Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

You've encountered neither of these caricatures in this thread. Have you considered the irony of asking this question after rejecting expressions of the ambiguity surrounding the dividing line between life and non-life?Tentativity is a central concept in science, so when you complain, "But you haven't proved it," we can only agree with you, but not because theory is wrong, but because nothing in science is ever proved.All that can be done is to offer evidence in support of tentative hypothesis and theory, but no amount of evidence will ever constitute proof. What you really mean to say is, "But you have insufficient evidence for your conclusions," and then we can get into a discussion of the evidence.I'm getting the sense that your real issue is with methodological naturalism, which makes this thread even more off-topic for you.--Percy

You claimed to be the only one who is attempting to define what life and non-life is.However, since we are not talking about the defining line between life and non-life in 2009, we are talking about the line 4 billion years ago, I ask you, how can you even make an attempt to define a line between what life and non-life was like 4 billion years ago?That is why I said that your attempts to draw a line between life and non-life 4 billion years ago "are unevidenced assertions that lack scientific credibility."I'll ask you again, how can you even make an attempt to draw a line between life and non-life 4 billion years ago when there is very little evidence? The only evidence that exists is that at one point in time there was inorganic matter and nothing we would define as "life", then at a period in time we find that there is "life" as we define it.So, the only conclusion, other than it appeared out of thin air, is that inorganic, chemical reactions naturally formed "life". Or you can say God did it, which is fine if that's your belief, but we would still have to assume God used inorganic material, since that is what we are composed of, and how exactly did he do it? I believe in either case the scientific method is the proper approach for the inquiry. So far there are a few leading abiogenesis hypothesis in science.What do you dispute, and why?I think we can skip the rest since I feel I covered it in the above paragraph. Do you believe God did it is a compelling theory?- If you do, then what objective evidence are you using to support that as a theory?- If you don't, would you agree that the leading, compelling, theories are the hypothesis in the field of Abiogenesis?*Unless you know of another theory/hypothesis? Well it seems you change your mind every time I ask the question. Lets re-trace your steps.First you say: Note: objective scientistThen you say: Note: staunch evolutionistNow it comes down to: So we went from, objective scientist, to evolutionist, to atheist hypocrites who are too enthralled by atheism itself that it's become a pseudo-religion...So which is it?Do you feel the scientist studying and investigating in the field of abiogenesis fit your description?- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

I pinched this image from JonF over in the polonium halos thread. I can easily distinguish red from yellow, but where is the transition point? This is the same problem we have with life now when we can investigate it closely and 3.5 billion years ago when we can catch mere glimpses of it. We can say that is life, and that is not. but only if we reduce our resolution to The cow says ‘moo’. level of understanding. This seem incongruous. Here you make up, This is him hiding behind a chair so that you can't kick him in the jimmies again. In 1642 he grew a tree in a container of soil. Five years later he uprooted it, knocked all the soil out of the roots, and weighed it at 162 pounds. He also weighed the soil and discovered that none of the soil was missing. Now, Jan mistakenly came to the conclusion that the tree was made of water, not knowing about CO₂ and all but at least he knew it didn't come from the soil 362 years before you wrote the above.and,How is it possible that this thing could move under its own power? It has no headlights, taillights, turn signals, wind shield, wind shield wipers, seat belts, air bags, cd changer, navigator and the list goes on, yet Cugnot managed to crash into a wall with it. I guess the rules for automobiles were different in the beginning.Over here you make up this,And this You made several excuses for this purely imaginary natural history that actually put you in a worse light then the original statements. These are not, as you seem to suggest, simplifications for the laymen: they are flat out, stupefyingly wrong. I'm not just bringing this up to rag on you. Anyone who starts out with these kind of erroneous premises is going to end up with even more erroneous conclusions. You have succeeded in doing just that.Another premise you'd do well to be rid of is that science is common sense. Aristotelian style, arm chair reasoning went out with Galileo. This is one of the sleaziest bits of reasoning one can resort to. You have proven Lincoln right when he said "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."*Does "I just mean the people who refuse to think there is any way other than their own." sound familiar?

