Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Life?
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 121 of 268 (594051)
12-01-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by jar
12-01-2010 10:51 AM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
Would it still be an essay?
Asolutely. It would still be an essay published in Science magazine!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 12-01-2010 10:51 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 12-01-2010 12:48 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 122 of 268 (594057)
12-01-2010 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by AlphaOmegakid
12-01-2010 12:36 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
Yet still just an essay, the personal opinion of the author, a pet definition.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 12:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 8:59 AM jar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 123 of 268 (594060)
12-01-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by AlphaOmegakid
12-01-2010 12:34 PM


Re: Realy Realy Sad
kid writes:
It is circular as I pointed out. So, what should we do? Should we keep it in? Would the definition of life suffice with just six pillars?
I think six pillars is just fine. All life has those.
So, first you say that people refuse to give a definition of life.
Dr. A. shows you that people have given definitions.
So you instead claim that those definitions are wrong.
Then you say that Koshland has given a definition.
But now you claim that Koshland's definition is wrong and needs to be changed.
What is your complaint?
Is it that no scientist will give a definition of life that you agree with?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2010 12:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 8:47 AM Panda has 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

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 125 of 268 (594160)
12-02-2010 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Panda
12-01-2010 12:55 PM


Re: Realy Realy Sad
kid writes:
It is circular as I pointed out. So, what should we do? Should we keep it in? Would the definition of life suffice with just six pillars?
I think six pillars is just fine. All life has those.
So, first you say that people refuse to give a definition of life.
Nope, I have never said that!
Dr. A. shows you that people have given definitions.
He showed that people gave one liner pet definitions, yes. Not one member of this forum gave a biological definition from a scientific source (a scientific publication) until I came along. Are you OK with life being restricted to the seven pillars?
So you instead claim that those definitions are wrong.
I didn't waste my time discussing all that gibberish. If you have a definition from a scientific source, I will be glad to discuss it as I did with the one scientist who used the circular argument only.
Then you say that Koshland has given a definition.
He clearly has. It is not a one liner. It is consistent with previous scientific definitions as well.
But now you claim that Koshland's definition is wrong and needs to be changed.
Isn't that the process of science? don't you like that process? Yes, I think his definition is very good. However, just one part appears to be circular to me. If we remove that one part only, then we can test the definition to see if it excludes any absolutely known life. I can't see that if we elliminate that one section that it changes anything. It doesn't exclude anything that isn't already included with the other six pillars. So what is the value of including the poentially circular element if it is not needed in the first place?
What is your complaint?
I have no complaints. I am quite complacent.
Is it that no scientist will give a definition of life that you agree with?
Actually most biology books have six criteria. The criteria of evolution is a relatively recent add. An unnecessary add.
In one word summaries the basic idea is ...
Homeostasis - pillar Compartmentilization/Program
Reproduction - pillar Regeneration
Organization - pillar Program/Compartmentilization
Metabolism - pillar Energy
Stimulation - pillar Adaptibility
Growth - pillar Energy
I think these six criteria cover all life quite well with no exeptions as far as I am concerned. Now please understand that the one word summary is just that. Each word needs clarification.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Panda, posted 12-01-2010 12:55 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Panda, posted 12-02-2010 10:24 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 126 of 268 (594161)
12-02-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
12-01-2010 12:48 PM


Re: Sad Sad Sad
Yet still just an essay, the personal opinion of the author, a pet definition.
Yes, still just an essay. Written (opined) by an accomplished Biologist. And published in one of the premier scientific journals.
Not a "pet defintion" though. A published work. A published opinion. The article is evidence that science has attempted to define life. That's the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 12-01-2010 12:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 12-02-2010 9:28 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 127 of 268 (594163)
12-02-2010 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2010 8:59 AM


different sections in magazines.
So you admit that it is an essay and claim that you know what an essay is.
Now next question is do you understand that magazines and journals have different sections?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 8:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 1:32 PM jar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 128 of 268 (594165)
12-02-2010 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2010 8:47 AM


