|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2905 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Life - an Unequivicol Definition | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
You've got to be kidding, Right? Don't you realize that every atom, molecule, and chemical combination has an architecture or shape associated with it? So you don't think heat and light affect chemical reactions? Would you like to research this a little before I embarrass you? The only embarrassing thing here is that you're ignoring the question marks at the end of Percy's sentences -- so his/her sentences are interrogative, not declarative, as you would have the reader believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
If they are not alive, then they are dead. Then you must decide your definition of life and the differentiation between life and death. And both must make sense. I think you are misusing death here and several others have referred to non-living matter as "dead." Death is something that happens to living organisms when they stop functioning. Non-living material may not be the same thing as dead material. If it was never alive then it is just "non-living material." If it was once an organism that has died then it is dead. Dead material is the remains of a living organism that has gone through the process of death. What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I clearly identified entities in the grey area. You are just unhappy, because I don't call them alive. You're misunderstanding us. It's not that you're discounting grey areas of non-life. It's that you're not counting grey areas of life.
Yes, much of life is chemical, and all of life is physical, but life is more than just chemical processes. Not really. I mentioned this before, that biology is like a derivative of chemistry. Behind that, chemistry is like a derivative of physics. There is no chemistry that is not just ridiculously complex phyisics. And there is no biology that is not just ridiculously complex chemistry. You cannot draw a line between that which is chemistry and that which is biology. It's like how you can't draw a line between that which is chemistry and that which is physics.
Those lines are fuzzy. That's the reality that we have to deal with. Your attempts at nailing down an non-equivocal definition of life for the field of biology has been doomed from the get-go. It's totally unnecessary, unproductive, nonessential, and actually would be worse for the field of biology. My OP asked a sarcastic question of what to do with the professional virologists that work for the biology departments, given your definition of what life is. It was kinda tongue-in-cheek, but what I've repeatedly asked is: Why? What is the point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
Seems to me that's exactly what a good scientific definition would be No, quite the opposite. Good science synthesizes observations into coherent theory that can then be used to understand things that have not been observed before and make predictions beyond observation. Your definition does not do this.
Why not suppose a planet where water is HeO2? Diamonds are made from lead? we would still call the diamonds and water, right? Do you see any difference in "supposing an imaginary" observation, and real observations? I guess not. HeO2 is not a possible compound. Diamond is a compound of Carbon and cannot be made from lead. This is basic chemistry. There is every reason, on the other hand, to suppose that the selection of DNA and ATP are arbitrary rather than necessary. On another planet they are unlikely to be repeated. Your definition is so far removed from what we think of as life that it will produce absurd conclusions; the imaginary world of Delton-four is a simple illustration of where it is likely to break down. It's called a "thought experiment" and is a key part of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: You said "You're attempting to create a definition where everything is either living or dead with no shades of gray in between." That just isn't so. I clearly identified entities in the grey area. You are just unhappy, because I don't call them alive. No, I'm saying there's a region between alive (white in the image analogy) and not alive (black) that is neither living nor non-living (a shade of gray).
You and RAZD want the grey area to be living. Speaking just for myself, no, I don't want the gray area to be living. Giving the gray area a clear and unambiguous designation such as "living" would be the opposite of a gray area.
Then you must decide your definition of life and the differentiation between life and death. No. I merely recognize that there's a gray area between living and non-living.
Percy writes: That's it? Just blindly declare it a faith-based premise and be done with it? No. I said a lot more than that which you ignored. Read it again. Well, yes, you did say more in your very next sentence, and I quoted that next. You have responded:
Percy writes:
You've got to be kidding, Right? Chemicals don't have "organization, architecture or shape"? Don't you realize that every atom, molecule, and chemical combination has an architecture or shape associated with it? My sentence wasn't a statement. Didn't you see the question mark? My question was rhetorical. Now that you've made it obvious that you understand that chemicals have "organization, architecture and shape," I'll have to reinterpret your original statement from Message 141:
quote: Are you saying that the view of life as a continuum ignores "organization, architecture or shape, electromagnetic radiation, and gravity"? Why do you think that?
