Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

We understand that you believe science should define a hard line between living and non-living matter, but reality is rarely black and white. When does dusk become evening? When do foothills become mountains? When does harbor become sea?The transition between all these distinctly different states is slow and gradual, and science believes that the change from non-life to life was also slow and gradual, not due to some sudden event.What does this have to do with the thread's topic, Modularity, A distinguishing property of life, and couldn't you find a reference more recent than the 1902 Encyclopaedia Britannica?--Percy

Science has actually eroded the once perceived differences between "life" and "non-life". At the atomic and molecular level there really is no difference between the two. How do you define an organism? Are virus' organic life? Are they an organism? They can replicate, some have large, complex genomes and internal organelle-like structures which can encode proteins (like the mimvirus) and even are larger than the size of the smallest bacteria (mimvirus=400-800 nm vs. mycoplasma bacteria=200-300 nm) and have nearly twice as much genetic material. Also, how do you define cells? Bacteria and archaea have very different cellular structure than that of eukaryotic organisms.Also, here is an interesting scientific article which destroys your straw man argument that intact cells constitute life: Life without a cell membrane: regeneration of protoplasts from disintegrated cells of the marine green alga Bryopsis plumosa That is a very simplified definition of life taught at the 4th and 5th grade science level. It much less black and white once you start studying biology at the molecular level. At that level there really is no difference between the two. Even in high school I learned that the definition of life is not as clear as you make it out to be.This is a difference in semantics, nothing more. Molecular replication and reproduction are essentially synonymous terms. Though the term "reproduction" is often used in biology to indicate replication at a higher level i.e. "cellular reproduction", sexual or asexual; which itself incorporates molecular replication, i.e. DNA/RNA replication, at the molecular level. ROTFL how ironic! You are actually quoting from an article by Thomas Henry Huxley, Charles Darwin's "Bulldog" in the 1902 version of Encyclopedia Britannica? You may want to catch up 107 years to the present state of biological sciences. Besides, nowhere in your source does it say that "life" has to consist of cells only that the general scientific consensus is that "life" has certain properties such as its ability to integrate new matter in more complex forms? Also nowhere does it specific anything that prevents abiogenesis from occurring? Again "life" is an arbritary term that is currently in a scientific battle of semantics. There is no dividing line between living organisms and the organic and inorganic molecules they are composed of. Or are you advocating for some type of "spark of life" that distinguishes between the two? Where Huxley say that life has to consist of cells? He says that living organisms are composed of certain molecular compounds not generally found in non-living things (however this is no longer true as amino acids and other prebiotic organic molecules have been found in remote regions of interstellar space: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18569 ). Huxley did not have modern day molecular biology at his disposal to refine his definition of life. If he did I am sure he would have revised much of what he written here. Again Huxley was unaware of life-like entities called viruses and prions which are capable or replicating/reproducing. Here is an interesting article which explores the vacuous meaning of the term "life" and how ambiguous it really is. Defining Life
I beg to difer as explained above with viruses, prions and the like.