---

Hi slevesqueI sorta’ think you’re kidding, but for others: i is, indeed, a number. It is an imaginary number: i=√-1. Because a negative multiplied by a negative is positive; i.e., -2-2=(-2)²=4, one can not get a real value for √-4. However, √-(y²) can be rewritten √(-1(y²)) = √(y²)√-1 = y√-1. For ease of use √-1 has been given the symbol i; ∴, y√-1 =iy.Edited by lyx2no, : Remembered my pal Jan.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.Edited by lyx2no, : Better quote.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : First link - change "m=81#97" to "m=97#97". Works much better that way.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Prove it. This is simple assertion on your part and given your ignorance of such basic biology such as how plants produce organic compounds I've got to wonder what credibility you have to make such assertions about biochemistry. We already know of organisms that use more than the standard 20 amino acids, so how you can you so confidently assert that this number - which we already know can vary - must be present for life to function? Wrong, I proved it way back in my first post:

quote:

---

Wrong. Abiogenesis is an empirical fact. We know that there was no life 13.7 billion years ago, and no life on Earth 4.5 billion years ago. We also know there is life on Earth now. Thus, by simple deduction, at some point in the last 13.7 billion years life formed from non-life - abiogenesis - further, given the remarkable unlikelihood of life surviving to cross space and seed earth, it's most likely to have formed on Earth in the last 4.5 billion years.

---

Once there wasn't life, now there is life ergo at some point life must have formed out of something non-living. Life, like many properties of the natural world turns out to be "fuzzy"; there is no hard boundary between living and non-living. And the harder you look, the harder it is to define. Sure, you can cobble up a bunch of criteria, but you'll find soon enough that they either exclude some kind of life you'd like to call life or include something you want to claim isn't. This is exactly as we should expect, because ultimately life isn't some mystical voodoo; it's chemistry.

I was asked by several people here to define life. That wasn't my idea. The problem is they don't play by the same set of rules, as I've asked them to reciprocate. I understand that, but have you not realized that this answer has been used as a catch-all answer for many unproven things in biology? "It's slow, so it's imperceptible." That doesn't help as far as evidence goes. Honestly, it sounds no better than the convenient "because God said so" cut and paste excuse.My question was how you know it happened at all. That's what I want to know. several people have claimed to KNOW (their caps, not mine) that it happened the way they say it happened, but then offered nothing to corroborate their allegation.Others have attempted to make a logical deduction, that since life is here now, it must have come from inorganic matter at some time, because there's nothing else they are willing to entertain. For them it's either nothing came to life or God. That's not an answer, that's not how science is conducted, and those don't have to be the only possibilities. Work from that basic inference, sure, but don't come to the conclusion until the conclusion is known empirically.That conclusion has never been established. I understand what you are saying and make a valid point to a degree. You'd first have to determine that a proto-cell was at some point extant in biological history to even begin to attempt to answer that.You can't very well pre-determine that life must have sprang up in some primordial puddle billions of years ago, but you can theorize. I agree with the study of abiogenesis. I think they are doing some very good work, particularly with the RNA-first models.What gets under my skin is the surety with which some speak about things that have not been concluded, and worse yet, have already been proven false via empirical testing.People like DR. Adequate here who feels it necessary to splatter his hubris all over the thread in a fit of superiority because, heaven forbid, I used the word "subduction" as opposed to "uplift." All I ever asked for was concession that abiogenesis still hasn't been proven and that living and non-living are clearly distinguished. Any other small victories are up for grabs. I'm now extremely bored of going around in circles.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Who? Seriously no-one has said they know how it happened, only that it happened.

I will not deny that poor arguments and excuses have been provided for nearly every position at some time or another, but I suspect this quote is completed by "... to you standing here in your PJs with a magnifying glass. You have to look at a longer record." Science does NOT declare things that cannot be perceived, it is fundamentally in opposition to how it functions. Such things are in the realm of philosophy, or religion. Because we see it occurred? Honestly, I don't see what is so hard about this. You have a teacup sitting intact on your desk, and after a brief absence you return to find it smashed on the floor. While the mechanisms behind how it came to be smashed may be questioned, the fact that it broke at some point is hardly undetermined is it?As for the specifics it is perfectly acceptable to request evidence. In fact I consider it required if you are to be an intelligent human being. Note that this tends to preclude religious arguments since they are the model of declaring certainty and offering no evidence to back their claims up. Science on the other hand does have evidence to back up the theories and hypotheses, and while it may not be complete it is something to consider. Can you provide a good reason to entertain other possibilities? We look at the things that are considered "alive" today and observe that they are made up of exactly the same things that non-living materials are composed of. We see a record of a long series of organisms which leads back to the very simplest of structures, each composed of non-living materials and connected by biological processes that contain no element of magic. Provide a reason why any other possibility should be considered! They mean different things. Not even particularly similar things; one could argue they are opposites. You may argue his manner, but the error was not one of word choice but rather overarching concept. Abiogenesis is essentially self-evident, it is the specific processes which have not been proven. Living and non-living are NOT clearly distinguished.Now, having had multiple people state that living and non-living are not clearly distinguished do you agree that it is appropriate for you to back up your claims by defining life? Note that we too share the burden of providing evidence to back up our assertions, so you are being dealt with fairly.

