|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2902 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Life - an Unequivicol Definition | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Because of RAZD's relentless non-comprehension of "self-contained entity", I will revise my definition to improve it. It's part of the scientific process, and it clarifies the type of self-contained entity. The ad hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument) is not a refutation, and what it shows here is that my argument is making an impact.
Life, or a living organism is a self contained entity which is a contiguous system that uses ATP (adenosine triphosphate) for metabolism and synthesizes ATP with enzymes which are synthesized from a genetic process requiring the transfer of information from DNA to RNA. That won't help you either: the lower 48 states are also call the contiguous 48 states, because they form a contiguous group of one toughing another. Curiously you can stand on the outer boundary of this land mass and not know it. A clam is a contiguous organism with a clear outer boundary, so is everything inside the outer boundary living ... including the shell? Same for exoskeleton organisms like the shells of lobsters? It is taking me more time than I anticipated to put my step by step critique together, and I'll need a little bit more additional information from you: (1) "genetic process" -- what do you mean by this and can you state it in a way that does not imply life ... as in "chemical reactions" ... ? (2) "synthesized" -- isn't that just more chemical reactions? (3) "requiring the transfer of information" -- do you mean transcription ("Transcription is the first step of gene expression, in which a particular segment of DNA is copied into RNA (mRNA) by the enzyme RNA polymerase.") (4) "synthesize enzymes ... to RNA" -- are you talking about making RNA enzymes? Ribozyme - Wikipedia
quote: Or do you mean protein enzymes Enzyme - Wikipedia
quote: Thanks Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The definition identifies the "self contained entity which is a contiguous system " as being alive or not. The definition in your example identifies the organism as a whole as being alive. It does not require that all the contiguous parts of the system be alive. They may or may not be. So parts of an organism can be dead and the organism is still alive ... got it. At what point in the continuum of 100% totally alive and 0% totally not alive do you count the entity dead or not-alive? Is a person with one living cell and thousands of dead cells still "alive" by your definition? Is a living hair follicle pulled out with a hair a living entity, including the hair? How about when the entity becomes similar to a virion in meeting your definition?
Protein enzymes. See Not Found for basically what I mean. Which doesn't really answer my questions. You break forum guidelines by posting bare links without saying what in that link applies. Curiously I note that it starts with:
quote: So are you saying it must be a biological system to be considered life? A biological system is based on life, so your definition is circular and begging the question if this is what you mean. The whole article is laced with reference to existing life, so your definition is ending up with saying it is life if it has life in it, which is begging the question. Please clarify. Back to the questions, can I assume from your answer that: 1) by "genetic process" -- you mean "chemical reactions" Yes No (2) that "synthesized" -- is just more chemical reactions Yes No (3) that by "requiring the transfer of information" -- you mean transcription, where "a particular segment of DNA is copied into RNA (mRNA) by the enzyme RNA polymerase" Yes No ... (a) that polymerase is one of the enzymes you talk about, Yes No... that it would have to be present as well for this process to occur Yes No ... (b) are there other enzymes that are being included without being named? Yes No ... (c) that this is just another chemical reaction Yes No (4) by "synthesize enzymes" -- are you talking about protein enzymes being made Yes No Please note that RNA polymerase - Wikipedia states that
quote: So your definition (a) requires something "essential to life" to be life (begging the question?) and (b) it is chemical reactions. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No, I'm afraid I understand exactly what a continuum is, but you don't.
quote: And you still don't get it. First that definition is not saying that the extremes are different from the middle rather than part of it. Try this: a 10" wide continuum with white at one edge and black at the other. Cut 1" off each side and you have an abbreviated continuum between very light grey and very dark gray, but they are both grey and the extremes are still quite distinct. You can keep cutting strips off until you reach a point where the extremes are not very distinct. How does that happen? 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Apparently you and Cat Sci do not understand mutually exclusive words. For a moment, let's forget about the concept of a continuum and just use two words, "atheist" and "non-atheist". The set of atheists is the set of all people who meet the definition of atheist. The set of non-atheists is all other people in the world who do not meet the definition of atheist. So who is not included in those two categories? NO ONE! In the case of the continuum, this becomes nonsensical. Agnostics. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
And would it still meet the definition of continuum? Yes No Well that would depend on your definition of "quite distinct" wouldn't it? When does "quite distinct" become "somewhat distinct" or "just a little different" or "almost the same" ... ? And ... ... that is actually the POINT of this discussion of continuum -- when you break it down into small increments the differences are not that great, it is only when you step back and look at the whole picture that you see area (a) of the continuum is different from area (z) of the continuum.
