Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Life?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 140 of 268 (594234)
12-02-2010 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2010 4:55 PM


Re: different sections in magazines.
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?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 4:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 6:56 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 143 of 268 (594238)
12-02-2010 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2010 6:56 PM


Re: different sections in magazines.
And so do you understand what I posted?
Was it an essay?
Are essays personal opinions?
Was it published in an essay section?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 6:56 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 152 of 268 (594378)
12-03-2010 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 8:43 AM


The color red.
Interesting.
This source says red is 700-635nm and in graphic designs red is #FF0000 or 0,100,100 or 255,0,0.
Some definitions would not call the broad range that you specify red at all, but rather only one smal band from that spectrum.
The point is that definitions are only accurate within a set of parameters and when used by two parties using a common set of measurements.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 8:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 169 of 268 (595026)
12-06-2010 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid
12-06-2010 10:20 AM


another Pet Definition
AOK writes:
Now remember, I only agree with six of the seven pillars of life.
So, like everyone else that has posted in this thread and every definition that has been linked to in this thread, AlphaOmegakid has HIS own pet definition.
Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-06-2010 10:20 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by barbara, posted 12-06-2010 10:31 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 174 of 268 (595039)
12-06-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Panda
12-06-2010 11:11 AM


Re: another Pet Definition
It is also simply related to one species in one segment of society.
There are seeds stored in gene banks all over the world as well as the spare copies stored at Svalbard. For decades those seeds exhibit none of the signs we associate with "being alive".

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Panda, posted 12-06-2010 11:11 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Panda, posted 12-06-2010 12:02 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 176 of 268 (595056)
12-06-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Panda
12-06-2010 12:02 PM


Re: another Pet Definition
But in the case of seeds the test is after the fact.
We plant seeds; if they grow then we can say, "Yup, it was alive." If it does not grow we can say "Yup, it was not alive."
But looking at seeds they best we can do is say "It's likely that x% will germinate.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Panda, posted 12-06-2010 12:02 PM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 183 of 268 (598216)
12-29-2010 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Philip Johnson
12-29-2010 5:06 PM


Re: What is the simplest life form?
Huh?
What makes you think some are less evolved?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 5:06 PM Philip Johnson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 5:13 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 186 of 268 (598222)
12-29-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Philip Johnson
12-29-2010 5:13 PM


Re: What is the simplest life form?
LOL
Why would they?
If they are successful, live long enough to reproduce, why would they evolve? What is the filter that would drive change?
Do you really think evolution means directionality or something becoming more complex?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 5:13 PM Philip Johnson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 5:39 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 191 of 268 (598234)
12-29-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Philip Johnson
12-29-2010 5:39 PM


Re: What is the simplest life form?
Sorry but it seems you really have no idea what Evolution is.
True. If evolution is survival of the fitest (which requires you to reproduce more than others) then we should expect all life forms to evolve to smaller life forms that reproduce quicker. The evolution tree would be upside down. We should all end up bacteria (which currently makes up 80% of all living things).
True. If evolution is survival of the fitest (which requires you to reproduce more than others) then we should expect all life forms to evolve to smaller life forms that reproduce quicker. The evolution tree would be upside down. We should all end up bacteria (which currently makes up 80% of all living things).
There is absolutely nothing in that post that is correct or anything more than a typical creationist misrepresentation.
First, evolution is simply change over time.
Second, it is NOT directed.
Third there is no directionality.
Fourth, what we see is simply what has succeeded.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 5:39 PM Philip Johnson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 6:22 PM jar has replied
 Message 197 by GDR, posted 12-29-2010 6:48 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 193 of 268 (598243)
12-29-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Philip Johnson
12-29-2010 6:22 PM


