|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Life - an Unequivicol Definition | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
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. emphasis mine You cannot define this away, it is a fact of nature.
Nature defines life, you just observe and theorize about your observations. Let's just cut to the chase RAZD. I agree 100% with your last sentence. So what have scientists and lay people all over the world observed countless times....
quote:And this is the foundation of Biology. 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. 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 one entity that is said to be on the "edge of life" is the virus. I say Barbara Streisand! What characteristics of life does it have? Well it self replicates, and evolves. It doesn't metabolize once it is assembled. It doesn't show signs of homeostasis once it is assembled. Virions do degrade and cannot infect a living cell any more. It doesn't grow once it is assembled. It has no real organization of "organelles". And without pre-existing cellular life, the observations are that virions would just be degrading organic compounds over time. So How is this at the "edge of life"? By the 7 characteristics of life, I count 2 of 7. Sounds much closer to the chemical side of any hypothetical continuum rather than the life side. It's pretty dark gray to me! And prions are even less "life like". So I think it is incumbent on you to observationally establish this grey continuum from chemicals to life. I am preparing several posts for my defense of my definition of life. I should have it posted before the next holiday on Friday. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD writes: 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). 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. Apparently you have a " highly literal application of this dictionary definition". I have been warned against this, so I will cite examples in the "common language" as I was encouraged to do. In the previously cited Google definition the example of a train was given as a self-contained entity. A train is what we see, and we see the boundary of the train. However that boundary is not impervious. Diesel fuel can enter, and exhaust can exit. People can enter and people can exit. Product can enter and product can exit. So a train is clearly given as an example where the definition was cited by me. Apartments are also often described as self-contained. Yet, they are not impermeable. People can come in and out. Animals can come in and out. Food enters apartments and is eaten! Crap and urine exits in the trash and the sewer! And apartments are highly dependent on the environment they are in, and they constantly interact with that environment! Machines are described as self-contained entities. They have doors and panels and all kinds of openings for things to come in and out. And of course cells are described as self-contained entities. So maybe you misunderstand the word. I can cite a multitude of other examples, but I would refrain from using "highly literal applications of this dictionary definition" if I were you.
Just to be clear this is not a definition of life
No it is a theory. Just like TOE is a theory. It is a fact much like TOE is a fact.
Defining boundaries of investgation however does not corral\coerce nature into compliance with those boundaries: grass ignores fences. Except for concrete and block wall fences. Grass isn't so ignorant of them! There are lots of boundaries defined in science. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD writes: And a contiguous system just means each part touches another part in some way. Nope. That's what "contiguous" means, but not what a "contiguous system" means. Because everything after this hinges on this false interpretation, then your argument for the "fish in a baggy thingy" and the "Russian Dolls with a bacteria inside thingy" becomes just a strawman argument.
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. Nope, this is your strawman.
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 ... This is correct, no strawman here.
So now we can restate the definition as clarified... This is where the prodigal son goes wayward. Repent from your strawman tendencies! Come back to the Father. He only wants you to include the word "system" in your understanding. Is that such a difficult moral dilemma? Come home son!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD writes: So a "contiguous system" would not be contiguous. Fascinating. No, what is fascinating is you cannot comprehend the definitional difference between one word "contiguous" and two words "contiguous system". Can you see any difference at all there? Does the word "system" possibly have any meaning at all? Apparently not to you, and therefore, you create a strawman by not recognizing any meaning at all from the word "system". Once again... You said....
And a contiguous system just means each part touches another part in some way. No, I disagree. Period. You have described what "contiguous" means only. You have not included the meaning of the word "system". Therefore you have created a strawman.
