Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,495 Year: 6,752/9,624 Month: 92/238 Week: 9/83 Day: 9/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Life?
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 61 of 268 (592965)
11-23-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Panda
11-22-2010 10:28 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
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.
Go ahead, run away from the definition of life....
"Run, run as fast as you can;
You can't catch me, I'm the Gingerbread Man!"
See ya Ginger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 10:28 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 11-23-2010 10:31 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 69 by Panda, posted 11-23-2010 10:44 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 62 of 268 (592967)
11-23-2010 9:46 AM
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.

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

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 63 of 268 (592968)
11-23-2010 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Panda
11-22-2010 6:46 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'?
What does that have to do with anything?
Yes, he is an evo. And so are most of the authors of biology textbooks. But these evos ARE willing to define life.
They do not fit the category of those evos that "won't attempt to define life." Do you know what a category error is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Panda, posted 11-22-2010 6:46 PM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by frako, posted 11-23-2010 10:04 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2010 12:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 64 of 268 (592969)
11-23-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by jar
11-22-2010 9:47 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
Life ain't a simple concept and so often we fall back on really generalized non specific language as in this essay.
How much more specific can a scientist be?
The essay boils down to "When I see it I will know it; possibly."
How can a rational person read this essay and come to this conclusion?
Finally, for most things "life" is simply not that important a thing to define.

Well it seems imprtant enough to have a whole field of science named after it.
It's just fine for now to have the fuzzy edges.
Yeah, I think they call that "fuzzy science".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 11-22-2010 9:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 11-23-2010 11:40 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 65 of 268 (592970)
11-23-2010 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2010 9:52 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
Is that a good enough deffiniton for you
Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3]
from Life - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 9:52 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 10:15 AM frako has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 66 of 268 (592971)
11-23-2010 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by frako
11-23-2010 10:04 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
I submitted a quality definition of life. I accept that definition. I have many problems with the wiki article.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by frako, posted 11-23-2010 10:04 AM frako has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 667 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 67 of 268 (592974)
11-23-2010 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2010 9:38 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Go ahead, run away from the definition of life....
The OP doesn't suggest that there "is" no definition of life. It says that there is no consensus on what that definition should be. Different definitions are used for different applications.
What point are you trying to make by throwing yet another option into the non-consensus?

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 9:38 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 268 (592975)
11-23-2010 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2010 8:54 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
AOKid writes:
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.
AZPaul3, post #6 writes:
Everyones own pet definition can be shown to harbor inconsistencies, anomalies, omissions and absurdities.
But since you asked:
Life is complex chemistry in continuous action.
frako, post #9 writes:
im guessin the simplest and closest exsplenation for a sientist would be somthing is alive if it reproduces itself naturaly in some way
Dr Adequate, post #10 writes:
In the context of these boards, the convenient place is that point at which the (short) answer to any given question is "evolution". That is, the significant features defining "life" should be reproduction with variation.
jar, message #25 writes:
It means that the thing seems to be something that reproduces by one of many different methods, capable of movement, that takes in some form of energy and expels some form of waste at least during part of its life cycle and that at some point can be said to be not alive.
Parasomnium, post #30 writes:
I believe Richard Dawkins said somewhere that life is molecular information technology, and I think he was pretty much on the mark there.
Parasomnium, post #41 writes:
Ever since Darwin we know quite well what the driving force behind the increasing complexity of life on earth is: it's Darwinian evolution. This suggests another interesting way of defining life, for which I'll quote Gerald Joyce (look under the heading "Proposed", a bit further down):
"Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution."
I guess now you're going to thank me, right?
... no?
AOKid writes:
No, the only falsehood in this thread is that life is undefinable, and that is religious equivocation.
Perhaps you could quote someone saying that "life is undefinable". Or perhaps you can't, since the only use of the word "undefinable" in this thread is in your post to which I am currently replying.
And science has defined life in one way shape or form since the beginning of the use of the term "biology".
In several ways, shapes, and forms.
So ... viruses are not alive?
That seems to be the scientific concensus.
"Consensus" is too strong a term. According to Nobel Laureate David Baltimore, for example: "There’s a running debate about whether viruses are alive or dead". It doesn't sound like he agrees with you that there's a consensus, but maybe you know better than him, what with you being such a non-eminent non-scientist and all.
More irrational thought processes. This is a category error.
No, that's what we scientific types call a "joke". You may have heard the term. Perhaps when you have a minute free you could look it up.
Nope, he does define IMPROVISATION.
And he says that in "In our current living systems, such changes can be achieved by a process of mutation plus selection that allows programs to be optimized". Which is a description of adaptive evolution by Darwinian processes.
In it he mentions mutation and natural selection, but this is just a portion of evolution.
And a portion of evolution is evolution, just as a portion of salami is salami.
Do you really mean to pretend that the optimization of organisms through mutation and selection isn't evolution, or are you just typing words at random?
Well first off your premise is false. No major creationist organization I know of denies that mutations and natural selection happens in living organisms. AIG, CMI, ICR, even Hovind agrees with mutation and natural selection happening in living creatures.
But creationists do often deny that they operate as an optimizing force.
Take this guy, for example:
Mutation, which acts on the complex information in the DNA in a random and unconscious manner, harms the DNA, and therefore harms the organism bearing the DNA. At best, it may have no effect at all. However, mutations can never add any new information to DNA, and do not make any kind of improvement in the organism. Not a single instance of this has ever been observed. [...] They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how� As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow.
Perhaps you should email this guy and tell him that he is a "rather deceitful strawman" constructed by me. He will be surprised, as will his parents.
So you have constructed a rather decietful strawman argument. Why do you do that?
Says the man who just read and quoted me saying that creationists often deny "optimization by mutation and selection", and then pretended that I'd said that they deny mutation and selection.
Mind you don't choke to death on your own hypocrisy, now.
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 ..." .
And you did not say "the only reason the evos on this thread won't attempt to define life ..."
If you wished only to lie about evolutionists on this thread and not evolutionists in general, you should have said so. There was nothing to indicate which lie you were trying to tell; and as both are equally false it was impossible to discover from context.
The evos in this thread have purposely mislead the public that life is not definable ... All of these athors do provide definitions of life contrary to what the equivocators in this forum are doing.
See, now there your lie is clear and explicit. Well done!
But perhaps your posts would be even better if you would tell the truth. It's really quite painless, you should try it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 8:54 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-30-2010 8:41 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3968 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 69 of 268 (592976)
11-23-2010 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2010 9:38 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
kid writes:
"Run, run as fast as you can;
You can't catch me, I'm the Gingerbread Man!"
Oh nooes!
You are insulting me with nursery rhymes!!
Did the other kids in the playground teach you that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 9:38 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 94 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 70 of 268 (592980)
11-23-2010 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2010 10:01 AM


