Biogenesis states that life can only come from life

  • Thread starter Thread starter 'anybody'
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life States
AI Thread Summary
Biogenesis posits that life can only arise from pre-existing life, leading to the conclusion that if life exists now, it must have always existed. This raises questions about the universe's creation, suggesting that if life was never created, it contradicts the notion of a created universe. The discussion introduces spontaneous generation as a potential alternative explanation for the origin of life, challenging the validity of biogenesis. The argument suggests that if life must come from life, then life must originate from outside the universe, indicating a flaw in the original thesis. Ultimately, the conversation centers on the complexities of life's origins and the implications of biogenesis.
'anybody'
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Biogenesis states that life can only come from life, so if life can only come from life, than the universe had life in it from the start - right? and if it did, it was never created, and if it was never created by some life, than it doesn't exist right? But it does exist, so am I stating a paradox, or is there a simple answer that I overlooked (as I normally do)?

Homework Equations


um...I don't think that this involves equations...


The Attempt at a Solution



spontaneous generation...happened at one point or another (well, not spontaneous 'generation' per say, but the sudden presence of life perhaps in an already established form of matter)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have set up a strawman: Biogenesis states that life comes from life.
Since we have life now, it (life) must have always existed and was never created. Furthermore, (as your argument goes...) since the Universe was created at some point, life must have come from some lifeform outside the universe or the original thesis is flawed. My bet is that the original thesis is faulty.

Spontaneous generation is one alternative thesis that survives this logic.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top