Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 8:32 AM
31 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, Hyroglyphx, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Theodoric, vimesey (9 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,004 Year: 12,040/19,786 Month: 1,821/2,641 Week: 330/708 Day: 24/81 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
25NextFF
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1071 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 106 of 374 (773098)
11-24-2015 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Genomicus
11-22-2015 7:19 PM


Genomicus writes:

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.

Maybe you ought to try and understand what a tautology is before you accuse some one of creating a tautology.

Definitions are not tautologies. Definitions should always be true for the word they are defining. A definition describes the meaning of a word. If the word is readily used in the language then the definition should apply to how that word is used in the language .ie "all known life"

Gen writes:

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?

Enough ATP to metabolize the synthesis of the enzymes required for the synthesis of the ATP. Definitely more than one molecule.

Gen writes:

2. Why do you have the requirement for genetic transfer from DNA to RNA? What is your non-tautological reason for stipulating this requirement?

Because there a basically two camps of thought within OOL. One is metabolism first, and the other is genetics first. The RNA world is the genetics first camp. My definition covers both, because both are in all known cellular life. I am amazed that you challenge this as arbitrary. This definition is the furthest thing from arbitrary. So this definition requires the genetic transfer of information from DNA to RNA to proteins to synthesize at a minimum the enzymes necessary to synthesize the ATP necessary to metabolize.

Gen writes:

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?

Because living things need catalysts to speed up the chemical reactions. In the synthesis of ATP, those catalysts are enzymes. Certainly living things do a whole lot more than this, but this level of complexity is the minimal amount that a cell could be called "living"

Gen writes:

No -- your definition isn't any more rigorous and "measurable" than other definitions of "life."

Au contraire! It is 100% measurable. All facets of the definition. Therefore it is rigorous.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Genomicus, posted 11-22-2015 7:19 PM Genomicus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Genomicus, posted 11-24-2015 5:18 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 137 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 107 of 374 (773104)
11-24-2015 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by AlphaOmegakid
11-24-2015 3:33 PM


Enough ATP to metabolize the synthesis of the enzymes required for the synthesis of the ATP. Definitely more than one molecule.

1. Why did you choose ATP for your definition instead of the broader NTP? There are more biological entities that fall under the umbrella of using NTPs, so what was your reason for choosing ATP specifically?

2. So mitochondria, as discrete entities, are alive by your definition, as are hydrogenosomes and chloroplasts -- but not peroxisomes. If a mitochondrial analog was created out of diamandoid material (mostly carbon atoms, along with some hydrogens, maybe some metals, etc., making a completely non-biological entity), would it be alive? It could self-replicate, transfer information through a non-biological tape, perform nanosurgery on cells, consume energy, and would be bound by a diamandoid wall. But it's not alive by your definition, correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 3:33 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by 1.61803, posted 11-24-2015 5:51 PM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2853
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


(3)
Message 108 of 374 (773106)
11-24-2015 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Genomicus
11-24-2015 5:18 PM


Genomicus writes:

But it's not alive by your definition, correct?

Correct. Apparently AOkid has predetermined that his/her definition is unequivocal and any dissenting comments that show how lacking the definition is will be hand waved away.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Genomicus, posted 11-24-2015 5:18 PM Genomicus has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 109 of 374 (773110)
11-24-2015 6:26 PM


So, AOk, did you respond to my first post on this thread?

Can you even begin to think of an answer?


  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 893 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 110 of 374 (773113)
11-24-2015 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
11-12-2015 10:15 PM


Hi Dr A.

Dr Adequate writes:

As I said, "Some of them say Yes, some of them say NO...

I still think you're wrong about this. Ask any biologist for a definition of life, and they will probably either say, "it's complicated," or will give a definition that either excludes viruses or mules or some such, then will backpedal when said virus or mule us brought up in response.

I do not have a problem with AOkid's claim that biologists are equivocal on the definition if life, and I think it's kind of silly of you to make this claim when I'm pretty sure biology, as a field has already come to terms with this.


-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-12-2015 10:15 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2015 10:17 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 111 of 374 (773123)
11-24-2015 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Blue Jay
11-24-2015 6:57 PM


I still think you're wrong about this. Ask any biologist for a definition of life, and they will probably either say, "it's complicated," or will give a definition that either excludes viruses or mules or some such, then will backpedal when said virus or mule us brought up in response.

Depends on the context of the situation though, doesn't it?

If you walked up to a paid biologist in the middle of a project and asked them how they define life, then don't you think they'd spout off a particular definition? And also disregard the questionables that didn't matter?

I contend that the way that "biologists" define the word life is in the utility of the meaning, itself and to them.