Abiogenesis is self-evident, but the fact that life came from innanimate matter [b]on its own[/n] is not self-evident.Only by rejecting a Designer A priori, within a materialistic philosophy, can you be left with only this option.

No, we start assuming nothing and build from the things we observe. We have observed no evidence for a Designer, so it never entered in to the hypothesis.You appear to be following the pattern of going with your imagination and then snipping out the parts that are specifically disproved. It is a little discouraging that I have to point out specifically that science does not work this way.

You already have that concession, I'll make it again: abiogenesis has not been proven. Everyone here agrees that abiogenesis has not been proven. All the evidence certainly points to abiogenesis, but it definitely has not been proven and never will, just like all else in science.Science seeks only natural explanations. Anything perceptible by our senses, including by means of specialized instrumentation, is deemed to be part of the natural world. This means that phenomena for which we have no means of perception are not part of the natural world, and so are not amenable to scientific examination.We have overwhelming evidence that everything that has ever happened in the universe has been due to natural causes. That this is an accurate observation explains why science's search for natural causes for everything has been so incredibly rewarding. And it's why when science seeks the explanation for anything it seeks only natural explanations. This is not something that is true only for the origin of life - it is true for all scientific investigation. If you object to seeking only natural causes for the origin of life, then you must object on the same grounds to seeking only natural causes for anything in science, whether its electricity, the structure of the atom, or the origin of stars. Any advocacy for unnatural causes lies outside the realm of science. You put your own love affair with hubris on public display first with all your wrongheaded statements made with utter confidence. You were as wrong about the nature of science as you were about subduction.I'm concerned that you might be left thinking that things I don't comment upon were okay, so let let me comment on a few other things. The key issue isn't the speed of the process but that it's made up of extremely tiny steps, nearly a continuum. If it's amenable to scientific study then it happened naturally. You can entertain other possibilities if you like, but you can't call them scientific. I haven't noticed anyone proposing explanations that "have already been proven false via empirical testing." Empirical testing is a means of applying scientific criteria to the study of phenomena, and one wonders how you plan to employ empirical testing of your "other possibilities" that exist outside nature.--Percy

Abiogenesis is not self-evident. There's nothing a priori that means life cannot always have been, we only know that life hasn't always been by applying science. I trust science because it has an incredible track record of success, methodology that both makes sense and can be demonstrated to work and produces coherent and understandable results that can be independently verified. Against that you have making some stuff up - which is exactly what any designed imagined into the scene is. Trouble is that once you've accepted making stuff up and magical mystery designers into your idea of knowledge abiogenesis is no longer justifiable as a necessity, and science is no longer trustable. Maybe it always was, and the magic just makes it appear like it isn't? Maybe that cup didn't fall to the ground 'cos of gravity but because the pixies made it so.I'll take science with its proven track record of success, and coherent methodology and outlook over the machinations of incomprehensible magic, thank you.Oh, and this isn't a matter of "materialist philosophy", it's a matter of pragmatically and consistently applying principles that work.

Hi slevesque There are several mathematical concepts that are designated by letters:π = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795 ... is the basis for calculating circumference and area of a circle, shows up many places.e = 2.7182818284590452353602874713527 ... is the basis for logarithms and is commonly used as the base of exponential functions, shows up many placesi = (-1)^{^1/2} ... is the square root of -1 and is the basis for imaginary numbers, shows up many places.y = ax^{^2} + bx + cx = (-b ± (b^{^2}-4ac)^{^1/2})/2aIf b^{^2} < 4ac then you are solving for a square root of a negative number, which is normally solved by factoring out -1 and then taking the square root of the remainder, and placing an "i" after it to designate the square root of -1.Edited by RAZD, : end clrtyEdited by RAZD, : for my imaginative friend

Hi Hyroglyphx, I notice that Percy and Dr Adequate have already answered, but I have a few comments to make as well. Curiously, science does not draw a line, but talks about a number of features that are common to life, but that it gets sticky when you talk about (a) formation of life from chemicals on an ancient earth or (2) formation of life on other planets.Here is a (rather wordy) article that discusses the multiple problems with simple definitions: The Definition of Life, By Joseph Morales:

quote:

---

... I would argue that it would be a good thing to have a workable abstract definition of life, and that such a definition need not be wholly arbitrary, but can be defensible to a degree. However, the point is not to describe some sort of metaphysical essence of life. Rather, the point is to define life so that the term can be usefully extended to situations we have never before encountered.
...

