Beginnings of Life: Different Approaches

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Background
Religion
Rationalists
Natural science
Personal Opinion
Conclusion
Works cited

Introduction

Life on earth follows a well defined path of action so much so that it could be stated that each action of Life on earth occurs due to a logical reason that moves towards a solution with mathematical precision the only catch in this situation is to understand the methods of Life on earth with its various factors and variables and once this method is interpreted prediction or forecast would be justified. It is the understanding and subsequent preservation that is necessary. However, the fundamental question lies in the paradox of the beginning of Life on earth.

Background

The question of where did life on earth come from or origin of life has puzzled humankind for centuries. Various religion, philosophers, rationalists and people from the scientific field have mulled over this predicament throughout their life and some have come up with their own explanations. However, the subject is still very controversial and an active topic of research. Until date, there is no definitive theory that substantially explains the origin of life forms on earth. This article takes a look at a few scientific explanations which have been presented regarding the issue at hand and tries to analyze their validity and rationalize which approach puts forward a more feasible and comprehensive explanation.

Religion

There are various different explanations regarding origin of life in religious beliefs. For example, according to the myths of Indian society creation of the universe and life was from an egg. At a point the egg broke up to give birth to an entity called “Brahma”. This was not a man or a woman and Brahma is defied as “nirguna” (neutral energy) and “nirakara” (neutral shaped). This Brahma was responsible for the creation of light, the time and ultimately the life on earth. (Knott, 102-3) This is almost corresponding to the Christian belief of creation and beginning of life on earth.

Rationalists

The concept of unilinear beginning of life on earth has its root in the nineteenth century. It dealt in particularities of life, and after identifying the particularities of the life of organisms, the next step was to put them in a sequence. There was a concept of universal progress working behind such formulations. The organisms were placed in stages of a universal sequence. The nineteenth century model was later taken up and revamped.

This new model followed the same universal causal sequence and its preoccupation with beginning of life on earth. The nineteenth century understanding of unilinear beginning of life on earth grew among an invigorating scientific climate. Lamarck enunciated a theory based on such categories in the later part of the nineteenth century. Ethnographers tried to project these hierarchic value neutered orders onto the growing mass of odd customs, rites and beliefs that were being contemporarily recorded with even greater historical ‘accuracy’ where the idea was to move on a back calculation method and identify a single organism that would be taken as the sole representative of the beginning of life on earth. (Craig, 331-334)

Natural science

In the 18^th century and the early 19^th century, it was commonly supposed that some particular forms of life evolved from certain non-living materials. This was coupled with heterogenesis, a viewpoint in which a certain life form is drawn from another variety, for instance it was believed that bees were derived from flowers. Classical philosophy of abiogenesis, which is now more specifically called spontaneous generation, supposed that a series of composite life forms are spawned by decomposing organic matter. As said by Aristotle it was a evident observable fact that aphids are formed from the dew on the plants, fleas from decaying substances, mice from soiled hay, crocodiles from decomposing wood found at the beds of various water bodies, etc.

However, this view was challenged by various imminent people at different point of time throughout the 17^th and 18^th century. In the late seventeenth century, the concept of microorganism came into existence. At around the same time, a naturalist named Francesco Redi substantiated through his experiments that if meat is kept from flies’ eggs, then no maggots are found to exist on the meat. In due course of time it was proved that at least for higher or easily visible creatures the theory of spontaneous generation was not adequate to explain their origins. The alternative theory came in the form of biogenesis.

This theory assumed that each living form of life had to originate from an egg. The findings of Louis Pasteur substantiated that an organism such as bacteria and fungi cannot spontaneous emerge in a hygienic, nutrient-rich environment. The advancing years witnessed numerous experiments, which provided immense proof in favor of the biogenesis theory, and the notion of spontaneous generation was virtually wiped out. (King, 37)

Later in the 19^th century Charles Darwin proposed a hypothesis that the life may have originated in a small and warm water body, which provided and environment with a variety of ammonic and phosphoric salts, luminosity, warmth, electricity, etc., what ensued was a protein amalgam, which was chemically produced. This compound as suggested by him was likely to undergo intricate reactions.

He further explained that under present circumstances, such substances would immediately be consumed or absorbed, but that was not the case then due to the lack of any living form. In 1924, Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, a renowned naturalist, came up with a proposition that atmospheric oxygen thwarts the amalgamation of particular organic substances, which are essential elements for the advent of life. Oparin’s Primordial Soup Theory supported the spontaneous generation theory and his findings were a major setback to the biogenesis concept. He advocated that spontaneous generation did take place but under contemporary circumstances, it was unfeasible since the present surroundings of the earth differed enormously as compared to the early days of the planet.

In the 1970s, Eigen and Schuster investigated the transitory phases between the molecular chaos and self-reproducing hypercycle in a pre-biotic soup. They proposed that in the hypercycle, a data stockpiling system generates an enzyme, which catalyzes the creation of a new information system, in succession in anticipation of the product of the last facilitates the development of the initial information system. Mathematically analyzed, hypercycles could produce quasispecies, which by means of natural selection turned towards a kind of Darwinian evolution. The advent of RNA was a discovery, which became the backbone of the hypercycle concept. Under particular conditions, it converts itself into ribozymes, competent enough to catalyze chemical reactions. (King, 103)

Personal Opinion

On a personal note, Oparin’s proposal appears to be very logical and conclusive. Oparin proposed that a “primeval soup” comprised of organic particles could be produced in an oxygen-free environment and with the presence of sunlight. These would coalesce through complex reactions to form coacervate globules. These globules would fuse together to replicate by means of the fission technique. Consequently, they would display a primordial metabolism in which the features fostering “cell integrity” would survive and those that did not would cease to exist. (Lamb, 87)

However, it should be noted that these reactions face the drawbacks of self-expurgations, and infrequent diminutive additions, which are inept in coding of any valuable protein. The hypercycle concept is further ruined given that the supposed RNA would necessitate the subsistence of compound bio-chemicals, for example nucleotides, which cannot be created under the settings suggested by the Miller-Urey experimentation. Further, there are numerous theories which attempt to answer the ever-alluring question of how did life originate on the planet. However, to tell the truth, no theory has yet been proposed that can widely explain the concept.

Conclusion

Nevertheless, from a personal note, the most convincing idea of beginning of life on earth came from natural science. In the field of natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the learning of how life forms on this planet came into existence from inanimate substances. Amino acids, frequently referred to as “the building blocks of life”, arise naturally, because of chemical reactions not associated with life. In every living form, the amino acids are structured into proteins, and the edifice of the proteins is mediated bi-nucleic acids. Thus, the solution to the problem of how life came into existence can perhaps be found by studying the origins of the first nucleic acids. (Lamb, 226)

Works cited

Craig, William Lane. The Argument. London: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000.

King, Hick. Principals: The Parameter of Faith in Science. Auckland: HBT & Brooks Ltd, 2006.

Knott, Paul. Hindu Beliefs. Wellington: Dasgupta & Chatterjee, 2005.

Lamb, Davis. Cult to Culture: The Development of Civilization. Wellington: National Book Trust, 2004.

Click Here To Order Now!