And the fact that different ones use different definitions in different situations is not a case of equivocation, by definition.

Now, if you pulled that hypothetical biologist aside and asked: "But really, how do you define life?"

Then yeah, they'd prolly equivocate all day. Come on, that shit is fuzzy.

OP is amazed that "Biology is so comfortable with so many definitions which are equivocal."

That's counting a bunch of different definitions as defining one thing.

That's not anyone equivocating. That's just a bunch of disagreement being smushed together.

Is there a word for that? 'Cause I don't think it's "equivocation".

Well, unless OP means "to use ambiguous language so as to avoid committing oneself", then yeah, well duh.

I refer you to my Original Post to this thread. As OP said:

quote:
Well specific, yes. That's the point. What we have now is definitions that are not specific and equivocate regarding life. Needlessly specific? I disagree.

I question the utility of the specificity. OP has been unable to answer. It's clear to me why, I think. But I gotta ask:

What's so great about having a definition of life that is unequivocal? Why OP, Why should Biology commit itself?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Blue Jay, posted 11-24-2015 6:57 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2250
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 112 of 374 (773125)
11-24-2015 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by AlphaOmegakid
11-24-2015 2:03 PM


Re: Question to RAZD
Baloney! Viruses are known. They are not alive!

A lot is known about viruses and we are learning more all the time. They have a nifty way of replicating and they are quite complex but lack a number of the mechanisms of cellular life. When some viruses come in contact with the cell membrane of the certain cells they are passed inside the cell. Some time after that the virus may insert itself somewhere in the genome of the cell and then trigger the cell to replicate the virus over and over until it overwhelms mechanisms in the cell, escapes, and infects new cells. Apparently, some viruses specialize in the cells they infect and have unique, specialized, non-lethal effects on cells.

Sometimes viruses infect sperm and egg cells in multicellular organisms and insert themselves into the genome. If that sex cell is successfully mated the resulting organism will carry a genetic copy of the virus the can then be passed on to its descendants. It may eventually be in the genome of much of the clade. At each reproductive event the there is a chance of mutations occurring in the viral DNA that was inserted into the genome. These viral sections in the genome are called endogenous retroviruses or ERVs. A fascinating thing about ERVs is that mutations persist because they have no impact on survival or mating success of the organism.

Now, one of the coolest things about ERVs is that when we sequence them from groups of clades we can use the positions of ERVs they have in common and the relative changes that have occurred due to mutations to map a cladogram that shows us the relative branching pattern for these groups of organisms at the species level, but also hierarchical clade branchings (speciation events) prior to the most recent speciation event. This result from the development gene sequencing technology is rapidly expanding our understanding of evolution as a process and also the evolutionary history of the biosphere.

You say viruses are not alive, but techniques developed to study cellular life can be applied to viruses and vice versa. Viruses impact other cellular functions besides just replication.

Maybe viruses developed as extracellular mechanisms of organisms that mutated and lost their original functions.

Are they a byproduct of the development of cellular life or are they precursors of cellular life?

Can you demonstrate that they are not alien nonbiological lifeforms that may have developed here and learned to exploit cellular biological life?

What should we expect another branch of life that might develop on this planet to look like?

Well actually I am presenting a definition which is in compliance with current scientific theories including OOL hypotheses.

Ok, are you passing a law that says everyone has to use your definition for life or else?

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.

Why is this your problem? Are you performing and reporting some kind of research that depends on all the other biologists agreeing to follow AOk's law of life?

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?

OK, so who is being misled? We already know it is not you. As a biologist, I don't have a problem with it. If I ever feel misled I ask questions and get clarification.

When scientist can put Humpty Dumpty back together again, then my faith might get challenged.

Hmmmmm, I need you to define what Humpty Dumpty means. I have no idea why you suddenly start talking about faith.

But equivocal definitions which are illogical will never challenge my faith.

Ok, now I am really confused. You started this thread stating your wonderful invention "The AOk Unequivocal Definition of Life" and asked for our comments and now you think someone is trying to challenge your faith?

Like I said several times in this thread, your definition of life does NOT work for me.


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 103 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 2:03 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 893 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(5)
Message 113 of 374 (773129)
11-25-2015 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by AlphaOmegakid
11-17-2015 6:05 PM


Hi, AlphaOmegakid.

AOkid writes:

Well specific, yes. That's the point. What we have now is definitions that are not specific and equivocate regarding life.

In biology, there’s a long history of supposedly “unequivocal definitions” turning out to be oversimplified approximations with limited utility for real-world biology.

