|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
AOk writes: It's not an assumption. It's a description of reality. OK, let's assume for a moment it is in the grey area... Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: Exactly my definition is for the endpoint, and it should fail in the middle. Just as I have said over and over, and over again. The problem is that it fails at an *arbitrarily* chosen point in the middle, and that it is insufficiently general, as everyone keeps telling you over and over again. Why should people agree with your chosen point, or even that there should be a point?
because anywhere you draw the line between what is living and what is not is ultimately arbitrary.. Again, your contradicting yourself, because you just said the endpoints were not ambiguous which means the line was drawn. Your having a tough time facing your own words, are you not? Sorry, I thought it would have been clear from context, but evidently you found use of the term "draw the line" confusing. "Draw the line" is a common English expression meaning, in this context, "an indication of demarcation; boundary." Another way of saying it would have been, "Because anywhere you place the boundary between what is living and what is not is ultimately arbitrary." This is the same thing people have already been telling you.
and inevitably it will be uninformed by what we do not know. I certainly hope I am "uniformed by what I do not know"! Have a great evening. See ya tomorrow....unless tomorrow is a continuum of today, which means..... well, I give up, I just can't think this illogically. It's like a virus exploding my brain cells! As near as I can make out, because you keep commenting about illogic and contradictions that don't exist, you seem to be finding my brief summaries of what people have already said confusing. You just a day or two ago discussed with other people the possibility of as yet undiscovered life or of life based on other chemistry. Those are the kinds of things I was referring to, and which your definition does not attempt to anticipate. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: I just like to see evos twist and turn and flip in their mental gymnastics. I hoped those emoticons were sincerely meant to indicate you're kidding, but your message didn't attempt to explain anything or make an argument. I hope this is a serious discussion and that we're not wasting our time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
AlphaOmegakid writes: But using the example of water, it is clear that water is essential to living things. Every abiogenetic hypothesis requires water!. So water by itself is in the non-living category (abiotic). It is not dead, because it has never been alive. But it is necessary and affects all life. Yes, this is something I think everyone would agree with. And water is an abiotic factor in life.
Why do you think a gray area between living and non-living implies that "every abiotic thing would be on the pathway to life." Water is an "abiotic thing," but most water in the universe is not likely on its way to becoming part of a living creature. I don't think that, nor do I imply that. Maybe you don't think that, and didn't mean that, but you sure did imply it:
quote: Moving on:
I have provided an unequivocal definition of life. No one agrees that you have "provided an unequivocal definition of life," or that this is even a useful goal to biology.
And recently, I have embraced the grey scale analogy to identify living, non-living, and dead. It works. All non-living things are in the grey area, living things are white, and dead things are black. This is not "embracing the gray scale analogy." What you're proposing not only doesn't work, it doesn't even make sense. You're just playing definitional games. With something as complex as life you're not going to find clear lines of demarcation. What's really interesting and what really matters are the details of how life works. Definitions like yours don't aid understanding or communication at all.
And then the virus enters another cell and is alive again? Really? Yes, really. That's exactly what we observe! No, that's not what we observe. That's what you claim according to your own private definition. You're not going to have much luck selling a definition where biological agents move back and forth between living and non-living.
The faithful evolutionary continuum from non-living to living through some form of chemical evolution is just speculative hypotheses at this moment. So I reject that there is a "pathway to life'... ... All life comes from pre-existing life. Where did the first life come from?
I think you would agree that poisons are abiotic and non-living. Yet they affect cells by disturbing their organization to such and extent that they destroy the cell. I think many doctors would agree that a virus can be interpreted as a very specific type of organic poison. I hope you mean researchers, not doctors of medicine. Anyway, I'm sure no one understands why you might believe that researchers would agree with you that viruses are actually an "organic poison" that transitions back and forth between living and non-living. A careful reading of the Wikipedia definition of abiotic component and biotic component reveals that they are incomplete (and in the case of the former, very poorly written). The definition of abiotic does not exclude amino acids or proteins or viruses, and the definition of biotic does not include them. If we base our discussion on these definitions then you do not contradict either definition by classifying viruses as abiotic, but this makes little sense to everyone else. You would probably also classify feces as abiotic, which makes just as little sense. When I have time later I might seek improved definitions of abiotic and biotic. Wikipedia has been asking for money again lately, and I will probably donate, but encountering poor entries like these is becoming increasingly common, and it worries me. I think the early enthusiasm for keeping entries accurate and up-to-date has been waning over the past few years. I'm not sure there's much difference between donating to Wikipedia and paying the subscription fee to Encyclopedia Britannica. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
RAZD writes: Ah, so comprehension of parenthetical statements modifying the main statement of what is posted is also one of your problems in understanding what is said. Do I need to parse it for you? Oh, by all means do so. I would be happy to see how you "Clintonize" "Is". Just for clarification...
(1) It doesn't address the issue of viral life, which is increasingly being accepted as life forms as more is found out (self replication without host, metabolism and making of proteins used to encase it, etc); Yes, it appears that your parenthetical statement clarifies what you mean by "as more is found out." But that's not all! In message 138 you said..
