Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

I think all of science would agree with the former statement (as none of science can be 100% evoquivacally, unquestionably proven anyways). Science is just trying to find a rational, credible explanation of how life originated on Earth (science by definition cannot defer to the "God did it", as this would stop abiogenesis research in its tracks). It is the latter part that many of us disagree with since these two terms ("non-living" & "living") are highly arbitrary and subjective in the biological fields.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Ok, yeah, I didn't make the link at all when I saw 'i' haha, but I new what it was, it just far in my memoryI still find 'you can't prove a negative' very unscientific. And a quick research on google will show that there are about ten sites who show that you can prove a negative. The person who first thought of this catch phrase didn't think a whole lot ...

How can you escalate this to Designer vs science in an either/or situation ?Newton studied more about the Bible, and in fact believed in a six day creation freakin' miracle (How dare he! ) and yet it never stopped him from doing great science.Putting all this in either science or A designer is misrepresenting it greatly.As I've said, A designer hypothesis is only against science if you are materialistic. If you are, then I totally understand that you oppose them. But you gotta be aware that no non-materialistic scientists create this false dilemna.

Ah, Newton, a man who lived before modern science, before Darwin, before we knew of the changing heavens, before the Big Bang was discovered - most surely is his uninformed opinion relevant today! I'm being slightly hyperbolic, I'll admit. However, the point about abiogenesis is that there is nothing in the reasoning which doesn't happen in other science; it's not a special case. If you think that magic is entirely justified as an explaination in the case of abiogenesis then why isn't it equally justified in the case of gravity?

I am. Abiogenesis is a fact, the inevitable conclusion of simple deduction based on two observations: the current existence of life, the past non-existence of life. We know, for a fact, that abiogenesis occured.What we don't know is how.

Nothing in science in known with certainty, not even direct observations. All we can do is use the scientific method to increase our confidence in what we know, and that confidence can never reach 100%. You can use the word fact if you like, but then to be consistent with the tentativity principle of science you have to qualify it a la Gould and say "In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'"Which leaves you saying the same thing everyone else is saying, except that in the meantime you've provided Hyroglyphx yet another thing to be confused about.--Percy

I don't think the lack of complete certainty should scare us off using the word 'fact' in science where appropriate. Complete logical certainty is not a possibility in life for, well, anything so we can either reject the word fact as meaningless in all contexts and instead use convoluted language dripping with disclaimers or adopt it where things they have been confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt.Abiogenesis is certain beyond all reasonable doubt, thus I shall continue to use the term 'fact' for it.

I don't think our views on the nature of science are much at odds, but about this: Hyroglyphx's complaint is about expressions of, in your words, "complete certainty," and even after this short exchange of messages between us I think it very likely that he'll interpret use of the word "fact" as an expression of the "complete certainty" he objects to as inappropriate to science.Abiogenesis is an extremely obvious inference in the context of methodological naturalism where characterization as a fact would not be misinterpreted, but in the broader context of discussions like this that includes supernaturalism and even the Christian God then simple claims of "It's a fact" are bound to be misconstrued.--Percy

Sorry I meant to say exactly HOW abiogenesis occurred is not fact.The only choices of how life originated are either a natural scientific explanation or a supernatural nonscientific explanation i.e. 'God did it'. One could also go the middle road and say that God is the ultimate cause but he uses natural phenomena to accomplish his will, however this is scientifically de facto the same as the first choice (attempting to find a natural scientific explanation for the origination of life).Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Hi RAZD, thanks for the response

quote:

---

... I would argue that it would be a good thing to have a workable abstract definition of life, and that such a definition need not be wholly arbitrary, but can be defensible to a degree. However, the point is not to describe some sort of metaphysical essence of life. Rather, the point is to define life so that the term can be usefully extended to situations we have never before encountered.