---

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

Right, but the actions of living things is not what is being questioned.We are talking about the gradual progression from non-life to life. There is not enough evidence to support your assertion that it was a spontaneous moment. In fact, the current evidence in the different abiogenesis hypothesis show that it was a long process that has no definitive line. The actions of living things is not being questioned. False. In fact, I'll make it easy, show me the evidence... A victory in their small circle. It means nothing to science who is studying the field and making huge advancements. I agree that that's what those words mean. But just like Big Bang doesn't mean an actual "explosion," the genesis in abiogenesis does not mean a single moment of creation.Just study the subject and the different hypothesis, show me evidence of one that states it was a single moment. The only one claiming that it was a single moment is you. Theres no evidence to support your claim, though. You have seen the origin of life?We are not talking about reproduction, we are talking about the origin of life. You can't compare it to the reproduction of living things. I'm saying that you don't know the origin of life was spontaneous because we don't know exactly how life emerged. You are saying that life happened at a single moment - spontaneously. So show me the evidence that you are using to prove that life emerged, NOT reproduces, spontaneously. You are wrong. That you can't see it is not my, or anyone elses, problem. Yes, but the scientific method of peer-review removes the "pre-philosophical" ideologies. That is the reason ID has never made any progress in the field of science. If you are simply talking about indiividual people then who cares?You said evolutionist, which I thought you meant working evolutionary scientist. Who cares what peoples individual opinion about evolution, or the origin of life, are?The only thing that matters is what evidence can be shown, what experiments say and confirm, and if it can stand peer-review. Peoples individual assertions mean nothing.-Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Would you agree that some things need distinction to make any sense? For instance, in order to claim that life comes from non-living matter one must ultimately make that distinction.Pray tell, why is that basic concept lost on so many people? How can you in one instance tell me that life came from non-life, while in the same breath tell me that life is just too difficult to define? That doesn't give any credence to your position. No, life is not a human construct. Life is completely independent of humans or what humans think. Perhaps you meant to say that the concept of life itself is a human concept. I would agree with that, not that it bears any relevance. So answer this simple question: If you can't even define what life is, then how could you possibly know that life came from non-living matter? So then it is speculative that it ever happened at all, would you agree? Is it possible that you cannot come to any rational reason why life should exist independent of some wild explanation? Is it inconceivable that no one honestly knows? My intellectual dishonesty? What am I being dishonest about? You can try and minimize that the dictionary agrees with me if you want, but it won't help your position.You could instead go all out and simply prove the assertion that life can come from non-life. No one has yet to offer a single demonstration. Should be easy with today's sophistication. Oh, I'm sorry. For a minute there I thought this was a public debate forum geared towards debating, not a totalitarian dictatorship. Should I just agree with everything you say or can I have some thoughts of my own?You could also provide the "accepted" scientific definition. I'm kind of curious which people get to speak on behalf of all science. This should be interesting.

---

"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

Not everybody is understanding as you. I'm just asking for a little common sense here. If you say life came from non-life, is it an unreasonable request to define what life is?!?! I would agree that what led up to the event was slow and gradual. But the point in time where something was non-living to living couldn't have been slow, lest you think that the very first organism was in a state of limbo, neither living nor non-living. It doesn't. I don't even know how we arrived at this discussion. If you would like it to be more relevant, perhaps we can take this debate to RAZD's thread. I thought it was excellent, regardless of the age. Is Special and General Relativity less relevant now because it was first conceived in the 30's? I don't think so.

---

"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

Scientifically speaking then, you aren't sure whether or not you are alive? No one is sure whether or not a rock is organic or inorganic now? Is it cellular and does it reproduce? That is the simplest classification I can think of to clear up any and all discrepancies. Simple. Whether prokaryotes or eukaryotes is irrelevant. Cellular and reproductive. That constitutes the basics of living matter. How does that destroy my argument and how is my argument a straw man? It doesn't take but a 4th grade education to understand the difference between living and non-living. And yet you have no problem distinguishing between the two when it is convenient to your ideological views? If it's all so hazy then how can you say that life comes from non-life, all the while not producing any evidence backing up the audacious claim? I can only guess then that living and non-living are also the synonymous. Why is that ironic? The only similarities you present are that they are all small units of mass. The fact that an atom is a world of difference from a molecule, and a molecule is a world of difference from a cell sufficiently delineates between them all. He didn't need to, especially since he had no idea what a cell was at that time. But everyone with some actual clout agrees that cells are the basic building blocks of all life, and which are completely unique to living matter which is in stark contrast to non-living material. Are you seriously going to contend with that? Growth versus grow simply clarifies between actual growth versus inorganic matter like crystals, which can create the impression of growing but is distinct from the way a tree or person grows.Let's recap today's events.No one proved abiogensis was more than theoretical, which I've stated. No one defined life besides me, yet simultaneously asserted that life came from non-life. This leads me back to my initial sentiment. Because it is difficult to surmise of anything contrary to one's ideological standing, people are willing to believe in anything that allows for that ideology to remain untarnished. Theories become fact and meanings become obscured in the process so that whatever they hold dear cannot be scrutinized.Here is where I stand. Life certainly could have come from non-life. But there is no concrete evidence, not even wet cement, proving that is the case. In fact, the opposite is true.That being the case, how can you say that I'm being intellectually dishonest when you can't even admit that abiogensis is not a fact. It is a theoretical part of biology and one that may be proven in the near future. But it is not proven. It has been disproven in fact. Why then do you mock me when perhaps I am the only one showing any objectivity on the subject?

