the difference between living and non living - general discussion (Aug/17/2007 )

When somebody is studying the phenomenon of viruses ,he can see that when viruses are not coming in contact with a host organism, they are a sum of chemical compounds that not fulfill the criteria to be considered as life.While on the other hand they start reacting with a host, or in other words they start making chemical reactions with the compounds of the host,they become alive.The same thing happen with prions ,which are proteinaceous compounds that while they react with proteins of the host, they become alive in a way.

Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.Lets hypothesize that this rule is principal in nature and nothing could go beyond it or prove that it is untrue.

What would that mean to the way that we see the world?

First of all lets make clear what we mean: An organism that would remain unchanged structurally dyring a very small period of time,would be considered as not living for that period. When we say unchanged we mean of course that there are not taking place chemical reaction inside it.Maybe there is a single cell inside an organism that is unchanged,but the rest of the cells are changing. We say then that this organism has a dead cell.,but the organism as a whole is alive.Maybe this cell would be able to regain life if it react with the appropriate signals. But maybe not.

If we want to see the consequences of our hypothesis in the nature we meet the question:what is the least that can be considered as life?For example, a mitochondrion can be considered life according to what we said, but a simple chemical molecule cannot,unless it reacts with another molecule or substance.At the moment of the reaction these two substances are the least that is considerd life.So, a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life, or else, the sparkle of life.That means that the superior organisms as well as all the organism is a summation of chemical reactions.

The advantages of the hypethesis that we made is that we can explain successfully the prions and the viruses.

Another important consequence of the hypothesis is this:Living creatures are the sum of their chemical reactions as we said.While they are getting older,they are suffering a process that is called aging.They are changing especially structurally.Obviously they are getting different.That means that the chemical reactions that are composing their body,are different from that that were before.If the chemical reaction were remaining unchanged forever,then the body would be the same,and that means that the body would stay forever young and forever alive.

Lets see now a simple chemical reaction A+B—}C+D.Lets consider that C and D are gases and are expelled from the place of the reaction.The quantity of A and B will get lesser and lesser because they are becoming C and D,Or else they are suffering a chemical transformation.

Lets see now another chemical reaction:A+B---}C+D--}E+F

Lets consider that E and F are gasses.That means that the quantities of A,B,C,D will be lowering unless we put in the mixture exactly the quantities of A and B that is being transformed into C and D every moment.So there is an exact amount, as well as exact rhythm of adding A and B that would keep the reaction unchangeable.Lets consider now a very simple organism that is composed from the reactions :A+B--}C+D--}E+F…………--}Y+Z.Lets say that A and B are food supplements and Y and Z are compounds expelled from the organism.Of course the real organisms are much more complicated.If that organism eat theoretically a certain amount of food in acertain way, then the reactions of this organism would remained the same forever.[C,D,E,F……are all compounds of the organism.].If we didn't give the exact food ,then the reaction would change ,dependently on the how far we are from that ideal food .In the same manner we can say that all living organisms are a sum of chemical reactions that start with digestion,and end with the waste products of metabolism.

As a result we can say that in a theoretical basis,if an orgasism eated exactly a certain amount,quality and quantity of foods in acertain way,then it could prevent the changing of its reactions and as a result it could prevent the aging process,expanding its lifespan.Of course this is something very difficult to happen in real life because there are numerous things that plays their role and of course things are not that simple.

One important clue that suggests that what we said is true, is the recent discovery that living organisms that follow a calorie restricted diet,can expand their lifetime, in some cases as long as 60 per cent.This is not a proof that what we said is true,but it is positive to find that the changing of caloric menu has as a result a change in the lifespan.Perhaps a certain diet causes an ever greater expansion.It remains to be proved…………..

The new hypothesis also says that life existed before the first cell,in the form of chemical reactions.to be continued...

Scientists have accepted that life was originated from a single cell,which was the first cell on earth, and composed the first thing that was a form of life. The evolution of this cell had as a result the formation of life the way that we know and see today. A problem with this idea is that, as we know, if we had just a single cell in earth right now, and out of it there was nothing, then not only this would not lead to the formation of more complicated forms of life,but this single cell soon would be dead.Despite of that,most scientists accept the single cell theory.The new theory that we introduced claims tha tit was not necessary to be a first single cell to start the evolutionary process that would lead to life as we know it today, but says that life preexisted , because even a single chemical reaction is a form of life.The creation of the first cell actually is the result of the existence of life.

Lets see now another problem: In the beginning, life on earth was simplier than today. That means that there was a system of chemical reactions that gave its place to a more complicated one.This sounds a bit strange because if a system of chemical reactions does not get energy from outside, leads to an equilibrium state. If we accept that our new theory is true, means that there had to be an external source of energy{probably the large quantities of energy that comes everyday on earth from the light of the sun that lead not only to the survival of the first forms of life, but also to their evolution.

As we said, living organisms are a summation of chemical reactions.What happens now when they die? There is a disorder in a system of reactions (for example brain necrosis, which means that in a large number of neural cells there is a stop in the reactions that happen there) that lead in a chain reaction way to a disorder in other reactions and then in others and so on.The final result is that there is a necrosis in the whole body, in a chain reaction way.

This means that if somebody with a magic way made all the chemical reactions of the body started working simultaneously,(or else there was an arousal of all the reactions and all were working again),we woud not have the chain reaction leading to death again, but the organism would gain life again.The question is with which way we would stimulate all the reactions simultaneously.This means that the source of this energy, would give the appropriate energy to the whole volume of the dead cell, with the right timing.One idea is the use of an appropriate form of electromagnetic waves.

try reading "the selfish gene"

think of death as "whole body apoptosis"

(hmm - i'll have to remember that one)

Its nice to see someone throwing out ideas without once using the word god

(science in a science forum - whoever heard of such a thing)

dom

Your discussion are limited to death due to lack of O2 after blood circulation is cut off, organisms such as single cell organisms or bacteria are not covered.

1)Imagine that with the help of a sourse of light we <> in a way,some chemical reactions in a small place.After a period of time,they are getting more and more complicated.Lets hypothesize that someday the whole system becomes extremely complicated.We could not see nothing more but a mixture of colours and shapes.This is life.But human is a part of this complicated system which means that he sees thing in a mirror like way,because he is in the system.so it is very difficult for him to see life in an objective way.2)Nature does not promote a certain form of life,but what we see,is the result of the sum of the reactions that happened through history.

You are talking about ten different things in this very abstract way. Try to slow it down bit, expand it and let us see how much of what you said makes any sense at all.

It is a big mistake not to mention that organisms that are programmed with the property of motion,have specific ch. reactions for that.This means that if these reactions are not used,the whole organism is facing a serious problem.so it is very unhealthy for someone not to exersize.

Lets see now something else:According to the findings of the scientists,it seems that life have evolved from simplier to more complicated forms.The question is how we got from simple chemical reactions to the formation of human and the other animals we see today?Accoring to my opinion,there are 2 possibilities:

1)Everything happened according to the theory of evolution,exactly the way that Darwin said.This means that ,via the survival of the fittest,we had the prevalence of more and more complicated organisms ,with more and more complicated chemical reactions dyring time.

2)The anchestors of todays organisms,were not exactly living creatures the way we mean them today,but something between what we see today,and simple ch. reactions.They were a form of<> in a way,that were composed of very complex reactions.As time passed,they gained more and more properties,but they were not as we understand living beings today.Life evolved together with its creatures.