|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Life - an Unequivicol Definition | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Pressie writes: 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. So, according to your statements TOE doesn't apply to OOL. Or better stated, TOE addresses first life to man, but not rocks to first life. But , if you have read this forum, you can see that RAZD wants the theory to apply to rocks to first life. So I am trying to pin him down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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? Evolution doesn't apply to how life arises from non-life, it applies once life has risen. That is why being able to evolve defines life, because OOL is then completed.
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. And in this you are wrong, you confuse visible change (or the assumed lack of it from ignorance) with evolution. The processes involved over that 3.5 billion years involved the diversification of bacteria into many different types while also maintaining the fitness of cyanobacteria for their ecology, and then evolving eukaryotes and multi-cellular life forms, built on the changes that occurred over those billion years. Stasis does not mean no evolution, it means strong evolution to select and maintain fitness to an ecology, selecting against mutations that make it less fit.
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. Equivocating now? Curiously I quoted your definition from Message 1 -- here it is again:
quote: Any molecule is a "self-contained entity." Self-replicating molecules are self-contained entities that don't require enclosing membranes to synthesize more molecules, just raw materials (ie -- food for metabolism, as is used by all life forms). Self-replicating molecules can also be said to "transfer ... information" from one molecule to the next. Note that I say "can also be said to 'transfer ... information' " because what you mean by "information" is not defined, poorly understood, and in my opinion is a poor choice of words when what is happening is simply the replication of molecules. Your definition also requires DNA to exist, while current research into OOL says that it occurred after life began in an RNA world. Your definition does not require a cell wall or an enclosing membrane, hence why I challenge your statement that "a cell is the smallest unit of life" -- you haven't established that from your definition. So it appears that both DNA and the use of enclosing membranes evolved after first life forms arise. Note that your definition does not explain the existence viruses and prions. If you are interested I can show you how mine does. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AlphOmegakid writes:
It's the way science works. All of the assumptions in an experiment are confirmed as conclusions in other experiments. ringo writes:
That's quite a philosophical statement. The nature of knowledge is that everything builds on something else. There is no ultimate foundation. There is no definitive "beginning" of knowledge. You can jump in anywhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Quite amusing watching you fellows arguing opposite sides of the same issue in trying to show that my definition is incomplete ...
Now using RAZD's definition, that means bees are alive, but a bee is not. A colony of bacteria is alive, but any individual bacteria in that colony is not. ... Curiously the bee is composed of cells that reproduce, vary are selected and die -- ie processes of evolution are observed within the "colony of cells" that is the bee. You say a colony of bacteria is alive, so you just admitted that a bee is alive, even a drone bee that lives only to serve the colony\queen, just as the mule is alive as a "colony of cells" ...
... So, the definition doesn't work for most living things unless , of course, unless you equivocate on the definition of evolution, ... This is not equivocating, it is simply observing what is really happening at the cells level. Or do you deny that cells within multicell organisms evolve, even ones not involved in the reproduction of the organism? I have a blood cancer, I was not infected, but a mutation occurred that caused the cancerous cells. Chemo kills most of these cancerous cells but the same treatment cannot be used twice, because the surviving cancer cells are immune to it; variation and selection, and this goes on throughout your body every day, whether you are aware of it or not. We can look at life from six basic levels:
To deny that this happens, that these are in fact evolutionary processes, seems to me to be extraordinarily narrow minded; each level depends on the level below it occurring to provide the material for their processes to occur, until you get down to the most basic level of molecules evolving over time. DNA, proteins, etc all evolve over time.
Message 69 ... 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. ... Amusingly, I am having a ball with your failing attempts while simultaneously having trouble defending your definition. Do you deny that body cells evolve over time? Do you see anywhere in my definition where the entity being evaluated is limited to one specific level? It sees to me that it is you equivocating on what you accept and what you don't accept.
... . (Actually this is basically NASA's definition of life) ... Which should give you pause, eh? Thanks for putting me with such exalted people.
