|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Life - an Unequivicol Definition | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
NoNukes writes: What about these parasites? Mitochondria-free parasites harvest ATP directly from hosts | Ars Technica Mitochondria-free parasites harvest ATP directly from hosts
quote: I think you need to consider the context of the terms. Microsporida are cells and can survive (live) for some time outside of a host. They do produce a small amount of ATP during Substrate-level phosphorylation. After infecting a host, they need much more ATP than they can manufacture. So they have other pathways to "steal" this. Both contexts are alive according to my definition. A virus, however has no metabolic pathway for ATP outside of a host. All life comes from pr-existing life The law of Biogenesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
ringo writes: The nature of knowledge is that everything builds on something else. There is no ultimate foundation. That's quite a philosophical statement. I would say the foundation is there at birth, and it pre-exists knowledge. But that's another forum I think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Dr. A writes: But do any of the people putting forward such definitions also propose that those words should be equivocal? If you personally can equivocate about the meaning of the word "reproduction", does it follow that someone who puts the word "reproduction" into his definition of life is himself equivocating? Equivocation whether in definitions or argumentation is a logic issue. In Scientific definitions, the logic should be sound. In general, I would think that biologists who put definitions of life in papers would tend to believe their definitions are unequivocal. However after publication, those definitions get challenged with counterfactuals and the only way they survive is through equivocating terms. RAZD is having a ball equivocating on his definition of life. He is squirming all over the place trying to defend it. It is rather amusing to read his posts right now as he is being challenged. I don't think that when he wrote it, he thought it was equivocal. (Actually this is basically NASA's definition of life) However, as he tries to defend it, he is forced with equivocation to defend it. Let me use your example of "reproduction". Some organisms don't reproduce. It doesn't matter what the reason is, they just don't. So then the defender tries to argue that cells of multicellular organism do reproduce. So he just equivocated on what the organism is to make his argument work. Not to mention that some unicellular organisms don't reproduce. Then what does he say? Who Knows? This is often referred to as "mental gymnastics" in argumentation rather than just accepting a defeater. Now I get to your first question. Yes! Now biologists knowingly put forth equivocal definitions, because they've been trained that "life" is undefinable without equivocal terms. Today they list "characteristics of life" rather than trying to define it unequivocally. They are fine with fuzzy things, so OOL funding can continue and "life" is good. So the people using these definitions aren't purposefully equivocating, but the definitions are. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Pressie writes: Actually, the Theespruit Formation of the Barberton Supergroup started forming 3547 ma years ago. And those rocks contain fossils of prokaryotes. No elephant fossils in there. The tonalitic and trondjemitic gneisses of that area started forming around 3645 ma ago. These are facts whether you like them or not. So, no, Spooks couldn't have poofed all 'kinds' into existence 6000 years ago. Evidence, AlphaOmegakid, I know that evidence doesn't mean much to you, but in science the evidence is very important. Actually it is you making the bodacious claims as facts. So please support yours with evidence. I made no claims that I have to support. I know reading comprehension can be difficult. Maybe that's why you are so quick to believe that these are facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Pressie writes: I'm not really too sure why you brought this up. For me (not being a biologist) the theory of evolution deals with genetic variation and natural selection. Basically describing the mechanisms of how all the life-forms we experience today came along from unicellular life. That's the TOE. Life (as we know it) evolved from prokaryotes to what we encounter today by means of genetic variation and natural selection. That's the theory of evolution in a nut shell for me. So, according to your statements TOE doesn't apply to OOL. Or better stated, TOE addresses first life to man, but not rocks to first life. But , if you have read this forum, you can see that RAZD wants the theory to apply to rocks to first life. So I am trying to pin him down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD writes: This is not equivocating, it is simply observing what is really happening at the cells level. Or do you deny that cells within multicell organisms evolve, even ones not involved in the reproduction of the organism? I have a blood cancer, I was not infected, but a mutation occurred that caused the cancerous cells. Chemo kills most of these cancerous cells but the same treatment cannot be used twice, because the surviving cancer cells are immune to it; variation and selection, and this goes on throughout your body every day, whether you are aware of it or not. What you are doing is the epitome of equivocation. The definition you used requires populations to evolve. I pointed this out to you and now you equivocate on what the organism is and what the population is. But this is easily fixable logically. All you have to do is the thought experiment of the last man on earth... healthy or unhealthy with all kinds of human somatic cells mutating and evolving within his body. (I don't disagree with you on this point) We all agree that he is alive. We all agree that his cells are alive. But he is the last human male with no human females. And those mutating and evolving human cells within eventually cause his death. Now we have a food farm for bacteria, but not any more humans. That human population of one was incapable of evolution. And the frequency of his genome and all of its genetic traits just went to zero as the last DNA of his body was consumed by the bacteria within. That's why over and over again, People who are experts on evolution will tell you that individuals do not evolve, populations evolve.
quote: quote: quote: quote: I've already cited this, but you've ignored it. So if you want to equivocate about a population of cancer cells within an organism as being a population of the same species then you go right ahead. I cannot stop you. It will require the population of neurons inside you to do that. But maybe they have evolved where they can no longer recognize equivocation??? The other entity you want so desperately to be alive is a virus. But assume a world full of viruses yet the world is sterile of any living cells Not one of those viruses is capable of evolution, because they cannot breed as a population on their own. So your definition fails on multiple levels. And so does NASA's. I will address your strawman challenges to my definition after the weekend.
