|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What is Life? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Would it still be an essay? Asolutely. It would still be an essay published in Science magazine!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yet still just an essay, the personal opinion of the author, a pet definition.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
kid writes:
So, first you say that people refuse to give a definition of life. 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 six pillars is just fine. All life has those.Dr. A. shows you that people have given definitions. So you instead claim that those definitions are wrong. Then you say that Koshland has given a definition. But now you claim that Koshland's definition is wrong and needs to be changed. What is your complaint?Is it that no scientist will give a definition of life that you agree with? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Again, your inability to read and comprehend does not constitute me lying. However, your pretense that I am unable to read and comprehend does constitute you lying; as does the lie you told when you said: "the evos won't attempt to define life".
No, to the contrary. I supplied a scientific definition from a noted scientist published in a scientific journal. I supplied a scientific definition. Specifically, your pet scientific definition.
Ahhh. I see that you actually do understand, you just want to call people liars when you don't understand. This is, of course, a lie. Actually, I call people liars when they lie.
But thanks for confirming that Biology books do have definitions of life in them. That was my point. And, of course, no-one has denied that. However, what you wrote, if you will bother to read your own posts, is that: "My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life. It is in every biology text book." There is no single unique definition of life in every biology textbook. Scientists have provided definitions of life, and they are to be found in biology textbooks.
Jumping in and out of comprehension. You may want to see someone for help. I think they define that as lunacy. This gibberish does not answer my point, namely that since the evolutionists on this thread have provided definitions of life, they are obviously not claiming that it cannot be defined. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
kid writes:
So, first you say that people refuse to give a definition of life. 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 six pillars is just fine. All life has those. Nope, I have never said that!
Dr. A. shows you that people have given definitions. 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?
So you instead claim that those definitions are wrong. 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.
Then you say that Koshland has given a definition. He clearly has. It is not a one liner. It is consistent with previous scientific definitions as well.
But now you claim that Koshland's definition is wrong and needs to be changed. 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?
What is your complaint? I have no complaints. I am quite complacent.
Is it that no scientist will give a definition of life that you agree with? 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 Energy I 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Yet still just an essay, the personal opinion of the author, a pet definition. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So you admit that it is an essay and claim that you know what an essay is.
Now next question is do you understand that magazines and journals have different sections? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
kid writes:
How would you identify "absolutely known life"? 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.Which definition of life would you use? kid writes:
Drone bees can't reproduce but they definitely appear alive. 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?So, is it ok to remove 'Reproduction' from your criteria aswell?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Now next question is do you understand that magazines and journals have different sections? 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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So you agree it is an essay, and claim to know what an essay is, and that you know magazines and journals have different sections.
So the next question is about those sections. Do you understand that some sections are devoted to reporting research and other devoted to personal opinion and others to general communications? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
How would you identify "absolutely known life"? Which definition of life would you use? 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".
Drone bees can't reproduce but they definitely appear alive. So, is it ok to remove 'Reproduction' from your criteria aswell? Well do you think they supernaturally appear or what? Do you think, maybe....they were reproduced. Therefore they are alive?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
I'm waiting for a reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And we are working towards an answer, once I know that you understand the basics. Any reply right now means little until we can establish those.
So you agree it is an essay, and claim to know what an essay is, and that you know magazines and journals have different sections. So the next question is about those sections. Do you understand that some sections are devoted to reporting research and other devoted to personal opinion and others to general communications? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
kid writes:
They are born. Being born is not one of the criteria for being alive. (We can add it if you think it should be.) Well do you think they supernaturally appear or what? Do you think, maybe....they were reproduced. Therefore they are alive? They can't reproduce, therefore if Reproduction is a required ability then they can't be classed as alive. We can remove the Reproduction criteria if you feel it is getting in the way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
AlphaOmegakid writes: Well do you think they supernaturally appear or what? Do you think, maybe....they were reproduced. Therefore they are alive? But none of them are identical to each other. They are similar, true, but thats not really a rule is it? So you have a queen bee producing clearly different drone bees which are also different from each other. You can't say that they were REproduced, simply... "produced." So how would you differentiate that process from for instance, my shoe making several prints in the mud? Or would you?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024