where angels fear to tread

[AV1611VET]

That's only because you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, I think I do.

Two people look at the same thing; one sees his god, and the other his.

I've got a framed copy of Psalm 19 hanging on my wall.

 

[freezerman2000]

AV,please do not try to derail a non mudslinging thread..it has been to long since I have seen a thread not degenerate into ..yayaya,my religion says it aint so,that settles it..
Please restrain yourself and follow to the OP's wishes.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV,please do not try to derail a non mudslinging thread..it has been to long since I have seen a thread not degenerate into ..yayaya,my religion says it aint so,that settles it..
Please restrain yourself and follow to the OP's wishes.

Okay ... sorry.

I'll bow out.

(ETA: I wasn't trying to derail it though.)

 

[freezerman2000]

I'm not asking you to bow out, my friend..just to keep it in the confines of the OP's subject matter and wishes.

Derailing a thread is an easy thing to do..intentional or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not asking you to bow out, my friend..just to keep it in the confines of the OP's subject matter and wishes.

Derailing a thread is an easy thing to do..intentional or not.

I understand --

 

[Gracchus]

That doesn't fit the context of the general use of these terms. If what you claim is true, then everyone should say "13.7 billion years" when they are asked for their age.

That'd be funny, wouldn't it be?

The dynamic pattern that we call self is just part of the larger pattern. Most of human thought and discourse is illusion.

 

[Kunjax]

Please indicate which statement(s) you think is/are true regarding "the event" mentioned in Question 3:

1. The Event resulted in the formation of all inorganic matter and all energy only.

2. The Event resulted in the formation of all inorganic matter, all organic matter, and all energy only.

(Feel free to reword the statements if you don't understand what I'm getting at. It's not meant as a trick question.)

The others have it better then I could of. That is, that the Big Bang formed all of the lighter elements, while other processes created the rest.

 

[Strathos]

I would just point out that, directly after the Big Bang, there were no elements, they didn't form until the universe cooled enough for atoms to exist.

 

[dysert]

Obviously, life on Earth continues to create organic molecules from inorganic molecules, and there are other abiotic processes producing organic molecules. This is an ongoing process.

If you're saying that life comes from non-life, I don't believe it's true. Can you please point me to an article (that I can understand) that substantiates this claim?

 

[Gracchus]

If you're saying that life comes from non-life, I don't believe it's true.

Once it was thought that there was a separate "organic chemistry" that was only produced by living things. They thought there was something "special" about the chemistry of life. This belief was called "vitalism".

Can you please point me to an article (that I can understand) that substantiates this claim?

Here is a fairly simple explanation: History & Future - Urea and the beginnings of organic chemistry

Life is just a subset of chemical reactions, following the same laws of chemistry as all other reactions.

This is remarkable. It is astounding. But we can understand it. And that is amazing.

 

[Nithavela]

If you are asking about abiogenesis, Dysert, we don't know that for sure, although there are good arguments for it.

 

[dysert]

If you are asking about abiogenesis, Dysert, we don't know that for sure, although there are good arguments for it.

No, I'm not asking about abiogenesis -- I know there's no proof for that. I'm asking if there's proof that a living thing can "evolve" (if that's the right word) from a non-living thing.

 

[dysert]

Once it was thought that there was a separate "organic chemistry" that was only produced by living things. They thought there was something "special" about the chemistry of life. This belief was called "vitalism".

Here is a fairly simple explanation: History & Future - Urea and the beginnings of organic chemistry

Life is just a subset of chemical reactions, following the same laws of chemistry as all other reactions.

This is remarkable. It is astounding. But we can understand it. And that is amazing.

Thanks. I'll follow the link you provided and see if I can make sense of it ;-)

 

[dysert]

Once it was thought that there was a separate "organic chemistry" that was only produced by living things. They thought there was something "special" about the chemistry of life. This belief was called "vitalism".

Here is a fairly simple explanation: History & Future - Urea and the beginnings of organic chemistry

Life is just a subset of chemical reactions, following the same laws of chemistry as all other reactions.

This is remarkable. It is astounding. But we can understand it. And that is amazing.

I read the article, and if I understand it correctly, it's saying that there are some organic chemicals that can be manufactured from inorganic chemicals. Assuming I'm right about that, I have another question. Are organic chemicals *sufficient* for life?

 

[Nithavela]

No, I'm not asking about abiogenesis -- I know there's no proof for that. I'm asking if there's proof that a living thing can "evolve" (if that's the right word) from a non-living thing.

What would your definition of living and non-living be, in this case?

Can't say much without knowing where you place that boundary.

 

[Nithavela]

I read the article, and if I understand it correctly, it's saying that there are some organic chemicals that can be manufactured from inorganic chemicals. Assuming I'm right about that, I have another question. Are organic chemicals *sufficient* for life?

No, they are not. For example, you still need to take in water and oxygen, which are decidedly inorganic.

Organic molecules are defined as molecules that entail carbon and hydrogen bonding to each other. They form their own class for historical reasons, and because they make up most molecules one meets in natural organisms. Also, carbon has some interesting properties that enable it to have varied and diverse reactions.

Also, if you really want to do it that way, EVERY organic molecule can be manufactured from inorganic starting materials. Eventually.

 

[dysert]

What would your definition of living and non-living be, in this case?

Can't say much without knowing where you place that boundary.

I considered that very question before posting my reply. It's hard for me to come up with an exact definition, but (with a few exceptions) I'd say something is living if it can reproduce. (I know this isn't exact because, for example, a mule is a living organism, but it's sterile.) If you have a more precise definition for "living" please share it.

 

[Nithavela]

I'm not a biologist, but, just for example, there are things that are able to reproduce, but aren't seen as living. For example, a virus, because it can't reproduce on it's own, but uses the reproductive facilities of another living being (a cell). Or even more simply, a prion, which is basically just a protein that self-replicates. (Mad cow disease was caused by such prions)

On the other hand, a human being that is sterile would still be seen as living, right?

There is no such thing as THE ultimate definition of living versus non-living, there is a lot of grey areas and debate, which is why your question is so tricky.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No, I'm not asking about abiogenesis -- I know there's no proof for that. I'm asking if there's proof that a living thing can "evolve" (if that's the right word) from a non-living thing.

That does sound like you're asking about abiogenesis.

But let me take a different tack, since you seem to be focusing on organic and inorganic, or alive and not alive.

Mighty oaks from little acorns grow. The mighty oak is a zillion times more massive than the acorn from which it came. The mighty oak is all alive. So where did all that living stuff come from? From the air, from the soil, from things that were not alive. It didn't happen in the absence of all life (that would be abiogenesis), but biological processes convert dead matter into living matter.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, I'm not asking about abiogenesis -- I know there's no proof for that. I'm asking if there's proof that a living thing can "evolve" (if that's the right word) from a non-living thing.

Viruses are probably the closest you are going to get to that, being that they are nonliving agents that can actually create mutations in gametes, thus impacting evolution. Also, they evolve, despite their general designation as not being alive.