Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

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

Trees have at their disposal a wide array of carbon-based compounds in the nutrient-rich soil, which provide energy. Many of the nutrients used by plants are held in until the organisms break down the materials and release them for the plants’ use. So if anything, it is the other way around. No, what's silly is using a star or a volcano, which are enormous, particularly the star, to something more reasonable like microrganisms. This was tried before with both the Oparin-Haldane and Milley-Urey experiments. They never did get beyond a few non-living, simple chemical compounds, specifically amino acids. It takes a minimum of 20 amino acids that must be present in living organisms.

---

"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

This makes no sense, honestly. If someone claims that life comes from non-life, at some point you have to be able to determine where the line is, scientifically. Otherwise, how would you able to even prove it true?

Living matter is composed of cells.

Living material has a metabolism for using/storing energy.

Living matter develops through a growth cycle.

Living things reproduce.

Living organisms require oxygen, though some have adapted to anoxic environments.

Living things respond and adapt to their environment.

Living matter is carbon-based

​

The objections I'm hearing are simply semantical arguments, not anything substantive. I understand that you believe the line is so blurry, but surely you understand that you cannot successfully claim that life comes from non-life without first distinguishing between the two.

​

Would you at least agree with that, even if you think that I am ultimately incorrect?

​

---

"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

Yes, they must be present as each is integral to the function of the overall product. Peptide bonds, amino's, and protein polymers of 20 amino acids are necessary to have an operable cell. You don't have those and you don't have life.Seriously though, this is getting absurd.No one has been able to prove whatsoever that life ever came from non-life, either then or now, and no one besides me has even attempted to define what life or non-life is. How exactly is this any different than creationist pseudo-scientific babble?If you can't differentiate between living and non-living, then you aren't qualified to insist that life can come from non-life. As a basic and minimal criteria you must be able to define what life is and you must be able demonstrate how inorganic matter can give rise to living matter. Otherwise it is, as I've been saying all along, a theory and nothing more. Until you show somebody the goods, it never happened.

---

"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

How can I show you evidence of something that never happened other have you provide evidence that it did??? Ponder that notion deeply. Then how do you know it happened at all? You really can't see why that is problematic to your position? It seems to me that your deduction is that there are living things here now and you therefore conclude that they must have come from inorganic matter. Just because we have no other explanations mean that we automatically default. Agreed, that scientists are working on it. All I said from the beginning was that it was not proven. Why are you guys fighting me tooth and nail on this? It is a FACT that it has never left the theoretical stage. Oni... Come on, now... You're killin' me over here... Do you really not understand the difference between finding out why something is versus noticing something? Obviously no one contends with the fact that organic matter is here now. Why and how are the scientific questions. If I asked you how the earth was formed, I wouldn't expect you to tell me to look down because that doesn't answer the question. No, I wish I did know. Like I said, there are some compelling theories with the study that have caught my eye. I am only taking exceptions that people speak about non-proven theory as if it is signed, sealed, and delivered. That's not right. My real issue??? I don't like dogmatic religious zealots who make a mockery of science and refuse to listen to reason and I don't like atheist hypocrites who are too enthralled by atheism itself that it's become a pseudo-religion complete with its own bible-thumping creation story. What's the difference between the two, honestly?Since when was We aren't entirely sure, but we are studying it an insufficient answer? It's almost like scientists feel compelled to come up with any theory so long as they have an answer.But damn, if you don't know, you don't know! That's okay! But don't just make shit up. That's just unethical.That's how I really feel.

