Concerning life: 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. Hence; it leads to a dead end when trying to characterize what life is. 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 that preserves it 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 a particuar state(the state of being alive). 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 that state of being alive. Hence; the criterion for what human life is(or the state of being alive), 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 that there is a distinction between the state of life, relative to every living things distinct the anatomy and physiology. For example; Consciousness and our sense of self are aspects pertaining to the state we characterize as human life or being alive. 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 or all the things that preserve their state of being alive(But it is highly questionable; when we say that plants are aliive.) 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?"). 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 we must test them. For to say that living things originated from organic compounds assembeling themselves together(and that is the only way) is to assume that there can be no other ways for living organisims to come into being. However such an assumption cannot be justified. But in the end what matters(regardless of how many hypothesis we can formulate) is this; Whether the hypothesis can be tested or not. For the value of any hypothesis consists in whether it can be tested or not. However, 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 a human 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. However some may say that induction is limited because we have no experience of the past. Hence we cannot guarantee that the way things happen now(relative to how humans originate in the uterus) was the was the way it 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" provides evidnece for the past that can be used to fromulate apriori propositions that can be used to infer. 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 they 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) in the past. Hence; even the idea of a first cell has no basis. For the only cell we have ever observed develops in the uterus. Or it cannot develop without the uterus. This cell is known as the "blastocyst or embryo" or we can use the cell that undergoes mitosis in the womb or uterus. Hence on grounds of experience we may argue as follows against the first cell idea; 1. The blastocist cannot exist independent of the uterus Hence; 2. The blastocist cannot grow and develop into a human without the uterus. Therefore; 3. Humans cannot come into being without the uterus. Even if i applied THIS ARGUMENT to other mammals it would still be true (on empirical grounds) that 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. Furthermore paleontology has not shown us that a first cell existed. Hence, the idea has no grounds supporting 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 it has been discredited by the theory showing that living things of like or similar nature come from living things of like or similar nature. Evidence that can be quantified numerically(billions) 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". For there are no instances of it. Hence the probability of it being true is also zero. Regarding the chemistry of living things; The chemistry of living things pertain to the organic compounds that are only found in living things 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 or any complex or simple life 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 a collosal amount of evidence(exists) both from the past and from the future, t showing us that humans know no other way in terms of how they came into being apart from that that pertains to the uterus. Furthermore a collosal amount of evidence both from the past and from the future show that there are no instances of exception to the biological processes in the uterus relative to human development and growth. 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. And consequently; 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 when finite life cannot come into being without life? And if life cannot come from non life, then how did finite life come into being ?---- when finite life cannot come into being without life Well, It cannot come into being. Hence, it is naturally impossible for lif or living organisims to exist. Hence, the origin of life or living organisims 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/metaphysical/or transcendent cause or event that is above ad beyond the productive power of nature. We call the metaphysical/supernatural/ or transcendent cause God. The bible states: " With God nothing shall be impossible".
Posted on: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:49:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015