Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Life?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 268 (593217)
11-25-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Jon
11-25-2010 2:33 AM


Re: It is What we Make It
If you say so.
Do you disagree? Otherwise we could both say so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Jon, posted 11-25-2010 2:33 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Jon, posted 11-25-2010 11:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 100 of 268 (593230)
11-25-2010 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Jon
11-25-2010 11:17 AM


Re: It is What we Make It
It doesn't matter. They are obviously different; but so is anything that is different.
Yes, but quantitative and qualitative differences are also different.
The way in which a small piece of cheese differs from a big piece of cheese is different from the way in which it differs from a small piece of chalk.
Their differences aren't important, however, to anyone but us.
Oh, you could say that of anything. But I shall still go on using different nouns for different things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Jon, posted 11-25-2010 11:17 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Jon, posted 11-25-2010 2:02 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 105 of 268 (593773)
11-29-2010 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid
11-29-2010 9:44 AM


Viruses Redux
Treating them as not life is a "vital" step in understanding what they are.
Well, no. I can know exactly what a virus is and how it works whether or not I choose to call it "life".
I referred you earlier in this thread to an article by Nobel Laureate David Baltimore in which he wrote: "I think they’re about as alive as anything". Now he got his Nobel Prize for discovering reverse transcriptase, an essential part of the life cycle of retroviruses. The fact that you and he disagree on whether they should be classed as "alive" didn't prevent him from making his discovery; and, I will wager, your stance has not enabled you to make a single discovery in virology.
Viruses predominantly destroy life.
This is something of a non sequitur. A carnivore like a lion, an insectivore like a shrew, or a sufficiently nasty bacterium such as Yersinia pestis also make their living by "destroying life". This has no bearing on whether they are alive.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-29-2010 9:44 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2010 10:21 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 112 of 268 (593900)
11-30-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid
11-30-2010 8:41 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
I guess you can’t recognize the difference between someone’s pet definition and a scientific definition. Sad, sad, sad.
I see. So when you lied in post #43 and wrote that: "the evos won't attempt to define life", what you would have said if you were an honest man was that "the evos" hadn't provided a definition of life that you wish to class as "scientific".
But you lied instead. Why did you do that? Is it part of some Secret Creationist Oath?
Again nothing but pet definitions here.
And you've supplied your "pet definition".
My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life. It is in every biology text book.
And yet I just checked my copy of Holt, Rinehart and Winston, and their definition only has six of your "seven pillars".
The problem is not defining life, the problem is that the definition prevents origin of life scientist from equivocating.
This is an interesting lie. But in order to equivocate, it is necessary to be equivocal.
So they want to pretend, like the evos in this forum that life cannot be nailed down with a definition.
You are, of course, lying. Many of the evos in this forum have offered definitions.
Now what is sad about this scientist is that his definition is totally circular. Darwinian evolution only applies to living organisms. Therefore, any chemical assembly that undergoes Darwinian evolution is by definition living. What a nice circle.
"Now what is sad about you is that you definition is totally circular. Your seven pillars criterion only applies to living organisms. Therefore, any chemical assembly that fulfills this criterion is by definition living. What a nice circle."
Sheesh, don't you understand what a "definition" is? You complain that he has given a definition of "living" such that everything that falls under that criterion is "by definition living".
Er, yeah, that's the point. What else should a definition of life do except identify those characteristics which do in fact define life?
I would note also that your pet definition includes: "a process of mutation plus selection that allows programs to be optimized for new environmental challenges that are to be faced" (i.e. Darwinian evolution). But I do not see you complaining that since only life undergoes this process, your pet definition is circular.
All this does is shift the definition life to the definition of Darwinian evolution.
Yes, words are defined in terms of other words.
I might as well complain that all your pet definition does is shift the definition of life to the definition of "program", "improvisation", "compartmentalization", et cetera.
I suggest that you learn the meaning of the word "circular" before you use it again.
For what?
For showing that you were not telling the truth when you wrote that: "the evos won't attempt to define life", and so, one hopes, making you slightly less "sad, sad, sad".
Now I would thank you if you would have at least provided one reference to a scientific source for the definition of life. There are plenty. Like I said, every biology book has one, and I provided a very good one from a highly read scientific journal.
A good case can thus be made that Darwinian evolution is essential for understanding the nature of life itself. Accordingly, life could be defined as a self-sustaining chemical system (i.e., one that turns resources into its own building blocks) that is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. --- Lazcano, "Towards A Definition of Life", 2008
You're welcome.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-30-2010 8:41 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 9:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 114 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 9:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 116 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 10:06 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 124 of 268 (594063)
12-01-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid
12-01-2010 9:03 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
Again, your inability to read and comprehend does not constitute me lying.
However, your pretense that I am unable to read and comprehend does constitute you lying; as does the lie you told when you said: "the evos won't attempt to define life".
No, to the contrary. I supplied a scientific definition from a noted scientist published in a scientific journal. I supplied a scientific definition.
Specifically, your pet scientific definition.
Ahhh. I see that you actually do understand, you just want to call people liars when you don't understand.
This is, of course, a lie.
Actually, I call people liars when they lie.
But thanks for confirming that Biology books do have definitions of life in them. That was my point.
And, of course, no-one has denied that.
However, what you wrote, if you will bother to read your own posts, is that: "My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life. It is in every biology text book."
There is no single unique definition of life in every biology textbook. Scientists have provided definitions of life, and they are to be found in biology textbooks.
Jumping in and out of comprehension. You may want to see someone for help. I think they define that as lunacy.
This gibberish does not answer my point, namely that since the evolutionists on this thread have provided definitions of life, they are obviously not claiming that it cannot be defined.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 9:03 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 145 of 268 (594255)
12-02-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2010 6:56 PM