Percy writes:
So you don't think heat and light affect chemical reactions? Would you like to research this a little before I embarrass you? And gravity also? Chemicals aren't subject to "electromagnetic radiation, and gravity"? I was asking another rhetorical question. When you quoted me you removed my question mark and replaced it with a period, and you left out the close-quote. I fixed it in my above quote region. I may as well comment on one more thing from your Message 141:
quote: This is just another bald declaration. We do have opposite ends of a continuum. A dog is obviously living. A block of lead is obviously non-living. Some things inhabit the region between living and non-living, like perhaps prions and viruses. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Mr Jack writes: The fact that AOk suggested HeO2 is a reason to know that there's no way of even attempting to have a rational conversation with AOk. Basic chemistry. HeO2 is not a possible compound. But, maybe Aok thinks that electrons flying around and not flying around in S1 and P1 and all those orbitals around Oxygen is just a theory... Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2905 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Tany writes: I think you are misusing death here and several others have referred to non-living matter as "dead." Death is something that happens to living organisms when they stop functioning. Thanks Tany, I agree completely in a biological sense. So when does a virus die? No one is questioning that it is "alive" in the host cell (actually it is the infected cell that is alive). But outside the host, is it alive or dead? As a virion, is it alive, non-living, or dead? And how about self replicating molecules? When are they dead? etc etc.? Or are they ever alive? This is the reason that we need a good unequivocal definition of life.
Tany writes: Non-living material may not be the same thing as dead material. If it was never alive then it is just "non-living material." If it was once an organism that has died then it is dead. Dead material is the remains of a living organism that has gone through the process of death. Bingo! By George, me thinks he's got it! Maybe, I was too quick in the semantics by using the term "dead", but you can see that the term non-living is almost a synonym of "dead". I've been trying to semantically identify the so called grey area. "Non-living" is a perfectly good designation as far as my definition is concerned. The best term is abiotic! Abiotic component - Wikipedia So now we (you and I) have clarified the grey area. We have categories: (1) White=Living==>by some unequivocal definition of life(2) Grey=Abiotic=non-living (3) Black= Dead Within this model dead organisms are also abiotic material, but abiotic material that has never been alive is just abiotic material. I think this model works very well within Biology and especially well with my definition of life. The problem I was having was everyone else in this forum was referring to the grey area as "life" (the "grey area of life"). This makes no sense, because every abiotic thing would be on the pathway to life which is obviously false. The reality is that most abiotic things have no chance at life, many are dead, and some have some of the characteristics of living things. Thanks for your post! It was revealing. Now look at your last sentence, and consider a virus. If it is considered alive within the host cell. Then when the cell is destroyed and the virus is released again, then all life functions would be gone. It would be dead. Both abiotic and dead. This makes a lot of sense using this model. So a virus would not be in the grey area at all. It would be black.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
AOk writes: Thank you for admitting that there's no clear definition for what is alive and what is not alive. Thanks Tany, I agree completely in a biological sense. So when does a virus die? No one is questioning that it is "alive" in the host cell (actually it is the infected cell that is alive). But outside the host, is it alive or dead? As a virion, is it alive, non-living, or dead? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
AlphaOmegakid writes: The best term is abiotic! Abiotic component - Wikipedia So now we (you and I) have clarified the grey area. We have categories: (1) White=Living==>by some unequivocal definition of life(2) Grey=Abiotic=non-living (3) Black= Dead Within this model dead organisms are also abiotic material, but abiotic material that has never been alive is just abiotic material. I think this model works very well within Biology and especially well with my definition of life. The Wikipedia definition lists some examples of abiotic components, making clear just what an abiotic component is:
quote: You're saying that, for example, water that was once but is no longer part of a living creature is "dead", but that water that has never been part of a living creature is "abiotic". I don't think that definition is going to work for anybody.
The problem I was having was everyone else in this forum was referring to the grey area as "life" (the "grey area of life"). This makes no sense, because every abiotic thing would be on the pathway to life which is obviously false. Why do you think a gray area between living and non-living implies that "every abiotic thing would be on the pathway to life." Water is an "abiotic thing," but most water in the universe is not likely on its way to becoming part of a living creature.
