Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2017 4:35 PM
383 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,135 Year: 16,741/21,208 Month: 2,630/3,593 Week: 97/646 Day: 37/60 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
20212223
24
25Next
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 346 of 374 (774782)
12-22-2015 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by AlphaOmegakid
12-21-2015 10:58 AM


Re: End of discussion!
As far as my definition of life, I was looking forward to rebutting RAZD, but now I can't. Definitions of words and their application are the only way I can defend it. And that's been ruled out by fiat as well.

or you want to use that as a dodge to evade the problems that arise from your application of your definition to multicellular life.

Happy Holidays (all of them)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-21-2015 10:58 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 347 of 374 (774784)
12-22-2015 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by AlphaOmegakid
12-22-2015 12:50 PM


AlphaOmegakid Suspended 24 Hours
Hi AlphaOmergakid,

Apologies for suspending you for 24 hours, but I want you to realize that I meant it sincerely when I ruled that arguments based upon strict and precise definitions held inflexibly and determinedly should cease. That approach could be used to block progress in a discussion on any topic, as has occurred in this thread for nearly a month. I want to see constructive approaches, not accusations, complaints and inflexibility.

I would also like to see more consistency, as opposed to the inconsistency you have often displayed. For example, here you are at the end of November in Message 141 saying you reject a continuum from chemicals to life:

What you and others are wanting to do is say that life is a continuum from chemicals to life, and that is a faith based premise that I do not accept.

And here you are just a couple weeks later saying the opposite in Message 292:

However, if "life" is definable and clear, and "obvious" as I argue, then there can be a "chemical evolution" from chemicals to life.

Many times you appear to disagree just to disagree, regardless of how inconsistent with your past arguments. When you return after your suspension, please change your approach. No more "argument from definition." No more complaints about moderation. No more claims of what you have demonstrated. No more accusations that people are ignoring your arguments. Just calmly and straightforwardly make your points, and if they are rational and supported by evidence then they will carry the day.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-22-2015 12:50 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 348 of 374 (774818)
12-23-2015 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by AlphaOmegakid
12-22-2015 12:50 PM


words, meanings, change\adopt with use
... And I assume it would also with any defense I make, because I am defending a definition and that has words with meaning within. Most of which RAZD thinks is controversial. ...

Not so much controversial as open to interpretation, which is why I asked you to clarify things.

Life as we know it is not "self-contained" (having everything it needs, independent), rather it is massivly dependent on the environment\ecology that it lives in and interacts with, that it relies on for nourishment and other things necessary for life to contnue, to grow, to reproduce, etc.

To apply this to life thus requires interpretation of what was meant, not what was said.

No, the point of my definition is to shift the current cellular life to something possibly simpler that that. ...

When you simplify, you need to be sure you have (a) retained critical aspects and (b) not openned the door to things that don't fit.

And there are a multitude of examples (objective evidence) of things that meet your criteria for multicellular life, yet are not generally considered to be life. You openned the door to them by being too simplified in definition and application.

enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-22-2015 12:50 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 349 of 374 (774826)
12-23-2015 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 331 by AlphaOmegakid
12-18-2015 1:04 PM


The old grey mare is dead!
But that doesn't absolve you from the dichotomy, ...

Curiously, I don't believe anyone disagrees with there being a dichotomy established by the words (LIFE) and not(LIFE), just that words don't define nature. Rather words should be used to model nature so that it improves our understanding. The better the model the closer it models reality.

... and it doesn't establish a continuum.

Nor does one definition stand alone; rather they overlap and cover different aspects with different degrees of accuracy and useability.

Each definition produces different results for a line between (LIFE) and not(LIFE), and these differences establish that de facto there is a grey area (and thus a continuum), where the line by each and every definition is necessarily arbitrarily created by the definition and not by nature.

For if the dichotomy was real and a fact of nature, the there would be no disagreement.

And that is why being pedantic about the words in one or two definitions doesn't resolve any problems caused by the definitions.

