It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Primary Question

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
With the latest word from NASA regarding the probability of ancient microbial life on Mars, I have been re-stimulated into pursuing answers to my own questions regarding the origin of life and the question of evolution versus intelligent design.

First, let me preface this with this statement: I am not a “creationist” and I am more inclined to evolutionist thinking. I can see its evidence in DNA as well as the fossil record. However, I have a question about the theory of life and evolution. A question that has, as far as I know, never been asked let alone answered,.

Let me also state, quite firmly, that any discussion that involves religion, the bible, or quotes from the bible will be totally ignored. The bible, in my opinion, is not the word of God. It is collection of handpicked fables and metaphors written by men with agendas during a very superstitious and fearful historical period of human development.

Intelligent design, however, is not out the realm of possibility from my point of view. Intelligent design is not limited to a Judeo-Christian God figure, there are many other possibilities.

MY QUESTION:

All life has a couple of basic laws I will call the “Prime Directive” – Survival and reproduction (continuation of the species).

Survival: Survival includes the capture of external energy sources for sustaining life. And reaction to external stimuli. Capture of external energy sources can be as simple as photosynthesis to as complex as farming and the development of economic systems. In other words, eating and whatever it takes eat. Reaction to external stimuli can be as simple as moving into or away from sunlight to as complex as escaping a predator.

Reproduction: This can be a simple as mitosis or as complex as waking up to find a stranger beside you in your bed (I hate it when that happens!).

The Prime Directive is universal. It is the software program of life. So, therein lies my question.

Science tells us that life began in some primordial soup or some super hot deep ocean volcanic vent by the simple combining of naturally occurring organic chemicals in an accidental way while the environment happened to be just right.

But, if this is how life began, how is it that the very first living cell not only contained the naturally occurring chemistry, it also, somehow, contained the software of the Prime Directive. The inherent desire to survive and reproduce is not chemically reproducible. It is an intangible concept. The first living cell would have died and no evolution would have been possible without this Prime Directive. Yet, here we are.

So, where did this “prime Directive” come from? It was not an evolutionary adaption because there could not have been further generations without it, hence, no evolution.

Note: Transpermia is not an answer because, even if it is true, life still had to start somewhere, so the question still applies.

I don’t expect an answer but I hope to spark some thoughts about it. But, perhaps someone has the answer?




posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Wow, a lot of points and food for thought.
- firstly, I hope the Mars rock is not the only subject or artifact to sustain your interest, it could prove a dud. apart from that such bacteria would hardly make a radical departure from your sex/survival arguments
- you are 'inclined' towards evolution, but you seem open-minded about this - which is all great
- on the directives, you mention photosynthesis, and we've moved to a fossil fuel society within 100 or so years. Things like greed and class consciousness have long been a part of the human species
- procreation - would that also include our sex for pleasure and commerce, status?
- why would a cell become a bacteria and then a complex mechanism? There are coherent evolutionary arguments for this, but personally I also wonder whether life doesn't come from "spirit", and whether spirit is not colonizing the dead areas of the universe?
- scientists spoke much on the sex drive (and hence the survival drive, naturalistically speaking we should only survive to make and raise babies). But, what about gays? Even the evolutionist Dawkins added memes to his genes. "Memes", or successfully transmitted ideas are just as immortal as "genes". So we can gain immortality genetically (producing future generations), or memetically (producing lasting ideas and books).
On only your directives my life as a sterile gay person is useless, and this then also goes for monks and nuns who also don't procreate (Jesus?)
- according to Freud (who would second your directives, sex forming the basis of everything from birth), we also have a "thanados", or death drive. Even bacteria must die, and like lemmings we must make space for the new generation. I believe in personal spiritual evolution of the individual soul, but still I'd like to leave a piece of myself behind that will last for a few decades. (Just to spite the poor kids who have to read it.)

[edit on 2-12-2009 by halfoldman]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I'm not sure I understood your question??...

But I think the answer that you are looking for is:

We did not sprout out of a primordial soup, we were seeded here by higher dimensional beings....we are here to learn the lessons of free will...hence, I can choose fear and hate.....or I can choose peace and love....

We all have to go through it........lets choose peace and love and get this over with quickly..


PEACE and LOVE.........and EVOLUTION...



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by rainfall
reply to post by halfoldman
 


I'm not sure I understood your question??...

