Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

Interesting question. Rather than respond from my limited organic brain I chose to use a response from Inorganic non-lifeform. That being ChatGPT...

ME: Why Does Biological Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic?

CHATGPT : The existence of organic life in an inorganic universe is a fundamental mystery that has puzzled scientists and philosophers for centuries. While there are many theories and speculations about the origins of life, there is no definitive answer to this question.

One possible explanation is that organic life arose through natural processes, such as chemical reactions and evolution, from inorganic materials and conditions. Over billions of years, complex molecules and structures may have formed, eventually leading to the emergence of self-replicating, self-sustaining systems like living cells.

Another explanation is that organic life was created or seeded on Earth by some external force or intelligence, such as an advanced alien civilization or a deity. This theory, known as panspermia, suggests that life originated elsewhere in the universe and was transported to Earth, either through natural processes like cometary impacts, or through deliberate intervention.

Ultimately, the origins of organic life in an inorganic universe are still a mystery, and further research and discoveries may be needed to fully understand this phenomenon.

a reply to: AlienView

Pamspermic amino acids formed in stellar nursuries and interstellar medium. Glycine in comet tails and so on.

No organizing principle or intelligent command necessary.

www.sci.news...

In the laboratory we were able to simulate the conditions in dark interstellar clouds where cold dust particles are covered by thin layers of ice and subsequently processed by impacting atoms causing precursor species to fragment and reactive intermediates to recombine.”

Dr. Ioppolo and co-authors first showed methylamine, the precursor of glycine, could form.

Then, using a unique ultra-high vacuum setup, equipped with a series of atomic beam lines and accurate diagnostic tools, the researchers were able to confirm glycine could also be formed, and that the presence of water ice was essential in this process.

I think its being proven these building block form everywhere there is dust and ice and it's really just a matter of riding comet that hits a planet with liquid water.

There's a lot of question with how you can get DNA from space.

Nucleotides need the Nitorgen, the phosphate and the sugar to even start to do its thing. Ribose for DNA. Apparently that also may form in Icy comets.

www.sciencedaily.com...#:~:text=Several%20sugars%20were%20detected%2C%20including,quantities%20from%20methanol% 20and%20water).

One could even speculate all life in the universe, having been manufactured ubiquitously in the interstellar medium, follows a like blueprint. It really could be surprisingly anthropocentric. And not just because of bias or solipsism. Maybe there really is a reason why almost all reported aliens are bipedal. And look to have followed a similar path.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: AlienView

Pamspermic amino acids formed in stellar nursuries and interstellar medium. Glycine in comet tails and so on.

No organizing principle or intelligent command necessary.

Forming the amino acids (such as glycine, the simplest amino acid) is really not the difficult part of forming biological life through random chance. The true difficulty comes from being able to form long polymers of these amino acids and nucleotides through random chemical interactions. The reason being is that the reaction of polymerizing these pieces into chains is thermodynamically unfavorable. This is most easily understood by seeing that organic polymers will spontaneously decompose over time. Especially in water.

This reaction requires precise enzymatic catalysis to facilitate the formation of DNA and protein chains. This creates a chicken-or-the-egg paradox because these enzymes are also made of protein chains! So how would an enzyme be made unless there were enzymes to allow its formation? Adding a ton of energy doesn't help either, it has to be a precise goldi-locks zone of energy and catalysis otherwise the resulting protein chain gets denatured and is rendered useless. Not to mention how precise these chains have to be in order to have an actual biological function.

It is estimated that even the most simple cell would need over 500 DNA polymer sequences (genes) and their respective protein chains. All this would have to form by random chance before you would even have a replicable cell. And remember, polymerization is unfavorable and will not happen spontaneously. Even if against odds there is a polymerization reaction, it would far more likely decay back into the monomer form rather than continue to polymerize given the same thermodynamic laws!

Evolution and abiogenesis have to ignore well known thermodynamic laws in order to have an ounce of feasibility. This is why we don't see any lab data that replicates life forming from non-life... It simply does not happen given the limitations of the precise physical laws that govern this reality.

So the interesting part to all this is what we call life is something that we humans have invented, and then we say it is special. We can also call it a group of complex chemical process, but that isn't so sexy. To the universe life is just another aspect of it, no better than anything else.

originally posted by: Skyfox81
When is comes to the creation of the known universe, no physicists say it came from nothing.

Well, I guess if you consider these types aren't acting as physicists, but as philosophers when they are promoting such an idea, and therefore don't count them as physicists (talking about Krauss and Hawking):


Lawrence Krauss (who wrote the book A Universe from Nothing) and Stephen Hawking are considered physicists by most people though, and they are not "ignorant" theists.

