Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 10:58 AM
37 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, edge, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (9 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,933 Year: 11,969/19,786 Month: 1,750/2,641 Week: 259/708 Day: 34/52 Hour: 15/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
25Next
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1070 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 241 of 374 (773735)
12-08-2015 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by NoNukes
12-08-2015 10:43 AM


NoNukes writes:

So you cannot understand that the cells within the mule are evolving

So for you it is enough to say that the cells are evolving in order to say that something is alive?

Or more to the point, do you understand such an evolution to be what RAZD and I were discussing? If so, then you missed the entire point of the discussion.

Here is what I said, rather than your selective quote:

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.

AoKid writes:

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!

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2015 10:43 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by NoNukes, posted 12-08-2015 2:52 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1070 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 242 of 374 (773746)
12-08-2015 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by ringo
12-08-2015 11:20 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
ringo writes:

Zero is not arbitrary and 100% is not arbitrary. Picking 55% as a passing grade is arbitrary.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by ringo, posted 12-08-2015 11:20 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by NoNukes, posted 12-09-2015 3:05 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 253 by ringo, posted 12-09-2015 10:41 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 374 (773751)
12-08-2015 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by AlphaOmegakid
12-08-2015 11:26 AM


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?

It is very likely that I missed your point. I have been operating on very little sleep the last few weeks because I am supplementing my income by helping students complete those last minute programming projects that were assigned weeks ago but are finally due today.

I completely missed any sarcasm that was in your message. My bad.


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 241 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 11:26 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18589
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 244 of 374 (773753)
12-08-2015 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by AlphaOmegakid
12-08-2015 11:05 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphaOmegaKid writes:

So my statement above is the logical re-arrangement of your argument...

No, it isn't. The "where to place the boundary" issue has been explained by many people many times, and given that the problem is likely with logic or English or both it seems unlikely that yet another explanation would be a help to you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 11:05 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 4:24 PM Percy has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19978
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 245 of 374 (773754)
12-08-2015 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by AlphaOmegakid
12-07-2015 3:17 PM


the goldfish in the baggie problem.
I fail to see your objection. Multi-cellular organisms are self contained entities. Oh, I just resurrected from my fatal flaw. ...

Except that you didn't: the multicelluar organism does not as a single self contained entity "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" -- rather that is done inside the cells of the multicellular entity, so the cells are alive but not the composite entity.

Further, a major part of the digestion of foods and the breakdown to ATP is done by gut bacteria, not the composite entity.

Now if you are going to pretend that the composite entity forms a self contained envelope around the cells, and that this enclosure within a larger self contained envelope means it is alive without itself doing any of the ATP/DNA/RNA molecular chemistry, then you are equivocating on what you mean by said envelope ... with consequences:

Congratulations, the bag is now alive by your equivocated definition.

Your definition only applies to processes within individual cells, the biochemical processes inside cells. It does not apply to any composite of cells ... without seriously fatal consequences.

Your failure to understand does not rescue you.

Please elucidate me on how any species of animal or plant is not self contained.

The point here is that you are now equivocating between one level of life with application of all parts of your definition, and another level of life with application of only one part of your definition.

Tell me how the mule processes ATP and does DNA and RNA biochemical reactions, without saying it is the cells, and without making the twisty-tied-baggie-holding-a-goldfish alive in the same way.

Furthermore I can take the goldfish in the baggie into a home and now both of us are in another self-contained envelope ... does that make the house alive?

Going the other direction, your definition makes mitochondria and chloroplasts living entities, like the goldfish inside the baggie, because the cellular processes you use in your definition occur inside those self-contained envelopes as well.

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 233 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-07-2015 3:17 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 1:05 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19978
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 246 of 374 (773755)
12-08-2015 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by AlphaOmegakid
12-08-2015 10:08 AM


fanatics
RA...Zen...Deist writes:

* - anyone who lets religious beliefs impact their thinking.

Like Zen Deists?

Of course. My religious belief is that knowing as much as possible about the real world via science unhindered by preconceptions is the best way to understand all creation.

Because it is all you really have that is unequivocally objective.

Problem?


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 235 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 10:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19978
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 247 of 374 (773760)
12-08-2015 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by AlphaOmegakid
12-07-2015 3:25 PM


Re: "dead" tardigrades, seeds, spores and more
Alive and well, most of them. Producing ATP also. ...