But I think the answer that you are looking for is:

We did not sprout out of a primordial soup, we were seeded here by higher dimensional beings....we are here to learn the lessons of free will...hence, I can choose fear and hate.....or I can choose peace and love....

We all have to go through it........lets choose peace and love and get this over with quickly..


PEACE and LOVE.........and EVOLUTION...

I replied to the OP and thus don't have a primary query.
I already claimed my personal belief in spirirt, and its animating influence on matter. I do believe in ultimate influence from higher powers, and I seem to go through various phases of naming them according to archetypal beliefs. I strongly agree with you. Did you read the original OP? A spark of spirit finds a place with basic suitable energy and pulls the elements together. So it goes from simple cells (light-senstive bacteria), to an organ (an eye).
All living things have spirit. Science defines them: they are born, they feed, they have a need to procreate, they excrete, they linger shortly and they die. When they die the body lingers and rots. They are dead because the spirit is gone. Thus the evolution of physical bodies does not explain life, nether can scientists make life.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Thanks for that! The Mars rock just brought my question to the forefront. I have studied Christianity, Buddhism and Yogi Philosophy. I was brought up Catholic but have found Yogi Philosophy to be closer to "my" truth. The Yogi's were studying quantum mechanics 5000 years ago by going within (meditation). I was, for a time, interested in some of the New Age philosophies, but soon became totally disgusted with the whackos who have taken it over.

I believe in evolution because there is evidence of it, however, it does not hold up for everything, at least not as the "survival of the fittest" and "random mutation" theories would like.

But, the question is: Where did the "Prime Directive" come from? There is no scientific explanation as evolution comes after the fact.

Procreation is a prime directive. Without it there would be no next generation in nature. And, there would be no evolution...so there would be no you and me. Homosexuality appears in most species so it is not unnatural, but it is an evolutionary dead end, so is celibacy. Nothing wrong with it, but here we are talking about higher forms of species well on the evolutionary path.

My point is that survival instinct and imperative to pass along the individual's genes are the wired-in prime directive, a software of life from the lowly bacterium to humans and it had to start with the very first living cell. You can't get that from a few amino acids and chemicals mixing in a deep sea volcanic blender.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   


So, where did this “prime Directive” come from? It was not an evolutionary adaption because there could not have been further generations without it, hence, no evolution.

Do you think the "prime directive" is some sort of "desire" to survive? The first "cell" was an extremely simple organism...it could have "accidentally" been created equipped with a means of reproduction and from there evolution took it's course with the weaker ones dying out...allowing small mutations over millions of years to bring us where were are today as a species.

Given enough time anything can "accidentally" happen...

EDIT: I do actually believe we were seeded here by other beings...but I believe that's how they started as a species because evolution is a fact to me.

[edit on 2/12/09 by CHA0S]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Just thinking:
- homosexuality, even spontaneous changes of gender occurs in simple to advanced species
- some law that we haven't yet discovered or proclaimed would eventually pull the elements of life into place
- everything is eventually destroyed (apart from spirit) so our longing to create something "timeless" is futile
- procreation inplies a period where women are left alone to nurture, and gay men may help to protect women with male strength, while the men are out hunting (in most cultures a gay role is allowed for men who take on female attire and mannerisms)
- procreation takes a band or tribe/village - one couple alone is unlikely to raise a child in the wilderness. Thus the procreation of every child is a group effort - indeed, no man is an island. In many tribes biological parents are of little significance - children are viewed communaly
- what strikes me is the expanding metaphors: many chemicals make cells and organs; many organs make a body; many bodies make a community .... even our material bodies are communities of life, mostly bacteria, viruses, funghi, parasites and cells
- I also found Eastern wisdom, but I wasn't ready entirely



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
It is all a bit of a fickle isn't it???

Two facts....

One.... everything that exists, has its Opposite?

Two.... There appears to be something that observes the Interactions between these Opposites?


Perhaps our understanding of the Word "LIFE", requires a better or even an updated definition of the word.

Is "LIFE" the observer?

And the "Interaction between the opposites" is that, which is being observed?


The Component that observes in you, is this then LIFE?


Or is LIFE the interaction of the Opposites and the Observer is Not LIFE?

But hang on a second, that doesn't sound quite right does it????


So I guess LIFE is the observer!

