Any ideas what makes life, alive?

[iDimension]

I know this forum doesn't allow speculation but is there any good theories in science that explain how chemistry can become biology? At the start of the big bang, there was no such thing as life and now here I am, material created by the big bang that has come together in such a way that allows me to acknowledge not only my own existence but also the existence of the universe... the thing that created me. I created myself it seems.

So what sequence of events allowed chemistry to become alive and aware?

 

[Evo]

It's referred to as "abiogenesis". I don't have time to get resources right now, but I will look.

You might want to start here

The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know

http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/3/120190

 

[iDimension]

Thanks Evo!

 

[Evo]

You're very welcome, I hope it helps.

 

[Danger]

If you really mean to begin at the Big Bang as opposed to after chemistry existed, the fact that physical properties such as the gravitational constant and parity laws came out the way they did is critical; they didn't have to be this way. Skipping all of the stuff about energy condensing into matter which then stuck together to make stellar systems, life as we know it still wouldn't exist if not for supernovae explosions in which "modern" elements were formed. Also, there is reasonable although not overwhelming evidence that the biochemical precursors to our life-type, if not the life itself, were delivered to Earth by a comet or asteroid impact as opposed to developing here.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If you really mean to begin at the Big Bang as opposed to after chemistry existed, the fact that physical properties such as the gravitational constant and parity laws came out the way they did is critical; they didn't have to be this way. Skipping all of the stuff about energy condensing into matter which then stuck together to make stellar systems, life as we know it still wouldn't exist if not for supernovae explosions in which "modern" elements were formed. Also, there is reasonable although not overwhelming evidence that the biochemical precursors to our life-type, if not the life itself, were delivered to Earth by a comet or asteroid impact as opposed to developing here.

It would be helpful to provide a citation for the OP relating to theories of abiogenesis via comet.

 

[Danger]

It would be helpful to provide a citation for the OP relating to theories of abiogenesis via comet.

Indeed it would. Unfortunately, I've just seen it mentioned here and there on such shows as Daily Planet, in various news snippets with scientist interviews, and the like. I can't cite any particular source, much less a peer-reviewed journal. None of them were crackpot or "off the wall" things, though, and none put it forth as a fact rather than a working hypothesis with evidentiary backup.
Perhaps a real biologist lurking around here can provide such a source.

 

[TheBiologist]

I'm an 11-year-old Year 7 student, so don't put all your faith in me... Despite this, I'm quite a Science enthusiast and a top-set student for the subject. Anyway, Biology questions life and opens new paths to Medical Science, which simultaneously enlightens us with newly-found knowledge of all species and lifeforms on Earth and Earth itself. Chemistry, on the other hand, is a rather trial-and-error sort of concept... You try something new and if it doesn't turn out right, you figure out what went wrong, record your results and re-try it... Biology and Chemistry, under some circumstances, can be quite similar; for example, if you're talking about respiration, the system comes under 'Biology' and the gases, chemicals and compounds come under 'Chemistry.'