Life - an Unequivicol Definition

RAZD,I will reply to you next. I have a busy schedule today and this weekend, but I will try to get it in. I'm not ignoring you. You just present a lot of information in each post, and I have a lot of others also to respond to.

Percy,I asked you in post 185 to identify how my definition in any way is arbitrary. Can you please do that?

Thank you. We all make mistakes. I called the "guts" of the cell "tissue". Tissue is made up of cells and what is inside them. I could argue this till the cows come home, but technically I used a term incorrectly. So as of now, I have identified this error as well.

Quoting the definition does not absolve you from the rest of your comments/words. You have made many claims about what my definition "says" and "doesn't say". Remember, the definition is to identify life. The opposite of which is non-life, of which "dead" is a subset of non-life in that it has previously been alive. So let's look a viruses to see how mine and current definitions apply.First, let's recognize that the consensus in science regarding viruses is that they are non-living. I as the medical industry, have properly identified them as poisons to living things.Second we must realize that viruses today are properly identified as "live" and "dead".A "live" virus is one that can infect a living cell, disturbs it like a poison, uses the machinery within the living cell to replicate and eventually destroys the cell releasing the replicated viruses. (some do not destroy the cell, but "live" inside for years) It is important to note that the parent virus is now non-living and dead, and it is the offspring who are released from the cell. The offspring viruses outside the cell are considered "live" viruses in that they are capable of repeating this process of infecting another living cell.A "dead" virus is a "live" virus in which the DNA/RNA has been damaged to such an extant that when it "infects" the cell, the virus is incapable of replicating and reproducing and creating offspring. This damage usually happens with some type of EMR. So a "dead" virus has properly been identified as being "alive" previously within a living host. It was non-living outside the host, and it is "dead" when it has no chance at living ever again.The scientific community for the most part recognizes that viruses in a sterile world would be "dead" ends. Without a host, they would just be decaying organic matter. This is why I've never understood the logic of hope for "viral life" in a sterile OOL world.Now, just to clarify. A "live" virus is not necessarily living, but one which has been living in the past. It is not dead, but non-living, and may "die" in the future by giving birth to many more viruses, or it may "die" without offspring.The only reason evos look to viruses for hope is primarily with the semantics used to describe them. The proper way to understand them is by using proper language. The term virus is only properly understood in relation to its host cell:

quote:

---

A virus is a small infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of other organisms
Virus - Wikipedia

---

Using this definition, the virus is alive by my definition and most definitions within the host cell. But as I said earlier, the virus is only alive in the sense that it is within the self-contained entity of the cell.

quote:

---

While not inside an infected cell or in the process of infecting a cell, viruses exist in the form of independent particles. These viral particles, also known as virions,
Virus - Wikipedia

---

A Virion is non-living. My definition clearly identifies this, and it is a much better way of understanding viruses, and it fits with the medical industries knowledge of them. From a naturalistic worldview, of course. But there are other world views. Mine does force me to these dilemmas. I have other logical explanations.

quote:

---

Jean-Michel Claverie34 proposed that viruses are entities that are associated with an intracellular viral factory, and should not be confused with virions. interestingly, from this view, a virus is similar to an intracellular organism, which therefore further blurs the boundary between cellular organisms and viruses. The virus definition can also be modified by the distinction between a virus and a virion. A virus can be generated from synthetic oligonucleotides by wholegenome assembly to produce infectious virions35. Therefore, we believe that a virus can be entirely defined by its coding
capacity.

​

Redefining viruses lessons from Mimi Virus

---

They are arguing that a virion and a virus are different, and a virus is alive and virion not. I think I covered this above. Read the whole paper. I think it is quite interesting.

quote:

---

... viruses neither replicate nor evolve, they are evolved by cells. Even if some viruses encode their own polymerases, some of them error-prone, their expression and function require the cell machinery so that, in practice, viruses are evolved by cells no cells, no viral evolution. This applies to other selfish genetic elements and even to cellular genes. Analogously, human technology does not evolve by itself but is evolved by humans. Alexander and Bridges eloquently made this crucial distinction eighty years ago by declaring that viruses are produced but not self-reproduced15. Along with this line of thought, we can say that viruses are not living, but lived entities 16. In fact, as perfect molecular parasites, viruses depend completely on the metabolic machinery of cells, not only for their reproduction but also for their evolution. Thus, in the absence of cells, viruses are nothing but inanimate complex organic matter.
Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the Tree of Life

---

So clearly the countering and consensus opinion is that viruses are not alive. The are only considered alive, as I have said multiple times now, in the sense that they are part of the living host cell. Just as clarified in this paper, which is in context here countering the definition of "evolution" for life which you support. All viruses are in relation to their hosts. They all poison the host to some extent. I always knew evos were the real "flat earthers" Um, No. they don't live anywhere except in a host cell, and in the sense that the infected cell is alive, and they are a part of that. Funny how they are inside the earth. I wonder if they are "part" of the earth....logic 101 I don't have a problem with my definition. I have refuted all your concerns above. However you have a problem, because virions don't evolve, and in a sterile fabled RNA world there would be no evolution of Viruses. It's a dead end!Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

I fail to see your objection. Multi-cellular organisms are self contained entities. Oh, I just resurrected from my fatal flaw.. Maybe it is in your false understanding of "self-contained". Please elucidate me on how any species of animal or plant is not self contained.I implied no such thing regarding the mule. I implied you equivocated on the definition of populations in your definition of evolution by pointing to the cell populations within the mule as evolving. Not to mention it's gut bacteria!:0 HAHAHA Just a ludicrous try to rescue evolution definition.