---

"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 was asked by several people here to define life. That wasn't my idea. The problem is they don't play by the same set of rules, as I've asked them to reciprocate. I understand that, but have you not realized that this answer has been used as a catch-all answer for many unproven things in biology? "It's slow, so it's imperceptible." That doesn't help as far as evidence goes. Honestly, it sounds no better than the convenient "because God said so" cut and paste excuse.My question was how you know it happened at all. That's what I want to know. several people have claimed to KNOW (their caps, not mine) that it happened the way they say it happened, but then offered nothing to corroborate their allegation.Others have attempted to make a logical deduction, that since life is here now, it must have come from inorganic matter at some time, because there's nothing else they are willing to entertain. For them it's either nothing came to life or God. That's not an answer, that's not how science is conducted, and those don't have to be the only possibilities. Work from that basic inference, sure, but don't come to the conclusion until the conclusion is known empirically.That conclusion has never been established. I understand what you are saying and make a valid point to a degree. You'd first have to determine that a proto-cell was at some point extant in biological history to even begin to attempt to answer that.You can't very well pre-determine that life must have sprang up in some primordial puddle billions of years ago, but you can theorize. I agree with the study of abiogenesis. I think they are doing some very good work, particularly with the RNA-first models.What gets under my skin is the surety with which some speak about things that have not been concluded, and worse yet, have already been proven false via empirical testing.People like DR. Adequate here who feels it necessary to splatter his hubris all over the thread in a fit of superiority because, heaven forbid, I used the word "subduction" as opposed to "uplift." All I ever asked for was concession that abiogenesis still hasn't been proven and that living and non-living are clearly distinguished. Any other small victories are up for grabs. I'm now extremely bored of going around in circles.

---

"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

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

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

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

Tell you what... Show me a rock that decays and we'll talk more. Until you can do that, I'm not interested in continuing a conversation that's being reduced to absurdities.

---

"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

Gee, thanks Percy... That was sweet of you to sugarcoat it. Now if you don't mind, I'm just gonna stick this shotgun barrel in my mouth and paint the walls.I guess that's my cue. Not much point continuing on while being wrong about so many, many things.You win.There's no such thing as life, abiogenesis is an indisputable fact, rocks decay all the friggin' time (duh!), any time you want somebody else to be wrong just reply to every point they make as being arbitrary, every time you want to be right just claim the other guy is an idiot and so on and so forth.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"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

In case you didn't know I was being humorous and half-teasing. I say only half-teasing because on some level it was offensive. Several people have reduced me to a moron when I know that I haven't said anything so scientifically incorrect to warrant character-assassination. People are seriously apt to split hairs on this forum. But if that's how you honestly feel, I can't stop you from believing whatever you want about me. I don't need your validation and you are entitled to your opinions. It makes for a free society. My sarcasm is intended to be amusing and fun. I like to have fun. Of course there is a very real and serious message in it. Maybe it is presumptuous of me, and holier-than-though, but I see myself as being more objective about this than most on this particular subject. To me, though, that seems like the logical position in the face of such scarcity.I take no sides until a sufficient answer is given. Often when people examine science it comes with ideological filters which gives them the answer they're looking for. All other possibilities are ruled out beforehand. I'm not a fan of that.You've been very candid thus far and have also, as best I can tell, tried to be as fair as possible. You have in some places defended me and in others placed me over your knee and gave me a spankin'. I suppose I should thank you for that. So thanks!I just don't see the point though. You know we're just gonna go around in circles some more. I think you can see some people are being ridiculous, desperately trying to defend molehills as if they're mountains. The whole life/non-life thing is well beyond the realm of the absurd.Whatever his name was about rocks decaying. He knew I was referring to biological decay, but instead decides to introduce semantics by using radiological decay. He knows I'm not talking about isotopes, but he continues being disingenuous anyway. Everything I say, someone reduces it to an argument about semantics. No one wants to really discuss the meat and potato's of it, presumably because they can't!Because if they keep the topic on what constitutes life, they're free to distract from the obvious inadequacy of their own position, which is that abiogenesis doesn't have a lot going for it in the proof department.So please remind me again why this should continue?

---

"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

Then let's examine this further. Do rocks decay? Well, in light of the qualifiers that were previously established, such as the difference between life and non-life, no they don't decay (as in putrefy).Parent isotopes radiologically decay in to daughter isotopes at different rates. I suppose some equivalence could be made as it relates to the immutable physical law that all matter eventually breaks down and is reconstituted elsewhere and likely in different form.As far as that relates to living and non-living, I don't see how that presents a problem in differentiating between living and non-living. Everyone seems to agree there is a difference between organic and inorganic matter, only that determining which is which on the microscopic level is difficult to determine.That seems to be the point... That it was on the nano level that life made its transition from non-life in the first place. Perhaps so. The problem is that we can't be sure of anything about it! What seems almost inevitable is that this conversation is bound for an infinite regression, that is to say, the further we break down the source of life and matter, the more it will eventually reach absolute zero. Then we're at the First Cause and quite frankly that doesn't help the situation either.Nonetheless, plead your case and I will follow your lead. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"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