Does anyone truly believe that goo can turn into an organism? It's never been reprodced, and it sounds impossible.

It depends what was in the "goo".

 

It's not like we have any 4 billion year old samples to work from, more's the pity

Well it's hard for my to beleive that the right animo acids just happened to be in the right place a one time, and it became alive. It doesn't sound plauseable to me. Sounds like spontanious generation?

It's not like anyone's saying it happened in five minutes when the only two piles of amino acids in the universe happened to bump into each other.

 

Try to imagine the scale. Vast lakes jammed with exotic (for the time) molecular configurations. Abundant heat energy. Millions of years' worth of collisions between quadrillions of different molecular configurations.

 

If you get the scale right, it stops being inplausible and starts being inevitable.

But the jump form non-life to life? I can't beleive that that's even possible, I just can't. Maybe I have a closed mind, but non-life to life! MAybe if some had done it before. Made a Microshpere, what I learned was the first form of life, by making a bubble in animo acid goo and have it come to life.

Defining what life actually is turns out to be realllllly difficult.

Something that's alive. Made of cells, reproduces, consumes netrients.

unrelated question: do you think that viruses are alive? They don't reproduce on their own, but they seem alive to me. Why isn't fire alive?

Tricky one, isn't it?

my answer, plain and simple:

contains some form of memory for possible reproduction (a.k.a. RNA, or DNA, or BINARY CODE)

and is able to use energy (any form)

 

most likely, all individual parts of the most basic possible cell were made individually, a lot, along with many other random molecules, and over time happened to come across one another and absorb eachother, or something. the memory part probably came first, then, after much floating around doing absolutely nothing, it came apon the using energy part (this is when i would call it "life"). then, as random energy became less abundant, they needed something to collect and contain energy. they couldn't "die," unless they were denatured, but likely just floated around and used energy as it came by to make copies of it's memory. then they eventually found some other sets of molecules that could collect and store energy... etc.

 

this is not what happened, just one possible way it happened... one that i made up a few minutes ago, but has probably been said before.

What about my unrelated question. I'd say that the text book answer is they are not, but I think they are. Of course fire isn't, but it comsumes nutrients and reproduces in a way.

EinsteinTheory said in post # :

Does anyone truly believe that goo can turn into an organism? It's never been reprodced, and it sounds impossible.

If you took yeast,killed it, and groung it up, making a huge slurry of all those enzymes needed to survive, it would start making more and more enzymes until it "died" without input of more nutrients.

I don't understand what you are explaining? Could you elabarate? Sorry about spelling, but for all I know I spelled elabarate right!

Take a bunch of yeast (live) and grind it up and add a bit of water. Place it in a bowl on your table. Because it contains all the nutrients necessary for life, it will continue creating the enzymes necessary for it to live. Once it uses up all of it's nutrients (food) it stops.

But you never killed the yeast, it was always alive!

PS I found a theory that supposivly disprooves Elvolution:

 

 

What does lund disease have to do with your sig??Evolution disprroved.com JK

There is lung disease in my sig because I was seeing how long it took for someone to go "What the heck is THAT word?"

Kill the yeast first then, without removing anything from it or adding any toxins.

EinsteinTheory said in post # :

What about my unrelated question. I'd say that the text book answer is they are not, but I think they are. Of course fire isn't, but it comsumes nutrients and reproduces in a way.

by my definition, viruses are alive (assuming they use some sort of energy) and fire isn't (because it has no stored data)

Exactly. Fire is not live. It cannot adapt to things, except for the laws of science which govern it.

I think they are but in school we learn that they aren't because they can't reproduce without a host cell.

anyone who tries to disprove evolution with the laws of thermodynamics should be shot in the head.

 

viruses are a grey area, since they do not have all the equipment needed to replicate themselves - they can only reproduce by hijacking a cell and using the cells machinery to make new viruses.

 

viruses do not respoire, they do not make any attempt at homeostasis (regulation of their internal environment) so they are not structly alive.

 

I see dan has run away after being thoroughly owned.

In school we learn that they aren't alive.

I thought Homeostasis was when warm-blooded animals keep their bobies at a constant temperature? Reptiles aren't structly alive?

Homeostasis literally translates to "keeping the same", so any organism that can regulate itself in at least one fashion is homeostatic.

k, so I was... right? Wrong? Partly Right?

Warm-blooded animals keeping their body temperature steady is an example of homeostasis, but not the only example.

 

So mainly right.

by my understanding, viruses inject DNA or RNA into a host cell, and that host cell uses the new DNA or RNA to make the protiens that are the virus. the question is, do viruses use energy to inject their DNA/RNA, or are they 100% freefloating and only inject it by chance (i suppose that would technically be using kinetic energy... but it's indirect so it doesn't count)

If they inject it by chance (just shooting it at random) I doubt we could get sick easily at all. They would have a tiny chance of reproducing.