Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 374 (772806)
11-19-2015 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
11-18-2015 5:06 PM


Crystals can reproduce without change, but are not generally considered life, so I don't see how anything that reproduces without change should be.
I did not suggest that anything that could reproduce accurately would be considered life. I am suggesting that a single celled organism capable of perfect reproduction via should not be considered not alive simply because it does not mutate.
Curiously I disagree. That their ability to reproduce is severely hampered by infertility (although not 100%) just shows they are participating in the part of evolution dealing with speciation and the formation of daughter populations that can't interbreed.
It does not show anything of the sort. What it shows is that there parents are not capable of producing viable offspring.
Again I disagree -- the following generation would have virtually zero distribution of alleles from the existing mule population, and this would be a very distinctive change in the frequency of all the alleles.
Seriously, RAZD? There is no following generation of mules. Mules do not descend from other mules.
That trait would be lost in the same way that many traits are lost through genetic drift, aka part of evolution.
Sterile animals do not undergo genetic drift.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2015 5:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 374 (772807)
11-19-2015 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
11-18-2015 5:06 PM


Hiding text of duplicate post. Please see Message 63. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide text of duplicate post.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2015 5:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 374 (772808)
11-19-2015 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
11-18-2015 5:06 PM


Crystals can reproduce without change, but are not generally considered life, so I don't see how anything that reproduces without change should be.
I did not suggest that anything that could reproduce accurately should be considered life. I am suggesting that a single celled, biological organism capable of perfect reproduction via mitosis should not be considered to not be alive simply because it does not mutate.
Curiously I disagree. That their ability to reproduce is severely hampered by infertility (although not 100%) just shows they are participating in the part of evolution dealing with speciation and the formation of daughter populations that can't interbreed.
It does not show speciation. What it shows is that there parents are not capable of producing fertile offspring.
Again I disagree -- the following generation would have virtually zero distribution of alleles from the existing mule population, and this would be a very distinctive change in the frequency of all the alleles.
Seriously, RAZD? There is no following generation of mules. Mules do not descend from other mules. What definition are you using for 'following generation'? Certainly nothing conventional. A following generation is the offspring of a past generation.
That trait would be lost in the same way that many traits are lost through genetic drift, aka part of evolution.
Sterile animals do not undergo genetic drift. New mules do not contain random a sampling of the allelles of a current or past population of mules.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2015 5:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2015 4:46 PM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 64 of 374 (772825)
11-19-2015 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
11-18-2015 5:44 PM


RAZD writes:
... So since a cell is the smallest unit of life ...
Is it?
Yes, Please don't forget Cell Theory which is much more important than evolution theory regarding OOL. Also, Evos have argued for years that evo theory does not apply to OOL. So what ist it? You seem to think evolution does apply to OOL. Hmmmm?
RAZD writes:
By your definition (Message 1):
quote:
Life, or a living organism is a self contained entity which uses ATP (adenosine triphosphate) for metabolism and synthesizes ATP with enzymes which are synthesized from a genetic process requiring the transfer of information from DNA to RNA.
You could have a prebiotic molecule in the RNA world that synthesizes ATP from ATP and uses that to reproduce the molecule, and according to your definition that would be life even though no cell is involved.
It seems that your impetus (from reading other posts on this thread) for your definition is to find the boundary between life and non-life, to define the point of origin, the transition from chemistry to life. The point at which it is capable of undergoing evolutionary processes, the point at with it is capable of evolving.
Yes, and you could have a God who created all kinds of living things 6000 years ago!.......Sorry, I couldn't resist!
You have an interesting false interpretation of the definition. First at a minimum, my definition requires a self contained entity which means that the metabolic processes and the synthesizing processes occur inside whatever contains the entity. So my definition is not molecular in any sense as no living thing is. It is an assembly of molecules as every cell is. So self replicating molecules, even though quite interesting, are just novelties that are recognizably light years away from the complexities in living things.
And regarding my impetus to find the boundary between chemicals and life, I think is quite well defined. A living organism must be able to synthesize ATP for metabolism and it must produce it's own catalysts for that synthesis. Your faithful blindness to evolution requires it's involvement everywhere, but why cannot living things come into being chemically, and not evolve? The first fossilized life shows no evolution in any measurable sense after 3.5 B years! And we know that bacterial live generation after generation with no evolution in a stable environment. Does that make them not alive? Of course not.
So my definition doesn't require vague terms like "growth", "reproduction", and "evolution", however it is quite reasonable that a self contained entity that could create it's own ATP and synthesize proteins could also grow, reproduce, and evolve, which is exactly what we observe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2015 5:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Pressie, posted 11-20-2015 6:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 73 by Pressie, posted 11-20-2015 8:16 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2015 9:04 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 65 of 374 (772838)
11-19-2015 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by AlphaOmegakid
11-18-2015 5:19 PM


