Modularity, A distinguishing property of life

Hi Hyroglyphx, it seems were back to the issue of what life is. Curiously I don't see it as a definition but a set of criteria that a definition needs to meet, and which demonstrate that none can be conclusive. And that interpretation room means the resulting definition must necessarily be distinctly gray. Most of mutations are replication errors. When more parts are replicated you have more probability of errors, but the basic mechanism is still the same.Mules and other sterile hybrids contain genomes of many genes, yet they are not able to reproduce - are they alive? Then you need to define what a "cell" is in a way that does not require it being a part of life - you are falling for the same mistake you did with growth not grows. Because what you are saying is that the difference between life and non-life is that life grows the way life grows and non-life grows the way non-life grows: you distinguish between the two groups based on your conclusion.When I lose weight (one of these days ...) does that mean I'm dead?It's perfectly fine to have growth be one of the many aspects of life, but with that is the realization that (a) some non-living systems exhibit growth in a many very similar to the process in life, and (2) not all living things exhibit growth, and you cannot define it in a way that excludes the former and includes the latter. Decay is due to the consumption of organic molecules by organisms, the same kind of consumption that involves non-organic molecules, and it is NOT a property of dead organic matter. This is why we have mummies in peat bogs, in desserts and in ice and amber. Do you know what a spore is? Spores have been found in amber that are millions of years old, yet can revitalize into an organism.Is it dead?Do you know how Monterey Pine's reproduce?

quote:

---

In others, the fire climax pines (e.g. Monterey Pine, Pond Pine), the seeds are stored in closed ("serotinous") cones for many years until a forest fire kills the parent tree; the cones are also opened by the heat and the stored seeds are then released in huge numbers to re-populate the burnt ground.

---

So is the fire a part of the life cycle? Some say viruses are not life because they depend on something outside themselves to reproduce - how is this different from the pines needing fire? Are you saying we can arbitrarily eliminate because of our organic bias? Can you eliminate Vonny and not eliminate some other known life forms? Can you eliminate viruses and not spores? So how many aspects do we have now? Does everyone need to be present? Or are there some that are optional, but where one or more of the optional aspects are also typical of life?Still looks grey to me.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : ?Edited by RAZD, : diet

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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) • • •

Missed this reply earlier. Maybe I'm wrong about the decay of rocks being a good argument, but I didn't get it at first, and someone else thought you meant radioactive decay, plus you're not actually drawing equivalence but only an analogy between chemical decay and biological decay. Hyroglyphx was speaking in a biological context. I suppose you could argue that there's a sense in which the term "decay" can be applied to rocks, but it still isn't biological decay.I don't know if anyone has said this already, but one argument I expected to see is that animals don't begin to decay until they no longer possess the quality of life, or something along those lines. It is formerly living organic matter that is now dead that is most subject to decay, not life.But here's the problem. Hyroglyphx is one of those guys who is simultaneously wrong about so many things that it is very difficult staying on topic. But the point he keeps coming back to is how we know that abiogenesis happened, and I was hoping to maintain focus on that. But I'm not moderating in this thread, just suggesting, and we're already way, way off topic, so if you feel like you're right about rocks don't let me stop you.--Percy

Of course it is not "biological" decay. Because rocks aren't alive. But they are not not alive because they don't decay. If life was defined by only the fact of decay then rocks would be alive.If you say it is only an analogy then you are assuming that rocks can't biologically decay because they aren't alive. That is circular. The issue is exactly one of separating the biological from the non-biological. The point is you can't use "decay" to do that.Only when you have some independent definition of what makes something biological can you say that rocks don't biologically decay.

Gee, thanks Percy... That was sweet of you to sugarcoat it. Now if you don't mind, I'm just gonna stick this shotgun barrel in my mouth and paint the walls.I guess that's my cue. Not much point continuing on while being wrong about so many, many things.You win.There's no such thing as life, abiogenesis is an indisputable fact, rocks decay all the friggin' time (duh!), any time you want somebody else to be wrong just reply to every point they make as being arbitrary, every time you want to be right just claim the other guy is an idiot and so on and so forth.Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Of course, I agree with you that his opinion on the subject is irrelevant today. But the point I was making is this: believing in a non-materialistic explanation to the origin of life never stopped him from doing science, and neither should it stop anyone ... I do not have a greatly amazing understanding of the science of abiogenesis as of 2009. But if it is still that amino-acids or nucleotides or both, that are in a primordial soup that connect together pretty randomnly and that, given enough time, the right combinations will come up. If it is still that, then it is a special case, even in science.Personnally, I would think that there would have to be something inside the 'priomrdial soup' that would make all this a non-ramdomn process. Does such a mechanism exist ? And if it does, and was discovered, can it create life (Ok, I'll give a precision here. I consider life in a primordial soup as the first 'thing' that could pass down its characteristics, and would be the very first 'thing' that natural selection could act upon. That, in my opinion, would be the line where I would consider it 'life') in a replicate of a primordial soup ?Finally, I have to say that my knowledge in abiogenesis is not at all very deep, as I only got my CEGEP biology class.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