And "the Interaction between the opposites" is that, which is being observed???




posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHA0S


So, where did this “prime Directive” come from? It was not an evolutionary adaption because there could not have been further generations without it, hence, no evolution.

Do you think the "prime directive" is some sort of "desire" to survive? The first "cell" was an extremely simple organism...it could have "accidentally" been created equipped with a means of reproduction and from there evolution took it's course with the weaker ones dying out...allowing small mutations over millions of years to bring us where were are today as a species.

Given enough time anything can "accidentally" happen...

EDIT: I do actually believe we were seeded here by other beings...but I believe that's how they started as a species because evolution is a fact to me.

[edit on 2/12/09 by CHA0S]


given enough time anything possible will infact happen yes

but thats in an infinite period of time

the earth itself has only been around for like 4.5 billion years

to suggest the possibility of life could and did happen BILLIONS of years ago

could only mean a few things

-some thing created us

-life itself was a fluke

-life is as common throughout the universe as anything else


and as far as the whole thing about how can a cell be here if it couldn't evolve into being able to split itself etc

we are infact here so cells must of been able to do it from the jump

i'm able to think,feel,feed,touch etc sure it took billions of years of evolution for me to do it

but i can

who's to say that something as simple as the first spark of life couldn't split and multiply

fact is no matter how hard we try and no matter how many years pass we won't ever be able to answer these questions with 100% certainty

unless we can invent a time machine and travel back to that point and see ourselves don't expect anyone to be able to answer this question


it's pointless to even think about tbh because we'll NEVER find out atleast in this lifetime(assuming there is a higher power at work and theres life after death)

tho it's a question almost every person wishes could and would be answered

live ya life have fun and be kind to each other try to make this world atleast a little brighter when you leave it then it was when you entered

everything else is a waste of time.



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
The prime directives (nice term) evolved through natural selection, just like every other characteristic of life.

By the time the first living cells appeared, evolution was already fairly well advanced. It probably began with single molecules of the kind evolutionary biologists call 'replicators' after Richard Dawkins used that term to describe them in The Selfish Gene (the link should land you on page 14; start reading from the second paragraph).

Replicators were complex organic molecules that self-assembled out of collisions between simpler ones in the ancient seas of Earth. Replicators were more or less stable. They could also, once self-assembled, form copies of themselves from materials floating in the organic soup. So they 'fed' and 'reproduced'. No software was involved; the process was automatic, a function of chemistry. The very same process, only more refined and much more complex, continues to this day inside the ribosomes of every living cell in every living body.

Sometimes the replication process worked imperfectly: copying errors crept in. This allowed for variation among replicators. From that point forward, natural selection did the rest. The incredible variety of life on Earth today is its consequence.

The Dawkins extract above offers a clear, easy-to-read description of the process. I strongly urge you to read it before responding to my post, as it tidily answers most of the questions people ask about the origins of life.

Edit to add: It seems we're getting very close to creating replicators in the lab. P.Z. Myers has a post about it on Pharyngula. Though I'm afraid the discussion may be a bit too technical for some of our members...

[edit on 4/12/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Hi halfoldman,

My post was directed at the OP, Hopup Dave, I must have clicked on your post by mistake...

I enjoyed reading your posts though...


PEACE and LOVE...



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


You wrote; Quote...


Replicators were complex organic molecules that self-assembled out of collisions between simpler ones in the ancient seas of Earth. Replicators were more or less stable. They could also, once self-assembled, form copies of themselves from materials floating in the organic soup. So they 'fed' and 'reproduced'. No software was involved; the process was automatic, a function of chemistry. The very same process, only more refined and much more complex, continues to this day inside the ribosomes of every living cell in every living body.


Interesting; you wrote...


the process was automatic,


You mention a "Process".

What process was Automatic?


a function of chemistry.


Indeed You are Correct.

There is a process that involves Chemistry...



The very same process, only more refined and much more complex, continues to this day inside the ribosomes of every living cell in every living body.


What provides the rules that bring about this refinement, and what are the rules or controls of this refinement?

As you know every process is based on a set of rules, that govern these processes.

If this was Not the case then anything could breed with anything else...

It is Rules that govern this ??? or laws of Chemistry or Physics???

So where are these laws retained and how???

In what form do we find the "rules" that control such a process?

And what constructed these in the ribosomes in the first place?

Something did, or we would Not find then today.

