This is my essay
for Biolympics 2012 (an annual contest held in
DLSU-D which is only exclusive for BIOLOGY/ENVI students of Lasalle Dasma).
This is my second time to join to the said contest. Last year, being one of the
contestant of Short Story Writing and now in my Junior year-- Essayist nmn ang peg!
PS. I just want to thank my Papa #Franco Bayot for helping me with
this essay. Distance is not a hindrance for us pap (kahit nasa Saudi ka pa!). I love you!
So here is my entry:
Theme: LIFE
Frances
Adour A. Bayot
August 14, 2012
August 14, 2012
HUB32
Life on Mars
Life according to Webster dictionary is the animate existence or the period of animate existence of an individual. It is the best gift God has given us. As far as Science is concerned, it is the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. Earth is known as the only place where life exists. But just barely a week ago the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) informed the public that there is a possibility to live in the so called Red Planet--Mars. Is there really life on Mars?
Mars and Earth do share similarities with each other. Although they are very different when it comes to temperature, size and atmosphere, they are surprisingly similar in terms of geography. Water is one of the important factors in order for an individual to live. Water is LIFE. One couldn’t live without water. If water exists in Mars, it may also have life.
After a triumphant landing, the Curiosity rover is ready to search Mars for signs of past life or suitability for life. Several readers have raised concerns that NASA scientists might fail to recognize life if it isn't based on carbon or is otherwise radically different from our kind of life. It's true that biologists don't have a single agreed upon definition of life, and often end up with a laundry list of characteristics instead. That's been a concern for NASA, and so in the 1990s, the space agency convened a panel to try to define life. The panel put evolution front and center: Life, the panel decided, is self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution. Creationists aren't too happy with this, but biologists for the most part say it's a reasonable guess as to what would tie together life through the cosmos. It's something of a guess because we only have one example of life. All life here on Earth is related, and all organisms share same system of carbon-based molecules - DNA and RNA - to carry assembly instructions and other key information. It's not hard to image that some other type of life might use an alternative system.
Asking earthlings to define life is a little like asking a group born and raised on a deserted island to define animals when they've never seen another animal. Suppose we go to another planet and find one being there, looking exactly like a human being. Everything we can measure about this being confirms that it is just as much alive as you and me. It eats, moves, heals, replenishes, communicates, feels, and defecates. Learning more about this being, though, we find that it has no ancestors, and that it does not age. It does not reproduce, and it is the only such being on the planet. Thus, there is no lineage of descent and no population that can evolve. So this being is then not alive? Of course it is. This definition does not work. This type of criticism rests on a semantic misunderstanding between life and being alive. One isolated person isn't capable of Darwinian evolution - we can't reproduce without a partner. We're alive but we're part of a larger system that would be considered life. NASA's Darwinian definition does indeed embody the theory of evolution. And if the theory applies universally, it predicts that you won't find parentless humanoid beings popping into existence. While NASA needs to think broadly about life, they can't very well go around declaring clouds and flames and crystals alive. One critical distinction is that living things copy themselves imperfectly and pass on the flaws to the next generation. Crystals grow and reproduce themselves with flaws, but the flaws aren't passed down to offspring. They don't evolve. In looking for signs of past life, a general definition of life is not as important as a set of search criteria. Whether looking for signs of past life on Mars or ancient rocks here Earth, scientists look for patterns that can't be explained by physics and chemistry alone.
The discussion may go on and on, but the bottom line is this: Life is very important, and precious. We must not ignore its value and must not let it slip away.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution -
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
Mars and Earth do share similarities with each other. Although they are very different when it comes to temperature, size and atmosphere, they are surprisingly similar in terms of geography. Water is one of the important factors in order for an individual to live. Water is LIFE. One couldn’t live without water. If water exists in Mars, it may also have life.
After a triumphant landing, the Curiosity rover is ready to search Mars for signs of past life or suitability for life. Several readers have raised concerns that NASA scientists might fail to recognize life if it isn't based on carbon or is otherwise radically different from our kind of life. It's true that biologists don't have a single agreed upon definition of life, and often end up with a laundry list of characteristics instead. That's been a concern for NASA, and so in the 1990s, the space agency convened a panel to try to define life. The panel put evolution front and center: Life, the panel decided, is self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution. Creationists aren't too happy with this, but biologists for the most part say it's a reasonable guess as to what would tie together life through the cosmos. It's something of a guess because we only have one example of life. All life here on Earth is related, and all organisms share same system of carbon-based molecules - DNA and RNA - to carry assembly instructions and other key information. It's not hard to image that some other type of life might use an alternative system.
Asking earthlings to define life is a little like asking a group born and raised on a deserted island to define animals when they've never seen another animal. Suppose we go to another planet and find one being there, looking exactly like a human being. Everything we can measure about this being confirms that it is just as much alive as you and me. It eats, moves, heals, replenishes, communicates, feels, and defecates. Learning more about this being, though, we find that it has no ancestors, and that it does not age. It does not reproduce, and it is the only such being on the planet. Thus, there is no lineage of descent and no population that can evolve. So this being is then not alive? Of course it is. This definition does not work. This type of criticism rests on a semantic misunderstanding between life and being alive. One isolated person isn't capable of Darwinian evolution - we can't reproduce without a partner. We're alive but we're part of a larger system that would be considered life. NASA's Darwinian definition does indeed embody the theory of evolution. And if the theory applies universally, it predicts that you won't find parentless humanoid beings popping into existence. While NASA needs to think broadly about life, they can't very well go around declaring clouds and flames and crystals alive. One critical distinction is that living things copy themselves imperfectly and pass on the flaws to the next generation. Crystals grow and reproduce themselves with flaws, but the flaws aren't passed down to offspring. They don't evolve. In looking for signs of past life, a general definition of life is not as important as a set of search criteria. Whether looking for signs of past life on Mars or ancient rocks here Earth, scientists look for patterns that can't be explained by physics and chemistry alone.
The discussion may go on and on, but the bottom line is this: Life is very important, and precious. We must not ignore its value and must not let it slip away.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution -
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
No comments:
Post a Comment