Now look at your last sentence, and consider a virus. If it is considered alive within the host cell. Then when the cell is destroyed and the virus is released again, then all life functions would be gone. It would be dead. Both abiotic and dead. And then the virus enters another cell and is alive again? Really? Look at the list of examples of abiotic components from Wikipedia again. Why do you think a virus outside a host cell belongs on that list? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes: (1) It doesn't address the issue of viral life, which is increasingly being accepted as life forms as more is found out (self replication without host, metabolism and making of proteins used to encase it, etc) You have claimed this several times now. Admittedly, I am totally unaware of this. Evidence Please! Hopefully papers I can access on the web. Not journalistic articles I hope.+ Rather than go back to old posts to find this material I did a search on this topic to also see what the current status is. My original information involved the first paper\article, and I am pleased to see that further progress has been made on this. Start with these two articles (bold added for emphasis):
Astrobiology: Test-Tube RNA, 2001 quote: I haven't found the Science article yet, perhaps you would like to try. Follow up research leads to (bold added for emphasis):
The Daily Galaxy: "Evolution in a Test Tube" -Scientists Create Immortal Genetic Molecule, 2010 quote: So as long as there was substrate (food to metabolize) the RNA enzyme\catalysts replicated, competed, evolved. In other words QED -- independent self-replicating RNA molecules. For an overview of the RNA world current status see Wikipedia: RNA world (accessed Dec 2015) (bold in original):
quote: [22] and [23] would be the Science articles related to the first article above; it doesn't appear that the wiki article has been updated with the information from the second article above. I'll have to look into that. See also Science: Mirror image RNA enzymes may hold clues to origin of life:
quote: A possible path to chirality. In between self-replicating RNA and modern cell life would be self-replicating DNA molecules, with DNA viruses as 'living fossils' of their pre-cell existence. From News | BioEd Online
quote: This isn't self-replication and it is inside a cell, but it is the RNA virus acting alone to make its proteins, another step on the road to RNA world. And now I will add a copy of this post to Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2905 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Percy writes: No, I'm saying there's a region between alive (white in the image analogy) and not alive (black) that is neither living nor non-living (a shade of gray). No. I merely recognize that there's a gray area between living and non-living.
OK, then show me the semantics that clarify "alive" and "non-living" or the model of a grey area makes no legitimate scientific sense. There is no grey area unless white and black, which are unequivocal, are defined! So please make sense of this or drop the analogy.
My sentence wasn't a statement. Didn't you see the question mark? My question was rhetorical. Yes, I recognized that. However you were being quite selective in your quoting of my argument. I responded in kind. This post is much more civil!
This is just another bald declaration. We do have opposite ends of a continuum. A dog is obviously living. A block of lead is obviously non-living. Some things inhabit the region between living and non-living, like perhaps prions and viruses. See post 152
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2905 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
I didn't enjoy anything about this post. It is meaningless elephant hurling to the claims you made. You quoted my request....
RAZD writes: (1) It doesn't address the issue of viral life, which is increasingly being accepted as life forms as more is found out (self replication without host, metabolism and making of proteins used to encase it, etc) You have claimed this several times now. Admittedly, I am totally unaware of this. Evidence Please! Hopefully papers I can access on the web. Not journalistic articles I hope.+ You have claimed several times now that viruses can self replicate, metabolize and make proteins outside a host cell. I claim your bluffing or sadly misinformed on this. I have asked for supporting evidence to support this claim. You provided a bunch of non-relevant material. I will give you the benefit of a doubt. Please provide supporting evidence for your specific claim in yellow above, or withdraw it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2905 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Percy writes: You're saying that, for example, water that was once but is no longer part of a living creature is "dead", but that water that has never been part of a living creature is "abiotic". I don't think that definition is going to work for anybody. No, I said nothing similar to that. But using the example of water, it is clear that water is essential to living things. Every abiogenetic hypothesis requires water!. So water by itself is in the non-living category (abiotic). It is not dead, because it has never been alive. But it is necessary and affects all life.
