"Life comes from Life"!

[Dan From Smithville]

This is woo. What on earth do you mean by asserting that a quantum particle has a level of conscious awareness? Do I smell Deepak Chopra?

I certainly have never seen this before. I am curious to see if my questions are answered and what those answers might be.

 

[exchemist]

I'm not saying they don't have meaning, but rather they have different meaning depending on context. When it's applied as an argument to say that life can't come from no-life, that's when dig my heels in myself. Simply because it's mixing specific application of the meaning with generic.

OK thanks for clarifying.

But in the context of this thread, abiogenesis, i.e. the emergence of life from non-life, is a real issue for science to work on. By "life" in that context we mean - broadly - the study of how chemical systems that grow, respire, maintain their integrity and reproduce came into existence.

 

[exchemist]

I certainly have never seen this before. I am curious to see if my questions are answered and what those answers might be.

I think I have seen something rather like it before. I'm now half expecting a misunderstanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM to make a cameo appearance. But let's see.

 

[ChristineM]

"Life" is defined as having conscious awareness. Every single quantum particle of matter has some level of conscious awareness, therefore…."everything is alive". What separates "life forms" is conscious SELF awareness, that's all.

Can you please provide a link to the paper you got these concepts from, i have never heard of quantum particles being aware. And self awareness is fairly limited in the animal kingdom, can you provide a citation to experimental data suggesting (say) earth worms are self aware?

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

This is woo. What on earth do you mean by asserting that a quantum particle has a level of conscious awareness? Do I smell Deepak Chopra?

Yes, it's a scientific fact, proven by quantum physicist. Only, mainstream science will not acknowledge the fact. They won't because like for the past 2000 years, the RCC won't let them.

 

[Ouroboros]

Angiogenesis is a scientific approach to learn how biological life arose. In the context of biology, life arose from non-living matter.

I know. (Abiogenesis btw)

And even though not all pieces to the puzzle regarding that science is there yet, I'm a truly and full supporter and believer in it. It's still a matter of categories, "bio" is a specific kind of compound of matter. It's all out there. Organic matter exists in space, naturally, and it's built from atoms that exist outside the "organic" category. Things just "ladder" up from simple forms of "life" to higher and more complex forms of "life".

--edit

Ooops. Sorry. That's a new term "angiogenesis". Cool. Thought it was a misspelling.

Looking into it now.

--edit2

hang on, angiogenesis is the forming of blood vessels. ?

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I am unfamiliar with this definition. How is consciousness and awareness determined for the quantum realm?

The context here is to life in the biological sense.

Look up, google, or research the "DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT"......and go from there.

 

[Ouroboros]

OK thanks for clarifying.

But in the context of this thread, abiogenesis, i.e. the emergence of life from non-life, is a real issue for science to work on. By "life" in that context we mean - broadly - the study of how chemical systems that grow, respire, maintain their integrity and reproduce came into existence.

Sure. My criticism was about using "life from life" argument in creationism, nothing else. Not trying to convince anyone of my views. Just sharing them.

In fact, even the lines of organic vs inorganic matter have some blurry things going on. Some compounds are both, if I understand it right.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, it's a scientific fact, proven by quantum physicist. Only, mainstream science will not acknowledge the fact. They won't because like for the past 2000 years, the RCC won't let them.

Theorist?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

View attachment 36901

Darwin's theory is considered settled science everywhere but in churches like yours.

You've got a big problem for your Christian creationist beliefs. The evidence in support of the theory of evolution doesn't go away if the theory is overturned tomorrow. It merely needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying discovery. One would be forced to conclude that a super-powerful and deceptive agent went to great lengths to make man think that evolution as we understand it had occurred, including planting fossils of creatures that never lived such that older and more primitive appearing forms appear in the deepest strata, carefully setting the ratio of radioisotopes to fool man regarding dates, creating all of those nested hierarchies including inserting ERVs into genomes as part of the great deception, scattering the ring species to appear that they had evolved, and the like.

