Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

quote:

---

Yes, there is a sharp line. One is alive and the other is not. Not a whole lot of gray area there.
  —Hyroglyphx

---

Not for one who sees all things in black and white.First life is a human construct. For millennia all we knew were rocks and birds. That dividing line is quite clear.With the advances in the last 200 years the line between life and non-life becomes quite blurred. And the abiogenic hypotheses belie your insistence that there must have been a stark line between those pre-proto cells considered non-life from those more complex cells we would recognize as life.Trying to define that finite point in time when the simple chemical processes that we would define as non-life suddenly became so complex that they took on the mantel of life is like trying to define the finite point in time between the early-bronze age and the middle-bronze age. Good luck with that.The complexity of the chemical processes that evolved were built over many millions of years. If some line was crossed somewhere along the way no one noticed. It was only when humans arrived that some arbitrary lines were drawn owing to our complete ignorance of reality. Whether we call it life or not means nothing. All is chemistry in action. The universe doesn't care how many lines we draw or where.Second, your insistence that abiogenesis equals spontaneous generation and that abiogenesis is only defined by pop culture vernacular (truncated common internet dictionaries) is not only ludicrous but speaks a great deal to your intellectual dishonesty.I suggest you use the accepted scientific definitions of scientific terms or stop participating in scientific forums.

This is why I try not to contribute too often. Limited time and opportunity to give timely responses. The distinction is arbitrary. It is made by humans to facilitate human communication. The distinction has no independent existence outside human thought. Because the distinction is arbitrary. We find difficulty defining life in detail because each arbitrary line we try to draw produces exceptions. In gross, however, we can clearly distinguish between rocks and birds. This leaves the false impression that there is, somewhere in the detail, a hard line between life and non-life when the evidence before us and the abiogenic hypotheses presented show us otherwise. This concept should not be this difficult for you to grasp. I meant to say precisely what I said. Life is an arbitrary human distinction made to facilitate our understanding in communication with other humans. There is no element nor particle, no force nor energy, that imparts life where in its absence there is none. Outside human thought processes and our need to draw distinctions there is only chemistry in action. You use know as if to imply absolute certainty. Again, this is a science forum. Absolute certainty only exits in religious texts and falsely at its best.But I stray...Using the gross concept of life you are want to use let me ask this in response:Where else could it have come from?In the detail, however, in the reality of this universe there is no difference. The question answers itself. No. The science has progressed from the realm of reasoned speculation to the level of supported hypothesis. An excellent twist of syntax.There are several rational, non-wild, non-speculative, explanations for how chemistry became so complex as to produce sentient objects that look to the stars and contemplate there own existence. These’s that word again. I will assume you ask for absolute certainty.In scientific pursuits no body knows anything, ever.The science of Abiogenesis has progressed from reasoned speculation to supported hypothesis. Much needs yet to be learned before a compelling theory can be expressed. We may never reach that level until we have other life systems to study.But, compared to all other competing explanations, unreasoned and absurd speculations all, our level of confidence in the science continues to grow. You prove my point and don’t even know it. Your insistence on using an incomplete common dictionary to foist an absurd position in the face of easily understood principles is dishonest. Your continued insistence on your absurd rendering even after having been repeatedly corrected is willfully dishonest. A public forum, yes; a public science forum. And the totalitarian dictates of proper scientific terminology are expected to be used. Deal with it. I rise to the challenge. I do speak for all of science!
Until the community here disagrees with me, then I don’t.I shouldn’t have to do your honest research for you.But since you asked...Here is a short sweet one. hereDo note the conjunctive or after the first phrase.Maybe you do better with pictures. Try this. hereor this hereSomething a bit more rounded perhaps. hereThis one is more robust. Gotta love Wiki, the modern Library of Alexandria for the internet age. hereAnd, since you seem bereft of the most basic knowledge on the topic I provide for you a simple primer. Not overly technical yet comprehensive of the basics. You’ll need Acrobat for this one. It’s a .pdf file here

TrraaAAPP!I even forwarned you to take the conjunctive into account but you just jumped right in!Now I do have a dilemma.In view of the other sources provided, all quite specific, could this be a continuation of your intellectual dishonesty exposed,or (that’s a conjunctive separating two complete and separate thoughts)is this a case of intellectual deficiency?