---

I like Morales' abstract definition for life. While he leaves it open to some interpretation, he still seems to understand the necessity for distinguishing other indisputable characteristics. Wouldn't replication involve exact cloning, wherein the only way for variation would be some unforseen mutation, as opposed to reproduction which would inherently include incalculable variation?Obviously a genome with 30,000 genes has more potential for variation, but replicating is closer to cloning, no, as this article details, the difference between homocatalysis and heterocatalysis."The basic distinction that these pairs of terms were designed to indicate is between like producing like (homocatalysis and transcription) and like producing unlike (heterocatalysis and translation)... In replication, like produces like, genes producing genes and, more generally, replicators producing replicators."Is there not room for distinction? Or moreover, couldn't it also be said that anything that procreates of any kind is organic? Or even more simply, if it is self-animated could that not also clearly point to life, regardless of how devoid of consciousness it is? Not that this should be the sole rule, for obviously plants do not self-animate. Okay, then substitute "contain" with "is" or composed of" cells. Why is distinguishing between growth and a growth cycle meaningless. I'm referring specifically to the difference between the way a stalagtite or a crystal grows, as opposed to a growth cycle wherein living things change via genetics. Well, it really is that simple. Rocks (inorganic) don't decay. If something dies, it's obviously the opposite of what it once was (living). If all we're trying to do is distinguish between living and non-living then how much more complex should it be? Actually my list did grow throughout the conversation in lieu of these oversights. I would agree with your conclusions here. Are you saying that Vonny is living?

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Obviously? You think it's obvious when something dies? Hardly. Consider a seed, it's sits on the shelf doing nothing for a thousand years and then, when planted in the ground and watered, it grows into a plant. Clearly then, a seed is alive for a thousand years but it neither moves, nor grows, not reproduces, nor respires. Now consider a second seed, left on the same shelf for a thousand years. When you plant it, it does not grow. At some time in those thousand years that seed switched from being living to non-living. It died. How do you think you can tell? What "obviously" changed to its opposite?You may think that's a contrived example, but it's actually very similar to the behaviour of some fungal spores and bacterial cysts - which are better examples but probably less familiar to you.Life at its edges, including in its beginnings and in its endings is not a clear cut thing. Not at all. Ask any doctor.

Yes, decaying matter is obvious. When you cut a bouquet of flowers, it becomes apparent that it is dead or dying. When smell putrefaction, it is obvious something has died and is therefore organic matter. If the seed even has the basic ability to procreate, that was the surest way you know it is organic, whether it is now living or dead. Yes, I definitely think it is contrived. It's one thing to question whether or not bacteria versus viruses could be traditionally considered living, it is another thing to act like figuring out whether or not decaying matter or matter that procreates is organic. We're not talking about how all livings are perpetually on the cusp of dying, we're talking about living things as opposed things that were never alive and never will be.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

What about those plants that can be propergated from cuttings? Is it obvious that that flower you've cut is dying then? Really?You made the claim that it's easy to tell the difference between living and non-living; that's not the case: and the difficulty of determining when a living thing dies illustrates the problem with examining the origin of life. Life isn't a mystical on/off thing; it's a pile of chemical processes. Because of this it's extremely difficult to define life, to determine whether something is living and to identify any "point" where non-living material first becomes living material.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

Are you serious here? Really? Rocks dont decay? Chemically what is the difference between molecules in rocks decaying and the chemical decay of molecules in living organisms?

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

You remove a plant from its roots and it's going to die.

quote:

---

When smell putrefaction, it is obvious something has died and is therefore organic matter.

---

Yes, really. Necropsis is the evidence of dead and dying ORGANIC material. The entire organism doesn't need to be dead in order for organic matter to putrefy. This is really getting silly now. Especially in the case of pet rocks! Fine, you can't figure out the point when life originated, which is what I've been saying all along... Nobody knows and we therefore can do little more than make educated guesses. That doesn't, however, mean that categorizing organic and inorganic matter is a hopeless endeavor.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson