Thursday, November 4, 2010

A theory

There are lots of things that the human wonder about in life. Some of them may be reasonable some not, and some may be unreasonable yet be a question to wonder about and at last be the most reasonable one. One of such question is about how and from where the earth that we live in today came from. Was there a beginning of the earth? So did someone really created it as we have been told since the childhood. A powerful being with no evidences of existence termed as the “God” created the earth in a stroke according to some religion and the “God” with almost same power as the other “Counterpart” needed 7 days to create the earth. (Could have done in a stroke, if he could have done it in 7 days?!!). It does remain a mystery and I think it will forever. Is there really not a single way to explain all those things we are adapted with? That are not normal, and we call them supernatural. Everything needs to have a beginning “Nothing can come from nothing”, that holds true, which means everything has a beginning. So must the earth. Scientifically they say it has, even according to different religion it has but the difference is of a second to 604800 sec to 5-6 billion years. Which of them can we take as the best reason for the existence that we are today and the way the earth that we live was created?

Basically, there are lots of points both, from the science and the religion. They have a story a myth or a proof of the things that they have expressed in their way they think was the best and the truth about the origin of the earth. But each of them has left a loop whole for us to peek. At some instant both of them holds true, differently from the point of view, but the same bottom line. There’s something that the religion says and something that science proves, yet we can go on with the proofs the science has made and it’s always hard to believe the unseen story of the supernatural invincible “God”.

Science says and the scientists believe that the earth was formed some 5-6 billion years ago. There were nothing but miles and miles and tons of clouds of cosmic dust and gases which eventually condensed forming the earth, which was believed to be so hot that it took some 100 of millions years to cool. A big bang what as we have learnt now is what resulted the hot mass of earth. May be it was separated from the sun, or anything any other earthly object having definite mass. I do accept the fact that earth had a beginning, whether it was a big bang or even a small bang or normal bang or even no bang or it just separated of some other heavenly body, and life evolved the way the science has said it was, after the earth was cooled down.

If the earth was separated from some thing then, a small part of that “something” is the world we live in. And if the earth didn’t separate from such heavenly body and rather formed its self after the condensation of the cosmic clouds. The gases settling down, the lighter remained at the top, then immediately beneath the medium and then the heavier gases ultimately forming the core of the earth. There’s nothing not to believe in that. It might just be true. They might has condensed and resulted in the earth. Condensations are now days practically proved and we can just see them on daily basis. But the thing that puzzles me the most is where exactly the gases did came from at the first place? From other heavenly bodies, if it’s so then from where the other heavenly body came from, the condensations? For them to have the condensation they might need some gases, and I wonder from where those gases came from? Then they say the earth cooled down ultimately reached the point where the formation of life was possible. Being a student of biology and a major in microbiology, I’ve read the sentence that I’m about to hundreds of time and always I’ve wondered about it and the thing that I am about to relate it to.

The first few thing we learn when we start the chapter “Evolution” is that “No living things can arise from non-living things” that discarded the famous “Theory of Spontaneous Generation” which of course was discarded by many scientists but the major blow came from Stanly L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953. The “Urey and Miller Experiment” that once in for all settled the problem that the Theory of Spontaneous Generation was. Again, there’s nothing there that cannot be believed and said that it’s wrong, one its common sense and the next it was proved in the laboratory! They did create the environment that was believed to exist when the earth was first formed and the point where it had cooled down some 100 million years afterwards. They designed an apparatus, they added water vapors, hydrogen, methane, ammonia gas et cetera… energy was supplied in closed chamber by heating, electric discharge form electrodes, and UV and the whole setup was run for a week. As a result, products of chemical reactions were condensed and were collected in a chamber. Chemical analysis of products indicated presence of number of amino acids like glycine, alanine, asparatic etc…and certain other organic compounds such as aldehyde, simple sugar, risboe etc…ultimately forming the nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA… that proved that the life did origin in the earth and wasn’t created else where. But the problem I have with it is that how come a non-living thing like nucleic acids turn into living thing? What’s the missing link? Even the Nucleic acids within the body of living things are considered to be non-living then how come the Nucleic acids become the living part?

No comments:

There was an error in this gadget