Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-15-2019 2:16 PM
37 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211, Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,788 Year: 11,824/19,786 Month: 1,605/2,641 Week: 114/708 Day: 48/66 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
25NextFF
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1068 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 91 of 374 (773030)
11-23-2015 2:11 PM
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? By your definition (Message 1):

Yes, it is. My definition is consistent with cell theory as well as evolution theory.

RAZD writes:

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.

Nope, not even close. In your dream world yes, but not according to my definition. You can't just pick and choose which parts of it you like.

RAZD writes:

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.

My definition does show the boundary quite well. It requires a self contined entity in which ATP is used for metabolism and proteins are being synthesized from a DNA to RNA synthesis. Life does not require evolution. We have plenty of asexual populations which don't vary from generation to generation. That doesn't make them not alive according to your definition.

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2015 12:44 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1068 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 92 of 374 (773031)
11-23-2015 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
11-20-2015 9:04 AM


RAZD writes:

Equivocating now? Curiously I quoted your definition from Message 1 -- here it is again:

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.

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).

RAZD writes:

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.

Amazing. Just Amazing. Not only can you equivocate on what a population is within your own definition, you can distort the meaning of mine. Just amazing!

Here is the definition of self-contained which you evidently are unaware...

quote:
1. containing in oneself or itself all that is necessary; independent.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-contained

A living organism, by my definition , has everything within itself to use and synthesize ATP, It has DNA, and RNA, and it has proteins.

NO, A MOLECULE DOES NOT CONTAIN WITHIN ITSELF THESE ABILITIES. This is just one big strawman joke.

RAZD writes:

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.

You do know what they say about opinions don't you? Contrary to yours, the definition of genetic information is quite well defined within a biological context. Here is a definition:

quote:
The genetic potential of an organism carried in the base sequence of its DNA (or, in some viruses, RNA) according to the genetic code.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/...ish/genetic-information

My definition describes, in part, the Central Dogma of Biology. The principles of which are taught in "every" high school Biology book around the world. If you read this wiki article you will find the word "information" is used 29 times. It seems the evidence that this is well understood in Biology is overwhelming.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2015 9:04 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Pressie, posted 11-26-2015 6:03 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 119 by Pressie, posted 11-26-2015 6:06 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 93 of 374 (773036)
11-23-2015 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by RAZD
11-21-2015 4:46 PM


Really??? I can't think how sterile individuals would not be a part of genetic drift, removing a whole genotype from the reproductive pool

I don't understand this sentence. There is no such thing as a reproductive pool of mules. Let me restate that. I can make some sense out of your statement, but it does not seem to respond to my point or to the thrust of my comment which was the following:

Mules are sterile. As best as I can tell, males are 100 percent sterile and females are essentially so. For that reason, a population of mules does not undergo genetic drift, because there is no random sampling of the characteristics of the mule population to produce a new generation 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 81 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2015 4:46 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2015 5:10 PM NoNukes has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1068 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 94 of 374 (773037)
11-23-2015 5:02 PM


Question to RAZD
RAZD,

The sign of a good definition is how it relates to it's opposite. You have defined life in relationship to its ability to evolve. So my question is then, using your definition, describe death to us. When does an organism die, and when do populations die? or become extinct?

So with your molecules that you desire to define as "alive", please describe what makes these molecules die? With viruses which you desire to define as "alive", please describe the death of a virus. And of course your descriptions should be in relationship to your definition of life. And finally, describe the death of cellular life in relationship to your definition.

You have said that "death is a part of evolution". Just what exactly does that mean? Do dead things evolve too?


Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Pressie, posted 11-24-2015 7:35 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1068 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 95 of 374 (773038)
11-23-2015 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by NoNukes
11-23-2015 4:53 PM


NoNukes writes:

I don't understand this sentence. There is no such thing as a reproductive pool of mules. Let me restate that. I can make some sense out of your statement, but it does not seem to respond to my point or to the thrust of my comment which was the following:

Mules are sterile. As best as I can tell, males are 100 percent sterile and females are essentially so. For that reason, a population of mules does not undergo genetic drift, because there is no random sampling of the characteristics of the mule population to produce a new generation of mules.

So you cannot understand that the cells within the mule are evolving, and are potentially undergoing genetic drift? Therefore the mule is evolving, and therefore "alive". I cannot understand why anyone cannot understand this fallacious goobledeegunk!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by NoNukes, posted 11-23-2015 4:53 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2015 10:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 96 of 374 (773058)
11-24-2015 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2015 5:02 PM


Re: Question to RAZD
AOk writes:

The sign of a good definition is how it relates to it's opposite

The sign of a good definition is how the definition can be utilised in reality.

From coal geology I deduct that a particular definition can work in some circumstances; in other circumstances another definition is more valid with similar effective outcomes.