RAZD writes: Indeed, especially as we see more and more viruses that are capable of replication without high-jacking cells, and as we look closer and closer into the possible development of life. Viruses are being more and more accepted as an intermediate stage from first life to modern cellular life. Unfortunately, there are no parentheses here! These claims are false. I gave you plenty of time to correct yourself, and it only appears that you want to dig your hole deeper. Viruses outside a host cell DO NOT replicate or metabolize. That's why I asked for evidence, which you haven't provided. This is the second half of your statement:
rather it ignores it and pretends that it is non-life, and in the process creates a third category of things: life, non-life that behaves like life (evolves, reproduces, etc, and not what is generally understood as "non-life"), and non-life that doesn't behave like life (rocks, and other non-life as it is generally understood). Not being able to distinguish between these last two cases is a fatal flaw. These claims are likewise false. The definition is one that identifies "life" or "living organisms". So viruses or any other chemical arrangement must be evaluated against the definition and not your parody of it. The definition does not "ignore and pretend that viruses are non-life" (paraphrase) Instead the definition clarifies what a virus really is. A virus is a poison to living cells. When it is outside a host cell the definition identifies that it is not life. It cannot respire, make proteins, replicate, grow, adapt, or evolve. When it enters a living host, it actively starts disturbing the cell. My definition properly identifies the living organism as an infected host cell. That cell is alive. This is consistent with Cell Theory. The virus is only "alive" in the sense that it is part of a cell. Within that environment, the virus self-assembles duplicates and those populations evolve. But once the damaged cell explodes or the viral particles are released, the virus goes back to its chemical state, which is not living. All Life comes from pre-existing life. There are no exceptions to this. Those scientist you appeal to as claiming that viruses are "alive" are only claiming this within a host cell. So my definition properly and consistently with all other scientific observations and theories clarifies what a virus is in all of its forms. It has always amazed me how evos always appeal to viruses and prions which kill living tissues as being "evidence of evolving life forms" . They are actually the opposite. At least, that's the way the medical field treats them. And by the way- viruses are very much like rocks and they often are a part of rocks. And I will answer your other failing objections as I get around to it. Your elephant hurling takes some time to address.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Percy writes: The problem is that it fails at an *arbitrarily* chosen point in the middle, and that it is insufficiently general, as everyone keeps telling you over and over again. quote: Yours, and others claims of my definition as being arbitrary are false. Please Identify how my definition meets any part of the definition of being arbitrary. And what scientific principle requires "sufficient general-ness"? Scientific definitions are specific, except on some items within "biology" which seems to be acceptive of equivocation. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Percy writes: Where did the first life come from? Scientifically, no one knows. In my personal opinion, God created it. Again, this is philosophical, but God is living, but not biotic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Your definition of life continues to shoot itself in the foot.
... God is living, but not biotic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
I guess you cannot understand the difference between science and philosophical thoughts and opinions. Sorry for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Percy writes: Sorry, I thought it would have been clear from context, but evidently you found use of the term "draw the line" confusing. "Draw the line" is a common English expression meaning, in this context, "an indication of demarcation; boundary." Another way of saying it would have been, "Because anywhere you place the boundary between what is living and what is not is ultimately arbitrary." This is the same thing people have already been telling you. Ok, I understand now! from your previous example a dog is obviously "arbitrarily" alive, and a rock is obviously "arbitrarily" non-living. That makes perfect sense now. To me, you are just stumbling all over yourself trying to justify a contradictory thought process. The problem is your lack of understanding of "arbitrary". I know a lot of people keep telling me this, but that doesn't make it not contradictory. I don't know how many time I have to keep demonstrating this in yours, and everyone else's own words. I guess you all have been trained to think this way, but it is not logical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2904 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
Percy writes: With something as complex as life you're not going to find clear lines of demarcation. You can say this over and over again, but you haven't established this evidentially. In fact, your own words refute this by saying certain things are "obviously alive" and certain things are "obviously non-living". By doing that you have drawn an "obvious" line somewhere within your mind. You haven't said where that line exists, but it obviously is "obvious" to you. Please support with evidence your claim above. Cell theory has many clear demarcation lines for life. Why can't a definition have the same?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
AOK writes: By doing that you have drawn an "obvious" line somewhere within your mind. You haven't said where that line exists, but it obviously is "obvious" to you. A cow is alive a rock is not. Where has the line been drawn? A virus seems alive in some circumstances. We're undecided. We have a problem because we can't see a line. Tell me, is a seed alive?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Please Identify how my definition meets any part of the definition of being arbitrary. quote: Your definition is totally unnecessary and stems from your personal preference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Percy writes: Where did the first life come from? Scientifically, no one knows. Scientifically, if it was the first life then it could not have come from pre-existing life.
In my personal opinion, God created it. Again, this is philosophical, but God is living, but not biotic. Then it wasn't the first life, because God was already a life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Percy writes: With something as complex as life you're not going to find clear lines of demarcation. You can say this over and over again, but you haven't established this evidentially. A virus is not clearly living nor clearly non-living. It's in the grey area in between.
In fact, your own words refute this by saying certain things are "obviously alive" and certain things are "obviously non-living". By doing that you have drawn an "obvious" line somewhere within your mind. You haven't said where that line exists, but it obviously is "obvious" to you. Wrong. Just like the with the gradient I posted, you can clearly see that one edge is white and the other edge is black, but it is impossible to determine where white stops and black starts.
Why can't a definition have the same? Because life is fuzzy.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024