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument. You are attacking my definition by discounting significant words within my definition. You did this earlier with "self-contained" by misrepresenting the definition, and now you are doing this by discounting the meaning of "system". That is the epitome of a strawman. And you clearly don't understand equivocation, because I have not used any of these words with multiple meanings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Thus the baggie with the goldfish in water is alive. You just confirmed it, thank you. Nope. Again, I did not confirm this. You must first include the word "system" as you apply the definition of life to your "baggy with a goldfish thingy". Can you show me or any one in the "common language" how this thingy is recognized as a "system". EVIDENCE PLEASE! Remember, please don't use any "highly literal application of the dictionary definition". However, the "goldfish in a baggy thingy" can evolve just like you previously described. And so does the Russian Dolls with the bacteria inside. They are alive using your definition. Once you contrive a thing to be multiple things then your definition fails with the same evaluation. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD writes: Systemnoun 1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system. or Systemnoun 1. a group or combination of interrelated, interdependent, or interacting elements forming a collective entity; Good. Thanks for citing the definitions. Now please, in the "common language" anywhere on the web, show me how a "goldfish in water in a baggy with a twist tie thingy" is considered a "complex or unitary whole" or a "collective entity". Then of course after you successfully do this, then in the "common language" anywhere on the web, show me how a "Set of Russian Dolls with a bacteria inside thingy" is considered a "complex or unitary whole" or a "collective entity". And then after that show me how a "man in an apartment" is considered a "complex or unitary whole" or a "collective entity". And then after that show me how a "man in a train" is considered "complex or unitary whole" or a "collective entity". In fact, everything including the air in my office is in a self contained room, and everything in it is contiguous including all the papers and dust particles, me and bacteria. But it is not a system. My computer is a system though and it has contiguous parts, and it is self contained. But the computer system does not include the bacteria inside, because it is not part of the "complex or unitary whole" or a "collective entity". Think about it for a minute. It may just fry your brain. Yet, my hair and fingernails and my undigested food (dead things) are part of my "complex or unitary whole" and me as a "collective entity". And it is all self-contained and contiguous. And, I am a system. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
The fish interacts with the water, the water interacts with the baggie and any air in the baggie. They form a system of interacting parts. Nope. The problem is once again, you are using a "highly literal application of the dictionary definition" for system without understanding the words "common usage". The wiki article is very enlightening on this subject matter:
quote: If you read beyond this:
quote: You see the person who assembled the bag and water and fish did not design them to "work as a coherent entity". And being that the fish is natural and the other items are designed in the "common language" these are viewed a "two or more distinct systems". That's why no one goes to the pet store to buy a "fish in a baggy with water and a twist tie thingy", but they do go to buy a fish. And they may transport it in a baggy with water etc. Two distinct systems. The same applies to you Russian Dolls analogy. So, once again, the definition as given does not fail to your examples. In fact it highlights the distinction in why the fish is alive, but these conglomerates are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
C. It is a collective entity, being made up of several parts. Yes, you continue to claim this. Now just support it with evidence. Show me anywhere that such a thing is referred to as a system, or as a single entity rather that two or more distinct entities. That's all. Sounds pretty simple doesn't it. You have the whole web at your access. But you won't, because you can't! Your examples are nothing more that assemblies of multiple entities which happen to be touching. You must show that they are one entity. Just show me the evidence. This forum is about evidence isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Please note RAZD, I am not arguing the words in these definitions. You are. I am not showing you how your interpretation doesn't meet any grouping of words. I am only asking for evidence. Not claims. Meaning a citation of some sort, that supports your position that a "fish in a baggie with water and a twist tie" is viewed by anyone else as a "system" and not multiple systems or entities. That's all. If you don't have evidence then I ask that you withdraw your claims. If you have evidence, then bring it forth.
You are doing exactly what I was admonished for, and I am avoiding arguing about these words. Just give me the evidence. That's all. Bring it forth! In Message 353, I did not argue the definition of self-contained at all. But I provided you many examples in the "common language" that can be found all over the web that refute your individual "highly literal" interpretation about "self-contained". Apparently you have now dropped that argument, because it has become overwhelmingly obvious that you were wrong by the evidence. That's all I am asking you to do. Stop arguing the words and give me examples from all over the web where anyone refers to a "fish in a baggy with water and a twist tie thingy" is considered a single "entity" or a single "system" of entities. I have already conceded that indeed they are contiguous. Now show me your evidence Otherwise I will assume that you have your own private unique "highly literal" interpretation of these words also that can't be substantiated by evidence like I did in Message 353
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined:
|
Hello Blue Jay,
Welcome back to the conversation, and thank you for being constructive. Your approach is welcomed. I will dissect you comments a little to help you understand my reasoning, as well as listen to yours.
