Meditations

[Anteroinen]

Oh, true. However, while we're on the subject, if life is self-replicating, where did the first being come from? Yes, there's evolution, but for life to suddenly appear out of nowhere, and then I suppose it was asexual if it was the only of its kind and continued to make life.

Evolution doesn't really belong to this discussion, since it only deal with populations. You're asking about abiogenesis? I really don't know that much about it. First life was one-celled, so yeah, asexual reproduction - this much I do know - but there are a lot other kinds of things going on back then, like the assimilation of mitochondria and chloroplasts into the cells. It is unlikely that first life was here alone, though. There must have been a lot of pseudo-life (e.g. viruses) preceeding it.

[Rooster5man]

Oh, I never even heard of abiogenesis, interesting concept.

From this:

First there was no life and - what do you know - know there is.

That's where I began discussing evolution. If you're saying "there's no life and then there it is," then what seperates it from abiogenesis? You have a point - There's souls involved and it may be impossible, I can't argue that. Like I said in the beginning, however interesting it is, whatever happens happens.

[Vurn]

Reincarnation has been mathematically disproven. Wikipedia has a page on it.

[Rooster5man]

Reincarnation has been mathematically disproven. Wikipedia has a page on it.

Because Wikipedia's so reliable

[Anteroinen]

Oh, I never even heard of abiogenesis, interesting concept.

First there was no life and - what do you know - know there is.

That's where I began discussing evolution. If you're saying "there's no life and then there it is," then what seperates it from abiogenesis? You have a point - There's souls involved and it may be impossible, I can't argue that. Like I said in the beginning, however interesting it is, whatever happens happens.

I was alluding to abiogenesis with my comment. The distinction is quite simple actually. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis - or hypotheses really - which deal with life arising from non-life. The reasearch in this field includes a lot of chemistry of how and where DNA components can be formed and if these conducive environments were available on Earth. For instance, where the rather instable sugar know as deoxyribose could form. That is the deoxyribo in deoxyribonucleicacid - D in DNA.

Evolution on the other hand deals with extant creatures and their populations. It requires organisms to exist before it can work. It also deals with successive generations and the changes between them. The closer you get to abiogenesis, the less like evolution things get, precisely because pseudo-life and even early life had a vast array of methods to change.

[Vurn]

Reincarnation has been mathematically disproven. Wikipedia has a page on it.

Because Wikipedia's so reliable

It is.

[Rooster5man]

No, no, you misunderstood - I understand the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution, the "it" I was referring to in "then what seperates it from abiogenesis?" was reincarnation. I should've been clearer.

What I was trying to say is the statement "First there was no life and - what do you know - there it is" can refer to abiogenesis or reincarnation, as you were referring to when you first made that statement.

@Vurn: I understand it's been mathematically disproven, but referencing a Wikipedia page won't help your case, lol.

[Anteroinen]

No, no, you misunderstood - I understand the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution, the "it" I was referring to in "then what seperates it from abiogenesis?" was reincarnation. I should've been clearer.

What I was trying to say is the statement "First there was no life and - what do you know - there it is" can refer to abiogenesis or reincarnation, as you were referring to when you first made that statement.

Abiogenesis is a yet unproven hypothesis, but let us assume for a moment it is true. That means that life has begun. Life here means organisms that can reproduce in some way - at this stage asexually. Organisms are all usually thought to have souls in ideologies that include reincarnation (and even if they weren't the same problem would arise with the first humans). Reincarnation also has it that souls are somehow indestructible and eternal. If there ever was a "first soul" then that destroys the whole idea of souls being eternal, since there are more organisms now than back then. If you attempt solve the problem by souls being born at conception you also destroy the idea of reincarnation.

Really, what destroys the idea of reincarnation isn't abiogenesis, it is population growth. Abiogenesis and now are just the extremes - a hyperbole I used. Ergo, I don't quite see what your point is.

[Rooster5man]

My point is that both abiogenesis and reincarnation have unknown means of where life comes from. You said it yourself - abiogenesis is yet unproven. And reincarnation, as you and Vurn have said, is mathematically disproven. Were it not mathematically disproven, you still can't say where that "first soul" came from.

[Vortex]

But I understand Anteroinen's point as, if the number of living beings in the world is increasing, where do the extra souls come from? They are being created now?