They did not just fall out of nothing, but had to evolve somehow???

If in fact they did ???

So what constructed the Processes you describe?

You may be correct in saying "through natural selection", but how do we find access to the structure that contains the processes, and where are the Processes, that both govern and service evolution?

After all even in natural selection there are rules that govern such a process, or there is No Process...

Even Chaos is governed by rules for it to be Chaos.

My question does Not question the possibility of evolution, but rather where evolution is really taking place.

i.e. the experience, or that which is experiencing the universe as you know it?



Sometimes the replication process worked imperfectly: copying errors crept in.


Where have these errors come from, as they are also Processes???



This allowed for variation among replicators. From that point forward, natural selection did the rest. The incredible variety of life on Earth today is its consequence.


And what made them become replicators in the first place?

You see there has to be "something" Not someone that...

a. constructs and lay down the rules of a process, (or forms the Process)
. or the Process simply does Not exist!

b. Something that causes that process to take place in the first place,
. or nothing will ever happen.

Where are the rules that control the processes you talk of?

And in what form are these to be found in?

A process can only exist if it is of sequential nature involving steps that have been laid down otherwise there can be no process involved.



[edit on 4-12-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 

I was answering the OP question, which is a pertinent and interesting one.

Someone kinder and more tolerant than I will have to answer yours, I'm afraid.

[edit on 4/12/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
The bodies or covers facilitate consciousness for the spirit suitable to a particular plane or density of creation. The greater the density the less intensity and amount of spirit is required to hold a state of consciousness. Conversely, the greater the density, the lower the capacity state of consciousness that entity may have. The whole point of material creations is to allow the spirit to at least remain conscious part of the time so that expression can continue. Periods of sleep facilitate recharging the batteries at these low levels and low capacities so that consciousness can exist part of the time. Dreaming facilitates a partial consciousness being maintained at the plane of the throat chakra where impressions of life here are recorded.

Because of the limited consciousness, the spirits are supplemented with instinct suitable to the form temporarily occupied. It can be as simple as "If it runs, it must be edible". Instincts are provide by consciousness or gods or entities at higher planes and also within this plane. GIA for example, is a name given to the spirit that occupies the earth structure (cover). It communicates with the covers on the structure and gods of higher planes do as well. Spirits communicate with each other also. A person with an affinity for a musical instrument obtains that knowledge through a subtle relationship with a higher entity that provides such awareness. A person can be training in the instrument but without the link of affinity never have a good capacity with the instrument. Similarly a person can have all the PHDs in any field and never really have a capacity to understand that field properly and in that case usually resorts to bluffing with their acquired skills and credentials.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Thanks very much for your post and the link. I found that fascinating and agree that it is a very good and logical guess. It is true that the immense amount time that has past since the primordial soup is hard to comprehend. It's a nice and tidy theory, but I question that there was actually enough time from the time the earth cooled to the point where this would be possible. It is like the old saying that given enough time a monkey would write "Gone with the Wind" (or what ever novel it was).

With the above in mind, what would be the chance that Mars and perhaps hundreds of thousands of other planets would just happen to undergo the same accident? At what point does the accident begin looking like more than coincidence?



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ReelView
 


Interesting thoughts which sound like Eastern Philosophy, but this assumes some type of evolution has taken place. I am talking about the very first living cell and what I call the Prime Directives of survival and reproduction...and now it appears the same thing apparently happened on Mars. Astyanax provided a link to a plausible but somewhat assumptive theory involving the "replicator" cell or molecule.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


I find your questions valid and valuable. It is like the the theory that evolution is random mutation and more or less assured by natural selection. All one need do is observe the mating habits of cats, dogs, cattle and people to see that natural selection is questionable. Some species are particular about a mate, but more often than not, the choices dogs, cats, and humans make has more to do with proximity than signs of superior genes. The more a man has to drink, the better her jeans look!



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopup Dave
I question that there was actually enough time from the time the earth cooled to the point where this would be possible.

I don't. Given all the oceans of Earth and an abundance of organic and inorganic chemicals floating in them, it probably wasn't too long before something like this happened. I believe the current thinking is that life appeared no more than half a billion years into the history of the planet. I find that plausible.


With the above in mind, what would be the chance that Mars and perhaps hundreds of thousands of other planets would just happen to undergo the same accident? At what point does the accident begin looking like more than coincidence?