For example, the word "carnivore" is a problematic term. It's debatable whether any animal can be truly regarded as a “carnivore”: it seems that nearly every putative “carnivore” we examine closely turns out to be more appropriately classified as an “omnivore.”

So, does the term “carnivore” still hold enough meaning to justify its continued use? If so, when should we use it? For example, is it okay to categorize wolves as “carnivores,” even though they obtain a small percentage of their calories from eating berries? At what percentage of plant-derived calories should we start using the term "omnivore" instead, and why should we use that percentage?

Also, we have to ask whether trying to impose a rigid definition on things is helping our science progress. It is possible that we're actually hindering our progress by masking important information behind an arbitrary categorization schema?

It really isn't the simple matter you make it out to be.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Needlessly specific? I disagree. GTP is involved in a small portion of some cells metabolic processes, but ATP is involved in all of them. So since a cell is the smallest unit of life, "needlessly" I don't see any reason to be less specific.

I see plenty of reasons to be less specific. Here are a few:

  1. Your definition draws the line between "life" and "non-life" in pretty much the same place as several other definitions that are less specific (e.g., "life has cells and metabolizes"). So, what exactly does the added specificity bring to the table in terms of classifying entities?

  2. Would you seriously consider excluding an entity from the definition of “life” if it used GTP, instead of ATP, for its metabolism? If not, what’s the point of proposing that the identity of the metabolic molecule be used as a defining characteristic of life?

  3. Your definition still has the “virus problem”: there are ways in which viruses are more like “life” than like other types of “non-life.” In this way, your definition doesn’t perform any better than any other definition when it comes to grouping things by their phenomenology.

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*

*Yeah, it's real

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-17-2015 6:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 114 of 374 (773141)
11-25-2015 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by NoNukes
11-23-2015 9:47 AM


Mules again ...
It appears that my response was not clear. I agree that speciation between horses and donkeys is complete. ...

Curiously I would say 99% complete -- they can still mate and produce offspring, and almost all are sterile. Some can occasionally mate back with one of their parent stocks.

... But what the infertility of mules does not show is that the mule offspring is on an evolutionary path. ...

When you look at mules in terms of evolution you have to consider what the breeding population is that produces the mule, ie - the horse and donkeys (and zebra and quagga) parent population. This population produces several types of offspring: horses, donkeys, zebras, horse/donkey hybrids (mules, hinneys), horse/zebra hybrids and donkey/zebra hybrids; the quagga is now extinct (fairly recently as there are pictures of them) and thus does not produce any offspring.

Is the recent extinction of the quagga an evolutionary path? I don't see how you can say otherwise -- extinction of species is necessary to evolution just as individual death is necessary to evolution. Without death and extinction selection does not occur.

... 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.

The death of sterile animals, or actually of all animals that do not reproduce, is part of the evolutionary process that selects more fit individuals for reproduction. To say that only those that pass on their genes are evolving, while ignoring those that are removing less viable genes, is rather myopic in my opinion. It's like saying people only have right hands.

And the actual question is whether mules are capable of evolution ...

quote:
Message 10: Mine is simpler: 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.

This isn't saying that every organism has to undergo every known process of evolution, as that would be absurd.

Removal of less viable traits - the death of any individual organism that doesn't reproduce - changes the frequency of distribution of traits withing the breeding population, whether by selection or drift, and thus they take part in evolution.

The removal of hybrid phenotypes that bridge between diverging daughter populations are necessary to the process of speciation, and are a definite part of evolution. Death is one of the processes for removal of less fit traits.

Message 93: ... There is no such thing as a reproductive pool of mules. ...

The reproductive pool is their parent population, which includes horses and donkeys (and zebras and quaggas and other hybrids).

Mules are sterile. As best as I can tell, males are 100 percent sterile and females are essentially so. ...

And some donkeys and some horses are sterile, some purebred racehorses in particular are sterile. Sterility is a fact of biology and evolution, and is not restricted to hybrids or any one species -- it is an evolutionary process. Any new traits that occur in any sterile individual are not passed on to following generations, and the loss of such a new trait, whether beneficial or not, is genetic drift.

... 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.

Amusing. What you are saying is that there is no fitness\mating selection in the removal of their genes from the breeding (parent) population. They are remove in the same way a tree falling on a colt would remove its genes from the breeding population. That is what drift does.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by NoNukes, posted 11-23-2015 9:47 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 11-25-2015 3:46 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 115 of 374 (773150)
11-25-2015 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2015 2:11 PM


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

Yet it doesn't explain the existence or evolution of viruses, nor does it allow for RNA life forms, and this is a failure.