Life is not black or white; life is black and white with lots of shades of grey in between.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2015 5:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 9:48 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1068 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 97 of 374 (773062)
11-24-2015 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
11-22-2015 8:02 AM


Re: the 6 levels of evolution
RAZD writes:

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.

RAZD, you ought to be running for office. Oh the ways, that you can squirm and deflect, but not answer the question. Yes Yawn, just like a boring politician!

Yes, I and all so far have agreed that the Last homo sapien male, and the mule were alive. But we haven't agreed on whether he or the mule was capable of evolution. You equivocate on the word population which is part of your definition:

anything capable of evolution. (cue definition of evolution ^(1)... ).

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

Clearly what you are doing is equivocating on what the "population" is. So concentrate and stop yawning. In Biology a population is :

quote:
A population is a summation of all the organisms of the same group or species, which live in a particular geographical area, and have the capability of interbreeding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population

So what you are doing is equivocating between a population being properly a population of mules or a population being some group of cells within the mule. That equivocation is deceitful, shameful, and clearly intended by you after many posts.

My thought experiment exposed this, because the last man on earth, ie organism homo sapien male was not able to evolve. And clearly many organisms have populations for generation after generation that show no change in alleles either.

So evolution has many defeaters which makes it a very poor definition, but I can see why you want it. The faith in naturalism is strong. And the unsuccessful field of OOL needs such equivocation to survive. It's naturalism of the GAPS. Yet no matter what the evidence shows, the imaginations of men want to show something other than what is. It's called magic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 11-22-2015 8:02 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Pressie, posted 11-24-2015 8:42 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 98 of 374 (773063)
11-24-2015 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by AlphaOmegakid
11-24-2015 8:26 AM


Re: the 6 levels of evolution
I didn't know that the theory of evolution had six levels.

From all the variations of Theory of Evolution I got from scientific sources it seems as if the theory of evolution deals with how modern life came about. Nothing to do with the formations of stars or the universe or the earth or anything like that.

The theory of evolution deals with biology.

Are you sure you've ever read anything scientific on the theory of evolution? I certainly can't anything scientific on the theory of evolution dealing with the Universe or six levels or anything like that. Anywhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 8:26 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 9:56 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1068 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 99 of 374 (773067)
11-24-2015 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Pressie
11-24-2015 7:35 AM


Re: Question to RAZD
Pressie writes:

Life is not black or white; life is black and white with lots of shades of grey in between.

I know you so desperately want this to be true, but"reality says" your statement is false. Here again is Cell Theory.

quote:
1. All known living things are made up of one or more cells[11]
2. All living cells arise from pre-existing cells by division.
3. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms.[12]
4. The activity of an organism depends on the total activity of independent cells.
5. Energy flow (metabolism and biochemistry) occurs within cells.
6. Cells contain DNA which is found specifically in the chromosome and RNA found in the cell nucleus and cytoplasm.[13]
7. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition in organisms of similar species

"All" is used in 4 out of the seven statements. That's pretty black and white. You are exchanging your faith in OOL science and naturalism for the reality of all the evidence of living things. OOL needs "reality" to be fuzzy. Life does not.

Take any multicellular living organism and put it in a blender for five minutes. You have all the building blocks of that life available. You have DNA, RNA, proteins, ATP, carbohydrates. You can zap it with electricity or add heat for energy, and all you will ever have is the best primordial soup available. Only recommended for the consumption of naturalists. But not good for creating life.

What the faithful OOLers are missing is organization!. Those self replication molecular experiments are highly organized and controlled. Scientists can do many wonderful things, but they cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again. The word "organism" screams "organization."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Pressie, posted 11-24-2015 7:35 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2015 10:34 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 102 by Genomicus, posted 11-24-2015 1:28 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1068 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 100 of 374 (773068)
11-24-2015 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Pressie
11-24-2015 8:42 AM


Re: the 6 levels of evolution
Pressie writes:

I didn't know that the theory of evolution had six levels.

From all the variations of Theory of Evolution I got from scientific sources it seems as if the theory of evolution deals with how modern life came about. Nothing to do with the formations of stars or the universe or the earth or anything like that.

The theory of evolution deals with biology.

Are you sure you've ever read anything scientific on the theory of evolution? I certainly can't anything scientific on the theory of evolution dealing with the Universe or six levels or anything like that. Anywhere.

I think you need to direct this question to RAZD. This is not my claim but his. see http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=772987#m772970


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Pressie, posted 11-24-2015 8:42 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 374 (773070)
11-24-2015 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by AlphaOmegakid
11-24-2015 9:48 AM


Re: Question to RAZD
I know you so desperately want this to be true, but"reality says" your statement is false. Here again is Cell Theory.