A rose is a rose ...
AlphaOmegakid writes:
How much more specific can a scientist be?
Considerably more specific. But when it comes to the boundary between living things and non-living things, the reality is that it does get fuzzy.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
How can a rational person read this essay and come to this conclusion?
A rational person understands that often the proper answer is "I don't know."
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Well it seems imprtant enough to have a whole field of science named after it.
And guess what? Life Sciences study those things we can point out and say "Yup, that's alive" and it also looks at some things and says "Look here. Is this alive?"
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Yeah, I think they call that "fuzzy science".
I do not doubt that you think that is true, but it isn't.
The issue is that you seem to want everything and all knowledge to be neat, clean, clear, with sharp edges, boundaries and definitions. Unfortunately the Universe is even stranger than anyone thinks and we fortunately, don't have all the answers.
But just substituting "goddidit" tells us nothing. Pretending we have the answer tells us nothing.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 10:01 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 71 of 268 (592982)
11-23-2010 12:12 PM


Life?
On this thread I proposed the following definition:
Life is a collection of chemicals that, given the right environmental conditions, can promote their own synthesis through surface catalysis.
Discuss.

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 11-23-2010 12:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2010 12:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 86 by Stephen Push, posted 11-23-2010 10:26 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 72 of 268 (592983)
11-23-2010 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by AlphaOmegakid
11-22-2010 6:34 PM


Viruses Again
Yes science defines life. There are definitions in every science textbook printed. Biology is the study of life and life is definable.
So, just to clarify.
* Biology is the study of life.
* Viruses are (per your favored definition) not life.
So, tell me. If someone spends his whole scientific career studying viruses ... does that mean that he is not a biologist?
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 not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Dr Jack, posted 11-24-2010 7:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 321 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 268 (592984)
11-23-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
11-23-2010 12:12 PM


Re: Life?
Is a virus a form of life by this definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2010 12:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2010 12:39 PM Straggler has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 74 of 268 (592985)
11-23-2010 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2010 8:57 AM


Arbitray definitions
OK writes:
Then support your claim. The definition is not arbitrary at all. It is quite specific.
All definitions of life are arbitrary.
For example:
John decides that he defines life as x, y and z.
Bob decides to define life as x, y and q.
Both are specific definitions of what Bob and John think life is. They agree on somethings and not others.
As there are no letters of fire in the sky that say life is x, y and z or x, y, and q we have no reason to believe either definition has a mandate from heaven for being correct.
Similar example:
John defines tall as 6'2'' or higher.
Bob defines tall as 6'4'' or higher.
The definition of both tall and life are arbitrary because there is no absolute point where tall can be pin pointed in the same way there is no absolute point at which life can be pin pointed.
Both tall and life are categorical constructs that vary with the definer i.e. the one defining the category.
There I've done it; I supported my claim with reasoned arguement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 8:57 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 75 of 268 (592986)
11-23-2010 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2010 9:52 AM


Category Errors
Yes, he is an evo. And so are most of the authors of biology textbooks. But these evos ARE willing to define life.
They do not fit the category of those evos that "won't attempt to define life." Do you know what a category error is?
So when you said "the evos won't attempt to define life", what you meant was: "the evos who won't attempt to define life [a set which may be completely empty] won't attempt to define life."
I see. Very well then.
Creationists are child molesters.
Anyone who takes this as a libel on creationists is committing a fallacy, since (as we now know) this remark applies only to those creationists who are child molesters, and not to those who aren't. Hence if I go around saying "creationists are child molesters" I am speaking the truth as a matter of logical necessity, and anyone who disagrees with me by producing an counterexample of a creationist who is not a child molester is perpetrating a "category error".
Indeed, I would be speaking the truth even if not one single creationist is a child molester, since the statement that all creationists who are child molesters are child molesters does not in any way imply that the set of creationists who are child molesters is non-empty.
Clearly creationists have much to teach us about logic ... like how not to do it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2010 9:52 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024