|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5928 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a border dividing life from non-life? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
sidelined writes: I hold that there is no actual border between the two and that it is a matter of bias on the part of we conscious humans. If we assume that life is a continual progression in complexity then everything that any organism does is a result of chemical elements increasing in capability and,under the influence of natural forces,changing the level of interaction into novel forms that again increase the range of capabilities into complexity.Whatever atoms can do relays into what we can do.The border would appear to be an illusion and this would explain the difficulty that occurs in trying to pin it down. We have a good working knowledge of the forces and the atom itself and I believe that over the next decade there should be sufficient understanding of biology to show the connections within the complexity. There is a distinct border between chemicals and living organisms. That border has been recognized since the beginning of human beings and it is highly recognized today. This threshold boundary is crossed every day all around the world. That boundary is called DEATH. If you think this is illusionary, then why will you eventually die? All organisms die. All the chemicals are there. If you want to talk about a "primordial soup" of organic chemicals, then how about the "soup" of chemicals still present when an organism dies. All the proteins are present for life. All the amino acids are present for life. All the catalysts are present for life. All the DNA and RNA is present for life. All the cell walls are present for life. What better organic soup could you want other than a dead organism. It is just foolishness IMO to suggest that there is no boundary. It is obvious to most people. I guess you have to be an educated scientific abiogenesist to not see and understand the boundary. Only religious ideas would lead to the conclusion from the evidence that there is no distint boundary. A quick google scholar search on the subject of "cell death" shows 2,500,000 entries. I think science even recognizes this boundary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
sidelined writes: I hold that there is no actual border between the two and that it is a matter of bias on the part of we conscious humans. If we assume that life is a continual progression in complexity then everything that any organism does is a result of chemical elements increasing in capability and,under the influence of natural forces,changing the level of interaction into novel forms that again increase the range of capabilities into complexity.Whatever atoms can do relays into what we can do.The border would appear to be an illusion and this would explain the difficulty that occurs in trying to pin it down. We have a good working knowledge of the forces and the atom itself and I believe that over the next decade there should be sufficient understanding of biology to show the connections within the complexity. There is a distinct border between chemicals and living organisms. That border has been recognized since the beginning of human beings and it is highly recognized today. This threshold boundary is crossed every day all around the world. That boundary is called DEATH. If you think this is illusionary, then why will you eventually die? All organisms die. All the chemicals are there. If you want to talk about a "primordial soup" of organic chemicals, then how about the "soup" of chemicals still present when an organism dies. All the proteins are present for life. All the amino acids are present for life. All the catalysts are present for life. All the DNA and RNA is present for life. All the cell walls are present for life. What better organic soup could you want other than a dead organism. It is just foolishness IMO to suggest that there is no boundary. It is obvious to most people. I guess you have to be an educated scientific abiogenesist to not see and understand the boundary. Only religious ideas would lead to the conclusion from the evidence that there is no distint boundary. A quick google scholar search on the subject of "cell death" shows 2,500,000 entries. I think science even recognizes this boundary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Well, I guess he was sidelined!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
doku writes: Are we talking organism death or cellular death AOKid? Organism death. Cellular death is organism death doku. Trust me, scientific evidence "suggests" you will die.
doku writes: Why does your car or computer eventually die? All the parts are still there? Isn't it possible to still fix these things? All that is needed is to identify and replace the nonworking part(s). You or I(assuming you are not a mechanic/IT specialist) could not fix these things, but given enough time and resources, an expert could. Huh? Comuters die? Cars die? What branch of science do you come from? The literary sciences....I mean arts. Death in the way you used it is a metaphor. Computers aren't alive and neither are cars. I hate to break that to you. Therefore, your whole logical anaology breaks down. Sorry.
doku writes: Science continually makes advances in extending life. Research into telomeres may find a way to prevent cellular death. Science also continually makes advances in ending life. I think science is neutral on this subject. So you must believe in immortality? Infinitely long telomeres. That's an interesting mythological concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
doku writes: AOKid writes:
Could you provide a definition? educated scientific abiogenesist A regious zealot who ignores scientific evidence about life and pursues mythological stories about the origin of life coming from the evolutionary emergence of chemicals.
