What is Life?

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. 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. 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.

Great!. Thanks. Here is the rest of the paragraph in context... 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.

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

First, you need to understand that it is not my favorite definition. It is A definition offered by the scientific community. 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!

Asolutely. It would still be an essay published in Science magazine!

Nope, I have never said that! He showed that people gave one liner pet definitions, yes. Not one member of this forum gave a biological definition from a scientific source (a scientific publication) until I came along. Are you OK with life being restricted to the seven pillars? I didn't waste my time discussing all that gibberish. If you have a definition from a scientific source, I will be glad to discuss it as I did with the one scientist who used the circular argument only. He clearly has. It is not a one liner. It is consistent with previous scientific definitions as well. Isn't that the process of science? don't you like that process? Yes, I think his definition is very good. However, just one part appears to be circular to me. If we remove that one part only, then we can test the definition to see if it excludes any absolutely known life. I can't see that if we elliminate that one section that it changes anything. It doesn't exclude anything that isn't already included with the other six pillars. So what is the value of including the poentially circular element if it is not needed in the first place? I have no complaints. I am quite complacent. Actually most biology books have six criteria. The criteria of evolution is a relatively recent add. An unnecessary add.In one word summaries the basic idea is ...
Homeostasis - pillar Compartmentilization/Program
Reproduction - pillar Regeneration
Organization - pillar Program/Compartmentilization
Metabolism - pillar Energy
Stimulation - pillar Adaptibility
Growth - pillar EnergyI think these six criteria cover all life quite well with no exeptions as far as I am concerned. Now please understand that the one word summary is just that. Each word needs clarification.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Yes, still just an essay. Written (opined) by an accomplished Biologist. And published in one of the premier scientific journals.Not a "pet defintion" though. A published work. A published opinion. The article is evidence that science has attempted to define life. That's the point.

What I understand is that no matter what section of Science magazine it is still a scientific definition.Now you answer my question, please. Is there a difference in an essay published in Science mag by a respected scientist and previous editor, and the gibberish posted in these forums by "Science magazine, essay writing wannabees"?

I wouldn't use a definition. I would use the things we know to be alive. Those things identified by science in the "tree of life". Well do you think they supernaturally appear or what? Do you think, maybe....they were reproduced. Therefore they are alive?

I'm waiting for a reply.

Game Over

The problem with your analogy is already identified by you. Colors may be fuzzy to the eye, and hard to dicern, indeed. But with instrumentation that can measure wavelengths, it is easy to dircern and define.So I have provided the seven pillars. what is fuzzy about them?

It's not getting in the way at all. It's apparently only getting in your way. There is no requirement that an organism reproduce to be qualified as being alive. However, there is a requirement that every organism participates in the process of reproduction. Either they must be able to reproduce, or they were reproduced from a parent organism/s.It's the law of biogenesis that the evos appreciate so much.

I'm with you. I have an idea! Why don't you gather up all the pet definitions in this forum, and submit them to Science magazine for publication in the essay section!I can see them howling now! Just as I am.

I-t-'-s_n-o-t_g-e-t-t-i-n-g_i-n_t-h-e_w-a-y_a-t_a-l-l.__ I-t-'-s_a-p-p-a-r-e-n-t-l-y_o-n-l-y_g-e-t-t-i-n-g_i-n_y-o-u-r_w-a-y.__T-h-e-r-e_i-s_n-o_r-e-q-u-i-r-e-m-e-n-t_t-h-a-t_a-n_o-r-g-a-n-i-s-m_r-e-p-r-o-d-u-c-e_t-o_b-e_q-u-a-l-i-f-i-e- d_a-s_b-e-i-n-g_a-l-i-v-e.__H-o-w-e-v-e-r-,_t-h-e-r-e_i-s_a_r-e-q-u-i-r-e-m-e-n-t_t-h-a-t_e-v-e-r-y_o-r-g-a-n-i-s-m_p-a-r-t-i-c-i-p-a-t-e-s_i-n_t-h-e_p-r-o-c-e-s-s_o-f_r-e-p-r-o-d- u-c-t-i-o-n.There, did that help? Repetition does help for some peolple's comprehension. Here...For an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction.For an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction.Colors also.....For an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction.