1. What is life? And; 2. How did life come into being? The first question is usually phrased that way. However; i believe that it is an abstract question. For life itself is not something that we can characterized in and of itself. Hence; the question should not be(what is life?), but(what is a living thing?). If so; then it follows that we ought not to be asking how life came into being. On the contrary; we ought to be asking about how living things came into being. Hence; it is not: How did life come into being? But rather; How did living things come into being? Hence; We have been asking the wrong questions. For to ask about how life came into being is like asking how death came into being. However there is nothing like death in and of itself. For death is simply the state of an organisim. Hence; Life is simply the state of an organisim. It is this state that we call life. We can characterize the state as follows or in terms of biological functions: 1. Response to stimuli. 2. The capacity to stay in working order. 3. Growth. 4. Metabolisim. 5. Response to stimuli (e.g sound, light e.t.c) e.t.c Hence we see that the state we characterize as life pertains to(in the case of humans) all the physiological processes and biological functions that preserve our anatomy. Notice i stated that my description of the state we call life characterizes what human life is. Or what a living thing is in the context of humans. May i also add that "consciousness", and "sense of self" are also features that characterize human life or a living human being. Hence; the criterion for what human life is, cannot be the same for what plant life is. I say that, because whenever we talk about "what life is", we often fail to aknowledge the state of life relative to living things is distinct relative to the anatomy and physiology of each living organisim. For example; Consciousness and our sense of self are aspects pertaining to the state we characterize as human life. However; Plants do not possess consciousness and a sense of self. However plants are living things because of 1. Growth, 2. Response to the stimuli of light(or positive phototrophisim), physiology(photosnthesis), metabolisim e.t.c However; The state that we characterize as human life or its criterion can be applied to animals. The reason why we must categorize the state we characterize as life is as follows: By categorizing different states of life, we can approach the question about life relative to each organisims unique nature. For at the moment we seem to believe that all living things originated(relative to the state of life) the same way. However because what constitutes the state of life is not same for what constitutes life for bacteria, or a plant, then it reasonable to believe that they did not all originate in like manner. Next; Let us consider the question: How did living organisims come into being?(notice that i have replaced the abstract question(that is, the question; "how did life originate?" Or, "how did life come into being?") with it). Well; I think that one way to answer such a question is as follows; Firstly, we must hypothesize about as many ways as possible, and then test them. For to say that living things originated from organic compounds being assembled together is to assume that there can be no other ways for living organisims to come into being. However what matters(regardless of how many hypothesis we can formulate) is this; Testing the hypothesis. At the moment every hypothesis that has been formulated has failed to describe the processes that brought living organisims into being. Hence; there are currently no theories explaining the origin of living organisims. And many professors confess that they(the scientific community) do not know how life came into being. So; Is it a mystery? That is, the origin(s) of living things? I believe that no is the answer. For we know how(for example) humans came into being. It is as follows: 1. The fallopian tube releases an ovum. 2. Spem fertilizes the ozum. 3. Mitosis or cell devision with its phases( that is, the phases- metaphase, anaphase, telophase e.t.c) occur. 4. Diploid cell becomes haploid cell(46 chromosomes becomes 23 chromosomes). 5. Diploid cell becomes blastocist(early embryo). 6. Embryo is implanted into the uterus or maternal womb. 7. Embryo becomes foetus. 8. Foetus continues to develop. 9. After 42 weeks or 10 months the posterior lobe of the pitutary gland causes the contraction of uterus. 10. A living human is born. That is a description that is "empirical", unlike all the hypothesis postulated by scientists. For we can observe such a process pertaining to the origin of "human life" in the womb. Furthermore; On grounds of experience we have never seen a human coming into being without the uterus or developing without the uterus. Hence; we may argue as follows: 1. If a particular phenomena has been observed many times(and there are no exceptions), then it is close to certain that that is how it always occurs(the principle of induction.). Hence; 2. If we have observed humans developing in the uterus many times(and there are no exceptions), then it is close to certain that they always develop in the uterus. 3. We have observed humans developing in the uterus billions of time(and there are no exceptions. Therefore; 4. It is close to certain that humans always develop in the uterus. Hence; our degree of certainty is strong. However there are no instances of humans developing without a uterus. Hence zero evidence exists to support such a position. Hence, the probability that such an act can happen is zero. But some may say that induction is limited because we have no experience of the past. Hence we cannot guarantee that they way things happen now was the was the way they happened in the past. I aknowledge that that is true, if(and only if) we do not have any evidence of what the past was like. But we do. For "paleontology" helps us to do that. For fossils show us that complex organisims like mammals replicated themselves using reproduction. It shows us that this was true for early humans as well. Hence; evidence from the past shows us that the way things are now was the way there were in the past. However, there is no evidence of exception showing that living organisims came into being without the uterus(in the context of mammals). Hence; even the idea of a first cell has no basis. For the only cell we have ever observed develops in the uterus. Hence; 1. The blastocist is a cell that cannot develop independent of a uterus. Hence; 2. The origin of a first human cell developing independent of a uterus cannot exist. Therefore; 3. Humans cannot come into being from a cell that exist independent of a uterus. In otherwords(even if i applied it to other mammals will still be true on empirical grounds) a cell cannot become a complex organisim without a uterus. Hence the postulating of a first cell is an idea without evidence to support it. Next; Let us consider 1. Biogenesis, 2. Abiogenesis, and 3. Spontaeneous generation. Firstly the "idea" that living things or organic matter can originate from non living things or inorganic matter(that is, the idea known as abiogenesis) as being discredited by the theory of Thomas Henry Huxley. That is, it has been discredited by "biogenesis". Or the theory that living things of like or similar nature come from living things of like or similar nature. Evidence supports this. However there are no observed instances of "abiogenesis". Hence; The probability of abiogenesis being true is zero. Futhermore the idea that maggots( a living organisim) can originate from rotten meat( non living thing) or spontaenous generation has also been refuted by "biogenesis". Regarding the chemistry of living things; The chemistry of living things pertain to the organic compounds that are only found in them and that keep them in working order. E.g such as proteins that act like enzymes, carbohydrates, nucleic acid e.t.c However we have never observed such things bringing human life into being. Or we have never observed those things existing independent of a living organisim firstly, and then secondly, causing human life to come into being. Hence; the "chemistry of life" that has only been observed in living organisim is also a dead end in terms of enquiering how life originated or what it originated from. I also believe that the question about "what life originated from precedes the question about how life originated from. However both questions remain unanswered amongst those that constitute the scientific community. Nevertheless i believe that i have been able to show that our origin begins in the uterus or womb. And there exists a collosal amount of evidence both in the past and future that show us that humans know no other way in terms of coming into being apart from that that pertains to the uterus. Furthermore a collosal amount of evidence both in the past and future show that there are no instances of exceptions. Hence; On grounds of the principle of induction or its application; It is close to certain that humans cannot come into being without a uterus or womb. However; Humans are finite in terms of being. Hence; There was a time when humans did not exist. Hence; even "biogenesis" seems to break down on that basis. For; If finite life comes from finite life, then there was a time when finite life did not exist; and hence: How did life come into being without life? And if life cannot come from non life, then how did finite life come into being? It cannot come into being. Hence it is naturally impossible for life to exist. Hence, the origin of life transcends the productive power of nature. Therefore life should not exist in nature. But it does. So the question becomes; How was the naturally "impossible" made "possible"? Well what is naturally impossible can only be made possible if a cause that transcends nature exists. Hence a cause or event that transcends nature exists(for life is an effect). Therefore; It is reasonable to believe that life came from a supernatural cause or event.
Posted on: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 17:37:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015