Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Michaeladams
Happy Birthday: marc9000
Post Volume: Total: 919,027 Year: 6,284/9,624 Month: 132/240 Week: 75/72 Day: 0/30 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Life?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1600 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 106 of 268 (593868)
11-29-2010 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Dr Adequate
11-29-2010 11:02 AM


Re: Viruses Redux
Hi Dr Adequate
Viruses predominantly destroy life.
This is something of a non sequitur. A carnivore like a lion, an insectivore like a shrew, or a sufficiently nasty bacterium such as Yersinia pestis also make their living by "destroying life". This has no bearing on whether they are alive.
There is also the issue of conflating viruses found while trying to determine the causes of various illnesses and the class {all viruses}.
There may be more viruses than bacteria.
http://findarticles.com/...les/mi_m1134/is_1_108/ai_53682809
Certainly there are many we do not know about and many that seem to be essentially passive to life.
Enjoy.

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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2010 11:02 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 3071 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 107 of 268 (593888)
11-30-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
11-23-2010 10:38 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.
I guess you can’t recognize the difference between someone’s pet definition and a scientific definition. Sad, sad, sad.
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.
Again nothing but pet definitions here. My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life. It is in every biology text book. It is in the article I provided. The problem is not defining life, the problem is that the definition prevents origin of life scientist from equivocating. So they want to pretend, like the evos in this forum that life cannot be nailed down with a definition.
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."
Now this is an interesting pet definition that does come from a scientist! So let’s discuss it briefly. This scientist in particular is one who specializes in the field of OOL, so he is prone to not like traditional scientific definitions of life. So in this lecture he gives the above definition.
Now what is sad about this scientist is that his definition is totally circular. Darwinian evolution only applies to living organisms. Therefore, any chemical assembly that undergoes Darwinian evolution is by definition living. What a nice circle.
All this does is shift the definition life to the definition of Darwinian evolution. It is just circular silliness. This shouldn’t be tolerated in science, but it is.
I guess now you're going to thank me, right?
For what? Pet definitions? Circular definitions? Now I would thank you if you would have at least provided one reference to a scientific source for the definition of life. There are plenty. Like I said, every biology book has one, and I provided a very good one from a highly read scientific journal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-23-2010 10:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Panda, posted 11-30-2010 9:31 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 109 by jar, posted 11-30-2010 9:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 110 by nwr, posted 11-30-2010 10:16 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-30-2010 10:25 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2010 10:53 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3908 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 108 of 268 (593891)
11-30-2010 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid
11-30-2010 8:41 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Again nothing but pet definitions here. My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life. It is in every biology text book. It is in the article I provided.
I guess you can’t recognize the difference between someone’s pet definition and a scientific definition. Sad, sad, sad.
(Describe what you think a 'scientific definition' is, and you will see your obvious mistake.)
kid writes:
My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life. It is in every biology text book.
You keep claiming that these definitions are in every biology book - prove it.
Copy one of these definitions from a biology book into a post.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-30-2010 8:41 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 109 of 268 (593896)
11-30-2010 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid
11-30-2010 8:41 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
Was the definition you provided from an essay?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-30-2010 8:41 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6481
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 9.7


Message 110 of 268 (593897)
11-30-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid
11-30-2010 8:41 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
AlphaOmegakid writes:
I guess you can’t recognize the difference between someone’s pet definition and a scientific definition. Sad, sad, sad.
It is not up to science to provide definitions of word that arose in ordinary popular usage. That's for lexicographers to do, not for scientists to do.
One of the best definitions of "mathematics" is "that which mathematicians do". It has all of the problems that you complain about in defining life. It is, in reality, a recognition that mathematics is a broad subject, far too broad to allow precise definition.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life.
Nice. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide it.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
It is in the article I provided.
I guess you are referring to the article (actually, an essay) that you cited and quoted from in Message 43.
I'm sorry to be delivering the bad news, but that is not a definition of life. The author even says (in the cited article): "At that point, we all became convinced that although everyone knows what life is there is no simple definition of life."
Edited by nwr, : typo