Theories are not reality.

Viruses are in the grey area between alive and not-alive.

So are prions.

So are ridiculously complex chemistries.

"All" is used in 4 out of the seven statements. That's pretty black and white.

Except that the only one that talks about living things qualifies it with all known living things.

So even Cell Theory doesn't say it is black and white.

You are exchanging your faith in OOL science and naturalism for the reality of all the evidence of living things.

You're just projecting. You are the one who's butchering the science because of your faith. You're desperate to keep a nice dark line between alive and not-alive because a working OOL theory would destroy your religious beliefs.

OOL needs "reality" to be fuzzy.

No, forget OOL. Life is fuzzy, period.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 9:48 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 2:03 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 133 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 102 of 374 (773089)
11-24-2015 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by AlphaOmegakid
11-24-2015 9:48 AM


Re: Question to RAZD
OOL needs "reality" to be fuzzy. Life does not.

Reification fallacy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 9:48 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1068 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 103 of 374 (773093)
11-24-2015 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by New Cat's Eye
11-24-2015 10:34 AM


Re: Question to RAZD
CS writes:

Theories are not reality.


OK.....but they are supposed to explain reality! Just what do you think a theory is?
CS writes:

Viruses are in the grey area between alive and not-alive.

So are prions.

So are ridiculously complex chemistries.

You just admitted and identified in your own words and logic that viruses and prions are less that life. Whether you call it grey or blue or red area doesn't matter. Your own words show that there is "life" and there is something less than "life".

CS writes:

Except that the only one that talks about living things qualifies it with all known living things.

So even Cell Theory doesn't say it is black and white.

Baloney! Viruses are known. They are not alive!
Prions are known. They are not alive!
Many complex chemistries are know including all self replicating molecules that you and others want to be alive, and Cell Theory says they are not alive!

Now is life black or is it white?

CS writes:

You're just projecting. You are the one who's butchering the science because of your faith. You're desperate to keep a nice dark line between alive and not-alive because a working OOL theory would destroy your religious beliefs.

Well actually I am presenting a definition which is in compliance with current scientific theories including OOL hypotheses. Everyone knows you have to identify the pathway from non living chemicals to cellular life. Its just the silly equivocating along that pathway that I have a problem. Trying to define self replicating molecules as "alive" is a joke of semantics. It's just word soup that misleads. It is still light years away from cellular life. So what good does calling it "alive" do except mislead?

When scientist can put Humpty Dumpty back together again, then my faith might get challenged. But equivocal definitions which are illogical will never challenge my faith. They only enhance yours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2015 10:34 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by NoNukes, posted 11-24-2015 2:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2015 3:01 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 112 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-24-2015 10:35 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 104 of 374 (773094)
11-24-2015 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by AlphaOmegakid
11-24-2015 2:03 PM


Re: Question to RAZD
You just admitted and identified in your own words and logic that viruses and prions are less that life.

Grey area means that they are not classified as alive or not-alive. It does not mean less than alive. It may mean "undetermined", or "alive for some purposes", or "too close to call" or some other type of equivocation.

If the grey area has meaning, what is accomplished by defining the grey area away? Doing so won't eliminate whatever behavior creates the question.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 2:03 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(5)
Message 105 of 374 (773097)
11-24-2015 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by AlphaOmegakid
11-24-2015 2:03 PM


Re: Question to RAZD
OK.....but they are supposed to explain reality! Just what do you think a theory is?

The map is not the territory.

And your attempts to restrict the territory with the map will always fail.

You cannot constrain reality with a theory.

You just admitted and identified in your own words and logic that viruses and prions are less that life.

Look at this image:

I can point to the middle of it and say that it is not black.

But nobody can say where white stops and black starts.

You're insisting that only the far right edge be called black, and everything else besides that be called white.

Denying the existence of all that grey space is a disservice to everyone.

Why do you insist on it?

Now is life black or is it white?

It is grey.

Life is blurry.

Its just the silly equivocating along that pathway that I have a problem.

And the problem is yours, alone.

You never did respond to my questions:

quote:
Where is the need for your level of specificity?

What does it do for Biology?

How is it utilized? How does it help? How does it work?

...

I don't really have a problem with your definition. It's good enough.

What I don't understand is your insistence on it?

Why are you amazed that Biologists are comfortable with definitions of life that are what you're calling equivocated?

...

quote:
It is not alive by my definition, and this is consistent with the consensus understanding of whether a virus is alive.

Whoa, slow down. Why just lop it off like that? How does that help the situation?

What good is it to bound our definitions by what we already know? Won't that hinder expansion?


.

So what good does calling it "alive" do except mislead?

It provides an avenue for further research.

There is no misleading, that is your fantasy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 2:03 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-30-2015 11:25 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
25NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019