I can conceive of no other explanation for so much evidence supporting a false theory. If you think that the theory of evolution is wrong, this is all you're left with, not the Genesis account or any other creation myth.

To believe that life was created by intelligent designers means accepting the deception hypothesis, which cannot be ruled out, but should be ignored absent that falsifying finding inasmuch as it is a gross violation of Occam's principle of parsimony. The theory is here to stay.

The anti-intellectualism of your denomination, Jehovah's Witnesses, is legendary, and very harmful.

• The Jehovah’s Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They’re Struggling The Jehovah’s Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They’re Struggling

• "A Michigan woman who fatally shot her husband, their two adult children, then turned the gun on herself in their home on Friday was driven to the point of no-return because she was shunned by her local Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall after she decided she wanted her children to attend college" Woman Who Killed Self, Entire Family Was Shunned by Jehovah's Witnesses for Sending Kids to College

Maybe you should have studied a little science.

All I can say is that the OP is terribly misinformed. Where did he get that "No transitional fossils" claim?

Church

The first life arose from non life? Absolutely false. You BELIEVE it did, you have FAITH that it did, but the evidence that it did does not exist.

The evidence for abiogenesis is incomplete, but growing every year, and already quite robust. Creationists telling us what they can't see is of no interest or value. Looking at what they can't see is.

So, do you consider your god alive? If so, it is life that did not come from life. If not, then even if it created life, that would be life from non-life.

"Life" is defined as having conscious awareness

No. A tree is alive, but has no capacity for consciousness. It's alive because it has/does all of this:

[1] active movement (may be subcellular only)
[2] obtain nutrients
[3] metabolize / channel and store energy / generate heat
[4] eliminate waste
[5] cellular
[6] complex organization even if unicellular (organelles)
[7] organic
[8] growth / development
[9] reproduction / replication
[10] homeostasis / repair
[11] sensitivity / responsivity
[12] adapt / evolve / mutate
[13] similar composition (proteins, ATP, DNA, etc.)

Consciousness doesn't appear on the list, which list may help @shmogie decide if his god is alive or not.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Can you please provide a link to the paper you got these concepts from, i have never heard of quantum particles being aware. And self awareness is fairly limited in the animal kingdom, can you provide a citation to experimental data suggesting (say) earth worms are self aware?

You misunderstood.....everything has a level of consciousness awareness, but only humans and above have a level of SELF conscious awareness. Research the "double slit experiment" in quantum physics sometime to learn more.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Look up, google, or research the "DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT"......and go from there.

I am familiar with that, but do you have anything more specific to provide in support of your claim that you can share yourself?

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Darwin's theory is considered settled science everywhere but in churches like yours.

You've got a big problem for your Christian creationist beliefs. The evidence in support of the theory of evolution doesn't go away if the theory is overturned tomorrow. It merely needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying discovery. One would be forced to conclude that a super-powerful and deceptive agent went to great lengths to make man think that evolution as we understand it had occurred, including planting fossils of creatures that never lived such that older and more primitive appearing forms appear in the deepest strata, carefully setting the ratio of radioisotopes to fool man regarding dates, creating all of those nested hierarchies including inserting ERVs into genomes as part of the great deception, scattering the ring species to appear that they had evolved, and the like.

I can conceive of no other explanation for so much evidence supporting a false theory. If you think that the theory of evolution is wrong, this is all you're left with, not the Genesis account or any other creation myth.

To believe that life was created by intelligent designers means accepting the deception hypothesis, which cannot be ruled out, but should be ignored absent that falsifying finding inasmuch as it is a gross violation of Occam's principle of parsimony. The theory is here to stay.

The anti-intellectualism of your denomination, Jehovah's Witnesses, is legendary, and very harmful.