You like to cite (appeal to) authority and pick and choose who you quote, ignoring those that say viruses are alive and are one of 4 branches of life.

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.

Incorrect on two counts: (1) your definition isn't the acid test for life, so your use of it to validate it is tautological, and (2) invalidating any one part of it invalidates the whole as being the definition of life.

Your definition is like saying only right hands are hands, and left hands don't qualify as hands because they aren't right hands.

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. ...

Your definition shows A boundary event in the evolution of life, just as the evolution of eukaryotes shows a boundary event in the evolution of life, but we don't consider prokaryotes to be non-life because they don't fit the definition of eukaryotic life. This is an arbitrary choice, rather than one based on facts.

... 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.

You make the claim, you provide the evidence. Show me one species that does not show any evolutionary processes from generation to generation.

Or are you picking and choosing what you consider relevant.

Message 92: 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!

Curiously, what I was showing you was two different ways your definition fails. That is not distortion, it is pointing out the inadequacy of your definition.

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.

And thank you for demonstrating another failing of your definition: cells consume, as part of their living processes, consumption of raw materials is one of the well known elements of life, the raw materials to use in the synthesis of proteins, enzymes, etc ... and thus cells are not self-contained according to your definition.

And if you allow consumption of raw materials from outside the cell, you just allowed the use of raw materials by molecules to reproduce. Either way, fail.

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. ...

Big whap. Typical creationist appeal to assumed authority. Definitions, like theories, change all the time, especially when a better one comes along that does a better job of explaining all the evidence.

Your definition does not explain the existence and behavior of viruses, mine does; mine explains more evidence than yours does. That alone makes it a better definition. The fact that the same definition was developed by NASA is more validation of its usefulness. Has anyone else developed a very similar definition to yours in all those Biology text books you appeal to?

... 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.

My objection to using "information" is not that it has never been used, but that it needs to be well defined so that everyone understands the meaning. If the use in wiki means one thing and the way you use it means another, then that is the logical fallacy of equivocation.

This is a common source of misunderstanding in IDological circles.

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

And as long as you consistently use that definition for "genetic information" you should not have a problem.

Amusingly, you also need to consider that the "genetic information" is there because of evolution, in both DNA and RNA (whether virus RNA or not).

Message 94: 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, ...

When it ceases to function and begins to break down.

Yours?

... and when do populations die? or become extinct?

When every individual of the population dies.

Yours? oh, that's right, your definition doesn't say anything about species ...

So with your molecules that you desire to define as "alive", please describe what makes these molecules die? ...

When they cease to function and begin to break down. And the fact that they can go through this process means they had to be alive to function and hold together, doesn't it?

... With viruses which you desire to define as "alive", please describe the death of a virus. ...

When they cease to function and begin to break down. And the fact that they can go through this process means they had to be alive to function and hold together, doesn't it?

... And finally, describe the death of cellular life in relationship to your definition.

When it ceases to function and begins to break down.

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

That it is one of the processes of evolution.

Message 97: ... Clearly what you are doing is equivocating on what the "population" is. ...

Saying it does not make it so. Your claims of equivocation are like a broken record to all who disagree with you, and yet you have not shown one actual instance of equivocation.

In the 6 levels of evolution post I clearly described what the population was composed of at each level. Nor am I alone in viewing life at those different levels, check E.O.Wilson for one looking at the evolution patterns of survival and selection of whole species as but one example. Species reproduce by speciation, giving rise to new species in much the same way that asexual bacteria reproduce and evolve.

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. ...

Nope. Failure to understand is not refutation. Looking at life at different levels is not equivocation, but looking at how each of those different levels fit the same pattern. It is looking and the difference between microevolution and macroevolution ... and sub-micro and super-macro ... at the whole spectrum of evolutionary processes.

I mentioned E.O.Wilson above. He is not alone either. Many scientists talk about the Biosphere:

quote:
The biosphere is the global sum of all ecosystems. It can also be termed as the zone of life on Earth, a closed system (apart from solar and cosmic radiator and heat from the interior of the Earth), and largely self-regulating.[1] By the most general biophysiological definition, the biosphere is the global ecological system integrating all living beings and their relationships, including their interaction with the elements of the lithosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere. The biosphere is postulated to have evolved, beginning with a process of biopoesis (life created naturally from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds) or biogenesis (life created from living matter), at least some 3.5 billion years ago. ...

Pierre Teillard de Chardin talked about an "Omega Point" of evolution and of the "noosphere" (a sphere of thought/consciousness).

And I can equally go in the other direction, with geneticists, microbiologists and scientists involved in the study of abiogenesis, ... and where they draw the line between life and non-life.

My thought experiment ...