Re: What is the simplest life form?
"First, evolution is simply change over time."
Evolution is not "change over time" but "change by mutation" via Natural Selection.
Natural selection is the process by which genetic mutations that enhance reproduction become, and remain, more common in successive generations of a population.
We should have expected that simple organisms alive today should have experienced some mutations to change and not remained the same for so long.
No.
You are confusing the fact of Evolution which is simply change over time, with the Theory of Evolution that explains how it happens.
Nor is there any evidence that anything has remained the same over time.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 6:22 PM Philip Johnson has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 6:30 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 195 of 268 (598249)
12-29-2010 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Philip Johnson
12-29-2010 6:30 PM


Re: What is the simplest life form?
LOL
But those single cell critters are NOT the same single cell critters from billions of years ago.
Remember there are two factors, change and the filter. If something passes through the filter it continues.
It really is that simple.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 6:30 PM Philip Johnson has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 199 of 268 (598259)
12-29-2010 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by GDR
12-29-2010 6:48 PM


Re: What is the simplest life form?
GDR writes:
jar writes:
Second, it is NOT directed.
That is opinion which goes beyond the T of E.
How? Why is it opinion? Is there any evidence of some directed force?
GDR writes:
jar writes:
Third there is no directionality.
Again, that is opinion
No, it is observation. We see things becoming more complex and less complex. No directionality.
GDR writes:
jar writes:
Fourth, what we see is simply what has succeeded.
Which goes back to the last two points. The theory is a theory as to what happened, not why it happened. It is no different that the scientific answers for how the universe was formed. Science can observe what happened and even how it happened but it can only speculate between random chance, directionality or some combination of the two.
Nonsense. We can look and see that there is no directionality, things both living and non-living become more complex and less complex. There is no directionality.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by GDR, posted 12-29-2010 6:48 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-30-2010 9:18 AM jar has replied
 Message 217 by GDR, posted 01-01-2011 11:40 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 204 of 268 (598313)
12-30-2010 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Philip Johnson
12-30-2010 9:18 AM


Re: What is the simplest life form?
If it is just as likely that things become more complex as it is that things become less complex, then there is no directionality.
However, I suspect that we all believe that there is in fact directionality.
Evolutionists believe that things become more complex faster than they become less complex, therefore you have a gradual increase in complexity. Things began very simple and are becoming more complex.
I'm sorry but again that is simply nonsense. I'm not even sure how you are proposing measuring complexity.
But please stop and think.
If things become more and also become less complex, then there is not a uniform directionality.
Granted, the very first life was almost certainly very simple. At that point in time, there was only one direction possible, to become less complex would mean becoming non-living.
Once though multicelled individuals existed, then there was the possibility of bi-directionality; and it has been that way ever since.
Nor does the existence of single celled organisms have any bearing on the issue. For example, just in diatoms there are over 100,000 different species extant. And the diatoms that are extant are different than the diatoms that are extinct. They evolved while still remaining single celled critters.
BUT WAIT ... there is more ...
looking still at diatoms we also find species that are colonial; not yet multicelled organisms but on that pathway.
Creationists believe that things become less complex faster than they become more complex, therefore you have a gradual decline in complexity. Things began very complex and are becoming less complex.
They might well believe that, but yet again that is simply another incorrect position, totally refuted by the evidence available.
And you still have not provided your model for measuring complexity or contributed anything towards the topic of the thread which is "What is Life?"

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-30-2010 9:18 AM Philip Johnson has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 211 of 268 (598419)
12-30-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Buzsaw
12-30-2010 7:43 PM


Re: Priori Misspelled.
Ah, priori: as in "not supported by fact" and "without observed facts" and in "without supporting evidence".
Gottcha. That makes sense.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Buzsaw, posted 12-30-2010 7:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Buzsaw, posted 12-30-2010 8:34 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 214 of 268 (598430)
12-30-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Buzsaw
12-30-2010 8:34 PM


Re: Priori Misspelled.
Thanks for adding those definitions Buz.
quote:
presupposed by experience
2a : being without examination or analysis : presumptive b : formed or conceived beforehand
Note: "being without examination or analysis; presumptive; formed or conceived beforehand."
None of the definitions are related to what science does.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Buzsaw, posted 12-30-2010 8:34 PM Buzsaw 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