Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9159 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 914,821 Year: 2,078/9,624 Month: 1,511/567 Week: 119/338 Day: 3/41 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Miller and Urey Experiment: What has changed?
ringo
Member (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(4)
Message 33 of 85 (674396)
09-28-2012 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 7:54 PM


LimpSPider writes:
Viruses are non-living because they are unable to metabolise on their own.
I'd consider that an argument in favour of abiogenesis. If viruses have some of the characteristics of life but not all, then the distinction between living and non-living matter is blurred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:54 PM LimpSpider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 7:13 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 40 of 85 (674490)
09-29-2012 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 7:13 AM


LimpSpider writes:
Actually, I’ve never seen a virus evolve the ability to metabolize.
Viruses are pretty successful as they are. What environmental "pressure" would there be for them to evolve a fundamentally different lifestye?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 7:13 AM LimpSpider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 6:46 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 54 of 85 (674680)
10-01-2012 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 6:46 PM


LimpSpider writes:
Which means that they would not evolve the ability to metabolize, right? So they can’t be intermediate. They are simply too successful.
I'm not sure what "intermediate" has to do with it. My point was that there is no fundamental difference between non-living and living matter; in fact, you have to bring in artificial criteria like metabloism to make a classification. It's possible that a virus-like "thing" could evolve a metabolism-like capability if there was some advantage to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 6:46 PM LimpSpider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 7:02 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 58 of 85 (674741)
10-02-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by LimpSpider
10-01-2012 7:02 PM


LimpSpider writes:
I’m not the only one who thinks viruses are non-living, ringo
You don't have to work so hard at missing the point. Cearly, there is controversy over whether or not viruses are "alive". That makes my point. There just is no clearly-defined difference between "alive" and "not alive".
The broader point, again, is that some virus-like "thing" could have evolved a metabloism-like capability if there was some advantage to it. That possibiliy is all that is needed for abiogenesis to happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 7:02 PM LimpSpider has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by kofh2u, posted 11-09-2012 7:50 AM ringo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024