Whenever biologists try to formulate definitions of life, they are troubled by the following: a virus; a growing crystal; Penrose’s tiles; a mule; a dead body of something that was indisputably alive; an extraterrestrial creature whose biochemistry is not based on carbon; an intelligent computer or robot. William Poundstone, The Recursive Universe

We will be searching for a definition of life that is useful. In order to be useful, the definition should meet the following criteria, so far as possible:

---

And he goes on to list a bunch of criteria for evaluating a definition of life, along with common problems with the various criteria discussed.Interestingly, to nod at the topic, none of the definitions noted, nor any of the criteria for testing a definitions, mention modularity as a distinguishing property of life. Fascinatingly, I do not. Take the Von Neuman Robot ("Vonny") concept: a completely self-reproducing entity that makes copies of itself, taking up raw material and forming it into the bits and pieces of another Vonny. The difference between this and a prokarytote single cell organism is ...? They are both replicating, I'm sure you would agree, but what makes one reproduction and the other one not? My working definition (it's a work in progress) is a threshold definition, where there are more aspects involved that we normally associate with life than aspects we normally associate with non-life.Thus if we make a list of 8 or 10 "normal aspects of life" and assume for simplicity sake that the "normal aspects of non-life" are the obverse of the former, then we can develop a model for when the threshold of life is crossed. Love those absolute pronouncements. A single cell bacteria is living according to most working definitions, but it does not contain cells. Let's say it has a membrane\shell, a container for the thing contained. More complex forms of life have more complex containers. A meaningless statement, or it begs the question: growth_life as opposed to grows_non-life, so we can tell life because it is life? Replication, let's keep it simple, however, to make it a little more complex, let's say self-replication, that formation of similar objects by other means does not count. Again, decay is a function of life, so you are saying we can tell life because it is life.Interestingly, I would say that a more important criteria would be the continuation of life independent of individuals, that individuals need to be linked to parents in a continuous trail, so a single individual contained replicator is not sufficient to be alive, it needs to be part of a continuous chain of life.This may seem problematical for an original first life, however the development of that chain is attached to and contains that first individual, and that without descendants it is not life. That's it?I would add:

exhibits negative entropy - it consumes matter and/or energy and creates organization.

​

stasis - the individual exhibits stasis, staying relatively the same over extended periods, relative within the container compared to outside the container. The insides stay inside.

​

reaction - senses and reacts to external stimuli (sunlight, food, danger, etc)

​

adaptation - imperfect replication leading to selection to adapt to change, getting more into defining life of a population rather than of an individual.

​

... for starters ...

​

Perhaps a simple way to state it is: a population of similar objects capable of evolution.

​

So let's say the list includes, but is not limited to:

1. Contained within a shell or membrane
2. Self-replication
3. Common Ancestry and continuation regardless of individuals
4. Negative entropy
5. Individual stasis relative to surroundings
6. Reaction to stimuli in surrounding ecology
7. Adaptation of population to changing or different ecologies
   ...

And that any system that exhibits four of these items has crossed the threshold, has gone from non-living to sort-of living. Notice that a virus passes several of these criteria, but then I believe viruses are left over from the RNA world life forms. Also notice that the Vonny also passes several of these criteria: this does not bother me, as I feel it is entirely possible to fabricate life, and whether one does it with molecules or machines is irrelevant.

​

If it does come to that, then we will likely see modularity as a distinguishing property of life, as it certainly is a property of design for easy maintenance.

​

Enjoy.

​

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

​

Edited by RAZD, : ...