Message 76: So, according to your statements TOE doesn't apply to OOL. Or better stated, TOE addresses first life to man, but not rocks to first life. But , if you have read this forum, you can see that RAZD wants the theory to apply to rocks to first life. So I am trying to pin him down. And failing, both on "trying to pin [me] down" and on even, apparently, understanding my argument/s. This:
... RAZD wants the theory to apply to rocks to first life ... is a falsehood. Feel free to post a quote that you think supports your claim -- or withdraw it. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD writes: This is not equivocating, it is simply observing what is really happening at the cells level. Or do you deny that cells within multicell organisms evolve, even ones not involved in the reproduction of the organism? I have a blood cancer, I was not infected, but a mutation occurred that caused the cancerous cells. Chemo kills most of these cancerous cells but the same treatment cannot be used twice, because the surviving cancer cells are immune to it; variation and selection, and this goes on throughout your body every day, whether you are aware of it or not. What you are doing is the epitome of equivocation. The definition you used requires populations to evolve. I pointed this out to you and now you equivocate on what the organism is and what the population is. But this is easily fixable logically. All you have to do is the thought experiment of the last man on earth... healthy or unhealthy with all kinds of human somatic cells mutating and evolving within his body. (I don't disagree with you on this point) We all agree that he is alive. We all agree that his cells are alive. But he is the last human male with no human females. And those mutating and evolving human cells within eventually cause his death. Now we have a food farm for bacteria, but not any more humans. That human population of one was incapable of evolution. And the frequency of his genome and all of its genetic traits just went to zero as the last DNA of his body was consumed by the bacteria within. That's why over and over again, People who are experts on evolution will tell you that individuals do not evolve, populations evolve.
quote: quote: quote: quote: I've already cited this, but you've ignored it. So if you want to equivocate about a population of cancer cells within an organism as being a population of the same species then you go right ahead. I cannot stop you. It will require the population of neurons inside you to do that. But maybe they have evolved where they can no longer recognize equivocation??? The other entity you want so desperately to be alive is a virus. But assume a world full of viruses yet the world is sterile of any living cells Not one of those viruses is capable of evolution, because they cannot breed as a population on their own. So your definition fails on multiple levels. And so does NASA's. I will address your strawman challenges to my definition after the weekend.
RAZD writes:
It was you who claimed this definition as your own. I just pointed out the deception. You might be in good company with NASA. Which should give you pause, eh? Thanks for putting me with such exalted people. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. And again I find this a totally unrealistic proposition, and I would only consider it possible if you show me an example. Extraordinary claims and all that.
It does not show speciation. What it shows is that there parents are not capable of producing fertile offspring. It does show speciation between horses and donkeys, one of the key elements of evolution is the division of daughter populations into separate populations that are incapable of interbreeding. On the way to that point there are hybrids that are viable (see Interweaving Evolution & Hybrid Vigor for some discussion of this stage in the development of new species), next come hybrids that are sterile, and finally there comes the stage where no living offspring are reproduced. Mules are examples of this second stage (or 99% of it because some are able to breed with horses or donkeys). Failure to recognize this fact does not strengthen your argument.
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. "Mule" is not, strictly speaking, a species designation: horse, donkey, zebra are species, and they can all have hybrid offspring that are sterile or mostly sterile. Hybrids are not a distinct species until they become reproductively isolated from their parent populations. In addition, within any population of breeding individuals there are often sterile individuals, because mutation. There are also many colony species (bees etc) that regularly produce sterile individuals. But having sterile individuals does not mean that evolution is not occurring. Now I find it quite amusing that you say the mule is not alive because it can't reproduce, even though that ability is not a necessary element of my definition, rather it is just one aspect of evolution. There are many individual organisms that don't get to reproduce before dying -- it's called selection, in particular selection to remove less viable forms of individuals, and curiously one of the more importance aspects of evolution. Or would you have it that death is not part of evolutionary processes, that removal of unfit genotypes is not a part of evolution, that extinction is not a part of evolution? Curiously AlphaOmegaKid argues that because evolution occurs in populations not in individuals that the mule could be considered living but the cells would not be ... while you are willing to say that the cells are alive but the mule isn't ... you guys need to get together here: one or both of you are wrong.
Sterile animals do not undergo genetic drift. ... Really??? I can't think how sterile individuals would not be a part of genetic drift, removing a whole genotype from the reproductive pool, and taking many mutations to the grave with them. It's no different than if a tree fell on them. Just as any individual organism that dies before producing offspring removes a slew of mutations from the pool. Death without reproduction is an element of evolution.