Well, it doesn't happen in a continuum. The edges are always quite distinct, "obvious", and "definable". Curiously it happens all the time. Even when they are just slightly different shades of grey, right? You do realize that edges are not separate areas of a continuum yes? Perhaps not ... can you tell me where the inner edge of "white" is? (between "white" and 'grey"?) where the inner edge of "black" is? (between "black" and"grey"?)
I guess with you it happens by ignoring the definition. Maybe? Yes No No, it happens when you reduce the continuum to a set of ridiculously minimal differences that only an obstinate person would still say were "quite distinct" ... ... such as between (a) and (b) or between (b) and (c) or between (c) and (d) or between (d) and (e) or between (e) and (f) or between ... (y) and (z) ... ... while the overall combined differences between (a) and (z) would by most people's impressions seem "quite distinct" .... The question is when does "quite distinct" kick in ... at what point does a difference between (n) and (n+1) ... {where "n" represents a letter in the alphabet and "n+1" represents the next letter in the alphabet} ... is it between (n) and (n+2)? between (n) and (n+3)? when does it become "quite distinct"?
Do words really mean anything anyway? Yes No Indeed yes, and that is why your definition is in such trouble defining multicellular life. You want us to accept that if a cell is living by your definition somewhere inside some boundary enclosure where everything inside is contiguous (touching another part) that the enclosed entity is alive ... whether it is a clam (with more mass and volume in the shell than the contents) or a lobster (that sheds a new shell every year) that this somehow makes the whole enclosed entity alive ... ... unless it is a goldfish inside a ziplock bag with water (contiguous, enclosed by a distinct boundary) ... ? ... or a Russian doll set with a bacteria in the innermost doll ... each doll is a distinct enclosing boundary in contact with the doll inside ... ... but there is no question (in your mind) that the clam and the lobster are alive ... because equivocation? Because the words you use DO have meanings, even when they result in things becoming classified as "alive" by your definition that you did not intend. Because your definition is anchored\embedded in processes that only occur inside a single cell and thus CANNOT be applied to multicellular life. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I have often found that when a persons arguments don't work, they often try and change the words, like you are doing. Curiously I find when someone is losing an argument that they ignore the points that are fatal to their argument and start attacking the person over nitpicking of words.
It is not my definition of "quite distinct". Merriman or any other dictionary will do quite fine, but "quite distinct" does not mean "somewhat distinct" or "just a little different" or "almost the same" . And amusingly I am not trying to change the definition of "quite distinct" at all. I have no problem with it -- I am just pointing out that there is a level at which it no longer applies (unless you are an obstinate pedant), a different thing altogether. Note your definition (and the part you ignore):
quote: A continuum has an infinite gradation from one end to the other, which means that you can cut it in half and have two continua...
Cut those in half and you have four continua ...
Keep doing that and you continue to have continua ...but are the ends still "quite distinct"? If not, then at what point does it become something "not quite distinct", yet still remain a continuum?
quote: It would appear that you are that obstinate person ... so is there a continuum between "quite distinct" and "not quite distinct" ... ? Now, the rest of my post that you ignored (See Message 303 again):
quote: What about the hermit crab ... "Most of the 1100 species possess an asymmetrical abdomen which is concealed in an empty gastropod shell carried around by the hermit crab." -- how is it different from (a) the goldfish-water-ziplock-bag entity and (b) the original gastropod entity? So you are having two difficulties: one at the cell level between what is 100% alive and what is 100% not ever alive, and one between what is a multicellular entity and what is something else entirely. Difficulties that you have not resolved to anyone's (but your own) satisfaction. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It is obvious to everyone else that it seems you are incapable of understanding what a continuum truly is.