Except when they aren't such as during 10 years of desertification without food or water when they dry up into little dust particles and suspend living functions ...

Some dust particled tardigrades were subject to space vacuum for 10 days, and still returned to living function when put in a favorable environment. Were they dead in space?

... , my definition clarifies why they are alive. ...

Your definition clarifies when you should consider them alive and when you should consider them not-alive (but not never lived) ie dead.

... Why do you think my definition fails here? Be specific!

Because you again have living - dead - living ... not just for virions but multicellular entities ...

And the same applies for seeds and spores ...

And fish and frogs that freeze solid and then thaw and return to life ...

All of these interludes in the life cycles are exactly the same as you describe for viri when it is between cells.

So either you equivocate on these life forms or you equivocate on viri. Or you accept a gray area of not quite living and not quite dead. Like virtually all biologists do.

Your call.

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 234 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-07-2015 3:25 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1070 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 248 of 374 (773765)
12-08-2015 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Percy
12-08-2015 2:58 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
percy writes:

No, it isn't. The "where to place the boundary" issue has been explained by many people many times, and given that the problem is likely with logic or English or both it seems unlikely that yet another explanation would be a help to you.

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..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Percy, posted 12-08-2015 2:58 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2015 5:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded
 Message 268 by Percy, posted 12-10-2015 11:44 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19978
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 249 of 374 (773767)
12-08-2015 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by AlphaOmegakid
12-08-2015 10:21 AM


Re: Problems caused by definition
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.

DNA and RNA replication\reproduction\function is the part of your definition that makes you say viri are living inside a cell, but dead outside a cell.

My point is that these examples show entities that are not strictly speaking self-contained, but rely on other entities to engage in the continuation of the processes of life. They need a favorable environment to live.

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 236 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 10:21 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 6:05 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19978
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 250 of 374 (773772)
12-08-2015 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by AlphaOmegakid
12-08-2015 4:24 PM


Re: Black White and Grey Schrodinger's Cat
... 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.

Let's try it this way: biologists and all known useful definitions of life generally agree that a breathing, running barking dog is alive, while a rock is not, alive and never was alive. Such virtual unanimity is not arbitrary -- it is the same as your committee or board:

Message 242: 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 answer here is rather obviously yes, so your argument makes it not arbitrary delineation for the dog and the rock.

Is a virus alive?

Some biologists and some useful definitions say yes.
Some biologists and some useful definitions say no.
Some biologists and some useful definitions say it is indeterminate at this time.

What you say, or what your definition says, draws a line that is either yes, no or indeterminate ...

Or in your case both alive and dead: the quantum life of Schrodinger's cat in the blurry muddy gray limbo of reality that depends on whether you measure location in the environment or the speed of life.

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 248 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 4:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1070 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 251 of 374 (773775)
12-08-2015 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by RAZD
12-08-2015 4:24 PM


Re: Problems caused by definition
RAZD writes:

DNA and RNA replication\reproduction\function is the part of your definition that makes you say viri are living inside a cell, but dead outside a cell.

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.

My point is that these examples show entities that are not strictly speaking self-contained,

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2015 4:24 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2015 12:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 374 (773782)
12-09-2015 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by AlphaOmegakid
12-08-2015 1:27 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
The grading system in our schools/ colleges is by no means arbitrary.

Is Polonium a metal or a non metallic element. Is there any reason to decide that question based on what you know? Is there really any justification for drawing the line on one side or the other of astatine. Because if not, then any line we draw just for the sake of being firm can be considered arbitrary.

Forcing a line into a grey area where the sole reason for doing so is to classify everything on one side or the other means your definition is arbitrary. There is no logical reason for not moving the line left or right.

Edited by NoNukes, : Example changed from Astatine to Polonium


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 242 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 1:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16817
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 253 of 374 (773795)
12-09-2015 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by AlphaOmegakid
12-08-2015 1:27 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphaOmegakid writes:

Was it randomly chosen? Then it was arbitrary.


Zero and 100% are not arbitrary. They are the ends of the scale, like black and white.

AlphaOmegakid writes:

Was there a specific reason 55% was chosen?