... New mules do not contain random a sampling of the allelles of a current or past population of mules. And again, Mules are not a species, they have parents from whom they inherited traits. They don't pop up by magic, do they? When we look at the population that breeds mules, we have to include both horses and donkeys in that population, and then we can look and see if that population is evolving ... care to speculate what their (natural) interactions show? Hint: it begins with e. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD writes: 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? Evolution doesn't apply to how life arises from non-life, it applies once life has risen. That is why being able to evolve defines life, because OOL is then completed. Are you even aware of Cell Theory? Let me help you with a citation of the "modern" version.
quote: Now , in case you didn't realize, evolution theory is dependent on Cell Theory. According to Evo theory life began (cellular Life) about 3.5B years ago. Before that.....NO LIFE. Before that, rocks and water, and any combination of solutions therein. From which you desire to call self replicating RNA molecules as being alive according to your definition. To do this you have to ignore cell theory totally, and there is no good reason to do that. So, according to your words above, if OOL is completed, then it must be cellular unless you ignore Cell Theory which evolution theory depends on. This means you either must reject Cell theory or your definition becomes reasoned though circles, because TOE relies on Cell Theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8558 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
From which you desire to call self replicating RNA molecules as being alive according to your definition. To do this you have to ignore cell theory totally, and there is no good reason to do that. Is there some reason Cell Theory precludes a self-replicating RNA, subject to copy error, resulting in new capabilities, subject to environmental stress and natural selection, does something in Cell Theory preclude this from a definition of "life"? Today Cell Theory is a given since the cell is fait accompli and a part of all life. But what about prior? How would Cell Theory negate RNA World or Cairns-Smith or PHA World?
According to Evo theory life began (cellular Life) about 3.5B years ago. No. Theory of Evolution does not posit how or when life originated. TOE says what happened to that life once it was here and how we ended up with so much variation. That is all. Once we have a viable, evidenced, theory of origin then it will be incorporated our theory of life and evolution. But we don't have one yet. We only have the theory of evolution. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What you are doing is the epitome of equivocation. The definition you used requires populations to evolve. I pointed this out to you and now you equivocate on what the organism is and what the population is. But this is easily fixable logically. ... No fix necessary because it is not equivocation. The definition stands unaltered. What you see in Message 79 is that definition applied to six different levels of considering life on earth, with a consistent, logically valid application that demonstrates how the definition works.
... . All you have to do is the thought experiment of the last man on earth... healthy or unhealthy with all kinds of human somatic cells mutating and evolving within his body. (I don't disagree with you on this point) We all agree that he is alive. We all agree that his cells are alive. But he is the last human male with no human females. And those mutating and evolving human cells within eventually cause his death. Yawn. No different from the mule, which you agreed was alive. Death is a part of evolution and the extinction of species is a part of evolution.
That's why over and over again, People who are experts on evolution will tell you that individuals do not evolve, populations evolve. True, that is what they say, but does that make it unequivocably true? It is the appeal to authority, yes? The populations of cells that make me do mutate, reproduce, die in generation after generation of cells. But I am still me, I am not radically transformed into an entirely different person, nor am I transformed into a new species -- which, curiously, is what those experts mean by saying the individual is not the unit of evolution, that is the context of those statements. And curiously I am not claiming anything different in that regard.
... So if you want to equivocate about a population of cancer cells within an organism as being a population of the same species then you go right ahead. I cannot stop you. It will require the population of neurons inside you to do that. But maybe they have evolved where they can no longer recognize equivocation??? Saying it is equivocation does not make it so. Does that population of cancer cells that arose from mutated from normal white blood cells (it's a form of lymphoma) make me a different person than I was before? Certainly my body has changed over time, not just in this regard, as it has aged. Biologists will refer to this as growth, development and aging processes, to distinguish it from species evolution, but that doesn't mean that they don't recognize how development aspects affect evolution -- you have a whole field of "evo-devo" developing in the last decades that looks at how processes of development affect species, and how environmental factors can affect development. Thalidomide as example. Exposure to radiation can affect your ability to reproduce as well. Such changes rarely affect the germ cells (Lance Armstrong as an example of a cancer that did affect his reproduction), and thus would not be passed on to following generations (unless sterility occurs), which is another reason why experts say that evolution takes place in the population and not the individual, but that does not mean that they exclude evolutionary processes occurring in your body. Mutations occur, reproduction of cells occurs, transmission of genes\alleles occurs, selection occurs, death occurs ... evolution occurs. When such processes occur in germ cells, that affects what you pass on to the next generation and most certainly is a part of the evolutionary process of change from generation to generation. When those same processes occur in non-germ cells, that only affects your body, the 'ecosystem' that is your body. That is not equivocation, that is observation of fact.
