Explore BrainMass
Share

Why you believe that life could or could not spontaneously arise on this Earth today

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

In 1953 Stanley Miller shattered the vitalism belief by replicating the conditions on a primitive Earth and thereby beginning the belief in mechanism.

OK- if I were to suppose that all life on Earth was totally destroyed today - everything - even the organic molecules that make up life such as sugar, proteins, cellulose, etc., were destroyed. In other words, today's Earth would have just the inorganic compounds that exist on all planets - most likely spinning around all stars - salts, gases such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, water, etc. There would be no organic compounds on Earth - just rock, water, sand, minerals - much like the nature of Earth several billions of years ago. now assuming that would happen, explain in detail why you believe that life could or could not spontaneously arise on this Earth today as opposed to what happened several billions of years ago on Earth, according to mechanism.

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 16, 2018, 7:37 pm ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/biology/evolutionary-genetics/why-you-believe-that-life-could-or-could-not-spontaneously-arise-on-this-earth-today-121899

Solution Preview

Living organisms did arise from an environment of inorganic compounds, so I don't know why it can't happen today under similar conditions. Of course, it all took billions of years to evolve.

According to the current model, it is believed that the basic chemicals from which life was thought to have formed are methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-). Therefore, as long as these initial chemical reactions can take place from the available inorganic compounds, then the foundation of life is set for the formation of living organisms. Let's not forget that all compounds, whether organic or inorganic, are composed of the same elements, and chemistry is something that happens all the time. Inorganic ...

$2.19
Similar Posting

Creation myths and theories are presented.

Provide help with summarizing and applying theories of myth to selected creation myths. Myth & Knowing discusses a variety of theoretical approaches scholars use to better understand mythology. Select three of those theories and summarize them in your own words. Then, compare two creation myths using the theories you summarized to explain how each creation myth functions in the culture in which it is a part. Conclude by reflecting on these theories to help explain the cultural function of myths in general:

Mythology will forever expand in studies during the length of a lifetime. Myths have a sense of truth that is questioned by many. Family legends, history, religion, culture, and arts are realities that uphold mythâ??s and the explanation behind it. â??Like an onion, a myth has many layersâ? (Leonard & McClure, 2004, p. 28) which explains the various stories of symbolism, religious allegories, and beliefs which can possibly be narrowed down to the closest truth of that time. There are varied theories of myth current applied to study a particular myth or story. Scholars use theories to better understand myths. Plato, Euhemeros and Euhemerism, and Adalbert Kuhn are scholars whose theories are discussed through a personal view and compared by two creation myths Out of the Blue and The Popul Vu.

Platoâ??s Rational Myth created a new path for the Greek word mytho by confirming the synonym as false (( Leonard & McClure, 2004, p. 4). Plato validated mythâ??s as â??a form of truthâ? that were philosophical about origins myths, but claimed myths created by people which spoke of Gods and Heroes were false myths (( Leonard & McClure, 2004, p.4). In another sense Plato believed that various stories that do not serve justification or were truth cannot be found are false myths. Concrete locations and origins lead to truth for Plato.

Euhemeros and Euhemerism was firm on science belief versus explanations of history and imagination. Euhemerism did not acknowledge the truth-value for all myths and still questioned exaggeration to previous historic events. â??Euhemeros believed that myths were not true per se but that they contained the kernels of historical truthâ? ( Leonard & McClure, 2004, p.5).

Adalbert Kuhn was influenced by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche which allowed him to view various myths as allegories. Kuhnâ??s approach allowed him to see different views of myths compared to the elements of the earth. As an example â??particularly the rainstorm that bestows fire in the form of lightning and the life-giving elixir of rain which makes all life possibleâ?¦ the stolen gift was fire; sometimes it was the elixir of immortalityâ? (Leonard & McClure, 2004, p. 12).

Leonard, S., & McClure, M. (2004). Myth & knowing: An introduction to world mythology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

View Full Posting Details