AlphaOmegakid writes:
All of these words carry ambiguous definitions themselves, and hence the current definitions of life are ambiguous and equivocal.
The nature of knowledge is that everything builds on something else. There is no ultimate foundation. You need a complex network of definitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-18-2015 5:19 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 1:14 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 66 of 374 (772851)
11-19-2015 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NoNukes
11-16-2015 12:10 PM


NoNukes writes:
What about these parasites?
Mitochondria-free parasites harvest ATP directly from hosts | Ars Technica
Mitochondria-free parasites harvest ATP directly from hosts
quote:
One of the defining features of the eukaryotes is the presence of mitochondria, which burn energy-rich molecules like sugars and fats to generate the ATP that runs most cellular processes. A few rare eukaryotes, however, appear to lack mitochondria, as well as the small genome the organelles posses. The best-studied example of these organisms are the microsporidia, parasites that live in animal cells, where they cause diarrhea and bronchitis. These organisms have a mitochondrial remnant, called a mitosome, but few of the genes normally involved with its activity.
I think you need to consider the context of the terms. Microsporida are cells and can survive (live) for some time outside of a host. They do produce a small amount of ATP during Substrate-level phosphorylation.
After infecting a host, they need much more ATP than they can manufacture. So they have other pathways to "steal" this.
Both contexts are alive according to my definition. A virus, however has no metabolic pathway for ATP outside of a host.
All life comes from pr-existing life The law of Biogenesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 11-16-2015 12:10 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2015 12:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

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


Message 67 of 374 (772853)
11-19-2015 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by ringo
11-19-2015 11:26 AM


ringo writes:
The nature of knowledge is that everything builds on something else. There is no ultimate foundation.
That's quite a philosophical statement. I would say the foundation is there at birth, and it pre-exists knowledge. But that's another forum I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ringo, posted 11-19-2015 11:26 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Pressie, posted 11-20-2015 7:56 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 11-21-2015 11:05 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 68 of 374 (772854)
11-19-2015 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by AlphaOmegakid
11-18-2015 5:19 PM


When defining life, people do it with different words like "growth", "reproduction", and "evolution". All of these words carry ambiguous definitions themselves, and hence the current definitions of life are ambiguous and equivocal.
But do any of the people putting forward such definitions also propose that those words should be equivocal? If you personally can equivocate about the meaning of the word "reproduction", does it follow that someone who puts the word "reproduction" into his definition of life is himself equivocating?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-18-2015 5:19 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 2:30 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

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


Message 69 of 374 (772860)
11-19-2015 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
11-19-2015 1:18 PM


Equivocation
Dr. A writes:
But do any of the people putting forward such definitions also propose that those words should be equivocal? If you personally can equivocate about the meaning of the word "reproduction", does it follow that someone who puts the word "reproduction" into his definition of life is himself equivocating?
Equivocation whether in definitions or argumentation is a logic issue. In Scientific definitions, the logic should be sound. In general, I would think that biologists who put definitions of life in papers would tend to believe their definitions are unequivocal. However after publication, those definitions get challenged with counterfactuals and the only way they survive is through equivocating terms. RAZD is having a ball equivocating on his definition of life. He is squirming all over the place trying to defend it. It is rather amusing to read his posts right now as he is being challenged.
I don't think that when he wrote it, he thought it was equivocal. (Actually this is basically NASA's definition of life) However, as he tries to defend it, he is forced with equivocation to defend it. Let me use your example of "reproduction". Some organisms don't reproduce. It doesn't matter what the reason is, they just don't. So then the defender tries to argue that cells of multicellular organism do reproduce. So he just equivocated on what the organism is to make his argument work. Not to mention that some unicellular organisms don't reproduce. Then what does he say? Who Knows?
This is often referred to as "mental gymnastics" in argumentation rather than just accepting a defeater.
Now I get to your first question. Yes! Now biologists knowingly put forth equivocal definitions, because they've been trained that "life" is undefinable without equivocal terms. Today they list "characteristics of life" rather than trying to define it unequivocally. They are fine with fuzzy things, so OOL funding can continue and "life" is good. So the people using these definitions aren't purposefully equivocating, but the definitions are.
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-19-2015 1:18 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-19-2015 6:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 70 of 374 (772868)
11-19-2015 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid
11-19-2015 2:30 PM