Failed for reasons already discussed. Not accepting that fact does not change that refutation of your argument, its just plain unadulterated denial.

... And clearly many organisms have populations for generation after generation that show no change in alleles either.

Again, please list one. With the evidence to support it.

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.

Your opinion, ignoring the facts.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2015 2:11 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by herebedragons, posted 11-27-2015 4:16 PM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18596
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 116 of 374 (773165)
11-25-2015 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
11-25-2015 10:45 AM


Re: Mules again ...
RAZD writes:

Is the recent extinction of the quagga an evolutionary path? I don't see how you can say otherwise --

Agreed. I think this is the main point that NoNukes is disagreeing with, but I can't tell if it's because he disagrees with it or thinks you're saying something else.

What immediately follows seems like it might be an overgeneralization:

extinction of species is necessary to evolution just as individual death is necessary to evolution. Without death and extinction selection does not occur.

Sorry if I'm begin nitpicky, but it does seem like selection can occur without the death of individuals or extinction of species.

Concerning death and individuals of a population, what you said feels a little too confined if you're using the definition of selection where it means selecting who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. Death is only one form of selection.

Concerning extinction and species, what you said also feels a little too confined, since a species can cease to exist by evolving to a different species. The fossil record might cease to contain any record of a species, and paleontologists might conclude that it went extinct, but extinction means "the death of the last individual of the species" (Wikipedia), and the population might simply have evolved over time into something else.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2015 10:45 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2015 4:48 PM Percy has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19981
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 117 of 374 (773170)
11-25-2015 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Percy
11-25-2015 3:46 PM


death and extinction -- a part of evolution
Concerning death and individuals of a population, what you said feels a little too confined if you're using the definition of selection where it means selecting who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. Death is only one form of selection.

Agreed, but rather than selection death is also necessary for the succession of life, genetic drift and to remove less viable forms from the population to make room for new individuals; without death habitats would become overcrowded. Likewise the extinction of species is necessary to make room for the new species - an ecological view of evolution.

Concerning extinction and species, what you said also feels a little too confined, since a species can cease to exist by evolving to a different species. The fossil record might cease to contain any record of a species, and paleontologists might conclude that it went extinct, but extinction means "the death of the last individual of the species" (Wikipedia), and the population might simply have evolved over time into something else.

In which case you would be talking about anagenic or cladogenic speciation, both leaving the old species behind due to their being less fit species than the new ones. The old species goes extinct and makes room for the new ones. Again this is a necessary part of large view (macro) evolution and ecology (carrying capacity of habitats).

You can think of species as asexual bacteria, reproducing via budding.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Percy, posted 11-25-2015 3:46 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 11-26-2015 7:44 AM RAZD has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 118 of 374 (773180)
11-26-2015 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2015 4:06 PM


Duplicate post.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2015 4:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 119 of 374 (773181)
11-26-2015 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2015 4:06 PM


Ah, at last we got a creationist venturing into the definition of genetic information or how the term is used amongst biologists. Tip the hats!

AOk writes:

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:

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 definition doesn't provide any information on how to measure genetic information though. Could you be more specific on how to measure the amount of genetic information, AOk? For example, how does this definition determine or measure whether a crocodile has "more genetic information" or "more genetic potential" or "less genetic information" or "less genetic potential" than an elephant?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2015 4:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18596
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 120 of 374 (773185)
11-26-2015 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by RAZD
11-25-2015 4:48 PM


Re: death and extinction -- a part of evolution
RAZD writes:

Agreed, but rather than selection death is also necessary for the succession of life, genetic drift and to remove less viable forms from the population to make room for new individuals; without death habitats would become overcrowded. Likewise the extinction of species is necessary to make room for the new species - an ecological view of evolution.

Sure, but that's orthogonal to my point, that death isn't necessary for selection. The way you expressed it was a statement that death *is* necessary for selection.

In which case you would be talking about anagenic or cladogenic speciation,...

Both those terms are new to me, so I had to look them up. I'm definitely not talking about cladogenic speciation. Anagenic speciation would be closer but because it posits "rapid evolution in the ancestral form without speciation taking place" I don't think it's what I was talking about. I had in mind evolution of a population (slow, fast, doesn't matter) that over time becomes significantly different than the original. Species are a continuum. There was no point in time where the ancestral species became a new species, but at some point it became so different that it must be labeled a new species. There was no extinction. There was no death of the last individual of a species.

AbE: Granted that once a species no longer exists we do call it extinct, but in the case I'm talking about there is no extinction event, no death of the last individual.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : AbE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2015 4:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2015 12:53 PM Percy has responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
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