In the scientifically established and published chemicals to life continuum, we can say that DNA molecules are closer to life than lead on the continuum, simply because they are organic complex chemicals rather than elemental chemicals. But on your false continuum of non-life to life you cannot say that DNA is any more closer to life than lead, because they are equally non-life. That's not a continuum ...

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.

You cannot define this away, it is a fact of nature.

Nature defines life, you just observe and theorize about your observations.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-18-2015 1:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-28-2015 4:58 PM RAZD has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 319 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 350 of 374 (775134)
12-28-2015 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by RAZD
12-23-2015 12:37 PM


let's cut to the chase
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.

You cannot define this away, it is a fact of nature.

Nature defines life, you just observe and theorize about your observations.

emphasis mine

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:
1. All known living things are made up of one or more cells
2. All living cells arise from pre-existing cells by division
3. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2015 12:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Admin, posted 12-28-2015 5:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 352 by RAZD, posted 12-30-2015 11:16 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 351 of 374 (775135)
12-28-2015 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by AlphaOmegakid
12-28-2015 4:58 PM


AlphaOmegakid Suspended 24 Hours Again
Hi AlphaOmegakid,

You're ignoring moderator rulings again. Me in Message 335:

quote:
Discussion of the subtopic of continuums has gone on long enough and should be discontinued. I rule that the outcome of the discussion is that there is a continuum from life to non-life. The subject can be raised again if someone else joins the thread who also believes there can be no continuum from life to non-life, because a fresh perspective is often helpful.

Me in Message 339:

quote:
Repeating what I said there in different terms, because continuums are a side discussion that doesn't seem to be moving toward resolution, I ruled that at least in this thread there is a continuum from life to non-life.

You in this message:

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...etc...

I'm suspending you for 24 hours again. Next suspension will be for a week.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-28-2015 4:58 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 352 of 374 (775226)
12-30-2015 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by AlphaOmegakid
12-28-2015 4:58 PM


Indeed let's cut to the chase - by addressing the issues
Curiously I am not surprised that you chose this response first, rather than address the issues raised in Message 320, because you have avoided these issues for some time.

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).

...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory

Just to be clear this is not a definition of life, rather it is an observation of what we know of current, highly evolved life - as defined by the "standard" list of characteristics, a list that everyone agrees is not all-inclusive nor all-exclusive, but a starting point.

Further the purpose of this observation is to define the basis for cell theory, their reason for concentrating on the cell and not the areas of (current) ambiguity.

This is similar to evolution concetrating on existing life and not the (current) ambiguity of origins.

Defining boundaries of investgation however does not corral\coerce nature into compliance with those boundaries: grass ignores fences.

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. ...

There is no 100% continuous record of fossils (closest would be foraminifera with a 65kyr 99% complete record), but there is certainly enough to show what is predicted by evolutionary theory.

... 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 observed entities are fossils, remnants, residue, parts that continue to exist in a world now dominated, controlled, and run by highly evolved cell life forms.

And there is certainly enough to show what is predicted by theories of origin\abiogenesis: it is evidence based science, not imagination, that is being pursued.

So I think it is incumbent on you to observationally establish this grey continuum from chemicals to life.

Nope. For several reasons, not least of which is that it is off-topic. Another is that this has been done: see
Building Blocks of Life, part 1 and
Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)

So spend your time defending your arbitrary and incomplete (at best) definition from the failures identified before getting banned again.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-28-2015 4:58 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 01-04-2016 5:16 PM RAZD has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 319 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 353 of 374 (775749)
01-04-2016 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by RAZD
12-30-2015 11:16 AM


Self-Contained addressed
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by RAZD, posted 12-30-2015 11:16 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2016 8:29 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 354 of 374 (775777)
01-04-2016 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by AlphaOmegakid
01-04-2016 5:16 PM


Re: Self-Contained comments irrelevant ... issues still not addressed
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.

Curiously I used the definition you provided and emphasized.

btaim* - you still fail to address the bizarre classification of things as "life" that other people do not.

