The Sponge -- Evolution

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » The Sponge -- Evolution

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2008 05:06 am
According to the Sages the are two types of Creation. "Something from nothing" and "Something from something".
"Something from Something" is like painting. You are using what already is, in order to create.
"Something from Nothing" Is the creation of something new entirely.

The Sages go on to say, that there were only 3 creations that can be categorized as "Something from Nothing"

1. The Beginning -- Big Bang, Time, Matter, Energy, Physics
2. Life -- Not lifeforms, but the essence of Life itself
3. Mankind

I shall now explain what exactly was created from nothingness.

The world was empty of life. And then life began in the form of single celled organisms. What changed? According to the Laws of Physics, all things flow from a state of higher energy to a state of lower energy, but Life does exactly the opposite. Life goes against physics. Life is the desire to live.

The sages say that the life on land was not a "Something from Nothing" creation because the ability to live was already created in the water.

For aproximately a billion years the water was populated by cingle celled organizms until the first animal appeared. The first animal was a collection of cells that worked together for common survival. They developed a chemical language between cells that is still present in all life today, and they developed the protein collagen in order to allow them to bond together. This is the main protein in all animals today and is what keeps the skin together.
This first animal was the sponge. The sponge is the only animal that can ressurect itself. You separate all the cells through a sieve and they communicate and form back together once again. The bath sponge is the collagen that is left behind after the cells die. The sponge pumps gallons of water through it every second and feeds on all of the single celled organisms that flow through it.

The next "Something from Nothing" according to the Sages was mankind. Mankind in Hebrew is "Medaber" which means "those that speak". Animals are instinctual creatures who's sole goal is survival. The sages say that our body was not "Something from Nothing" but rather that the body is Animal like all of the others. The body also posesses all of the instincts necissary for survival. What was new was that the Limitless placed itself within us. We have the "Image" of the limitless in us. It is obviously just an image because we are limited.
The image is like blowing a balloon. Once you blow a balloon and let the air out, a residue of the air remains. The balloon takes on a different shape. This residue is what is called "Something from Nothing". It is the aspect of the animal to survive, but it is the aspect of Mankind to create and beautify and phylosophize, and perfect.

We also form sponges. We call the sponges Nations. The Nations work together for the common good of their Nation. The desire of the Nation is the common desire of the people. Interactions of Nations in History is like the interaction between sponges. And the ressurection in Prophecy is like the sponge. You separate all of the individual cells thus killing the Nation. And when the cells come back together forming the Nation again, this is Ressurection.
 
BrightNoon
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 02:06 pm
@Binyamin Tsadik,
What defines life; what differentiates a very simple, single-celled organism from a similiar blob of protoplasm; why is the former living and latter dead? The definintion used by biology is arbitrary. I would argue that its just a question of complexity, and of a classifiation based on our own vanity; that which is most like us is 'alive?'
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 12:45 am
@BrightNoon,
BrightNoon wrote:
What defines life; what differentiates a very simple, single-celled organism from a similiar blob of protoplasm; why is the former living and latter dead? The definintion used by biology is arbitrary. I would argue that its just a question of complexity, and of a classifiation based on our own vanity; that which is most like us is 'alive?'


What is the difference between a dead cell and a live cell?

You can completely recreate a cell, but it will not opperate because it lacks 'life'
 
Khethil
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:00 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik wrote:
What is the difference between a dead cell and a live cell?


A combination of base-elements and chemical reactions, combined with aminos, proteins and environmental conditions that together cause a chain reaction.

Any other questions? :listening:
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:20 am
@Khethil,
but you cant create life no matter how hard we try ,so what is life? What is dead what is living?
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:21 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
A combination of base-elements and chemical reactions, combined with aminos, proteins and environmental conditions that together cause a chain reaction.

Any other questions? :listening:


All of those things can be present, but the cell would still be dead.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:29 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik wrote:
All of those things can be present, but the cell would still be dead.


If this is true, there'd never be any live cells... anywhere.

Besides, primitive efforts to create living cells (thus far) doesn't disprove the ability to do so. After researching on the issue, I don't think this particular question will be in dispute for very long.
 
SingerNietzsche
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 07:39 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
A combination of base-elements and chemical reactions, combined with aminos, proteins and environmental conditions that together cause a chain reaction.

Any other questions? :listening:


I take it you don't entertain the theory of vitalism?
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 08:13 am
@SingerNietzsche,
Scientists say in ten tears they can create life...we await....What is life? is it the ability to survive independently? to be self sustaining? to recreate ones self? a constant chemical reaction with surrounding conditions feeding the process??Im no scientists could someone explain?
 
Khethil
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 01:33 pm
@SingerNietzsche,
SingerNietzsche wrote:
I take it you don't entertain the theory of vitalism?


I'll have to confess to having to research that term before answering. Thanks, that's a good one to know. I'm familiar with that particular "sentimental view", but I didn't know it actually had a name.

Simple answer: No, no reason to.

I'm very much an amateur when it comes to chemistry, biology and their interrelated life sciences. But as I understand it, this is another non-falsifiable theory; and as such, hasn't much worth. Is the basic premise behind vitalism possible? Sure! You bet!

But we've had many such notions, throughout history, to describe that which we don't understand just yet. Many of the ancient Egyptians believe that the brain served no other purpose than to produce mucous for the nose until more knowledge was gained. In any case, I'd very much like to see the question quantifiably-answered by the scientific community, if such a thing is possible. It's a very important issue that lies at the foundation of much philosophy.

Thanks for asking. You?
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » The Sponge -- Evolution
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/28/2020 at 06:03:58