---

"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

I have to agree, that if you say life came from non-life, you have to give a definition of life ...Maybe using an example will help define 'life':If I take a cell, and put it in a drop of water. And then I take a needle, and poke the membrane. And so everything inside comes rushing out of the membrane and into the water. Is it still alive ? Is there still something alive in my drop of water ?

Huh? Then what is it 'proof' for? We don't have life, then we have We'll have to clarify this: Does abiogenesis (life from non-life) include the possibility that God did it ?If it does, then the fact that life appeared at some point in time is proof of abiogenesis, either naturally or supernaturally.If it does not, then life appearing at some point in time is not proof of abiogenesis.Maybe you want to make a distinction between abiogenesis and the scientific field of abiogenesis ? I had to narrow it down, since your question had a different significance depending on what we identified as the 'intelligent designer'. I gave an example where your question was relevant (aliens) and one example where it was not relevant (God of the Bible).

In any case, it would be false to say no evolutionists interchanges abiogenesis and spontaneous generation:

quote:

---

Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.

---

quote:

---

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation

---

George Wald, The origin of lifeI posted those quotes 3 pages ago ...

I doubt anyone would identify mathematics as 'a purely mental exercise'. It is as much part of reality as anything else. If I have two objects, and add two more, I will have four objects. I will never be able to 'decide' that I will have five. Logic is not a mental framework, and have as much bearing in the real world as anything else. How then could we identify laws of logic ? (Classical logic - Wikipedia)Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This bears immense relevance! For instance, I assume that you consider a human (Bob) to be alive. However if we take the component elements of Bob, and I do mean elements down to the atom, and put them in a bucket stirred up every which way, you I assume would not consider it to be alive. The distinguishing point here is not the material of the being we call Bob, it is the particular orientation and behavior of those materials.Suppose we put Bob back together one atom at a time. At what point does he become "alive"? BAM, at that point he has "spontaneously" become alive; it is only spontaneous because you arbitrarily decided to make it a sudden moment, the addition of one more or less molecule is hardly going to have any dramatic effect on Bob overall. The point at which you draw this line would be interesting as well since there are many situations in which Bob might be considered alive *briefly* before perishing.

So then abiogenesis is a none-issue ? Since life is a mind game, and so why try to search how life could come from inanimate matter ?

Certainly you can, your concept of mathematics at this point would simply be a less than accurate model of reality. Make no mistake, mathematics is a *tool* to help us understand reality, it is not reality itself. There are fields of mathematics which allow things that are not realistically possible. While helpful, those things are not made possible by the Power of Math. Complete and utter garbage, this is indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding of reality. Logic is DESCRIPTIVE. Logic does not dictate the reality of things, the reality of things dictates what is logical. Yes, they correlate because we have defined our construct "logic" to correlate with reality, but do not confuse correlation with causation.As with math, certain things which are impossible in reality may be possible within the conceptual framework in order to make the model function correctly, representatively of reality.

No, there is certainly merit in the study. While there may be no hard dividing line between when the components of a car become a car, there is certainly merit in understanding the relation and functioning of all of the parts. The same is true of the study of abiogenesis. The point is there is no reason to the ravings about the impossibility of turning parts into a car in some instantaneous flash.

Ok, so I have two apples, and then you give me two apples. I then say: I do not have five apples. You are telling me I could not prove that statement ?Also, there is some irony to all this. You say: You can't prove a negative (which is itself a negative)I ask you to prove it: and you do.By doing this, you are proving a negative, how then can it be true ?