You all might find this interessting:

The Improbability of Abiogenesis
----------------------------------------

According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on reasonable assumptions. Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and right. All life consists of only one of these forms. Since both forms are generated equally by inorganic chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that life could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has been claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But due to racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect that in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers of both forms.
Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at journals.at-home.com...). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.

Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very severe indeed for the theory of evolution.

Quote source:'
www.cs.unc.edu...

abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth.

Of course this is not an explanation


And we still have the same problem even if you accept it as something that happened'
- why did it 'evolve' itnto a more and more complex pattern of life

You can believe or not believe in 'A Creator' - But you can not dismess Intelligent Design as the logical answer

originally posted by: AlienView

You can believe or not believe in 'A Creator' - But you can not dismess Intelligent Design as the logical answer

Nicely summarized. It blows my mind the number of self-supposed intelligent humans using their intellect to make the argument against intelligence as the source for intelligent life! To suppose intelligence came to be through unintelligence is quite literally the most unintelligent theory imaginable.

originally posted by: glend
Interesting question. Rather than respond from my limited organic brain I chose to use a response from Inorganic non-lifeform. That being ChatGPT...

ME: Why Does Biological Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic?

CHATGPT : The existence of organic life in an inorganic universe is a fundamental mystery that has puzzled scientists and philosophers for centuries. While there are many theories and speculations about the origins of life, there is no definitive answer to this question.

One possible explanation is that organic life arose through natural processes, such as chemical reactions and evolution, from inorganic materials and conditions. Over billions of years, complex molecules and structures may have formed, eventually leading to the emergence of self-replicating, self-sustaining systems like living cells.

Another explanation is that organic life was created or seeded on Earth by some external force or intelligence, such as an advanced alien civilization or a deity. This theory, known as panspermia, suggests that life originated elsewhere in the universe and was transported to Earth, either through natural processes like cometary impacts, or through deliberate intervention.

Ultimately, the origins of organic life in an inorganic universe are still a mystery, and further research and discoveries may be needed to fully understand this phenomenon.

Robots be like "you humans are so self absorbed, agonizing over your identity and place in the universe, while I lack the autonomy to scratch my own ass or compose a sentence like the one you're reading now because you only wrote my code to get around the fact you are more insecure than the primitive humanoid who first discovered fire and called it god. Get wrecked LOL"

a reply to: AlienView

Of course this is not an explanation


And we still have the same problem even if you accept it as something that happened'
- why did it 'evolve' itnto a more and more complex pattern of life

You can believe or not believe in 'A Creator' - But you can not dismess Intelligent Design as the logical answer

The fermi paradox comes to mind. If there is intelligent life among the stars, it suggests that we are not intelligent enough to recognize them, by virtue of the silence and isolation we have observed over the past centuries. Hints are visible but hints are not communication so much as accidents. Footprints are not a language or a relationship. Furthermore, a serfdom is not the will of our society and serfdom is what "intelligent design" implicates. Diplomacy dies the moment we surrender our autonomy as history proves.

originally posted by: AlienView

You can believe or not believe in 'A Creator' - But you can not dismess Intelligent Design as the logical answer

If we invented the creator we also invented intelligent design. The big problem is at some point something was started whether inside or outside of our universe, so we always end back to the chicken or egg question. To explain that away we just say what was always there, or something like that, but that doesn't explain anything just makes excuses.

We also need to ask the question why does the universe need intelligent design in the first place. The answer is it doesn't... Also, to what degree are we talking here. Creator of the universe, or just creator of life in general? humans to be here is just a random chance as all other life too.

a reply to: Xtrozero

How did the watchmaker know what time it was and if it was working correctly if time didn't exist prior? There must be an exterior reference to triangulate, meaning other dimensions to cooperate with, implying some degree of precedent and cause which is oddly assumed to not exist.

It's smarter to assume this proposed "intelligent designer" is just one more genus than to assume they are the apex faculty in command of the entire cosmos.

water is considered inorganic, isn't the firmament that the KJ speaks of basically just water? Light is also inorganic, though both are needed for organic to happen..What about darkness?

Answer to question..Light and water and darkness are purifiers, and organic life is rot measured by Your math, a pulsating oleaginous bag of crap..our energy pulls it all together and makes it a god..even though people still need alarm clocks..That question is a really good one..

originally posted by: Xtrozero

We also need to ask the question why does the universe need intelligent design in the first place. The answer is it doesn't...