You will note that I used a caveat for "self-contained" in the table that specifically addressed the issue of the degree of self-enclosure during evaluation. I need not point out nor address whether or not this degree of self-enclosure is a grey scale issue to show that your definition fails miserably to exclude entities not normally cosidered "life" ... now including trains, apartments and machines.

No person can objectively use your definition and not encounter the same problem ... unless they equivocate on how they apply it based on their a priori knowledge of what is normally considered "life" and what is not.

Enjoy

* - be that as it may

Edited by RAZD, : ps


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 01-04-2016 5:16 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 319 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 355 of 374 (775875)
01-06-2016 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by RAZD
12-17-2015 5:00 PM


Re: Definition evaluation ... for simple cases & multicellular issues
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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2015 5:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2016 10:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 356 of 374 (775878)
01-06-2016 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by AlphaOmegakid
01-06-2016 9:29 AM


Re: Definition evaluation ... for simple cases & multicellular issues
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.

So a "contiguous system" would not be contiguous. Fascinating.

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.

Curiously this is exactly how you defend your definitions application to multicellular life.

Equivocate much?

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.

Thus the baggie with the goldfish in water is alive. You just confirmed it, thank you.

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!

As has been pointed out, calling it a strawman does not make it so. You have failed to show how I can distinguish life* from non-life* using your definitions, your words, your interpretations.

The only difference is that you equivocate when you compare non-life* entities to life* entities - by saying the application does not apply to non-life* because that is a strawman, but that it does apply to life* without being a strawman -- you have not actually shown how I - or anyone else - should distinguish between them via your definition.

Enjoy

Notes:

(1) "life*" and "non-life*" refer to such entities as they are normally defined by most people, not as the AOK definition defines them.

(2) strawman fallacy (one definition of straw man, there are others):

quote:
Definition:

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Examples:

1. People who opposed the Charlottetown Accord probably just wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in Canada.

2. We should have conscription. People don't want to enter the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they should realize that there are more important things than convenience.

Proof:

Show that the opposition's argument has been misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger argument. Describe the stronger argument.



we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 01-06-2016 9:29 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 01-06-2016 2:04 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 358 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 01-06-2016 2:12 PM RAZD has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 319 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 357 of 374 (775899)
01-06-2016 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by RAZD
01-06-2016 10:43 AM


Re: Definition evaluation ... for simple cases & multicellular issues
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2016 10:43 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2016 2:25 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 319 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 358 of 374 (775900)
01-06-2016 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by RAZD
01-06-2016 10:43 AM


Re: Definition evaluation ... for simple cases & multicellular issues
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2016 10:43 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2016 2:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 359 of 374 (775901)
01-06-2016 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by AlphaOmegakid
01-06-2016 2:04 PM


Re: Definition evaluation ... for simple cases & multicellular issues
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.

Nope. A "contiguous system" would be a system composed of contiguous elements -- eg touching at a minimum.

This "system" can -- according to you -- include living and non-living elements.

Thus the goldfish in the baggie of water is still a contiguous system. The elements even interact with each other, so even if you stretch your definition to mean a "contiguous system of interacting parts" it still fails to eliminate the baggie\goldfish entity from the "life*" category.

You cannot make your definition say something it doesn't just because you want it to.

And you clearly don't understand equivocation, because I have not used any of these words with multiple meanings.

Yet you insist that one application defines "life*" properly while an identical application does not.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 01-06-2016 2:04 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 360 of 374 (775903)
01-06-2016 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by AlphaOmegakid
01-06-2016 2:12 PM


Re: Definition evaluation ... for simple cases & multicellular issues
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.

Curiously it doesn't matter whether this little rant is correct or not (it isn't) it does not make your definition any better.

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!

See previous response.

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.

Life interacts with it's ecology and cannot maintain itself without it.

Enjoy

ps

System
noun
1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.

or

System
noun
1. a group or combination of interrelated, interdependent, or interacting elements forming a collective entity;


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 01-06-2016 2:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 01-06-2016 4:06 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 362 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 01-07-2016 1:42 PM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
20212223
24
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017