Arbitrary doesn't mean there's no reason. Some will chose 50% as a passing grade, some will chose 60%, some will chose 70%. All have their reasons for making their choice. It's an arbitrary point because there is no single reason for choosing one or another.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 1:27 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19978
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 254 of 374 (773804)
12-09-2015 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by AlphaOmegakid
12-08-2015 6:05 PM


Re: Problems caused by definition
My definition doesn't address "replication\reproduction\function" in any way shape or form. Please stop saying it does.

Ah, so the RNA and DNA do not need to do anything but exist in your definition. Just trying to clarify things here.

So the RNA and DNA are like the RNA and DNA in viri that don't do need to do anything but exist while it is outside the cell ... got it.

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.

Indeed, the baggie is part of the self, it is the outside boundary that contains the self and the baggie contains all that is within the baggie.

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. ...

Just like the goldfish in the baggie and the mitochondria and the chloroplasts in the cells ....

... The container is part of the self, and all that is within is part of the self.

So, just what is this "self" of which you speak ... ? If it necessarily involves this being a living entity then you are begging the question of what a living entity is, because that is what your definition is supposed to tell us.

Also, that is not part of your original definition, so you are equivocating and changing your definition:

Message 1: 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.

Curiously I see no mention of self, nor that there is an outer boundary that is part of this "self" -- fail.

The bag is a self contained outside boundary that contains the fish, water and baggie that make up this entity ... so it is a living entity by your definition.

The Mitochondria has a containing outside boundary composed of parts of the Mitochondria and containing the insides of the mitochondria ... so it is a living entity by your definition.

The Chloroplast has a containing outside boundary composed of parts of the chloroplast and containing the insides of the chloroplast ... so it is a living entity by your definition.

So my gut bacteria are a part of me the living human being, ...

Not by any normal definition of living human being that I m aware of. They do not have your DNA or RNA and so would fail a genetic test.

This is your mule again ...

... The food I eat is a part of me. The crap in my bowels is a part of me. ...

Again this is not true by normal understanding. The food needs to be digested by the gut bacteria and then passed into your body before it becomes part of you. Likewise we don't bury crap with a tombstone because a part of you has died and was discarded.

... Just like a cell "eats" food, higher organisms that are self contained do like wise. ...

Except that ATP is not used nor synthesized in your gut nor there any "a genetic process requiring the transfer of information from DNA to RNA" occurring in your gut. That only happens once the digested food is passed on, into cells where such activities do occur.

Your cells are alive by your definition, you are not, you are a mule as far as your definition goes ... for ALL multicellular organisms.

... 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.

The fish enters the baggie and becomes part of the self ...

Particles enter the mitochondria and become part of the self ...

Particles enter the chloroplasts and become part of the self ...

... No equivocation needed ...

You keep saying this word, but I don't think you know what it means ...

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 251 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 6:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1070 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 255 of 374 (773809)
12-09-2015 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by RAZD
12-08-2015 3:39 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
RAZD writes:

Except that you didn't: the multicelluar organism does not as a single self contained entity "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" -- rather that is done inside the cells of the multicellular entity, so the cells are alive but not the composite entity.

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.

Further, a major part of the digestion of foods and the breakdown to ATP is done by gut bacteria, not the composite entity.

So.....that still doesn't nullify the definition.

Now if you are going to pretend that the composite entity forms a self contained envelope around the cells.

I don't claim this or pretend this. Maybe your strawman friend does!

and that this enclosure within a larger self contained envelope means it is alive without itself doing any of the ATP/DNA/RNA molecular chemistry, then you are equivocating on what you mean by said envelope ... with consequences:

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!

Congratulations, the bag is now alive by your equivocated definition.

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!

Your definition only applies to processes within individual cells, the biochemical processes inside cells. It does not apply to any composite of cells ...
You haven't demonstrated this, while I have demonstrated the opposite. I have highlighted my words in gold for you.

Tell me how the mule processes ATP and does DNA and RNA biochemical reactions, without saying it is the cells, and without making the twisty-tied-baggie-holding-a-goldfish alive in the same way.

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"!!!

Going the other direction, your definition makes mitochondria and chloroplasts living entities

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!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2015 3:39 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2015 4:59 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 258 by herebedragons, posted 12-09-2015 5:13 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
1819
...
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019