doku writes: Have people been pronounced dead and then brought back to life? Yes, and I think the last time I checked 100% of scientists in the world would still predict that those who have been brought "back to life" will still die eventually. Except for the one who has power (that's a physics term) over life and death (those are biological terms)....Jesus Christ who rose from the dead and lives today. I put the parenthetical statements in because this is a science forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
doku writes: Is a virus alive or dead AOKid? A virus is unequivocally dead outside a host cell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
doku writes: So you do not want to discuss this further? No I love to discuss this subject, especially with people like you. I just thought that this thread died. It's been brought back to life! Hallelujah. But I theorize, based on evidence, it will die in the future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
bluejay writes: Do you believe that, as soon as the organism "dies," all chemical reactions happening in the organism's cells cease completely, all at the same time? Nope. Definitively Nope. Actually many chemical reactions don't begin to start happening until after death. However, to answer your question more thoroughly, for a single celled organism, at the point of death most if not all of the chemical reactions that support life do cease. This has to do with the cessation of the process of respiration. In multicellular organisms it is a matter of respiration also. When the cardio/ pulminary/neuroligial systems stop the process of respiration then the organism dies. That's why with humans, the point of death is related to these three sysems. If ones heart stops, no blood is pumped to the lungs to receive the oxygen for all the cells in the body. If the lungs stop breathing, then we have the same dilemma. If the brain is unable to control the heart and lungs then we have a real problem. We can mechanically respirate a person as you know. And we can also mechanically pump blood as you know. So a person can be "brain dead" and still very much alive. Usually the "brain death" is caused by some form of lack of respiration for the brain cells. So in summary, once something is alive, that life will usually continue until something stops the respiration process. Once enough cells in the cardio/pulminary/neurological systems begin to die, then organism death will prevail. In plants, it is still a matter of respiration. A plant doesn't die all at once. Plants die over time. But they still die.
bluejay writes: I suspect that this isn't the case. I suspect that death (either the process leading up to the final event or the direct aftermath thereof, or, most likely, both) is characterized by a gradual falling off of chemical activity, rather than a sudden cessation of all functions associated with "life." In all multicellular organisms, you could argue that death is gradual. Actually you could argue that death begins at birth for that matter. But that doesn't help you with the concept that there is no distinct line called death. No one would argue that a baby is dead, but a baby is dying. No one would argue that my 82 year old mother with Alzheimers is dead, but she is dying. Both will have a distinct time where scientifically we will pronounce them both as dead. And ultimately that distict time is when we in all of our knowledge and power can no longer sustain their life. We do not have this power or this knowledge. People, animals, plants, bacteria, and all iving things die. That is a fact with overwhelming evidence. You may can argue the exact moment of death, but you cannot argue that there is a distict line between death and life. Science creates this distinct line. Living things have certain distinct characteristics. Dead things don't have those characteristics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
doku writes:
More fallacies doku. This is a total strawman argument. Yes bood cells die all the time. Blood cells are organisms. And like all organisms, they die. I guess you don't know the difference between a multicellular organism and a single celled organism.
This is not true. Blood cells have an average life of 4 months. You are saying that when one of my blood cells dies, I die. doku writes: Science has had problems trying to define death because new technologies have extended life past previous definitions. New definitions rely on the cessation of brain activity and function. What is to stop science from keeping a brain alive indefinitely? Death....................and God for that matter. Biological science has problems definining alot of things. That's why they can fool people like you.
doku writes: The analogy still holds. The machine's functions stop. The cell's functions stop. The analogy doesn't have a leg unless you agree with itelligent design. With no intelligence, no design changes, and no ability to fix the failing machine. The medical field is wonderful evidence of intelligent design. But even the most intelligent human designer cannot prevent death indefinitetly.
doku writes: Actually yes I do. there is scienctific evidence for it. Here are 2 examples: 1. The hydra is a radially symetrical organism ranging in size from 1mm-20mm. Hydras do not age. They are biologically immortal. I think your fallacies are immortal doku. Now you equivocate aging with dying. All hydras die. They just don't age.
doku writes: 2. Did you know that some cultivars of grapes are clones that have existed for thousands of years? Did you know every Granny Smith apple comes from a single chance plant that was grown in 1868 in Austailia by Maria Ann Smith? You cannot grow a Granny Smith or any other variety of apple from seed. Wouldn't you agree that is immortality? Nope. Fallacy after fallacy! I guess tulips and potatos are immortal too? They aren't grown from seeds either. Maybe we shouldn't be so hard on Mickey D's for frying all those immortal taters. Who knows, It seems to me that life expectancy started increasing about the time McDonalds came into the world. Maybe the potatto is the tree of life!
doku writes: The telomeres do not have to be infinitely long, just infinitely extended. This one takes the cake doku. I guess every 40 years or so we will have microscopic surgeries to have telomere extensions for all of our 6 trillion cells. Yes, He has the faith! And you guys think creos are religious?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024