To have a continuum, you must have at least three things. Two distinct things being compared or contrasted and at least one thing in between. No: you just need to have one thing, with variations from one extreme to another (like the height of all people).
So by definition, the extremes of any continuum are quite distinct. But the second tallest person is not distinctly different from the tallest person, because they are (by the rest of the same definition)
quote: Where the difference in height can be imperceptible, by definition. But this masochistic equine necrophilia seems pointless to continue in the face of your obstinate (intentional?) failure in comprehension to even understand the points being made.
Instead, why don't you address the actual issues with your failed definition: quote: So you are having two difficulties: one at the cell level between what is 100% alive and what is 100% not ever alive, and one between what is a multicellular entity and what is something else entirely, and where this multcellular entity can vary from 100% alive contents and boundary to almost 0% alive contents with 100% not alive boundary (clams, lobsters, hermit crabs, ... and goldfish-water-ziplock-bag entities, Russian Dolls, etc ... things people do not regularly consider as alive). Difficulties that you still have not resolved to anyone's (but your own obstinate) satisfaction. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
As I promised in Message 262:
And once again CALLING it a strawman does not make it so, nor is that a refutation of my posting. Please stop using that dodge as an excuse to fail to respond to the argument. Curiously, I can spell it out for you step by step in detail if you wish ... Note that this evaluation only applies to your application of your definition to multicellular life. I have included one example of a single cell life form for example on how your definition was intended to be applied. From Message 1 your proposed definition of life is:
Life, or a living organism is a self contained entity which uses ATP (adenosine triphosphate) for metabolism and synthesizes ATP with enzymes which are synthesized from a genetic process requiring the transfer of information from DNA to RNA. "Self-contained" has been further clarified (Message 92) as:
quote: Leaving aside for now the FACT that cells are NOT truly self-contained in this sense (without nourishment they die or go dormant — we can *assume* that the evaluation is done at a single point in time), ... ... AND, for the purpose of this definition this containment cannot refer in any way shape or form to only a living containment ("oneself or itself" connotations), as that would be begging the question. Basically this is defining the "self" to be comprised of some kind of distinct envelope or container or boundary that can be easily identified, and whatever is contained inside that boundary. In addition, "Entity" has been further clarified (Message 255) as:
quote: Again, it is imperative that "entity" cannot be considered in any way shape or form to be limited to life forms for the purposes of this definition, as that would be begging the question -- ie life is comprised of ... life. And again, no known lifeforms are truly independent -- they depend on their habitat\ecology for nourishment and livable conditions. We will add this to the caveat on "self-contained" ... In Message 289 I asked for clarification on several other parts of this definition, and based on the answers received we can further clarify:
In Message 256 the definition was amended to:
Life, or a living organism is a self contained entity which is a contiguous system that uses ATP (adenosine triphosphate) for metabolism and synthesizes ATP with enzymes which are synthesized from a genetic process requiring the transfer of information from DNA to RNA. And a contiguous system just means each part touches another part in some way. [abe] The way this definition is to be applied to multicellular life was described in Message 320:
A multi-cellular organism is made up of many cells which are alive by my definition and you agree. And a multicellular organism is defined as contiguous system of cells. So is the system self contained? Yes, the system has living cells that make up it's boundary. All the other cells are within the systems boundary. So within that boundary is the rest of my definition satisfied? Well you already agreed that the individual cells are alive by my definition, so it does satisfy. ... In other words if there is a living cell inside an enveloped entity defined by a boundary and the internal contents, then that whole entity (including the boundary) is alive. This is further clarified in Message 284:
A clam is a contiguous organism with a clear outer boundary, so is everything inside the outer boundary living ... including the shell? Same for exoskeleton organisms like the shells of lobsters? The definition identifies the "self contained entity which is a contiguous system " as being alive or not. The definition in your example identifies the organism as a whole as being alive. It does not require that all the contiguous parts of the system be alive. They may or may not be. So not everything inside the boundary or the boundary itself need to be alive to meet the definition. This would include hair, hooves, nails, scales, shells, bark, core wood, some dead cells, etc etc etc ... (which raises questions of how much needs to be alive for the whole entity to be considered alive by this definition ... 1 cell?) [/abe] So now we can restate the definition as clarified (retaining the caveat that the evaluation is done at a single point in time, noted by * below):