RAZD writes:
It was you who claimed this definition as your own. I just pointed out the deception. You might be in good company with NASA. Which should give you pause, eh? Thanks for putting me with such exalted people. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD writes: Yes, Please don't forget Cell Theory which is much more important than evolution theory regarding OOL. Also, Evos have argued for years that evo theory does not apply to OOL. So what ist it? You seem to think evolution does apply to OOL. Hmmmm? Evolution doesn't apply to how life arises from non-life, it applies once life has risen. That is why being able to evolve defines life, because OOL is then completed. Are you even aware of Cell Theory? Let me help you with a citation of the "modern" version.
quote: Now , in case you didn't realize, evolution theory is dependent on Cell Theory. According to Evo theory life began (cellular Life) about 3.5B years ago. Before that.....NO LIFE. Before that, rocks and water, and any combination of solutions therein. From which you desire to call self replicating RNA molecules as being alive according to your definition. To do this you have to ignore cell theory totally, and there is no good reason to do that. So, according to your words above, if OOL is completed, then it must be cellular unless you ignore Cell Theory which evolution theory depends on. This means you either must reject Cell theory or your definition becomes reasoned though circles, because TOE relies on Cell Theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD writes: ... So since a cell is the smallest unit of life ... Is it? By your definition (Message 1): Yes, it is. My definition is consistent with cell theory as well as evolution theory.
RAZD writes: You could have a prebiotic molecule in the RNA world that synthesizes ATP from ATP and uses that to reproduce the molecule, and according to your definition that would be life even though no cell is involved. Nope, not even close. In your dream world yes, but not according to my definition. You can't just pick and choose which parts of it you like.
RAZD writes: It seems that your impetus (from reading other posts on this thread) for your definition is to find the boundary between life and non-life, to define the point of origin, the transition from chemistry to life. The point at which it is capable of undergoing evolutionary processes, the point at with it is capable of evolving. My definition does show the boundary quite well. It requires a self contined entity in which ATP is used for metabolism and proteins are being synthesized from a DNA to RNA synthesis. Life does not require evolution. We have plenty of asexual populations which don't vary from generation to generation. That doesn't make them not alive according to your definition. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD writes: Equivocating now? Curiously I quoted your definition from Message 1 -- here it is again:
quote: Any molecule is a "self-contained entity." Self-replicating molecules are self-contained entities that don't require enclosing membranes to synthesize more molecules, just raw materials (ie -- food for metabolism, as is used by all life forms). RAZD writes: Your definition does not require a cell wall or an enclosing membrane, hence why I challenge your statement that "a cell is the smallest unit of life" -- you haven't established that from your definition. Amazing. Just Amazing. Not only can you equivocate on what a population is within your own definition, you can distort the meaning of mine. Just amazing! Here is the definition of self-contained which you evidently are unaware...
quote: A living organism, by my definition , has everything within itself to use and synthesize ATP, It has DNA, and RNA, and it has proteins. NO, A MOLECULE DOES NOT CONTAIN WITHIN ITSELF THESE ABILITIES. This is just one big strawman joke.