The other entity you want so desperately to be alive is a virus. But assume a world full of viruses yet the world is sterile of any living cells Not one of those viruses is capable of evolution, because they cannot breed as a population on their own. What you are likely looking at are the surviving remnants of the RNA world rather than the RNA world life forms that many many many scientists involved in OOL research believe existed before DNA evolved, and then by evolutionary processes (better able to survive and reproduce) displaced the RNA life forms. As I said, this explains the existence of viruses, while your definition doesn't (hence your attempts to ignore it and the fact that RNA life forms would not qualify under your definition because of being alive before DNA evolved). Certainly you cannot just look at modern life and claim that first life forms had the same complex highly evolved cell structure and internal processes with any kind of rational assurance that it is a valid claim. Don't take my word for it though, google your heart out on RNA World.
So your definition fails on multiple levels. And so does NASA's. Ummm ... not demonstrated here, not yet, not even on one level.
It was you who claimed this definition as your own. I just pointed out the deception. You might be in good company with NASA. Indeed I was unaware of the NASA definition until you pointed it out, but would be happy to cede priority to any previous published definition that matches it. Curiously I googled and found
quote: Pretty standard life definition stuff.
quote: Oh gosh, look at that -- they include viruses as life -- your definition doesn't ... oops? Second up was this:
quote: And there it is, albeit with the added condition of being a "self-sustaining chemical system" ...
quote: Which could point to an important element in the evolution of DNA ... in the RNA world. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In biology, cell theory is a scientific theory which describes the properties of cells. Yes. From your link:
quote: Curiously that involves modern highly evolved life forms and not life as it originated.
Now , in case you didn't realize, evolution theory is dependent on Cell Theory. ... No. The other way around: cell theory applies to modern evolved life forms ... after cells evolved.
... According to Evo theory life began (cellular Life) about 3.5B years ago. Before that.....NO LIFE. ... As AZPaul3 points out the origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution, so you are talking biological/xenobiological/abiogenesis scientists such as are involved in OOL research and using the typical misguided "CREO" characterization of almost all scientists and science as "EVO" -- as if all science were part of an evolution based world view and that there was some equivalence between reality based science and belief based opinion. We observe fossils of life 3.5 (to 3.8?) billion years ago in the oldest known rocks that can have fossils, so that pretty well establishes that life existed at that point, life that left behind stromatolite fossils.
... Before that.....NO LIFE. Before that, rocks and water, and any combination of solutions therein. From which you desire to call self replicating RNA molecules as being alive according to your definition. To do this you have to ignore cell theory totally, and there is no good reason to do that. Except that there is no good reason to include cells as an absolutely necessary element in the definition of life, certainly not for considering what first life forms would be like or what life could be like on other planets -- that would be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy would it not? Observing cell structures however would be a good indication that evolutionary processes are operating and that we are observing life. Likewise observing DNA ... Likewise observing RNA ...