​

Edited by RAZD, : includes

​

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Opps! An irrational number is one that cannot be written in the form p/q, with p and q being whole numbers.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Sorry about the delay in replying, I had a pretty hefty project at work that took up my time.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me qualify that at the molecular and atomic the answer is no, we cannot tell the difference between carbon atoms or hydrocarbon molecules in a rock and those in a human body. It is only as we zoom out and see the collection of atoms on a more macroscopic level (i.e. micrometers and higher) that we can differentiate how these vast collections of atoms interact with each other that differentiate biochemically evolving systems aka "life" from non-biological systems aka "non-life".BTW the term organic has several different conotations. Howeverm this term used in science usually refers to carbon compounds that originate in biological organisms. Therefore some rocks may actually contain remnants of organic material in them even though they are considered "non-living" objects. Your definition of life is overly simplistic. Many multicellular organisms are composed of many other substances, organic and inorganic, besides cells i.e. proteins, lipids, polypeptides, sugars, water, etc. Are these substinance considered "living" or "nonliving"? How about mature mammalian erythrocytes (red blood cells) which lack a cell nucleus and DNA. Are they considered "alive" even without genetic material in a nucleus or mitochondria and the ability to "reproduce" or more accurately divide? Cells of muscle tissue as well as nervous tissue also do not divide after birth. Myoblast (precve ursor skeletal muscle fiber cells) fuse together and often have many nuclei but cannot replicate. Are they alive?And how do you define cells? Again, can viruses be grouped along with other cellular life. Some virus (though not all) have a lipid membrane which is derived from the host cells they invade and serves the same purpose as a cell membrane in keeping intact the genetic material inside and protecting it from potentially harmful substances outside. However, viruses can only reproduce by canabolizing host cells. Ditto, see above. Not all living organism or the cells they are composed of reproduce. Mules don't reproduce. Assexual and sterile people don't reproduce. Red blood cells and several other different types of cells in the body don't reproduce. I do? When have I done that? I am just saying there is no clear definitive dividing line between life and non-life. That is it. This is what 100+ years of serious biochemical research has taught us. The real question is not how can can life come from non-life but how exactly did life originate on Earth. "Life" comes from "non-life" every second in practically every nook and cranny on this planet. "Life" is composed of organic and inorganic "living" and "non-living" material (I use the terms "living" and "non-living" terms very loosely to make a poignant point here) which is continually recycled over and over again. Actually these are not terms that are used in common occurance in biochemistry journals because they make absolutely no sense. They define, NOTHING on a molecular level. So this is really a moot point. It is ironic because you are quoting from someone who you would adamantly oppose if you really understood what he was saying in this article other writings (that life on Earth originated via natural means and evolved to its present status today). I am not sure what your point is here? Wrong. You really do need to study up on your material before making statements which have no basis in reality. Thomas Huxley was a naval physician and zoologist who won awards for his research in the fields of anatomy and physiology. Huxley infact wrote several papers directly on the subject of cellular biology. Biological cells had first been discovered by Robert Hooke in 1665, 150 years before Huxley was born. This has been commonly taught in science classrooms due to its simplicity and these ease in which this distinction between life and non-life can be conceptualized. As we dig down into the biochemistry details these distinctions blur.This is similar to the way in which we teach grade schools students that all material in the natural world is composed of atoms. Does that mean that there does not exist other entities that are not composed of atoms? Of course not. Virtual particles and other subatomic particles as well as other forms of exotic matter and energy also exist. However, to keep from overwhelming our young pupils with information that they could not even begin to understand until later we have to oversimplify our teaching of science in the classroom. We also have them demonstrate an atom by creating one with styrofoam balls and toothpics. Does that mean that atoms are really composed of discernable particles with distinct solarsystem-like orbits (electrons) which orbit around a central unified unmoving mass (nucleus)? Of course not, this is simply a oversimplified model to get them on the right track of understanding basic scientific concepts. The same is true with your statement that "cells are the basic building block of all life". In reality in order for your statement to be scientifically sound it should read: "All biological systems discovered on Earth to date are composed of cell/cell-like structures and other organic and inorganic material which are capable of temporarily decreasing the local entropy of its system through the changing of matter and energy from one form to another." I am not contesting this. Again you are really not understanding the science behind these natural phenomena. On a molecular scale they are indistinguishable. All science is theoretical. Science is built on theories: Newton's theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, the general and special theories of relativity, atomic theory, Big Bang theory, etc. Furthermore, no one is contesting that abiogenesis is anything but theoretical. I never used these terms and I have not seen anyone but you use this overly simplistic strawman argument. If they are used they are only used as an oversimplification of what is actually occurring i.e. the initial genesis of biological systems from non-biological, inorganic matter, This is a double-edge sword and thus applies as much to you and the rest of the IDers and creationists as it does to those you disagree with. In other words you can't make rational decisions without
substantiated emperical evidence. True scientific theories are developed from and are supported by facts/emperical evidence not the other way around. Whatever floats your boat. No one is making the claim that abiogenesis is fact. Science is just researching the most likely scenario of how life could have originated on Earth (aka Occalm's Razor). Pounding head on wall. NO ONE IS SAYING ABIOGENESIS IS FACT! How can you say out of the left your side of your mouth that abiogensis "may be proven" and in the next sentance that it "has [already] been disproven"? You can't have it both ways. Science takes the middle ground and is saying there is no conclusive evidence exactly how abiogenesis occurred but is still collecting evidence to figure out how. Science does not "prove" things, it provides valid, rational explanations for natural phenomena. There is a difference between these two concepts. Sorry I get a chuckle everytime a creationist or IDer says this. If you have to keep repeating how objective and rational you are to yourself and to us, than it probably means your not being objective and rational. If I learned one thing in life it is this. Don't take yourself too seriously.Have a good night Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan