/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1755408]

How did life develop from inanimate objects?

[Anonymous No.1755425]

How did my erection develop from your mom?

[Anonymous No.1755424]

1. watch cosmos
2. educate yourself
3. ???
4. profit

[Anonymous No.1755431]

>>1755425

Granny Complex?

[Anonymous No.1755433]

>>1755408
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

[Anonymous No.1755436]

>>1755408
How did inanimate objects develop from life?

"Life" is just some ARBRITARY title we give to certain collections of pbjects, the exibit certain properties. There is nothing inhertly special about it. STOP FUCKING ASSUME THERE IS.

[Anonymous No.1755445]

the earth is radioactive. This radioactivity powered the first life forms

[Anonymous No.1755452]

>>1755436
You're special.

[Anonymous No.1755453]

THere were like, chemicals man. In early earth, you got dat CO2, dat N2, dat CN, ect.

Well so you also gets like lightning n shit. Energy like this or like, from the sun, can cause these molecules to combine into Amino Acids and other shit. Get enough of these molecules and you can make a cell dawg. They had like 2 billion years to do it

[Anonymous No.1755465]

i knew a spider once he had a bad temper i sent him to the navyy

[Anonymous No.1755470]

That fucking spider is at the Ottawa Art Gallery. I see that million dollar hunk of metal every time I drive to work.

[Anonymous No.1755474]

>>1755436
This.

If you try, really hard, to precisely define "inanimate" and "life", what you'll find is that the more you refine your definitions, the closer they will become.

The problem lies in the question. Why do you distinguish between the two?

[Anonymous No.1755493]

Would you consider the earth an inanimate object?

[Anonymous No.1755494]

>>1755474
>Implying a distinction DOES exist between "inanimate" and "life" then failing to address where in the grey area postulated to exist between the two terms poster would say a thing stops being "inanimate" and becomes "life"

learn2english instead of trying to be clever.

[Anonymous No.1755501]

>>1755493

Sorry, I don't mean to respond to a question with a question. The thing is, I'm not exactly sure how to respond because I don't feel that life came from inanimate objects but from an animate being. I can't explain my ideas scientifically, and I don't claim to have the answers regarding the evolution of species. However, your question is an interesting one. :)

[Anonymous No.1755515]

very carefully

[Anonymous No.1755523]

>>1755470
Damn, I was going to say the Bilbao Guggenheim. Well, shit

[Anonymous No.1755560]

>>1755494
I'm implying that there ISN'T a distinction between the two. So there is no gray area to address. Anyone who suggests a distinction, other than superficial, must then be charged with the task of explaining how one develops from the other, since the difference exist only in his mind.

It's like if I ask you, "how does hearing come from sound" then you say, "well, hearing IS sound. Since YOU have separated the two in your mind, only YOU can describe the bridge between them".

[Anonymous No.1755566]

Two words:

>High-Energy Photons

[Anonymous No.1755571]

>>1755560
you gotta drop the semantics and go back to english class seriously, you're in danger of hurting yourself

[Anonymous No.1755586]

giant freaking spiders pretending to be sculpture
>Ottawa Art Gallery
>Bilbao Guggenheim
there was one at Tate Modern and a few in Liverpool last year

INVASION HAS STARTED

[Anonymous No.1755591]

>>1755474
Life has properties that inanimate objects do not have. These are called the seven properties of life.

It is easy to make a distinction between the two; you cannot communicate with a rock, but you can with another lifeform. You also do things that lifeless matter does not do.

The question is, how did inanimate matter come to cunningly absorb information and generate self-replication? Are our distant ancestors really just rocks?

Also, it must be added that life is so successful that it has the energy to fight itself, and eats itself. Life isn't primarily a test for survival.

Of course, the whole question is nonsensical and cannot be answered.

[Anonymous No.1755594]

>>1755501
>I don't feel that ____insert bullshit here___

COMFIRMED FOR BEING A FAGGOT!
It doenst matter how the fuck you "feel", it matters what the truth is. You could feel howver the fuck you want, and "feel" like all life must have orginated from your boyfriends anus. You just "feel" that way, right?

"feeling" is equivalent to just making bullshit up.
Take your "Feeling" the fuck outta my /sci/!

[Anonymous No.1755605]

>>1755594
This

[Anonymous No.1755603]

>>1755453

this

Abiogenesis

[Anonymous No.1755608]

>>1755594

[Anonymous No.1755616]

>>1755571
Care to explain that, Mr English? I don't think you actually understand what I'm saying and resort to attacking my, apparently poor, English as if that is somehow a counter argument.