Re: Realy Realy Sad
kid writes:
Isn't that the process of science? don't you like that process? Yes, I think his definition is very good. However, just one part appears to be circular to me. If we remove that one part only, then we can test the definition to see if it excludes any absolutely known life.
How would you identify "absolutely known life"?
Which definition of life would you use?
kid writes:
I can't see that if we elliminate that one section that it changes anything. It doesn't exclude anything that isn't already included with the other six pillars. So what is the value of including the poentially circular element if it is not needed in the first place?
Drone bees can't reproduce but they definitely appear alive.
So, is it ok to remove 'Reproduction' from your criteria aswell?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 8:47 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 2:22 PM Panda has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 129 of 268 (594183)
12-02-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by jar
12-02-2010 9:28 AM


Re: different sections in magazines.
Now next question is do you understand that magazines and journals have different sections?
What I understand is that no matter what section of Science magazine it is still a scientific definition.
Now you answer my question, please. Is there a difference in an essay published in Science mag by a respected scientist and previous editor, and the gibberish posted in these forums by "Science magazine, essay writing wannabees"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 12-02-2010 9:28 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 12-02-2010 1:37 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 130 of 268 (594184)
12-02-2010 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2010 1:32 PM


Re: different sections in magazines.
So you agree it is an essay, and claim to know what an essay is, and that you know magazines and journals have different sections.
So the next question is about those sections.
Do you understand that some sections are devoted to reporting research and other devoted to personal opinion and others to general communications?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 1:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 2:23 PM jar has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 131 of 268 (594197)
12-02-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Panda
12-02-2010 10:24 AM


Re: Realy Realy Sad
How would you identify "absolutely known life"?
Which definition of life would you use?
I wouldn't use a definition. I would use the things we know to be alive. Those things identified by science in the "tree of life".
Drone bees can't reproduce but they definitely appear alive.
So, is it ok to remove 'Reproduction' from your criteria aswell?
Well do you think they supernaturally appear or what? Do you think, maybe....they were reproduced. Therefore they are alive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Panda, posted 12-02-2010 10:24 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Panda, posted 12-02-2010 3:49 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 135 by Phage0070, posted 12-02-2010 3:55 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 132 of 268 (594198)
12-02-2010 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by jar
12-02-2010 1:37 PM


Re: different sections in magazines.
I'm waiting for a reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by jar, posted 12-02-2010 1:37 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jar, posted 12-02-2010 2:34 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 133 of 268 (594199)
12-02-2010 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2010 2:23 PM


Re: different sections in magazines.
And we are working towards an answer, once I know that you understand the basics. Any reply right now means little until we can establish those.
So you agree it is an essay, and claim to know what an essay is, and that you know magazines and journals have different sections.
So the next question is about those sections.
Do you understand that some sections are devoted to reporting research and other devoted to personal opinion and others to general communications?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 2:23 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 4:55 PM jar has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 134 of 268 (594206)
12-02-2010 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2010 2:22 PM


Re: Realy Realy Sad
kid writes:
Well do you think they supernaturally appear or what? Do you think, maybe....they were reproduced. Therefore they are alive?
They are born. Being born is not one of the criteria for being alive. (We can add it if you think it should be.)
They can't reproduce, therefore if Reproduction is a required ability then they can't be classed as alive.
We can remove the Reproduction criteria if you feel it is getting in the way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 2:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 6:49 PM Panda has replied

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 268 (594209)
12-02-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2010 2:22 PM


Re: Realy Realy Sad
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Well do you think they supernaturally appear or what? Do you think, maybe....they were reproduced. Therefore they are alive?
But none of them are identical to each other. They are similar, true, but thats not really a rule is it?
So you have a queen bee producing clearly different drone bees which are also different from each other. You can't say that they were REproduced, simply... "produced." So how would you differentiate that process from for instance, my shoe making several prints in the mud? Or would you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2010 2:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024