Life, or a living organism is:
Now we can consider what this definition means:
Note that two caveats were included to make the cell 100% alive, and that this also applied to other entities being considered. Note that the yes/no answers designate evidence that those reactions had occurred but are not ongoing at the time of evaluation. Note that the definition also makes the clam's shell, the lobster's shell, the hermit crab's house, the baggie, and the wooden dolls "alive" by this definition, not a normal result. Note that the caveats for "self-contained" and "independent" are that we only look at the entities at a single point in time, whereas a realistic evaluation would look at a behavior over a longer period of time, one that would include the consumption of raw materials (food) and the expulsion of waste -- which means that all life forms fail the "self-contained" condition ... unless the entity is expanded to include it's habitat\ecology ... and then you have problems with that boundary element. Note further that the baggie and the Russian dolls also include bacteria in the air and water, as would the rock and the bone (which would make them alive). Because this makes things that are not normally considered "alive" by common consensus views of life, this definition fails to adequately distinguish between "life" and "not life" ... it fails at the multicellular level. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : abe where AOK clarified his position on multicellular life applications Edited by RAZD, : clrty2by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Have a nice weekend. No matter how obstinate you think I am! Planning on it, getting ready for our family annual solstice celebration. When you get back perhaps you can address the definition issues of Message 303 and Message 309 and Message 313:
quote: and now you have Message 320 where I detail multiple instances where your definition fails at the multicellular level, listing every point in your definition, step by step as I promised. Failure to respond does not constitute any kind of refutation, rather it would tend to confirm that your definition cannot be applied to multicellular life as you have done without causing fatal problems in not being able to accurately distinguish life from non-life. No definition of life based solely on molecular processes inside a cell can apply to multicellular life without having similar problems in identifying things not usually considered 'life' to be alive. Enjoy your weakend.by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Given the ruling from Admin, it would seem prudent for anyone wanting to continue this discussion to start a new thread.
If it were me I would start with the traditional definition of life and then look at examples of what is considered life but which doesn't meet ALL of the requirements ... to get an idea of how much compliance is necessary -- 6 out of 7? 5 out of 7? ... 4 out of 7? And at what level do you start "admitting" things that are generally NOT considered life. My impression is that it would come down to a similar difference as there is between splitters and lumpers in defining species. Could be an interesting discussion whether AOK or any other creationist chooses to participate. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Asfar as my definition of life, I was looking forward to rebutting RAZD, but now I can't. Definitions of words and their application are the only way I can defend it. And that's been ruled out by fiat as well. or you want to use that as a dodge to evade the problems that arise from your application of your definition to multicellular life. Happy Holidays (all of them) by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... And I assume it would also with any defense I make, because I am defending a definition and that has words with meaning within. Most of which RAZD thinks is controversial. ... Not so much controversial as open to interpretation, which is why I asked you to clarify things. Life as we know it is not "self-contained" (having everything it needs, independent), rather it is massivly dependent on the environment\ecology that it lives in and interacts with, that it relies on for nourishment and other things necessary for life to contnue, to grow, to reproduce, etc. To apply this to life thus requires interpretation of what was meant, not what was said.
No, the point of my definition is to shift the current cellular life to something possibly simpler that that.... When you simplify, you need to be sure you have (a) retained critical aspects and (b) not openned the door to things that don't fit. And there are a multitude of examples (objective evidence) of things that meet your criteria for multicellular life, yet are not generally considered to be life. You openned the door to them by being too simplified in definition and application. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
But that doesn't absolve you from the dichotomy, ... Curiously, I don't believe anyone disagrees with there being a dichotomy established by the words (LIFE) and not(LIFE), just that words don't define nature. Rather words should be used to model nature so that it improves our understanding. The better the model the closer it models reality.
