very magical and perfect mechanism, because we are the result of homeostasis, but the theory that we analyzed says that homeostasis simply is the cataloge of the chemical reactions that are still happening, and just because they keep happening, the organism is alive.
2)the complex organic compounds that are composing living creatures probably are the results of many years of reactions, or else they are the fingerprints of the reactions from the beginning of all the reactions till today.
Life seems to be more an invention of us,or else a term that we use to describe anything that looks like us.There is not such a thing as life, its an illusion.An organism is the reactions that we see, and we think they are something amazing because we see them separately from all the other reactions that are happening in the world.We judge them from their reult, which is that they become like us.We are a part of the reactions that are happening as well, and while we see organisms that look like us, we think they are independent creatures, but actually they cant be separated from the whole soup of reactions.The spores are becoming as they were before because their reactions start happening, and they start looking like us.There is not such a thing as homeostasis.So tthe existence of their reaction gives the illusion that we called life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 05-05-2008 9:34 AM Admin has not replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 12 of 28 (706382)
09-10-2013 2:20 PM


Thank you for the positive responses to the thread. I would like to point out how my thoughts have evolved and matured over time. Current definitions of life find it difficult to normally include viruses and prions without adding sub-definitions, exceptions, etc. Viruses and prions are the simplest known organisms and one idea is to study the functions of the most simple organisms and let them dictate what is life and build a new model and accommodate it in the larger scale.
We showed that life exists only in a changing state and living material can be further reduced and divided till the point we have a single chemical reaction. So , life is a sum of countless chemical reactions. Obviously in the past they were much fewer so we must assume that a source of energy (sun) caused a burst of reactions in terms of number and complexity. But giving energy to increase the number of reactions just leads to mindless chaotic and random reactions. It also suggests that each organism is a system of random chemical reactions, or else a chemical mindless automaton.
This seems pretty nave as a conception because we know that reactions follow very precise patterns and in fact, can be viewed as being directed by other complex processes and pattern driving structures. But..a) If we consider the whole living system as a unique individual entity, it seems not to have any specific pattern and b) remember who is the reference frame! YOU! Or else a sum of chemical reactions, inside the system which it judges. The cause observed by the result.
After all, what would happen in a growing number of random chemical reactions after billions of years? A) Eventually some sticky reactions would lead to adhesion of molecules that would attract others as well, converting the procedure from diffuse to multifocal, allowing forms to be created, B) the reactions with repeatability that occur in a somewhat cyclical manner would survive in the long term, because they will not lead to a dead end and c) the reactions that will survive after billions of years will do it because these specific reactions pose surviving capacities over other. From our point of view (perspective) B is perceived as reproduction and C as evolution. What I try to say is that even we were indeed some automaton chemical reactions, even the fact that these reactions continue to happen makes them successful to our eyes regardless of how this happened. These reactions survived and there was a history behind this.
Human position in the system can explain everything. Both life and fire are chemical reactions but fire is very simple with no functional resemblance with us to perceived as life.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2013 3:06 PM minaras has replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 15 of 28 (706434)
09-11-2013 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Dr Adequate
09-10-2013 3:06 PM


Sorry!!Maybe i didn't explain it very good!
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. This is done by reactions that promote the function of adhesive molecules. Cell-cell adherence is one of the basic properties of living cells. This is the reason why our body is held together and not spontaneously decomposed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2013 3:06 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2013 4:23 PM minaras has replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 17 of 28 (706916)
09-19-2013 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
09-11-2013 4:23 PM


Evidence is that while the cells with adhesive properties die, they no more attach to the flask walls. This is a fact. Anyone that has been at least once in a lab knows that.
Cell to cell adhesion is a basic property of multi cellular organisms.
But even in single cell organisms there are adhesive molecules intracelullary. Most of the reactions inside the cell, happens because something binds with something else.
And as about the human skin that you told, tell us how connective tissue cells binds to epithelial cells and between them. Also tell us how cells become cancerous and manage to travel through these structures. Even heard of cadherins?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2013 4:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 10-06-2013 6:12 PM minaras has not replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 18 of 28 (706917)
09-19-2013 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Omnivorous
09-10-2013 8:58 PM


Re: The question is...
All those years i've been working in hospitals as an ER physician, i have seen many people viewing strange things and talking to imaginary people.
Obviously there is only one truth that exists beyond us and we all live in it, and all these people were either on drug, or they had a stroke or when given a drug these perceptions disappeared.
Our mind lives inside truth and not truth inside our minds. Noone is irreplaceble....!!!
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Omnivorous, posted 09-10-2013 8:58 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Jon, posted 10-06-2013 10:35 PM minaras has not replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 19 of 28 (706918)
09-19-2013 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by AshsZ
05-19-2008 4:52 AM


The point is if you redefine life the way viruses and prions dictate you, what changes in the rest of the picture? Can we answer to more questions now than previously?
The method is simple and its happening already in physics. In subatomic level our current theories fail to explain what happens, and so our theories are incomplete. By studying collisions in that level we can makes conclusions and build new theories. Sequentialy, we expand them to the macrocosmos to see if they are consistent with the rest of our knowledge. We can also check if we can now answer to previusly unanswered questions.
Similarly, our current definitions of life fails to completely include life...
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by AshsZ, posted 05-19-2008 4:52 AM AshsZ has not replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 20 of 28 (708171)
10-06-2013 5:54 AM


If life as a whole is a sum of random spontaneous chemical reactions then they should have been created gradually from some simple primordial reactions that became more and more crowded. Isolated random reactions leads to equilibrium, so this means that an external source of energy must existed to sustain and further promote the reactions. The most likely candidate is solar energy. But what are the implications of all these and how can we test if this is a real scenario?
This means that during unhostile eons for earth (with growing biodiversity) the sun will boost complexity in terms of number of chemical reactions on earth. The latter must be constantly increasing according to a specific pattern (geometric or exponential ). And I say specific because random reactions constitute an automaton system and will pose a predictable pattern.
To use mathematics, the total number of cells on earth times the number of reactions in every cell must be constantly increasing.
But even in this case, eventually there will be a time when the number of reactions will remain constant because the number of reactions leading to equilibrium will equal the new forming ones. There can even be setbacks like in the ice ages.
The random chemical reactions hypothesis says that life explosion depends on the conditions on earth. There are ups and downs. For instance, the Cambrian explosion of biodiversity can be explained because the conditions were friendly with a dramatic boost in life evolution and diversity. Reactions flourish and everything speeds up. On the contrary, the classic evolution theory cannot explain this fast leap because evolution is supposed to be a slow procedure and not condition dependent regarding its pace.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add more blank lines.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-06-2013 7:17 PM minaras has not replied

  
minaras
Junior Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 14
From: greece
Joined: 08-17-2007


Message 24 of 28 (708283)
10-08-2013 5:55 AM


ringo
Even single cell organisms can adhere to its surroundings. But anyway....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...
And to continue my previous considerations:
One of the major problems with the current interpretations of life has to do with this: how did the eye or the ear evolved? 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?
Our random chemical reactions hypothesis suggests that vision is the way we perceive the interactions between electromagnetic waves and systems of chemical reactions. To our own eyes, this seems a rather sophisticated process, but we are the result of this. No matter how this process has occurred, we would idealize it because this is the way we can interact with the external environment. Once again, for a non living being such as a stone, human eye is nothing but chemicals and chemical reactions.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2013 10:59 AM minaras has not replied
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 10-08-2013 12:37 PM minaras has not replied
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 10-08-2013 1:32 PM minaras has not replied
 Message 28 by Mutwa, posted 10-28-2013 3:48 PM 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