Alive and well, most of them. Producing ATP also. How are they not alive? Scientists think they are alive, my definition clarifies why they are alive. Why do you think my definition fails here? Be specific!

Like Zen Deists?

And how is this a problem for my definition? Maybe for your definition which requires evolution, which requires reproduction, but my definition does not require reproduction at all.This is what I mean about your parodies of my definition. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

It certainly is nonsensical!. I am trying to funny, and serious at the same time. Humor often exposes truth, which is why people laugh at themselves. My only concern is why you need an explanation? I just combined your words and your argument.You said "a dog is obviously alive, and a rock is obviously non-living". This I agree!Then you say "anywhere you place the boundary between what is living and what is not is ultimately arbitrary." This I disagree, but you evidently do agree and argue.So my statement above is the logical re-arrangement of your argument which is, as you say, nonsensical. That is what I am elucidating to you and others that the boundary is not arbitrary nor arbitrarily chosen no matter how many times you say it.

Here is what I said, rather than your selective quote: I find it amazing that you can read this and not understand that I am agreeing with you. RAZD's argument that the mule is evolving is fallacious goobledeegunk! Can you not see that in my words/emoticons?

How so?Was it randomly chosen? Then it was arbitrary.Was it a personal whim? Then it was arbitrary.Was there a specific reason 55% was chosen? Then it is not arbitrary.Was it chosen through a systematic process by a committee or board, and is it relative to other numbers in the grading system? Then it is not arbitrary.The grading system in our schools/ colleges is by no means arbitrary.

Sure it is. You recognized it in my rewording of your statements that it was non-sensical. "where to place the boundary" was done by you. A dog was "obviously" alive by your "arbitrary" boundary which you do not identify. A rock is "obviously" non-living by the same "arbitrary" boundary that you did not identify.So one word is used incorrectly here. It is either "obviously" or "arbitrarily", but both together is nonsensical as you agree..

Either this is a strawman parody or you cannot read. My definition doesn't address "replication\reproduction\function" in any way shape or form. Please stop saying it does. Not according to your bizarre interpretation of what self-contained means. So, I will help you.A self-contained entity is an entity that has an outside boundary that contains the self. The container is part of the self, and all that is within is part of the self.So my gut bacteria are a part of me the living human being, and my gut bacteria are also independent living organisms that are also self-contained on their own. The food I eat is a part of me. The crap in my bowels is a part of me. Just like a cell "eats" food, higher organisms that are self contained do like wise. No equivocation needed. Things may enter in the container, but the moment they do (like viruses), they become a part of the self. The moment anything leaves the self,(crap, viruses, limbs) then they are no longer a part of the self.

OK. Let me get this straight.A multi-cellular organism is made up of many cells which are alive by my definition and you agree. And a multicellular organism is defined as contiguous system of cells. So is the system self contained? Yes, the system has living cells that make up it's boundary. All the other cells are within the systems boundary. So within that boundary is the rest of my definition satisfied? Well you already agreed that the individual cells are alive by my definition, so it does satisfy. You have a strange logic that twists an turns to prove mine wrong, but you claim equivocation without showing which words equivocate. So.....that still doesn't nullify the definition. I don't claim this or pretend this. Maybe your strawman friend does! So your strawman friend has consequences. Let's put him in timeout. Or should we spank him? Torture? By the way, is he alive?I do not claim any of your words above. What I do claim is that the contiguous system of cells within the multicellular organism, creates a boundary of that entity which contains the remainder of that entity, and therefore a mutlti-cellular organism is self-contained entity. Those are my words! Oh goody! Please award my consequence to Mr. strawman by putting him in the corner. I wouldn't go so far as torture yet, but I will be consulting with George W. Maybe if you award him the fish, he will stay away! You haven't demonstrated this, while I have demonstrated the opposite. I have highlighted my words in gold for you. Just as with all your challenges you focus in on a few words without considering all the words. You have focused on the words"self-contained" and ignored the word "entity".Entity is defined as:

quote:

---

a thing with distinct and independent existence. (Google)

---

Any organism (single celled or multicellular) is a thing with "distinct and independent existence". For instance, the mule. Everyone understand that a mule has distinct and independent existence. Likewise, when everyone looks at your picture of twisty-tied-baggie-holding-a-goldfish thingy , they immediately recognize at least four distinct and independently existing thingies. So the words ALL HAVE MEANING and ALL OF THEM must be considered in the context of the definition. You have gone from one segment of words, over and over again, to try and show equivocation. Those strawmen are just that.Here are some other examples for you. A car is a composite of many parts. Each part may be identified as an entity. But a car is also an entity because it has a distinct and independent existence. However "a person in a car thingy" does not have a distinct independent existence. An ocean is an entity. And an ocean has many living things within. So it meets much of my definition, but an ocean is not self-contained. So ALL THE WORDS in the definition have meaning. You just can't cherry pick some of the words and claim "equivocate"!!! This is a prime example of you cherry picking parts of the definition while excluding other. I have already said a mitochondria does meet my definition. However, they only meet the definition when living inside the cell. No mitochondria "lives"outside the cell. Also I noted that that was part of endosymbiotic theory. I am fine with that possibility and that's why my definition is a minimal definition, because in OOL something simpler that the cell would have had to spontaneously generate prior to "modern" cells.Chloroplasts however only meet part of the definition. You excluded the part about the synthesis of the enzymes used in making the ATP. This does not happen within a chloroplast. So you have a real difficult time fairly representing the definition as stated without excluding words from it and therefore strawmanning the definition.I Enjoyed!