... and it doesn't establish a continuum. Nor does one definition stand alone; rather they overlap and cover different aspects with different degrees of accuracy and useability. Each definition produces different results for a line between (LIFE) and not(LIFE), and these differences establish that de facto there is a grey area (and thus a continuum), where the line by each and every definition is necessarily arbitrarily created by the definition and not by nature. For if the dichotomy was real and a fact of nature, the there would be no disagreement. And that is why being pedantic about the words in one or two definitions doesn't resolve any problems caused by the definitions.
In the scientifically established and published chemicals to life continuum, we can say that DNA molecules are closer to life than lead on the continuum, simply because they are organic complex chemicals rather than elemental chemicals. But on your false continuum of non-life to life you cannot say that DNA is any more closer to life than lead, because they are equally non-life. That's not a continuum ... Which demonstrates that the (false) dichotomy you try to define by words has no meaning in nature, that there actually IS a category of "almost life" in nature, because dna IS different from lead: it has some of the attributes of life, but not all. You cannot define this away, it is a fact of nature. Nature defines life, you just observe and theorize about your observations. 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Curiously I am not surprised that you chose this response first, rather than address the issues raised in Message 320, because you have avoided these issues for some time.
Please note the chart and the FACT that NOT ONE known life form truly qualifies as 100% life without making allowances\caveats\excuses. This is because NO KNOWN life form is totally 100% self-contained and EVERY known life for is highly DEPENDANT on the environment it lives in and (constantly) interacts with. The cell wall, your chosen boundary, is a semi-permeable membrane. It lets water and nutrients in and waste out. Without nutrients the cell dies or goes dormant (ceases activity that you use to identify life, so it becomes not-life by your definition).
...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory Just to be clear this is not a definition of life, rather it is an observation of what we know of current, highly evolved life - as defined by the "standard" list of characteristics, a list that everyone agrees is not all-inclusive nor all-exclusive, but a starting point. Further the purpose of this observation is to define the basis for cell theory, their reason for concentrating on the cell and not the areas of (current) ambiguity. This is similar to evolution concetrating on existing life and not the (current) ambiguity of origins. Defining boundaries of investgation however does not corral\coerce nature into compliance with those boundaries: grass ignores fences.
Now what about this "almost life" stuff. And what about the so called continuum from chemicals to life. It's all hypothetical. This continuum is hypothesized, not observed. At best, what is observed is a few examples of interesting molecular arrangements that have some of the characteristics of known cellular life. The continuum hypothesis is abiogenesis. ... There is no 100% continuous record of fossils (closest would be foraminifera with a 65kyr 99% complete record), but there is certainly enough to show what is predicted by evolutionary theory.
... The observed entities are viruses, prions and a handful of other named things. There is no observed continuum. There is no observed "edge of life". There is no observed chemical evolution of life. This is all hypothetical word soup in a Darwinian warm little pond somewhere. That's all. The observed entities are fossils, remnants, residue, parts that continue to exist in a world now dominated, controlled, and run by highly evolved cell life forms. And there is certainly enough to show what is predicted by theories of origin\abiogenesis: it is evidence based science, not imagination, that is being pursued.
So I think it is incumbent on you to observationally establish this grey continuum from chemicals to life. Nope. For several reasons, not least of which is that it is off-topic. Another is that this has been done: see
Building Blocks of Life, part 1 and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) So spend your time defending your arbitrary and incomplete (at best) definition from the failures identified before getting banned again. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ?by 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Unfortunately you apparently do not understand the definition of self contained which was previously provided. The word/phrase in no way implies that the boundary is impermeable and that things cannot enter and exit the container. Curiously I used the definition you provided and emphasized. btaim* - you still fail to address the bizarre classification of things as "life" that other people do not. You will note that I used a caveat for "self-contained" in the table that specifically addressed the issue of the degree of self-enclosure during evaluation. I need not point out nor address whether or not this degree of self-enclosure is a grey scale issue to show that your definition fails miserably to exclude entities not normally cosidered "life" ... now including trains, apartments and machines. No person can objectively use your definition and not encounter the same problem ... unless they equivocate on how they apply it based on their a priori knowledge of what is normally considered "life" and what is not. Enjoy * - be that as it may Edited by RAZD, : psby 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024