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-30-2010 8:41 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 268 (593898)
11-30-2010 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid
11-30-2010 8:41 AM


the actual problem
My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life. It is in every biology text book. It is in the article I provided. The problem is not defining life, the problem is that the definition prevents origin of life scientist from equivocating. So they want to pretend, like the evos in this forum that life cannot be nailed down with a definition.
Not everything has to do with the debate against creationism...
The problem with defining life is not because of, the reletively few, origin of life scientists. That really has little to do with it and just seems paranoid.
The problem is this:
The difference between the non-living and the living is like the difference between yellow and blue. Sure, I know yellow or blue when I see them, but when you get down to the gnat's ass, you find the green stuff in between that cannot be easily said to be on the yellow or blue side.
Now, we can certainly define yellow to be having a wavelength between 590 - 560 nm, or life to be that with X qualities, but then we just find that the boundaries are fuzzier than our definition allows for. We find that we're not totally accurate. That's the problem with nailing down a definition for life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-30-2010 8:41 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 6:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


(2)
Message 112 of 268 (593900)
11-30-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid
11-30-2010 8:41 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
I guess you can’t recognize the difference between someone’s pet definition and a scientific definition. Sad, sad, sad.
I see. So when you lied in post #43 and wrote that: "the evos won't attempt to define life", what you would have said if you were an honest man was that "the evos" hadn't provided a definition of life that you wish to class as "scientific".
But you lied instead. Why did you do that? Is it part of some Secret Creationist Oath?
Again nothing but pet definitions here.
And you've supplied your "pet definition".
My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life. It is in every biology text book.
And yet I just checked my copy of Holt, Rinehart and Winston, and their definition only has six of your "seven pillars".
The problem is not defining life, the problem is that the definition prevents origin of life scientist from equivocating.
This is an interesting lie. But in order to equivocate, it is necessary to be equivocal.
So they want to pretend, like the evos in this forum that life cannot be nailed down with a definition.
You are, of course, lying. Many of the evos in this forum have offered definitions.
Now what is sad about this scientist is that his definition is totally circular. Darwinian evolution only applies to living organisms. Therefore, any chemical assembly that undergoes Darwinian evolution is by definition living. What a nice circle.
"Now what is sad about you is that you definition is totally circular. Your seven pillars criterion only applies to living organisms. Therefore, any chemical assembly that fulfills this criterion is by definition living. What a nice circle."
Sheesh, don't you understand what a "definition" is? You complain that he has given a definition of "living" such that everything that falls under that criterion is "by definition living".
Er, yeah, that's the point. What else should a definition of life do except identify those characteristics which do in fact define life?
I would note also that your pet definition includes: "a process of mutation plus selection that allows programs to be optimized for new environmental challenges that are to be faced" (i.e. Darwinian evolution). But I do not see you complaining that since only life undergoes this process, your pet definition is circular.
All this does is shift the definition life to the definition of Darwinian evolution.
Yes, words are defined in terms of other words.
I might as well complain that all your pet definition does is shift the definition of life to the definition of "program", "improvisation", "compartmentalization", et cetera.
I suggest that you learn the meaning of the word "circular" before you use it again.
For what?
For showing that you were not telling the truth when you wrote that: "the evos won't attempt to define life", and so, one hopes, making you slightly less "sad, sad, sad".
Now I would thank you if you would have at least provided one reference to a scientific source for the definition of life. There are plenty. Like I said, every biology book has one, and I provided a very good one from a highly read scientific journal.
A good case can thus be made that Darwinian evolution is essential for understanding the nature of life itself. Accordingly, life could be defined as a self-sustaining chemical system (i.e., one that turns resources into its own building blocks) that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. --- Lazcano, "Towards A Definition of Life", 2008
You're welcome.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-30-2010 8:41 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 9:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 114 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 9:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 116 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 10:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 3071 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 113 of 268 (594019)
12-01-2010 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dr Adequate
11-30-2010 10:53 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
I guess you can’t recognize the difference between someone’s pet definition and a scientific definition. Sad, sad, sad.
I see. So when you lied in post #43 and wrote that: "the evos won't attempt to define life", what you would have said if you were an honest man was that "the evos" hadn't provided a definition of life that you wish to class as "scientific".
But you lied instead. Why did you do that? Is it part of some Secret Creationist Oath?
Again, your inability to read and comprehend does not constitute me lying.
Again nothing but pet definitions here.
And you've supplied your "pet definition".
No, to the contrary. I supplied a scientific definition from a noted scientist published in a scientific journal. I supplied a scientific definition.
My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life. It is in every biology text book.
And yet I just checked my copy of Holt, Rinehart and Winston, and their definition only has six of your "seven pillars".
Ahhh. I see that you actually do understand, you just want to call people liars when you don't understand. Sad, sad, sad. But thanks for confirming that Biology books do have definitions of life in them. That was my point. None of those six or seven pillars were listed together by anyone's pet definitions in this forum. Sad, sad, sad.
The problem is not defining life, the problem is that the definition prevents origin of life scientist from equivocating.
This is an interesting lie. But in order to equivocate, it is necessary to be equivocal.
Said like a true, well trained atheist.
So they want to pretend, like the evos in this forum that life cannot be nailed down with a definition.
You are, of course, lying. Many of the evos in this forum have offered definitions.
Jumping in and out of comprehension. You may want to see someone for help. I think they define that as lunacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2010 10:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 12-01-2010 10:13 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-01-2010 1:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 3071 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 114 of 268 (594020)
12-01-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dr Adequate
11-30-2010 10:53 AM


