THEORY OF LIFE

That would depend on the organism... many of them would just be suspended within the fluid. I doubt it. Evidence? Um, most life is single-celled. So no, that would not be a basic property. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you're going to talk about what life "is", you have to find the similarities between single-celled organisms and multi-celled organisms. You can't choose a property of multi-celled organisms as a basic property of life.

No.

That is not obvious at all.And living things are just collections of ordinary materials put together in interesting ways.You draw a line between the living and the non. The world does not draw that same line.

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.

Sure, there's things like stable emulsions. You could've just googled that. I mean, there's even a wiki page on the evolution of the eye. Of course! We even have extant orginisms with limited visual capacity. Here's a little chart for you: Oh, I dunno; A lot of people have to wear glasses and we know that eagles can see waaay better than we can.

All humans still have limited visual capacity.When was the last time you saw infrared?
When was the last time you heard air colliding with itself?Both are certainly things that happen.Infrared is part of the light spectrum - humans just can't see it.
Air colliding with itself does make sound - humans just can't hear it.They are outside the limited visual and auditory capacity of humans.

They can but they don't have to. They can also float free. Adhesion is not a "fundamental property of life". Yes. Even today there is a whole range of visual capacity from barely able to perceive light to better than human vision. That's one of the reasons we know that evolution did happen. All of the intermediate steps are there.

quote:

---

Random mutations were supposed to slowly cause the evolution of a process that lead to the creation of eyes, ears, etc

---

Random mutations and natural selection. The latter is kinda important.

quote:

---

But 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?

---

Yes, and they still do. Humans in particular have a number of issues with their vision.The funny things is that any vision is better than no vision and directional vision is better than just being able to detect light.I might wear glasses and be blind in one eye, so that I have no depth perception, but even my seriously flawed vision is far better than no vision at all.