Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Life?
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 46 of 268 (592916)
11-22-2010 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by AlphaOmegakid
11-22-2010 6:34 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Now, the only reason the evos won't attempt to define life is because it resticts them on their origin of life mythologies. Sad, sad, sad.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-22-2010 6:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-22-2010 9:21 PM Panda has replied
 Message 63 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 9:52 AM Panda has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 47 of 268 (592933)
11-22-2010 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Panda
11-22-2010 6:46 PM


Re: 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 6:46 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 11-22-2010 9:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 52 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 10:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 57 by Larni, posted 11-23-2010 8:40 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 268 (592934)
11-22-2010 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AlphaOmegakid
11-22-2010 9:21 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-22-2010 9:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-22-2010 9:27 PM jar has replied
 Message 55 by Omnivorous, posted 11-22-2010 11:36 PM jar has not replied
 Message 62 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 9:46 AM jar has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 49 of 268 (592935)
11-22-2010 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by frako
11-22-2010 6:44 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
So how do creos, id-ists,... define life? If the rock got breathed on its life if
not its a rock?
No, it's more like if the rocks evolved it's life, if not it's a rock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by frako, posted 11-22-2010 6:44 PM frako has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 50 of 268 (592936)
11-22-2010 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
11-22-2010 9:24 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
It's not really a scientific definition. It was an interesting essay though.
Please support your claim

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 11-22-2010 9:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 11-22-2010 9:47 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 51 of 268 (592938)
11-22-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by AlphaOmegakid
11-22-2010 9:27 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-22-2010 9:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 10:01 AM jar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 52 of 268 (592944)
11-22-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AlphaOmegakid
11-22-2010 9:21 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
Kid writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-22-2010 9:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 9:38 AM Panda has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 53 of 268 (592945)
11-22-2010 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by AlphaOmegakid
11-22-2010 6:34 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
Hi, AOk.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Yes science defines life. There are definitions in every science textbook printed. Biology is the study of life and life is definable.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-22-2010 6:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 9:19 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 54 of 268 (592947)
11-22-2010 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by AlphaOmegakid
11-22-2010 6:34 PM


Lad Lad Lad
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-22-2010 6:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 55 of 268 (592948)
11-22-2010 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
11-22-2010 9:24 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 11-22-2010 9:24 PM jar has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 56 of 268 (592950)
11-23-2010 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by AlphaOmegakid
11-22-2010 6:34 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
This thread is a sad commentary of the intellect of those in this forum. Three pages of semantic garbage and not one attempt at a scientific definition.
This is, of course, not true, as anyone reading this thread can see.
Well that's not science it is religious equivocation.
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.
Here is probably the best definition I've seen.
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?
The second pillar of life is IMPROVISATION. Because a living system will inevitably be a small fraction of the larger universe in which it lives, it will not be able to control all the changes and vicissitudes of its environment, so it must have some way to change its program [...] In our current living systems, such changes can be achieved by a process of mutation plus selection that allows programs to be optimized for new environmental challenges that are to be faced.
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.
Now, the only reason the evos won't attempt to define life ...
You just quoted one doing so. Do try to lie less often.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-22-2010 6:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 8:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 57 of 268 (592961)
11-23-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by AlphaOmegakid
11-22-2010 9:21 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-22-2010 9:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 8:57 AM Larni has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 58 of 268 (592962)
11-23-2010 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Dr Adequate
11-23-2010 12:27 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
This thread is a sad commentary of the intellect of those in this forum. Three pages of semantic garbage and not one attempt at a scientific definition.
This is, of course, not true, as anyone reading this thread can see.
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.
Well that's not science it is religious equivocation.
No, that's a falsehood that you made up in your head so that you could have something to whine about.
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".
So ... viruses are not alive?
That seems to be the scientific concensus.
And, apparently, God is dead. Nietzsche would be thrilled.
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.
You note, by the way, that he makes evolution part of the definition of life?
The second pillar of life is IMPROVISATION. Because a living system will inevitably be a small fraction of the larger universe in which it lives, it will not be able to control all the changes and vicissitudes of its environment, so it must have some way to change its program [...] In our current living systems, such changes can be achieved by a process of mutation plus selection that allows programs to be optimized for new environmental challenges that are to be faced.
Nope, he does define IMPROVISATION. In it he mentions mutation and natural selection, but this is just a portion of evolution.
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.
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?
Now, the only reason the evos won't attempt to define life ...
You just quoted one doing so. Do try to lie less often.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2010 12:27 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2010 10:38 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 59 of 268 (592963)
11-23-2010 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Larni
11-23-2010 8:40 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Larni, posted 11-23-2010 8:40 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Larni, posted 11-23-2010 12:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 60 of 268 (592964)
11-23-2010 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Blue Jay
11-22-2010 10:30 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Yes science defines life. There are definitions in every science textbook printed. Biology is the study of life and life is definable.
Which means... what, exactly?
That natural life is definable.
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).
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.
What do you do with things that match five of the seven pillars, or four, or six?
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.
Assigning things to discreet categories doesn't make the gradients between them magically disappear.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 11-22-2010 10:30 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Blue Jay, posted 11-24-2010 1:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024