Re: Equivocation
AOk writes:
They are fine with fuzzy things, so OOL funding can continue and "life" is good.
Big chunk of moola, huh?
Equivocation whether in definitions or argumentation is a logic issue. In Scientific definitions, the logic should be sound. In general, I would think that biologists who put definitions of life in papers would tend to believe their definitions are unequivocal.
OK, so now you have your unequivocal defenition, what's next? Publication?
Are you the sole originator of the ATP Definition of Life or has it been proposed before?
I find that I must still disagree with you. In my opinion, viruses are alive. Have you seen3-dimensional images of the external architecture of viruses? This is really, really complex chemistry.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 2:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 71 of 374 (772884)
11-20-2015 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by AlphaOmegakid
11-19-2015 10:08 AM


AOk writes:
Yes, and you could have a God who created all kinds of living things 6000 years ago!
Actually, the Theespruit Formation of the Barberton Supergroup started forming 3547 ma years ago. And those rocks contain fossils of prokaryotes. No elephant fossils in there.
The tonalitic and trondjemitic gneisses of that area started forming around 3645 ma ago.
These are facts whether you like them or not. So, no, Spooks couldn't have poofed all 'kinds' into existence 6000 years ago. Evidence, AlphaOmegakid, I know that evidence doesn't mean much to you, but in science the evidence is very important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 10:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-20-2015 8:18 AM Pressie has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 72 of 374 (772889)
11-20-2015 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by AlphaOmegakid
11-19-2015 1:14 PM


AOk writes:
That's quite a philosophical statement.
Nope. We don't have to reinvent the wheel again every time we build a new donkey-driven wagon. Nothing philosophical about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 1:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 73 of 374 (772892)
11-20-2015 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by AlphaOmegakid
11-19-2015 10:08 AM


AOk writes:
Yes, Please don't forget Cell Theory which is much more important than evolution theory regarding OOL.
Really? I thought that the modern evolutionary theory deals with genetic variation and natural selection? Have you ever published anything about evolution in any peer-reviewed scientific journal dealing with the subject?
AOk writes:
Evos have argued for years that evo theory does not apply to OOL. So what ist it? You seem to think evolution does apply to OOL. Hmmmm?
I'm not really too sure why you brought this up. For me (not being a biologist) the theory of evolution deals with genetic variation and natural selection. Basically describing the mechanisms of how all the life-forms we experience today came along from unicellular life. That's the TOE.
Life (as we know it) evolved from prokaryotes to what we encounter today by means of genetic variation and natural selection. That's the theory of evolution in a nut shell for me.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 10:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-20-2015 8:54 AM Pressie has replied

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


Message 74 of 374 (772893)
11-20-2015 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Pressie
11-20-2015 6:59 AM


Pressie writes:
Actually, the Theespruit Formation of the Barberton Supergroup started forming 3547 ma years ago. And those rocks contain fossils of prokaryotes. No elephant fossils in there.
The tonalitic and trondjemitic gneisses of that area started forming around 3645 ma ago.
These are facts whether you like them or not. So, no, Spooks couldn't have poofed all 'kinds' into existence 6000 years ago. Evidence, AlphaOmegakid, I know that evidence doesn't mean much to you, but in science the evidence is very important.
Actually it is you making the bodacious claims as facts. So please support yours with evidence. I made no claims that I have to support. I know reading comprehension can be difficult. Maybe that's why you are so quick to believe that these are facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Pressie, posted 11-20-2015 6:59 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Pressie, posted 11-20-2015 8:23 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 75 of 374 (772894)
11-20-2015 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by AlphaOmegakid
11-20-2015 8:18 AM


AOk writes:
Actually it is you making the bodacious claims as facts. So please support yours with evidence. I made no claims that I have to support. I know reading comprehension can be difficult. Maybe that's why you are so quick to believe that these are facts.
So, you doubt the Barberton Supergroup? Do you doubt the fossils found in those rocks? What exactly do you doubt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-20-2015 8:18 AM 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