RAZD writes: Note that I say "can also be said to 'transfer ... information' " because what you mean by "information" is not defined, poorly understood, and in my opinion is a poor choice of words when what is happening is simply the replication of molecules. You do know what they say about opinions don't you? Contrary to yours, the definition of genetic information is quite well defined within a biological context. Here is a definition:
quote: My definition describes, in part, the Central Dogma of Biology. The principles of which are taught in "every" high school Biology book around the world. If you read this wiki article you will find the word "information" is used 29 times. It seems the evidence that this is well understood in Biology is overwhelming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD,
The sign of a good definition is how it relates to it's opposite. You have defined life in relationship to its ability to evolve. So my question is then, using your definition, describe death to us. When does an organism die, and when do populations die? or become extinct? So with your molecules that you desire to define as "alive", please describe what makes these molecules die? With viruses which you desire to define as "alive", please describe the death of a virus. And of course your descriptions should be in relationship to your definition of life. And finally, describe the death of cellular life in relationship to your definition. You have said that "death is a part of evolution". Just what exactly does that mean? Do dead things evolve too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
NoNukes writes: I don't understand this sentence. There is no such thing as a reproductive pool of mules. Let me restate that. I can make some sense out of your statement, but it does not seem to respond to my point or to the thrust of my comment which was the following: Mules are sterile. As best as I can tell, males are 100 percent sterile and females are essentially so. For that reason, a population of mules does not undergo genetic drift, because there is no random sampling of the characteristics of the mule population to produce a new generation of mules. So you cannot understand that the cells within the mule are evolving, and are potentially undergoing genetic drift? Therefore the mule is evolving, and therefore "alive". I cannot understand why anyone cannot understand this fallacious goobledeegunk!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD writes: Yawn. No different from the mule, which you agreed was alive. Death is a part of evolution and the extinction of species is a part of evolution. RAZD, you ought to be running for office. Oh the ways, that you can squirm and deflect, but not answer the question. Yes Yawn, just like a boring politician! Yes, I and all so far have agreed that the Last homo sapien male, and the mule were alive. But we haven't agreed on whether he or the mule was capable of evolution. You equivocate on the word population which is part of your definition:
anything capable of evolution. (cue definition of evolution ^(1)... ).
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. Clearly what you are doing is equivocating on what the "population" is. So concentrate and stop yawning. In Biology a population is :
quote: So what you are doing is equivocating between a population being properly a population of mules or a population being some group of cells within the mule. That equivocation is deceitful, shameful, and clearly intended by you after many posts. My thought experiment exposed this, because the last man on earth, ie organism homo sapien male was not able to evolve. And clearly many organisms have populations for generation after generation that show no change in alleles either. So evolution has many defeaters which makes it a very poor definition, but I can see why you want it. The faith in naturalism is strong. And the unsuccessful field of OOL needs such equivocation to survive. It's naturalism of the GAPS. Yet no matter what the evidence shows, the imaginations of men want to show something other than what is. It's called magic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Pressie writes: Life is not black or white; life is black and white with lots of shades of grey in between. I know you so desperately want this to be true, but"reality says" your statement is false. Here again is Cell Theory.
quote: "All" is used in 4 out of the seven statements. That's pretty black and white. You are exchanging your faith in OOL science and naturalism for the reality of all the evidence of living things. OOL needs "reality" to be fuzzy. Life does not. Take any multicellular living organism and put it in a blender for five minutes. You have all the building blocks of that life available. You have DNA, RNA, proteins, ATP, carbohydrates. You can zap it with electricity or add heat for energy, and all you will ever have is the best primordial soup available. Only recommended for the consumption of naturalists. But not good for creating life. What the faithful OOLers are missing is organization!. Those self replication molecular experiments are highly organized and controlled. Scientists can do many wonderful things, but they cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again. The word "organism" screams "organization."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Pressie writes: I didn't know that the theory of evolution had six levels. From all the variations of Theory of Evolution I got from scientific sources it seems as if the theory of evolution deals with how modern life came about. Nothing to do with the formations of stars or the universe or the earth or anything like that. The theory of evolution deals with biology. Are you sure you've ever read anything scientific on the theory of evolution? I certainly can't anything scientific on the theory of evolution dealing with the Universe or six levels or anything like that. Anywhere. I think you need to direct this question to RAZD. This is not my claim but his. see EvC Forum: Life - an Unequivicol Definition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2906 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
CS writes:
OK.....but they are supposed to explain reality! Just what do you think a theory is?
Theories are not reality.CS writes: Viruses are in the grey area between alive and not-alive. So are prions. So are ridiculously complex chemistries. You just admitted and identified in your own words and logic that viruses and prions are less that life. Whether you call it grey or blue or red area doesn't matter. Your own words show that there is "life" and there is something less than "life".
CS writes: Except that the only one that talks about living things qualifies it with all known living things. So even Cell Theory doesn't say it is black and white. Baloney! Viruses are known. They are not alive!Prions are known. They are not alive! Many complex chemistries are know including all self replicating molecules that you and others want to be alive, and Cell Theory says they are not alive! Now is life black or is it white?
CS writes: You're just projecting. You are the one who's butchering the science because of your faith. You're desperate to keep a nice dark line between alive and not-alive because a working OOL theory would destroy your religious beliefs. Well actually I am presenting a definition which is in compliance with current scientific theories including OOL hypotheses. Everyone knows you have to identify the pathway from non living chemicals to cellular life. Its just the silly equivocating along that pathway that I have a problem. Trying to define self replicating molecules as "alive" is a joke of semantics. It's just word soup that misleads. It is still light years away from cellular life. So what good does calling it "alive" do except mislead? When scientist can put Humpty Dumpty back together again, then my faith might get challenged. But equivocal definitions which are illogical will never challenge my faith. They only enhance yours.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024