|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What is Life? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 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 2907 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 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 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
I'm waiting for a reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Game Over
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
They are born. Being born is not one of the criteria for being alive. (We can add it if you think it should be.) 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Does that mean you don't know that the different sections in magazines and journals serve different functions and purposes? Okay. Well here is some info for you then. The magazines and journals often get divided into different sections. Often one section is devoted to reporting and reviewing papers and developments, another is set aside to allow people to ask the editors questions or make editorial comments, and as in this case, often there is a section for essays. As you claim to know, an essay is "... a short piece of writing which is often written from an author's personal point of view.", in other words, the authors pet position. Are you still with me? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2907 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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. So, just to spell it out. 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?
In order for an organism to be alive, it is not necessary for it to reproduce. However, in order for an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024