Re: Realy Realy Sad
Now what is sad about this scientist is that his definition is totally circular. Darwinian evolution only applies to living organisms. Therefore, any chemical assembly that undergoes Darwinian evolution is by definition living. What a nice circle.
"Now what is sad about you is that you definition is totally circular. Your seven pillars criterion only applies to living organisms. Therefore, any chemical assembly that fulfills this criterion is by definition living. What a nice circle."
Oh Mercy! You really can't see the circle can you? You have been so trained in the evo circles that you can't identify them any more. Realy, Realy, Sad.
No the definition from the Science article is not circular at all. It gives seven criteria that all life has. Anything that doesn't meet all seven is not life. Rather simple. Not circular at all.
However, in contrast, as I pointed out above, the definition of life being just one criteria which already requires life is circular. The obvious example of this is the OOL theories that try to have RNA inside lipid protocells which potentially can undergo mutation and natural selection. How is it that you define a fitness criteria when no DNA exists, no proteins, no traits, etc? It leaves plenty of room for equivocation on terms like "growth", "evolve", "reproduce", "competition", etc. It is just semantical sillyness which shouldn't be tolerated in science.
To use this semantical sillyness to say something is "alive" when there is no metabolism, no homeostasis, no reaction to stimuli etc. is just equivocation, that is caused by a circular definition.
Sheesh, don't you understand what a "definition" is? You complain that he has given a definition of "living" such that everything that falls under that criterion is "by definition living".
Nice strawman. No. I complain because the definition includes a term that presuposes life already. Now had he defined it with terms such as mutation and natural selection, then maybe his definition wouldn't be circular. But again, natural selection presuposes life. So you would have to define NS in such a way as to not be circular.
I would note also that your pet definition includes: "a process of mutation plus selection that allows programs to be optimized for new environmental challenges that are to be faced" (i.e. Darwinian evolution). But I do not see you complaining that since only life undergoes this process, your pet definition is circular.
Again, you clearly don't understand circular logic. The definition I provided has seven criteria which all must be met. Not one, like the OOL scientist wants to use with the one already presuposing life.
Under the seven pillars, a self replicating protocell would not be alive. And for good reasons.
And by the way, I thought the standard evo mantra was that OOL has nothing to do with TOE. Is this correct, or am I missing something here?
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2010 10:53 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Panda, posted 12-01-2010 10:00 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3908 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 115 of 268 (594023)
12-01-2010 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by AlphaOmegakid
12-01-2010 9:41 AM