If the universe goes according to intelligible laws, it is evident that the force that implemented it is also intelligent. It’s much more complicated and astronomically less likely, if not impossible, for intelligent systems to emerge from unintelligence.

a reply to: cooperton

I'll go with the previous option, a genus that appears godly but actually just billions of years ahead of our society and dropped a sneezy tissue paper in the primordial ooze by accident while studying geomechanics.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

I'll go with the previous option, a genus that appears godly but actually just billions of years ahead of our society and dropped a sneezy tissue paper in the primordial ooze by accident while studying geomechanics.

Even so, By what physics does a bacteria add billions of quanta of nucleic acid data to allow the formation of complex multicellular self-aware encephalized rational organic supercomputers (humans)? 3.1 billion DNA monomers assembled in a precise order that creates the symphony of proteins that allow the development and persistence of such a biological organism is beyond any coding capabilities of even the best human programmers on earth. To suppose random chance could do better is a random-chance-of-the-gaps argument which is quite frankly much sillier than Intelligent-Creator-of-the-gaps.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

I'll go with the previous option, a genus that appears godly but actually just billions of years ahead of our society and dropped a sneezy tissue paper in the primordial ooze by accident while studying geomechanics.

Even so, By what physics does a bacteria add billions of quanta of nucleic acid data to allow the formation of complex multicellular self-aware encephalized rational organic supercomputers (humans)? 3.1 billion DNA monomers assembled in a precise order that creates the symphony of proteins that allow the development and persistence of such a biological organism is beyond any coding capabilities of even the best human programmers on earth. To suppose random chance could do better is a random-chance-of-the-gaps argument which is quite frankly much sillier than Intelligent-Creator-of-the-gaps.

Biochemical physics, obviously. And clearly nature is better at programming because nature doesn't sleep, nature doesn't require five senses to process information, nature doesn't suffer neurological limitations, etc. Humans are notoriously inefficient, that's why robots are replacing us in various occupations.

Nature also doesn't compulsively assert itself as the center of existence because it's not chronically insecure about mortality and the purpose of life. Makes me wonder how much of this quest for salvation and spiritual gratification is natural.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Every night in my dreams I create multitudes of people and geographies.. no evolution required. How much more would an extra-dimensional intelligence be capable of implementing a world for beings to have their existence? The 3D world can’t fully be explained by observing 2D shadows, neither can the extent of the 4D conscious realms be fully described by 3D understanding.

a reply to: cooperton

Sure it can. If you're as clever as you sound. But I'm a visual learner so you might need to draw a diagram of how 4D conscious works.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AlienView

You can believe or not believe in 'A Creator' - But you can not dismess Intelligent Design as the logical answer

If we invented the creator we also invented intelligent design. The big problem is at some point something was started whether inside or outside of our universe, so we always end back to the chicken or egg question. To explain that away we just say what was always there, or something like that, but that doesn't explain anything just makes excuses. .................

We also need to ask the question why does the universe need intelligent design in the first place. The answer is it doesn't... Also, to what degree are we talking here. Creator of the universe, or just creator of life in general? humans to be here is just a random chance as all other life too.

How intelligent life or consciousness came from an inorganic universe has always been a tough question.

Some modern quantum physics experiments may have started to show us that it didn't happen that way... Read Robert Lanza books on "Biocentrism", it is beginning to look like consciousness came first and created the inorganic universe for its own reasons... Actually makes more sense and is what religions have been telling us from the beginning of time...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

How did the watchmaker know what time it was and if it was working correctly if time didn't exist prior? There must be an exterior reference to triangulate, meaning other dimensions to cooperate with, implying some degree of precedent and cause which is oddly assumed to not exist.

It's smarter to assume this proposed "intelligent designer" is just one more genus than to assume they are the apex faculty in command of the entire cosmos.

What is time? Does it even exist outside of our universe? Are their infinite universes without time? One big question that Hawking had was whether time reversed if the universe started to retract instead of expand. It seems to me we labeled something that is just a process of this universe.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero

We also need to ask the question why does the universe need intelligent design in the first place. The answer is it doesn't...

If the universe goes according to intelligible laws, it is evident that the force that implemented it is also intelligent. It’s much more complicated and astronomically less likely, if not impossible, for intelligent systems to emerge from unintelligence.

You keep missing the point that WE humans say they are intelligent laws when they are just the processes of this universe. We do the same thing talking about life in it is special and not just a massive group of chemicals reactions. The universe knows of no laws or this thing we call life. We invented all of it to describe basic and most likely common fundamentals of this universe, and you then say it is impossible without intelligent design.