Like another member here, loam, I believe the universe is teeming with life. I consider life the inevitable outcome of natural processes at a certain stage in the history of the universe. It is certainly not coincidence, neither is it an argument for a creator; it is just a consequence of the way things are, in this universe at least.

I also believe the definition of life is highly plastic.


Astyanax provided a link to a plausible but somewhat assumptive theory...

It is, in fact, the standard hypothesis for the evolution of life in modern biology. Would you like to list what you think the assumptions are? Perhaps they are not as large as they appear at first sight.


All one need do is observe the mating habits of cats, dogs, cattle and people to see that natural selection is questionable. Some species are particular about a mate, but more often than not, the choices dogs, cats, and humans make has more to do with proximity than signs of superior genes. The more a man has to drink, the better her jeans look!

If you really as as interested in the origins and development of life as you say you are, it might be worth learning more about it than you do at present. What have the mating habits of animals to do with natural selection? Natural selection is about the environment acting on individuals so as to confer differential success in survival and reproduction, it isn't about whether a peahen is attracted to my tail. That is sexual selection, a somewhat differently-driven process which arises from natural selection but often acts in apparent contradiction to it.

All species are particular about mate choice, but it is nearly always the female, not the male, who chooses. This is because making babies usually demands a far greater investment of energy and time from a female than it does for a male, and this causes the reproductive strategies of the sexes to differ. Oddly enough, it even works that way for seahorses.

And as for your last point, animals don't drink that much.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopup Dave
 
Hi, good question.

I think your question boils down to one small question, how did it all start.


But, the question is: Where did the "Prime Directive" come from? There is no scientific explanation as evolution comes after the fact.


I have found when you try to explain anything to anyone sometimes it is necessary to give information that is not known and you start the conversation with "Well"

Well, there are realities that have been hidden from us, and in my opinion done to keep us ignorant of the answer you search for. Not everyone wants the answer exposed.

I agree with you summation of the bible and many of the other ancient works, they are taken out of context as to what really happened, not that I can give you the truth, just a valid claim as far as Im concerned.

It appears to me that the folks that want the truth hidden push the "evolution" scheme while the folks pushing "creation" are trying to disguise the true creator into something it is not... In my opinion, both arguments have great validity, and at the same time only go further to muddy the research waters. Why not both at the same time?

The question you ask goes back at least 4.5 to 5 billion years, before the creation of the human eye , or for that matter the human body, therefore excluding the possibility of human beings being able to record the event. Therefore to find the answer one must explore all the possibilities and assign probabilities to them.

Because of the educational system we suffer with, one can only operate within the guidelines and restrictions placed upon our ability's to see farther or deeper than is allowed. If you do you are labeled a "Loon" "Nut case", "Dreamer", or worse. You are expunged from the intellectual community because you dared to challenge the statues quot opinion on what ever subject. For a example one has no further than look at the present "Climate Gate" scandal being exposed.

I believe it was never intended for one individual to give the answer, but was designed to be revealed to each individual upon their own choice to search for, and find the answer you look for. It appears the answer is spiritual as much as it is physical, and as you might know, the educational system rely s on scientifically provable facts and theories, therefore, never being able to discover the truth. The present system will never allow the exploration or discovery to be revealed.

I have my suspicions as to how it started, and why, but that is for me because I chose to search for it, outside of the educational system.
Here is a short example of the direction I think you should look if you want a answer to your question. I will not enter a debate as to the reality of this phenomenon as I "know" they are real from my own personal observations. You can take my word of this, or you can go back into the "box", its your choice.

www.youtube.com...

I am open to discussion.



posted on Dec, 5 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Not wishing to get into an argument here, I will just say the whole theory provided by the link you provided is an assumption. It assumes conditions and processes logical but, to date, unproved. I had, of course heard and read the basic theory many times, however, as it was presented in your link, it is quite thorough and provided me with what I asked for. I agree that it is the most logical scientific explanation.

You are correct about my misinterpretation of "natural selection", sorry about that.

It is probably much easier for a person with a solid scientific background to accept the purely accidental and coincidental hypothesis than a person such as myself. It just doesn't "feel" right (to me). But, thank you for your posts and I will read more about this. Maybe some day I will come around.

As to how much animals drink...I have witnessed birds in my backyard so drunk they could not fly from eating rotten cherries! It happens every fall here.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join