But, there is one implication of your definition that I find interesting: it tells us exactly what we have to do in order to make artificial 'life' in the laboratory. One of the main reasons I started this thread was to reveal what you just said. I just completed the task of being a committee member for my states selection of Biology books for the next 5-6 years. You, and others may be happy to know, that all but one passed the state standards. And I am a die hard Creo as you know. However, I was very disappointed with all of these books in the OOL sections. OOL publications act as if the emergence of the living from rocks is a fact, and only the details need to be worked out. This is why I spent so much time earlier on the "fuzzy grey" discussions. Percy has ruled in this discussion that life is "fuzzy" and a "continuum from non life to life" exists. That's fine and I will abide by this. However, I hope to start a new thread on just this topic alone to discuss if the emergence of life has been established scientifically or not. Who knows, it may get passed the New Topic stage? But I won't discuss it here, this is just advertising! (Trump would be proud of my marketing)
Also, I don't think it's a good idea to try to define "life" and "a living organism" with the same definition. "Organism" is a term about how you define separate "units" of life, and I don't think it's necessary to open that can of worms in the basic definition. I understand what you mean. The reason for this is I think in Biology we should get away from defining "life" per se and really focus on defining what is a "living organism". Life is an abstract term that brings with it a lot of philosophical baggage. Spirits and gods and angels etc. can be living, but they have nothing to do with Biology. Biology is not the study of "life" per se, it is really the study of living organisms. So, I would be OK with dropping the term "life" and keeping the term "living organism", but I think the opposite is what really causes most of the problems, because of the baggage.
You have explicitly constrained "metabolism" and "information" in terms of specific types of molecules, but have left "containment" more vague. Perhaps if you also constrained "containment" in a similar fashion, your definition would be more appealingly self-consistent. I see your point, but here is my reasoning. A truly living thing must self metabolize. This requires certain metabolic molecules of which ATP is ubiquitous in our examination of living organisms. But ATP synthesis requires protein/enzymes or the chemical reactions would be way to slow for life. Therefore, those enzymes must be self-made. That's the only reason for the narrowness of the definition, because it kills two birds with one stone by including the genetic process to create these specific enzymes. As far as the containment is concerned, I just wanted to include a variety of "containers" that we see in multicellular organisms which aren't lipid based (shells, fur, chitin etc.)
quote:I don't see much problem with your modifications except for the area regarding the "containment". However, as you said, the real definition needs to be oriented around OOL, and if we say "the first minimal life" or "the first minimal organism" then I think the modifications works pretty well. I'll have to mull it over for a while. s I've said before, I think it's too restrictive on a number of fronts (viruses... I curious about why you are so concerned about viruses. The reason I ask is that the mantra in the books is that "viruses are on the edge of life" (paraphrase). But are they really? I think most in this thread agree pretty much with the 6 or 7 characteristics of "life" , but when we apply those to a virus, they do not metabolize even inside a host. There is no homeostasis, and they don't grow. They also do not respond to stimuli as far as I can see. Note: I define a virus as the assembled entity within the host cell. So it doesn't appear to me to be near the "edge at all. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2897 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
But, viruses meet 3 or 4 of the 7 traditional criteria for 'life'*. Viruses stand out a little bit from the crowd of 'non-living' things. They certainly seem to behave a lot like 'life' in at least some ways, even though they don't exactly fit our expectations for what 'life' is. They possibly even 'evolved' from things that originally met all 7 criteria. This causes us to question whether all of our criteria/hypotheses are valid or necessary. Yes I agree. They meet 3or 4 of the criteria. No argument. Now assuming Percy's continuum, the logic would say that they are "middle gray" which means they are pretty far from the "edge of life". Yes, They aren't black or very dark gray, but they are definitely not "off white". In other words, the mantra that viruses are on the "edge of life" is no more than a mantra from a scientific paper that doesn't even discuss this subject! Therefore, this mantra should not be widely used in the scientific community or the text books. It is nothing more than a headline title that has no factual scientific support. PS: I'm OK if one argues that they respond to stimuli...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024