Re: different sections in magazines.
I'm with you. I have an idea! Why don't you gather up all the pet definitions in this forum, and submit them to Science magazine for publication in the essay section!
Do you believe that water molecules consist of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen?
Then why don't you submit this idea "to Science magazine for publication in the essay section!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 6:56 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 146 of 268 (594256)
12-02-2010 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2010 6:49 PM


Re: Realy Realy Sad
It's not getting in the way at all. It's apparently only getting in your way. There is no requirement that an organism reproduce to be qualified as being alive. However, there is a requirement that every organism participates in the process of reproduction.
So, just to spell it out.
In order for an organism to be alive, it is not necessary for it to reproduce.
However, in order for an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 6:49 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 8:42 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 160 of 268 (594403)
12-03-2010 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 8:42 AM


Re: Realy Realy Sad
Repetition does help for some peolple's comprehension. Here...
For an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction.
For an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction.
Colors also.....
For an organism to be alive, it is necessary for it to participate in the process of reproduction.
But it's not necessary for it to reproduce, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 8:42 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 164 of 268 (594493)
12-03-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 12:32 PM


Re: the actual problem only exists in your mind
For instance. Metabolism. All life has it. All non-life doesn't. It appears digital to me. Please demonstrate that this is a continuum.
Reacting to stmuli. This also appears digital to me.
Yes, but you see, by having seven pillars you allow, if not a continuum, then at least a set of fractions.
If we have seven pillars then we can conceive of something that is 5/7 alive and 2/7 not alive.
That's why people (me, for example) have tried to give a minimalist definition of life which rests on a single quality which is either there or not.
My aim was to make the question of abiogenesis a hard problem. If we define life as you do, it becomes easy, because non-life (6/7) can evolve into life (7/7).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 12:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 7:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 167 of 268 (594547)
12-03-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2010 7:43 PM


Re: the actual problem only exists in your mind
Yet another analogy that doesn't work. A dead person is about 99.99999% alive.
Which raises another problem with any definition of life.
But we can without a clear definition of life still recognize it and recognize it's absence.
Except that, of course, your definition of life is different from that used by Nobel-Prize-winning biologists. So when you say that "we" can recognize it, you mean you but not Nobel-Prize-winning biologist David Baltimore.
Yes, illogical, falacious scientists do argue this way. But the reality is that life is digital. It is on or off. It is alive or not alive. Therefore if you have seven qualities or processes that identify ALIVE!, you must have all seven. It's like having to turn on seven switches in order to open the logic gate for "on". Open six, and it is still off.
So, just to make this clear, you believe that if some organism had only six out of seven of your pillars, it would not be alive?
Yes, I read your circular definition of "evolution" in post # 10.
Try to lie less often.
Au contraire! Your circles just lead to equivocations on evolutionary terms.
Try to lie less often.
The seven/six pillars is all seven/six in the "on" position (my suggestion is six). No continuum. Not at all like light.
Even as bluster, this would be a whole lot more convincing if you yourself could be certain as to whether it was seven criteria or six.
As it is, you seem certain that there is a definite list of criteria, but uncertain as to what it actually is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2010 7:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 171 of 268 (595033)
12-06-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by barbara
12-06-2010 10:31 AM


When a person is pronounced dead, are they really dead since decomposition is happening to the body for a long time after being declared "dead'?
Isn't decomposition are cells that are still active in order to do decomposition?
As I understand it decomposition is caused by the gut bacteria spreading throughout the body and consuming it; so the bacteria are still alive but the body with which they were formerly in a symbiotic relationship is dead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by barbara, posted 12-06-2010 10:31 AM barbara has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 268 (595088)
12-06-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid
12-06-2010 10:20 AM


