What is Life?

quote:

---

The author is in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3206, USA, and a former Editor-in-Chief of Science.

---

So you think he is not an 'evo'?A biologist tries to define life and Creo's jump up and claim victory? Sad, sad, sad.

Why don't you quit being sad, sad, sad, and comment on his definition of life. The people in this forum have yet been able or willing to define it. So do you agree with his scientific definition of life? And if not why? And support your reasons.

It's not really a scientific definition. It was an interesting essay though.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

No, it's more like if the rocks evolved it's life, if not it's a rock.

Please support your claim

Did you read your own link?Didn't think so.

quote:

---

Science 22 March 2002:
Vol. 295 no. 5563 pp. 2215-2216
DOI: 10.1126/science.1068489

​

* Essays on Science and Society

​

SPECIAL ESSAY
The Seven Pillars of Life

---

There is a difference between peer review and editorial sections. This one is an essay.In this case, it simply repeats what so many people have already told you. In most cases life is a spectrum that is not something clear and easily defined at the extremes. There are things that are easy to point to and say, "yup, that's alive", others where it is quite difficult. In addition, so far we only have one sample of "life" to study. Even here there are things like prions that exhibit many of the so called "pillars" but are not DNA based.Life ain't a simple concept and so often we fall back on really generalized non specific language as in this essay.The essay boils down to "When I see it I will know it; possibly."Finally, for most things "life" is simply not that important a thing to define. It's just fine for now to have the fuzzy edges.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Aaaw diddums...did I point out that you were wrong?
Were you unable to defend your stupid comment?And I didn't even bother correcting your ignorant mistake of "Evolution" = "Origin of life".Cry me a river.
Build a bridge.
Get over it.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Hi, AOk. Which means... what, exactly?The fact remains that many things that do not fit the definition of "life" are still more similar to things that are defined as "life" than other things that are not defined as "life" (e.g. a virus is more like "life" than it is like a grain of sand).What do you do with things that match five of the seven pillars, or four, or six?Assigning things to discreet categories doesn't make the gradients between them magically disappear.Edited by Bluejay, : virus example and some cosmetic changes.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Kid, you bother me.I am reading comments critical of science by one who believes the specimen essay is "a peer reviewed article" that offers a scientific definition of life. I am amazed.And I am frozen by paradoxical stimuli.I don't know whether to howl, bark at the moon and kick your ass--or simply to celebrate the confusion in my enemies' ranks.File that under false dilemma.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

I agree...interesting attempt to abstract some descriptors for life deeper than eats, shoots and leaves.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

This is, of course, not true, as anyone reading this thread can see. No, that's a falsehood that you made up in your head so that you could have something to whine about.By the way, this is the second time today I've had occasion to wonder why the more religion-ridden a person gets, the more likely he is to use "religious" as a term of abuse. Is it because deep down you know that religion is stupid, or is there some other reason? I'm fascinated.As I pointed out to the other bozo, if I wish to condemn a thing I wouldn't call it "scientific". That would be strangely inconsistent. So ... viruses are not alive?And, apparently, God is dead. Nietzsche would be thrilled.You note, by the way, that he makes evolution part of the definition of life? So if the standard creationist denial of optimization by mutation and selection was correct, then according to your chosen definition we would have to say that nothing was alive. You just quoted one doing so. Do try to lie less often.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It's a good a definition as many.But the point is it is an arbitary definition that is to say it is a construct such as apathy and incredulity. Tehy don't exist as anything other than arbitrary definitions.

Well it is true. Read the three pages. Not one scientific definition of life was provided the OP writer until I provided one. Sad, sad, sad. If you think there was one prior then enlighten us all on it. No, the only falsehood in this thread is that life is undefinable, and that is religious equivocation. Science is not religious. Science is science. And science has defined life in one way shape or form since the beginning of the use of the term "biology". That seems to be the scientific concensus. More irrational thought processes. This is a category error. Science deals with the natural. The definition of life is for natural life. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural, and make no attempt to define supernatural life. Nope, he does define IMPROVISATION. In it he mentions mutation and natural selection, but this is just a portion of evolution. Well first off your premise is false. No major creationist organization I know of denies that mutations and natural selection happens in living organisms. (So, is it you that is lying?)AIG, CMI, ICR, even Hovind agrees with mutation and natural selection happening in living creatures. I can't speak for all creos, but I can speak for those widely published on the web. So you have constructed a rather decietful strawman argument. Why do you do that? You inability to read and comprehend does not constitute me lying. The evos in this thread have purposely mislead the public that life is not definable. The reason those evos do that is they need the wiggle room of equivocation when it comes to the origin of life.I didn't say "all evos don't define life." I said that "the only reason the evos won't attempt to define life ..." .Yes, Koshland is an evo, and so are most of the writers of Biology textbooks. All of these athors do provide definitions of life contrary to what the equivocators in this forum are doing.

Then support your claim. The definition is not arbitrary at all. It is quite specific.

That natural life is definable. Yes, so....I hire employess. A requirement in certain positions is a high school doploma or GED. Completing 12 grades with no diploma is not necessarily any better than completing 10 grades with no diploma. But a diploma does have meaning.A brick is a buiding block of a brick house. But it is far away from the definition of a brick house. You can organize bricks and make a fireplace with bricks and mortar. This is closer to the definition of a brick house, but it still does not meet the definition of a brick house. You give them a special scientific name. Something like "virus". And you recognize that they meet 5 of the 7 criteria, but they do not meet the full criteria. Sure it does. That's what definitions are for. A definition defines and takes away arbitrary gradients. Equivocation removes the boundaries and causes confusion. Is that what you want in science?