[Anonymous No.1755627]

>>1755594
Ohh yeah

[Anonymous No.1755659]

>How did life develop from inanimate objects?

Life is just a name for self-replicating inanimate objects.

[Anonymous No.1755671]

>>1755616
you think measurable quantifiable objective differences between classes of objects don't exist because words are human inventions

you are a crack addict nigger drooling for hope in retard alley

[Anonymous No.1755682]

>>1755408
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGiCVdrYji4

[Anonymous No.1755683]

>>1755474
>Life has properties that inanimate objects do not have. These are called the seven properties of life.

Perhaps these seven properties are superfical.
this guy would aggree:
>>1755436

>It is easy to make a distinction between the two; you cannot communicate with a rock, but you can with another lifeform. You also do things that lifeless matter does not do.
I kick a rock, it rolls down the hill. COMMUNICATION! the rock has responded to your kick with a roll. Or is your definition of communication restricted to just words?
The rock is alive, it made you kick it. "but, I wanted to kick the rock; it didn't make me", why did you want to kick it? "because it was in my way". So the rock got in your way and made you kick it. Either perspective is valid, so what distinction are you making between life and not-life.

>The question is, how did inanimate matter come to cunningly absorb information and generate self-replication? Are our distant ancestors really just rocks?
Complex patterns can arise from simple rules. look at fractals as an example. Perhaps this answers OPs question: Life evolved from rocks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppyF1iQ0-dM
If our ancestors aren't rocks, then what are the ancestors of our ancestors?

>Also, it must be added that life is so successful that it has the energy to fight itself, and eats itself. Life isn't primarily a test for survival.
Sure, why not.

>Of course, the whole question is nonsensical and cannot be answered.

[Anonymous No.1755706]

>>1755671
>you think measurable quantifiable objective differences between classes of objects don't exist because words are human inventions

not quite. I think that classes of objects exist because humans invent measurable quantifiable objective differences between them.
Thanks for actually making an argument this time.

where does your fist go when you open your hand?

[Anonymous No.1755712]

>>1755706
>I think that classes of objects exist because humans invent measurable quantifiable objective differences
see? you're a creationist

[Anonymous No.1755717]

>>1755706
Same place the mind goes after the brain dies.
Heaven.

[Anonymous No.1755728]

Ya'll retarded. Vitalism has been disproved.

Cells are the smallest functioning units of life. Cells are alive, reproduce, acquire nutrients, etc etc.

>>1755683
You are retarded. Life did not 'evolve' from rocks. Life was the spontaneous creation of Simple Cells from the polymerization of simple molecules when applied to heat or sunlight. Example: Small chains of carbon form into phospholipids. Enough Phospholipds together are known to form a cell membrane.

[Anonymous No.1755740]

>>1755712
I'm definitely NOT a creationist. how do you come to this conclusion and what is your point?

[Anonymous No.1755745]

>>1755728
what you call "spontaneous creation" I call "evolution"

[Anonymous No.1755750]

>>1755740
>how do you come to this conclusion
things were only different from each other when a human noticed = creationist
> and what is your point?
see
>>1755494

[Anonymous No.1755758]

>>1755745
But non-living particles don't evolve because they have no genes and are not alive.

[Anonymous No.1755755]

>>1755745
But abiogenesis is not evolution

[Anonymous No.1755754]

>>1755683
You are not accepting that lifeforms are different from non-lifeforms, and would prefer to blur the line between them. Of course communication is a two-way process in life, but this is not the same when it is applied to matter that is not alive.

>If our ancestors aren't rocks, then what are the ancestors of our ancestors?
What if they are? One argument at a time please.

[Anonymous No.1755756]

>>1755728

[Anonymous No.1755772]

>>1755745

I'm not saying that because rocks cannot evolve because they are not living. Like someone else mentioned, this is more chemical evolution of molecules and the abiogenesis.

[Anonymous No.1755775]

>>1755756

What of that are you not getting?

[Anonymous No.1755784]

>>1755740
i get the impression you're with this post:
>>1755436
>"Life" is just some ARBRITARY title we give to certain collections of pbjects, the exibit certain properties
but
if we give the collection of objects a name for a reason
>they "exhibit certain properties"
then it ISN'T an arbitrary title. (protip: Arbitrary means "without reason".)

Getting upset because everything is made up from inanimate building blocks, whether it's dust or microbes, is to miss the entire fucking point.

[Anonymous No.1755791]

Monomers (CO2, COm H2, N2, H2O, S, HCl, HCN) +UV, Lightning, > Polymers and Amino Acids.

Amino Acids - H2O > Proteinoids (primative Proteins)

Polymers + Proteinoids > Protobionts (precursors of cells)

Protobionts > Heterotrophic Prokaryotes

Prokaryotes may start releasing O2 and O3.

H. Prokaryotes > Autotrophic Prokaryotes

Prokaryotes + Larger Prokaryotes = Eukaryotes

/thread

[Anonymous No.1755794]

Because life.

[Anonymous No.1755804]

>>1755791
>>1755791
>>1755791

[Anonymous No.1755805]

>>1755791
But these
>Eukaryotes
are made of these
>Monomers (CO2, COm H2, N2, H2O, S, HCl, HCN)
SO THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM!

[Anonymous No.1755815]

>>1755750
You clearly do not know what creationism is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Your paraphrasing of my points is not accurate. Better to say that differences between things are only noticed; intellectual distinctions are only metaphoric abstractions of perceived reality. Such as life and non-life. You separate the two with arbitrary intellectual classifications then ask what the connection is.

[Anonymous No.1755821]

>>1755805

Yes, and a car is made entirely of screws, right?

Organisms are more than the sum of their parts, lrn2 emergence.

Read up, kid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_property

[Anonymous No.1755834]

Strands of RNA got formed chemically and bonded with amino acids and then went in gelatinous bubbles
This led to microorganisms

[Anonymous No.1755839]

atoms are mostly empty space

you now realize everything is nothing

just vibrating energy, man

[Anonymous No.1755843]

>>1755754
>You are not accepting that lifeforms are different from non-lifeforms, and would prefer to blur the line between them.
Of course, this is my point. Your distinction is arbitrary. You're clinging to the notion that life, however you define it, is somehow separate from the universe, when it's quite clear that it's one integrated whole. we grew from this earth; I could say that the earth is alive and that humans are just a like fungal infection of the planet. Is the earth an inanimate object then? It grew a whole civilization on it!

>Of course communication is a two-way process in life, but this is not the same when it is applied to matter that is not alive.
This is circular reasoning. weather matter is alive or not is the topic of debate.

[Anonymous No.1755851]

>>1755821
dude, did you even look at the pic i put with it?

how about this one?

[Anonymous No.1755859]

>>1755436
nothing special at all, bro

[Anonymous No.1755871]

>>1755815
>You separate the two with arbitrary intellectual classifications
ARBITRARY = WITHOUT REASON
different meanings of "animate" and "inanimate" NOT ARBITRARY
herpaderpaherpaderpaherpaduperpaty

You gotta be a troll, you GOTTA be a troll. Man, only a troll could be this bad a prostategazingretard

[Anonymous No.1755876]

>>1755851

Are you sure about that?

[Anonymous No.1755885]

>>1755758
So life is anything with genes? Then OPs question becomes:
"how did genetics develop from things with no genes?"
This is not how I interpreted the question.

[Anonymous No.1755899]

>>1755843
>Your distinction is arbitrary. You're clinging to the notion that life, however you define it, is somehow separate from the universe, when it's quite clear that it's one integrated whole.

According to this then there's no difference between "Hydrogen" and "Helium", the difference is arbitrary. There's no difference between "air" and "water" the difference is arbittrary. There's no difference between "human" and "amoeba" the difference is arbitrary. There's no difference between "red" and "squareroot" the difference is arbitrary.

trololololllolllololl

[Anonymous No.1755901]

>>1755876
lol i got the pic i first! i troll UUUUU

[Anonymous No.1755913]

>>1755885

see
>>1755791

Monomers + UV and Lightning > Polymers

So CO2, N2, etc become Nucleic Acids when exposed to UV energy. Nucleic Acids polymerize into RNA or DNA.

[Anonymous No.1755998]

>>1755871
arbitrary = subject to preference without basis.

Sure, you can pick and choose what objects are alive and which aren't based on whatever definition and then make a logical, scientific deduction about how one comes from the other, and I suppose that is what OP is doing. but it's specious to say that one thing is alive when it's whole existence is entirely integrated with the universe as a whole and completely inseparable from it. You can't say that one thing is alive and another not, because it's all one living thing. people can't survive without their heads, nor can they survive without air and soil, but these are not considered part of the organism. where do you draw the line? it's ARBITRARY!

