I believe it is singular and plural, but I think your point is very valid and stands regardless.

This entire thread is nonsence! The question; "Can you explain how life came to be?", "How did life begin!", "Where did life start!". Is probably the most commonly asked questions by theists, simply because it`s a rethorical question.
No I dont know. And there are scientists and many more people smarter than me aswell as people who are experts in that field of biology who dont know and who state that. And I seriously dought that mister Krishna actualy wanted a debate or eaven a scientificly valid answere. He asked this question knowing the answere and hoping some people where dumb enought to fall for that trap.
I think I have seen a lot of material in wich biologists state that they dont know. But they can show how life evolved over a long period of time to become what it currently is.
I am far more satisfied and interested with that scientific explaination, wich excludes ereas for wich explaination and knowlege isn`t jet in existance, than in some fairytale.

(October 15, 2012 at 11:44 am)Darkstar Wrote: It suddenly occured to me how innapropriately titled On The Origin Of Species is! No wonder ignorant people think that evolution explains life's origins!

Why is it inappropriately titled?

Evolution provides the mechanism for life coming to be represented by so many appearently vastly different, yet an very deep level similar, species. Thus origin of species.

Darwin is by no means infallible. I am just saying it take a much more thoughtful and knowledgeable person than your typical internet commentator to have a snowball's chance in hell of finding his errors.

(October 15, 2012 at 12:04 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(October 15, 2012 at 11:44 am)Darkstar Wrote: It suddenly occured to me how innapropriately titled On The Origin Of Species is! No wonder ignorant people think that evolution explains life's origins!

Why is it inappropriately titled?

Evolution provides the mechanism for life coming to be represented by so many appearently vastly different, yet an very deep level similar, species. Thus origin of species.

How did species originate? If it means originate as in differentiate from the first species, then okay. If it means how did species originate as in the first species, then it would be referring to the origin of life. The scientifically ignorant assume the latter without actaully doing any research, and then attempt to debate the point, much to the annoyance of those who have heard this countless times (not that this thread is trying to tie evolution into abiogenesis, it was just a thought that occured to me).

(October 15, 2012 at 10:58 am)Tino Wrote: I would like to know from you, if/when scientists demonstrate the creation of life from chemicals, if/how it would change your beliefs about god/religion..

Life is a symptom of the presence of a soul. You can't get life without the soul.

You can get a picture of what that means from the 2nd chapter of Bhagavad Gita, especially starting from verse 12 to 30 (2 minute read, max):

http://vedabase.net/bg/2/en1

If someone could conclusively prove that life is created by chemicals, that would destroy Krishna's claims in the Bhagavad Gita about the soul.

(October 15, 2012 at 12:18 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote:

(October 15, 2012 at 10:58 am)Tino Wrote: I would like to know from you, if/when scientists demonstrate the creation of life from chemicals, if/how it would change your beliefs about god/religion..

Life is a symptom of the presence of a soul. You can't get life without the soul.

You can get a picture of what that means from the 2nd chapter of Bhagavad Gita, especially starting from verse 12 to 30 (2 minute read, max):

http://vedabase.net/bg/2/en1

If someone could conclusively prove that life is created by chemicals, that would destroy Krishna's claims in the Bhagavad Gita about the soul.

Holy books are non-scientific and not appropriate for evidence. Please state any scientific findings that a soul exists.


We are our brains.

(October 15, 2012 at 12:08 pm)Darkstar Wrote: How did species originate? If it means originate as in differentiate from the first species, then okay. If it means how did species originate as in the first species, then it would be referring to the origin of life. The scientifically ignorant assume the latter without actaully doing any research, and then attempt to debate the point, much to the annoyance of those who have heard this countless times (not that this thread is trying to tie evolution into abiogenesis, it was just a thought that occured to me).

You make the unwarrented assumption that neither species nor evolution existed until after what might be termed the first life. This is probably not true.

Life on earth can be biochemically separated into two fundamental division - The Archea and everything else. At cellular level they look similar, functions broadly similarly on a high level, but are incompatible biochemically at the most basic metabolic level. It appears chemically, there is no way for a functioning organism in one division to embark upon the first evolution step to change from one division to another without immediately dying.

This suggest the chemical division in life on earth originated at a part of biochemical speciation process BEFORE the process culmated in life. There were already at least two species of self-contained pre-organisms that didn't possess all the necessary traits and chemical processes needed to actually be true lifes\. But these two species can reproduce and produce chemical inheritence in a way, This then allowed each of these species to individually evolved into true life through additional speciation, and acquisition of additional chemical process needed to be full fledged life, along two different paths. Hence Archea and everything else.

This also shows life didn't appear as a big bang. Not "There be life" and then evolution. Instead, Life itself is a culmination of a long process of complex biochemical evolution. There was evolution first, and somewhere along the way, enough evolution occurred for one of the steps to count as life.

(October 15, 2012 at 12:18 pm)Akincana Krishna dasa Wrote: Life is a symptom of the presence of a soul. You can't get life without the soul.


If someone could conclusively prove that life is created by chemicals, that would destroy Krishna's claims in the Bhagavad Gita about the soul.

...really? So bacteria have souls? Not only has there never been any evidence for a soul (and, in fact, evidence against it) it has been proven that non-living matter can turn into organic matter. Likewise, synthetic lifeforms have been created by inserting genetically engineered DNA into a cell that had no DNA.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/0...etic-life/

Could you please explain exactly what part of life is the 'soul' if it has nothing to do with DNA or vital functions?

Quote: That's perfectly fine, please keep looking. But until there's actually a real answer, it's dishonest to presume that God is not a very live possibility.

Where the fuck are they supposed to "look?" Your god...and all gods...exist only in the pages of your own book. That should tell you to get out of the Fiction Section of your library and start learning some real stuff.

If you want to believe in magic and demons, pal, be my guest. Just don't come here spouting such abject shit and expect to be taken seriously.

(October 15, 2012 at 12:19 pm)Chuck Wrote: You make the unwarrented assumption that neither species nor evolution existed until after what might be termed the first life. This is probably not true.

Life on earth can be biochemically separated into two fundamental division - The Archea and everything else. At cellular level they look similar, functions broadly similarly on a high level, but are chemically incompatible biochemically at a basic level. It appears chemically, there is no way for a functioning organism in one division to embark upon the first evolution step to change from one division to another without immediately dying.

This suggest the chemical division in life on earth originated at a part of biochemical speciation process BEFORE the process culmated in life. There were already two species of self-contained pre-organisms that didn't quite fulfil all the requirements of life. These two species then each individually evolved into true life through additional speciation along two different trees.

Thus speciation not only explains why there are so many different form of life, it may in fact be a characteristic of the chemical process that led to the origin of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea#Ori..._evolution

I'm not sure how you are saying speciation led to the origin of life. It says [in the link] that it is believed that Archea are one of the three domains, which speciated off from the first cells. It doesn't have anything to do with how the first cells originated, but with what happened immediately afterward.