In the study of the organization of the living systems, we can find that there are a lot of common qualities in the morphology, physiology and behavior that make an organism a living thing.
With the studies of the operation of the cell, a lot of new information is available to all the scientists and people in general to understand how does it works inside to help one more complex organization, the body. Is really impressive watch the cells with the optical microscope and observe the cells from plants, because is a good way to understand how a complex organism like a plant works, as can be seen, the differentiation from the cells of the parenchyma makes every cell different than the others because they will have a specific function that can be for vascular tissue or mechanic support. Then can be seen that a unique form of life work with another ones to maintain the life of a complex structure that can be called plant, but it has a world of elaborated operations that makes everything as perfect as it is.
But how can that be possible? How can everything work in such a perfect way? That is the product of the nature that makes scientists think a lot of different ideas to really understand why everything works the way it works, so at the end of the day it will be something philosophical, and maybe that is something that the science will never answer even with thousands and thousands of experiments in the lab. So what is the other part from the truth for the humanity? Well, that is a good question, and it seems hard to asnwer when someone has materialistic thinking of everything, even with life, and sadly that materialistic thinking is inside the head of almost every scientists of this world. But how can someone consider that everything is product of matter? That someone is almost everybody when we think of science.
But there is something really wrong with this, there is something that leave us a big hole and it could be good to know what is the other part from the truth. Science is not perfect, that is something that we know and it is not perfect for a special reason, it works just with an observer and all knowledge is delivered by the senses, that is a greek influence which was given by Heraclitus. So the scientist thinks that the knowledge that is delivered by the senses is the real truth in all the things in the universe, observing is something really important for science and the act of observe is not bad at all, without this we never would have understood a lot of nature phenomena, from the basic questions to the questions that quantum physics brings us today.
Science wants to see the depths of the existence, but is far to find that depths because is so empty in a lot of thoughts. Can matter create life? there we have one really good question that is not as easy as it looks. What would a biologist say? Probably he will say that of course matter can create life and that is what happen billions of years ago when the first organism was formed on earth and then with the evolution of the living things, new species were produced and with the passage of time now we find complex living systems like humans, animals and plants. Ok, but going back to the question how can he say that matter can create life? That's something that reminds me a quote from the nobel prize Ernst Boris Chain which reads:
"The probability for such an event as the origin of DNA molecules to have occurred by sheer chance is just too small to be seriously considered".
Accept this requires a lot of faith. Then you accept that the genes created their own function and surprise RNA and surprise ribosomes and surprise again, proteins. There are a lot of coincidences that you have to accept to understand the scientific theory about the origin of everything, because the world works with "sheer chance" and that is it. So then you accept that matter created life, you accept that with the pass of the time the conjunction of several atoms created the conscience and there is a really big hole. Accept that matter can created conscience is something really risky and doesn't seem to be logical.
There was a question about this topic that made me think about it: "What is the difference between a living body and a dead body?", when you think about it and answer that question like everybody would respond you have to accept something more than just matter. The answer? well, one body is alive and the other one is dead, easy, but how can it be if both bodies have the same amount of matter? Something reasonable to think is that there has to be something more than atoms attached in molecules, something inmaterial that makes the difference between these two bodies. If we accept that, then we find that the inmaterial part gives life to the body and with that, all the qualities. Is the functional principle.
There is a problem with science because it is more concerned with understanding how everything works than understand why it works. Why is this body alive? There is something more than atoms. And thinking about it if you accept that atoms created conscience, that is one of the biggest speculations that have existed, but science says that it is true.
Then you find a lot of funny stuff like when you realize that biology is the study of life but not the respect for it. Let's kill animals with our experiments, we will help the humanity with our anthropocentric and egotistic view of the world. You get that in science (at least in biology) the end justifies the means, let's kill animals and maybe with time we will discover how to prevent cancer with the manipulation of particular nucleotide sequences of certain genes from the DNA inside the cells, Succes!
But hey why don't they use babies for the experiments? What would be the difference between a rabbit and a baby? Both of them feel, suffer, have to eat so it won't be more cruel. But no, wait, the baby is a human and the rabbit is an animal, yes, so a human life is more important than the life of an animal, that clearly has a lot of sense. Let's agree with something, because it is the truth and it is not something new: Biology in theory is beautiful, but in practice we see that is the most cruel science of the world. And we can use two basic rules to be a good biologist today:
1. If you want to understand life, you don't have to respect it.
2. The end justifies the means (This is not a rule but is the motto).
Back to the topic we will find that not all the knowledge comes from the senses, what you can see, what you can feel, no. The functional principal or inmaterial part cannot be seen but manifests itself with the life of the organism, so of course there is something. You cannot see a black hole, but the behavior of the things around it makes us thing that there is something that disturbs the matter with the gravitational force, and we called it black hole, it is the same thing here but we cannot accept the relation. And we conclude now that if you accept that matter creates life and conscience you accept that a lot of covalent bonds and ionic bonds and ions and anions gave us life, think about it, how far are you from the truth?
I want to all the readers to think about it and about accept all of the coincidences that gave us life. Ernst Boris Chain has a good point.