Re: Realy Realy Sad
kid writes:
No the definition from the Science article is not circular at all. It gives seven criteria that all life has. Anything that doesn't meet all seven is not life. Rather simple. Not circular at all.
kid writes:
I complain because the definition includes a term that presuposes life already. Now had he defined it with terms such as mutation and natural selection, then maybe his definition wouldn't be circular. But again, natural selection presuposes life. So you would have to define NS in such a way as to not be circular.
The Seven Pillars of Life writes:
The second pillar of life is IMPROVISATION. ... 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...your favourite definition of life doesn't have circular reasoning?
Are you claiming that The Seven Pillars doesn't include a term that presupposes life?
Can you not see the reference to natural selection?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 9:41 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 12:34 PM Panda has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 3071 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 116 of 268 (594024)
12-01-2010 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dr Adequate
11-30-2010 10:53 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
Now I would thank you if you would have at least provided one reference to a scientific source for the definition of life. There are plenty. Like I said, every biology book has one, and I provided a very good one from a highly read scientific journal.
A good case can thus be made that Darwinian evolution is essential for understanding the nature of life itself. Accordingly, life could be defined as a self-sustaining chemical system (i.e., one that turns resources into its own building blocks) that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. --- Lazcano, "Towards A Definition of Life", 2008
You're welcome.
Great!. Thanks. Here is the rest of the paragraph in context...
A good case can thus be made that Darwinian evolution is essential for understanding the nature of life itself. Accordingly, life could be defined as a self-sustaining chemical system (i.e., one that turns resources into its own building blocks) that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution (cf. Joyce 1994). Such tentative definition, which was the outcome of a discussion group convened by NASA in the early 1990s, has been rejected by a number of authors who argue on different grounds that a single definition is impossible (Luisi 1998; Cleland and Chyba 2002). Life cannot be defined on the basis of a single trait, but since natural selection is indeed a unique feature of living systems, the basic nature of living systems cannot be understood without it.
I will aslo add that this article proves my point that the only reason the definition is difficult for some is because of OOL theories like this paper is proposing. Eliminate OOL science, and the definition of life is simple. They need to equivocate. They know it. This paper exemplifies it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2010 10:53 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 117 of 268 (594026)
12-01-2010 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid
12-01-2010 9:03 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
AOK writes:
No, to the contrary. I supplied a scientific definition from a noted scientist published in a scientific journal. I supplied a scientific definition.
Do you know what an essay is?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 9:03 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 10:45 AM jar has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 3071 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 118 of 268 (594034)
12-01-2010 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by jar
12-01-2010 10:13 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
Do you know what an essay is?
Yes, I do! Do you know what an essay in Science magazine is?
When you get one published, let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 12-01-2010 10:13 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 12-01-2010 10:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 119 of 268 (594036)
12-01-2010 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by AlphaOmegakid
12-01-2010 10:45 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
Would it still be an essay?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 10:45 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 12:36 PM jar has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 3071 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 120 of 268 (594050)
12-01-2010 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Panda
12-01-2010 10:00 AM


Re: Realy Realy Sad
So...your favourite definition...
First, you need to understand that it is not my favorite definition. It is A definition offered by the scientific community.
of life doesn't have circular reasoning?
Are you claiming that The Seven Pillars doesn't include a term that presupposes life?
Can you not see the reference to natural selection?
Ahhh my friend, you are learning. You are correct!. It is circular as I pointed out. So, what should we do? Should we keep it in? Would the definition of life suffice with just six pillars?
I think it would just fine. Wouldn't it.? In fact, natural selection and "optimization" of "programs" are population things. Right? They don't reflect individual life at all. Many "lifes" don't mutate or optimize, so it doesn't work well anyway.
I think six pillars is just fine. All life has those.
Now, we are geting somewhere!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Panda, posted 12-01-2010 10:00 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Panda, posted 12-01-2010 12:55 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