You guys seem more interested in this:
>>1755791
So I'll rest my case and leave you to it.

[Anonymous No.1756022]

>>1755899
No. because "air" and "water" are specific objects, where as "life" is more abstract than that; and idea, not a thing. I can touch the air. can you touch life? no more than you can eat your mouth.

[Anonymous No.1756036]

>>1755998
>arbitrary = subject to preference without basis.
>WITHOUT BASIS
so when there IS a basis for distinguishing between animate and inanimate then it isn't arbitrary

In your universe all the chemicals are the same chemical because the difference between them is "arbitrary".

>So I'll rest my case and leave you to it.
You have no case to rest apart from insisting that just because everything is part of the universe, trying to distinguish between different things is pointless.

However, your desire to leave it there is probably for the best. Your head will explode if you try thinking any harder.

[Anonymous No.1756046]

>>1756022
>No. because "air" and "water" are specific objects, where as "life" is more abstract than that; and idea, not a thing. I can touch the air. can you touch life? no more than you can eat your mouth.
No, not different "objects" this is where you imperfect understanding of concepts is letting you down.

Different properties are what define different things. That is why water and ice are different. The same chemical, different properties.

Things we say have life have different properties to things we say do NOT have life

I just know you a troll but god damn

[Anonymous No.1756068]

>>1756036
You consistently miss interpret my point the argue against the misinterpretation.

never mind. Just keep trying to figure out life comes from that which is not alive and have fun with that.

[Anonymous No.1756087]

>>1756068
the only person misinterpreting what you're saying is you

[Anonymous No.1756094]

>>1756068
how did you get misinterpret wrong the first time but right the second time?

[Anonymous No.1756209]

>>1755899

Hydrogen and helium are pretty much the same thing, just arranged in a way that gives them differing properties.

You could say that organic life forms are just complex arrangements of inanimate materials that only formed due to the self-replicating nature of those compositions.

[Anonymous No.1756212]

>>1755408
formed randomly/inevitably from colliding particles grouping together. makes protiens, etc (note do not take this literally, this is a bastardisation of what really happens) eventually we get humans who define life as certain things

[Anonymous No.1757287]

lololololol

[Anonymous No.1757292]

Élan vital. Once some inanimate stuff gets some Élan vital on it, it'll just spring to life.

[Anonymous No.1757325]

God did it.

[sage No.1757327]

Sage this aids thread..

[Anonymous No.1757331]

Probably some asteroid landed on our planet that contained some simple life.

I don't believe in any god or creator and I'm most certainly not a Christian, but something must have triggered the deployment of very simple DNA that evolved to more and more complex structures over time.

tl;dr asteroid with simple life lands on planet hundreds of millions years ago and triggers evolution.

[Anonymous No.1757337]

>>1756209
>Hydrogen and helium are pretty much the same thing, just arranged in a way that gives them differing properties.
yes, and that's why you failed your chemistry you fucking retard.
>You could say that organic life forms are just complex arrangements of inanimate materials that only formed due to the self-replicating nature of those compositions.
yes, you could say that if you're a FUCKING RETARD.

To be fair the second bit is less retarded taken on its own, out of context, than the first bit which is full fucking downs syndrome style. But your problem is that you somehow think that the definitions that have been agreed by everyone else are wrong. Just because YOU want words to mean different things it doesn't ACTUALLY mean fuck all to anyone else.

You need to stop outwitting yourself with wordgames. Wordgames are for /phil/fags (and particularly stupid phil/fags at that). When you get to big school you'll realise what an immature intellect you once had.

[Anonymous No.1757370]

20 posts in until Abiogenesis

[Anonymous No.1757416]

>>1756209
>Hydrogen and helium are pretty much the same thing, just arranged in a way that gives them differing properties.
but different properties has got nothing to do with it going off what you say about animate and inanimate you fucking retard.
>You could say that organic life forms are just complex arrangements of inanimate materials that only formed due to the self-replicating nature of those compositions.
yes, you could say that and then if you said there was no difference between inanimate and animate you're still a FUCKING RETARD.

your problem is that you somehow think that the definitions that have been agreed by everyone else are wrong. Just because YOU want words to mean different things it doesn't ACTUALLY mean fuck all to anyone else.

You need to stop outwitting yourself with wordgames. Wordgames are for /phil/fags (and particularly stupid phil/fags at that). When you get to big school you'll realise what an immature intellect you once had.