So, according to your words above, if OOL is completed, then it must be cellular unless you ignore Cell Theory which evolution theory depends on. This means you either must reject Cell theory or your definition becomes reasoned though circles, because TOE relies on Cell Theory. Good try, but fail: my definition does not require that cells are a part of first life forms, it allows that they would evolve early on, as a means to improve survival, protect life maintaining and reproductive processes, and allowing it to displace earlier life forms, most likely by consumption. Same with the origin of DNA. Same with the origin of RNA. Which do you think came first, RNA, DNA or cells? Or did they develop independently and then get combined (by one consuming the other in the way eukaryotes may have derived)? Does it matter to the origin of life? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It is fairly well accepted in the abiogenesis field that RNA preceded DNA. Lets look at key similarities and differences:
DNA vs. RNA quote: Now it seems to me that it is fairly easy to evolve DNA from RNA and that it would be easier to evolve RNA from nucliotides than DNA. RNA being more stable in UV than DNA also speaks to its ability to exist outside cell walls, and thus does not need cell walls to evolve. This leads readily to a conclusion that the RNA world was composed of RNA based life forms, that cell enclosures then evolved because they formed protective barriers for those life forms enhancing their survival, and that those cell enclosures then allowed DNA to evolve from the RNA of those early life forms. The question then is where you draw the line between life and protolife and protolife and non-life ... If you say, as your definition does, that DNA (and enclosing cell membranes) are necessary elements, then you draw the line at the point they are all present and fully operational. If you say, as my definition does, that the ability to evolve via biological evolutionary processes like mutation, reproduction and selection, is all that is necessary, then you draw the line at an earlier stage. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
It has always amazed me that a science field like Biology is so comfortable with so many definitions which are equivocal. (Life, Evolution, Species...) But that's just the way it is. Biology is the study of life, but biologists can't agree on a definition of life. In every text book that addresses this subject, they are all quite comfortable in stating that there is no unequivocal definition of life and they usually spend a significant effort in "proving" why we can't come up with an unequivocal definition. I question your need to have a static, absolute definition of "life." Reality, more often than not, is more of a spectrum of blurred boundaries than absolute boxes which hold categorized objects and ideas. Definitions, and scientific definitions in particular, should be flexible to accommodate new data.
I suspect this indoctrination has led most Biologists to give up on the definition. But not me! I believe it is possible to create an unequivocal, simple definition of biological life or for simplicity sake an organism. I have created this definition over a period of years, and it has been tested by a number of personally know scientists. How has this definition been "tested"?
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. That's a very parochial and rather arbitrary definition for what "life" is.
This definition covers all known life. An absurdly tautological statement. "This definition of life...covers all known life." The perisylvian areas of my brain feel like bursting at this egregiously tautological statement. No -- what your definition covers is an arbitrary portion of the natural world, which presumably fits some pragmatic objective. Anyways, here -- let me pick apart your idiosyncratic definition of life with some questions for you to ponder: 1. How many ATP molecules must be consumed in order for a self-contained entity to be considered alive? You may think this is an irrelevant question. It is not, because some biological entities need not consume any ATP at all, and some consume different and varying levels of ATP molecules. Your definition requires ATP consumption -- but how much and to what extent? 2. Why do you have the requirement for genetic transfer from DNA to RNA? What is your non-tautological reason for stipulating this requirement? 3. It must be a "protein factory," you say. But why? What is uniquely special about amino acid chains that somehow gives "life" to something? Why did you choose protein production, and not lipid production? Or carbon production? No -- your definition isn't any more rigorous and "measurable" than other definitions of "life."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
AOk writes: So, according to your statements TOE doesn't apply to OOL. Actually, the ToE for life, as we know it, only applies to life as we know it. Inhereted characteristics and natural selection might also have applied to complex organic molecules before the first cells formed, we don't know yet.
AOk writes: I don't think a creationist would ever be able to pin RAZD down. Unlike creationists, RAZD knows a lot.
Or better stated, TOE addresses first life to man, but not rocks to first life. But , if you have read this forum, you can see that RAZD wants the theory to apply to rocks to first life. So I am trying to pin him down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
AOk writes: Nope. Not at all. Struggling with the basics, aren't you? You've got it the other way round. Science works the opposite way you do. According to Evo theory life began (cellular Life) about 3.5B years ago. According to the science of geology the empirical, verifiable evidence is quite clear. The oldest forms of what we call life life were unicellular. Prokaryotes. In WA those fossils are around 3.8 billion years old. In SA around 3.5 billion years old. The theory of evolution is an explanation of what was discovered. Seems like you're really, really struggling to know what the word 'evidence' means. Hey, AOk, in science the evidence comes first. The opposite of what you do. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It does show speciation between horses and donkeys, one of the key elements of evolution is the division of daughter populations into separate populations that are incapable of interbreeding. It appears that my response was not clear. I agree that speciation between horses and donkeys is complete. But what the infertility of mules does not show is that the mule offspring is on an evolutionary path. The question is whether mules are evolving and thus alive and not whether donkeys and horses are alive. I don't believe it is necessary that mules be able to evolve. They are the reproductive offspring of living creatures. That's enough. And it would be enough even if every single mule offspring were sterile. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024