• The Jehovah’s Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They’re Struggling The Jehovah’s Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They’re Struggling

• "A Michigan woman who fatally shot her husband, their two adult children, then turned the gun on herself in their home on Friday was driven to the point of no-return because she was shunned by her local Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall after she decided she wanted her children to attend college" Woman Who Killed Self, Entire Family Was Shunned by Jehovah's Witnesses for Sending Kids to College

Maybe you should have studied a little science.



Church



The evidence for abiogenesis is incomplete, but growing every year, and already quite robust. Creationists telling us what they can't see is of no interest or value. Looking at what they can't see is.

So, do you consider your god alive? If so, it is life that did not come from life. If not, then even if it created life, that would be life from non-life.



No. A tree is alive, but has no capacity for consciousness. It's alive because it has/does all of this:

[1] active movement (may be subcellular only)
[2] obtain nutrients
[3] metabolize / channel and store energy / generate heat
[4] eliminate waste
[5] cellular
[6] complex organization even if unicellular (organelles)
[7] organic
[8] growth / development
[9] reproduction / replication
[10] homeostasis / repair
[11] sensitivity / responsivity
[12] adapt / evolve / mutate
[13] similar composition (proteins, ATP, DNA, etc.)

Consciousness doesn't appear on the list, which may help @shmogie decide if his god is alive or not.

Oh really ? Tell that to the roots that grow towards the water, in the direction of the source of nourishment . In fact, get you a small plant and plant it in a glass container so you can see the roots. Turn the container upside down and watch the roots "find" the water. Oh how ignorant are we.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know. (Abiogenesis btw)

And even though not all pieces to the puzzle regarding that science is there yet, I'm a truly and full supporter and believer in it. It's still a matter of categories, "bio" is a specific kind of compound of matter. It's all out there. Organic matter exists in space, naturally, and it's built from atoms that exist outside the "organic" category. Things just "ladder" up from simple forms of "life" to higher and more complex forms of "life".

--edit

Ooops. Sorry. That's a new term "angiogenesis". Cool. Thought it was a misspelling.

Looking into it now.

--edit2

hang on, angiogenesis is the forming of blood vessels. ?

Sorry. It was supposed to be abiogenesis. My Kindle insists otherwise and I do not always catch them.

 

[ChristineM]

You misunderstood.....everything has a level of consciousness awareness, but only humans and above have a level of SELF conscious awareness. Research the "double slit experiment" in quantum physics sometime to learn more.

I did not misunderstand, i asked for scientific confirmation of your claims, it seems you are unwilling to provide it.

Yes i know the double slit experiment, and i know it has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness or life. The double slit experiment shows quantum particles have characteristics of both particles and waves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, it's a scientific fact, proven by quantum physicist. Only, mainstream science will not acknowledge the fact. They won't because like for the past 2000 years, the RCC won't let them.

I think we are far beyond the times when the RCC could suppress science. I am always dubious of claims like this without any support except demands I use Google.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I am familiar with that, but do you have anything more specific to provide in support of your claim that you can share yourself?

If you are familiar with that, then you should know that the smallest particle of matter we can detect, literally has a "mind" of it's own so to speak. But ONLY when it is OBSERVED...….meaning our own consciousness AFFECTS physical matter......meaning our own consciousness is LINKED in some way to that of the smallest quantum particle of matter.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I did not misunderstand, i asked for scientific confirmation of your claims, it seems you are unwilling to provide it.

Yes i know the double slit experiment, and i know it has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness or life. The double slit experiment shows quantum particles have characteristics of both particles and waves.

That's correct......they behave as either particles or waves. BUT, only as they are OBSERVED. They are affected by our conscious observation and make a "choice" based upon our conscious observation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think I have seen something rather like it before. I'm now half expecting a misunderstanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM to make a cameo appearance. But let's see.

Another subject I find interesting, but my physics background is limited and I have yet to supplement it.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I think we are far beyond the times when the RCC could suppress science. I am always dubious of claims like this without any support except demands I use Google.

I know, and I am always dubious of folks who have not done their homework, but somehow think they are at the head of the class.