Why do you think a gray area between living and non-living implies that "every abiotic thing would be on the pathway to life." Water is an "abiotic thing," but most water in the universe is not likely on its way to becoming part of a living creature. I don't think that, nor do I imply that. I have provided an unequivocal definition of life. And recently, I have embraced the grey scale analogy to identify living, non-living, and dead. It works. All non-living things are in the grey area, living things are white, and dead things are black. The faithful evolutionary continuum from non-living to living through some form of chemical evolution is just speculative hypotheses at this moment. So I reject that there is a "pathway to life'. Water is abiotic, and of course necessary for life.
And then the virus enters another cell and is alive again? Really? Yes, really. That's exactly what we observe! All life comes from pre-existing life. This concept is perfectly consistent with cell theory and the law of biogenesis. We have a perfectly normal cell, and we have a viral infected cell. The virus is only alive in the sense that it is part of the original cell, and that now that it is within the cell it is disturbing and disorganizing the cell usually until it explodes the cell and releases the virions. Then those non-living virions hang around until they find another host. I think you would agree that poisons are abiotic and non-living. Yet they affect cells by disturbing their organization to such and extent that they destroy the cell. I think many doctors would agree that a virus can be interpreted as a very specific type of organic poison. In fact, they use the term "viral food poisoning" all the time.
Look at the list of examples of abiotic components from Wikipedia again. Why do you think a virus outside a host cell belongs on that list? That list is miniscule, but their definition is clear...
quote: I think a virus is a perfect example by observational evidence that it is a "non-living chemical and physical part of the environment that affects living organisms and the functioning of ecosystems." And at the same time there is no evidence that a virus is "on the pathway to life".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
So now we (you and I) have clarified the grey area. We have categories: (1) White=Living==>by some unequivocal definition of life(2) Grey=Abiotic=non-living (3) Black= Dead Your position just keeps getting stranger. Why would you put abiotic materials (which means "not biotic" or "not derived from living organisms") as the "grey" area between living and dead? That make NO sense at all. I'm pretty sure Tanypteryx will spit out his coffee when he sees that you think he was agreeing with you. ![]() The grey scale should be interpreted as: White = living - meets ALL the criteria for living creatures. I listed my version of this list in Message 132 quote: Black = Non-living - meets NONE of the criteria listed above Grey = Meets SOME of the criteria listed above, but not all of them. Viruses exhibit at least 5 of the above criteria and arguably all of them when it is within a suitable host cell. So then viruses are in this grey area between living organisms and non-living, abiotic materials - NOT between living and dead. Abiotic materials are not dead, they never were alive in the first place. If viruses are not alive, then they cannot be killed. ABE: Crystals may have only 1 (or maybe 2) of these characteristics. Self-replicating RNA may have 3 of these characteristics, etc. Dead organisms become organic matter, which when broken down may become part of abiotic substrates, such as soil, but they are still considered different from actual abiotic materials. We can recognize matter that originated in living organisms because of the way they can use carbon atoms. I know of no abiotic processes that can use carbon like living organisms do. Which makes me wonder why did you not include "carbon-based" in your definition of "living"?
I think this model works very well within Biology and especially well with my definition of life. I wasn't aware there was really a problem in Biology regarding this issue. Sure some things are hard to classify, even when it comes to a seemingly simple question as to whether the subject is a living organism or not. But such is Biology. As much as we would like everything to fit in nice neat categories, things just are reluctant to allow us such amenities. So this all makes me wonder what your motive is for wanting such a cut and dried definition of "life." What would such a definition accomplish that cannot be accomplished using the standard criteria? HBD Edited by herebedragons, : added ABE portionWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: OK, then show me the semantics that clarify "alive" and "non-living" or the model of a grey area makes no legitimate scientific sense. By "show me the semantics" are you asking for definitions of "living" and "non-living" of a specificity that we keep telling you doesn't exist? Dogs are living, a lead block is non-living. That's pretty unambiguous. The area between is ambiguous.
See post 152 See Message 155. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024