Re: the actual problem only exists in your mind
I have aready said that I think the evidence is clear that life is digital.
You mean "binary".
We clarify living things as dead or alive.
Which in Opposite World would be a good reason for you to reject definitions of life that identify it by a single quality in favor of a definition which gives entities marks out of seven. (I say "seven" because I shall ignore for now your shift away from the definition which you thought was so "scientific" when you started posting on this thread.)
So the only question remains then is, is life a continuum or is it not? I say it is digital. In that case the virus is dead. You seem to think there is a continuum. In your case the virus is not alive and it is not dead. But this is only true if there is a continuum.
But don't you see that the choice of definition has no relevance to the substantive question? If someone wants to propose (for example) an intermediate having 5/7 of the pillars, the question of whether (what you would like to call) life could have or did emerge by a process in which such an intermediate played a role is unaffected by whether we choose to call it "something that's 5/7 alive" or "something that, while not alive, has 5/7 of the defining qualities of life". That would just be describing the same thing in different words.
But when we wish to discuss the origin of life, your choice of words must lead to confusion. It is easy to propose a scenario in which something having six of the "pillars" acquired the seventh by the ordinary humdrum process of Darwinian evolution. According to your definition, that would be a plausible explanation of the origin of life (7/7) from non-life (6/7). And yet I feel that it would be misleading to describe it as such --- but your definition forces one to do so.
So each of the six pillars can be found in non-living substances/processes, but it tales all six to be alive as the things which we call life today.
Where when you say "we", you tacitly exclude people who disagree with you, such as Nobel-Prize-winning biologists.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-06-2010 10:20 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 208 of 268 (598324)
12-30-2010 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Philip Johnson
12-29-2010 5:06 PM


Re: What is the simplest life form?
Since the common idea is that all life evolved from one common ancestor, why are there still some life forms that "have not evolved very far?"
Since the common idea is that all humans originated in Africa, why are there still some people that "have not moved very far?"
You can read posts on this forum where people sound like they believe some life forms are "more evolved" than others, whereas every life form has actually been evolving for the same amount of time.
You can read posts on this forum where people sound like they believe some people are "further from Africa" than others, whereas all people have actually been mobile for the same amount of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-29-2010 5:06 PM Philip Johnson has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 209 of 268 (598327)
12-30-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Philip Johnson
12-30-2010 9:18 AM


Re: What is the simplest life form?
If it is just as likely that things become more complex as it is that things become less complex, then there is no directionality.
If it is just as likely that a person will move towards Africa as away from it then there is no directionality.
Evolutionists believe that things become more complex faster than they become less complex, therefore you have a gradual increase in complexity.
Perhaps instead of telling evolutionists what they believe, you could ask them.
Evolution will favor loss of complexity wherever this is adaptive. This is such a trivially obvious point that you must be a creationist or you'd have grasped it.
Creationists believe that things become less complex faster than they become more complex, therefore you have a gradual decline in complexity. Things began very complex and are becoming less complex.
This is only one of many amusing ways in which creationists are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Philip Johnson, posted 12-30-2010 9:18 AM Philip Johnson has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 245 of 268 (598952)
01-04-2011 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by ICdesign
01-04-2011 10:29 AM


Re: The Mutation Problem
Show me where he is wrong.
Well, let's skip the figures pulled out of his ass and the occasional wild fits of innumeracy, and move straight on to the biological illiteracy:
Now, apes and humans are thought to have split about 5 million years ago, according to a number of sources, and have about a 2 percent difference in DNA. The human genome has about 3 billion base pairs and about 300 million base pairs of functional DNA (assuming 10 percent of 3 billion base pairs are functional). Assuming that most of this 2 percent change is non-functional DNA, this implies a rate of evolution of two percent in 10 million years, which implies 6 million point mutations in 10 million years in the functional DNA.
He's assuming that the rate of fixation of mutations is going to be the same whether they're in coding or non-coding DNA, which is bad enough, and then further goes on to assume that the rate of fixation of harmful mutations would be the same as for beneficial/neutral mutations: "Two-thirds of these would be harmful, or, 4 million in 10 million years."
That is, he's implicitly taking the proportion of mutations that are harmful to be equal to the proportion of mutations which go on to achieve fixation in the gene pool that are harmful.
There's only one word for this kind of crass stupidity, and that is creationism.
---
If you don't understand the problem (which obviously you don't or you'd have burst out laughing when you first read this guy's nonsense) let's put it in layman's terms. 100 soldiers run across a minefield. 60 get blown to pieces, and 40 make it across. Now, we know from this that the casualty rate is 60%, which means that of those 40 who made it across, statistically 24 (0.6 40) must have been blown to pieces. Right? Wrong. The death rate among those who made it across was 0%. We know this because they're the ones who made it across the minefield.
---
I think it's cute how he writes: "These problems with mutation rates do not seem to be appreciated by most biologists".
Yeah, and they're strangely oblivious to the flocks of winged pigs currently plaguing our fair nation. I wonder why.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by ICdesign, posted 01-04-2011 10:29 AM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by ICdesign, posted 01-04-2011 1:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024