No one has made this claim. You're still equivocating after a dozen explanations. Where do you think dirt comes from? No one has done this.No one has done this.Instead of incessantly repeating simplistic positions you could investigate, rather then ignore, what everyone has been telling you.What have you claimed?Life is black and white; and abiogenesis is unproven.What answers have you received?Life is fuzzy about the edges. Do you even know what the edges are? I asked in Message 63 if a virus or piron was alive. I'm still waiting for an answer.And that life must have at some point developed from non-life as evidenced from there having once been no life in the Universe and the now there being life in the Universe. If life did not come from non-life what is another option? Even God made man from decayed rock I mean, dirt I mean, dust.Almost any non-magical, just-so story about how life came into existence would be better then the god theory. There would be evidence for the existence for the parts of a naturalistic event. We know atoms and their interactions actually exist. No god has that much going for him. But still, No one has made a claim as to how it did happen except for tentative generalities. What certain explanation for abiogenesis are you riling against?You've a screwed up understanding what science is. You insist scientists makes claim to inviolable truth out of fear of the unknown when in fact they revel in it. You clearly do not. At every turn you demand absolutes. You enter a debate asking two concessions. The first being our application of your equivocation of abiogenesis with the study of abiogenesis. The second being the premise from which you construct your erroneous conclusion. What, exactly, is it that you would have Percy sugar coat? Your propensity for filling holes in you understanding of natural history with whatever sounds good at first blush? many of the piece of the puzzle you are trying to put together are out of a different box then the rest. That little red diamond that you are trying to fit into the Kreb's cycle is SpongeBob SquarePants' neck tie. You're getting simplistic, wrong answers that, though easy to understand, don't match reality. Matching reality is the end all and be all of science.Edited by lyx2no, : "mad mane"?Edited by lyx2no, : Change titleEdited by lyx2no, : Typos.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

I guess steering off-topic is inherent to a scientific forum such as this but honestly I think my making the parallel between chemical decay at the molecular level between "life" and "non-life" was very pertinent as Hyroglyphx was using "decay" as a property that only existed in living organisms and would distinguish it unequivocally
from "non-life".I still stand by my statement that decay at the molecular level is very similar in both types of objects i.e. oxidation of molecular components (this occurs both in "living" and "non-living" things though at different rates), leaching of water (ditto), breaking down of matter into small bits (ditto), radioactive decay (living organisms have radioactive material as well but sometimes in smaller quantities). Decay occurs in both just at different speeds and in slightly different manners. Yes, at a higher macroscopic level the method by which the above molecular decay occurs may be different (i.e. microbial and enzymic decomposition, etc) but at the molecular and atomic level the end result is nearly the same. Hopefully this makes sense.This is a distinction that Hyroglyphx brought up and I thought it should be one that was not ignored. However, I will cease and desist now and quit belaboring my point so as not to draw attention away from the rest of the abiogenesis thread. Sorry about the inconvenience .BTW Hyroglyphx we are not personally attacking you. This is how real science is conducted through analysis of evidence, debating through peer review (yes, I know not all of us are paid, practicing scientists but I still find the information I learn on this board very educational and valuable), drawing inferences, etc for the end result of rationally determing valid and logically sound explanations for natural phenomena.If you think this is a personal attack than you may want to analyze what it is you are actually saying and see if possibly, possibly you could be incorrect and uneducated on some of the things you say on here and seek to become more educated on some of these topics. I will be the first to admit when I am wrong and have done so many times on this board as I am sure Percy, Cavediver and others can attest to.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Hi Hyroglyphx,Sorry you didn't like the editorial comment, but let's examine it. Here's what I said: Here's one of the things you said in your reply: This was the beginning of your paragraph summarizing what you feel are our ridiculous claims, so let's examine its accuracy. Has anyone here suggested that there's no such thing as life? I don't think so.You next say: Only Mr Jack has said this, and I challenged it and put the whole "fact versus tentativity" thing in context.Now of course that entire paragraph was written out of frustration, but other examples of errors from you abound in this thread. In your very first post you said this: Your claim that experimental replication was required taught us that you don't understand the nature of scientific investigation, and your claim that proof was necessary taught us that you don't understand the nature of science. You continued making the "proof" mistake throughout the thread.Later you said: This revealed that you don't understand what Pasteur actually demonstrated with his experiments, and so also not the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation.Here's another: You're a veritable font of misinformation.Beyond your lack of understanding of science was the constant pokes you took at others, like these: You also made unwarranted assumptions about the other people here, as here: While we're all of course different individuals, by and large the science people here are not anti-religious. They simply believe that religions can't make scientific claims and not expect those claims to be subjected to scientific scrutiny. Critiquing ideas like the vapor canopy theory or the accelerated radioactive decay theory is not anti-religious, it is pro-science. Besides, since more scientists than not are a member of some religion, for your claim to have any substance would require that many religious people be anti-religious.Then there's this: And this: And this: So don't give us this holier-than-thou crap about how you've been unfairly picked on. You've been dishing out false criticism and sarcasm all through this thread. Develop a backbone and get back in here and start actually discussing things.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Hi slevesque, you're caught in a logical fallacy here It doesn't. There is a high proportion of scientists that believe in god/s. They, like Newton, did not let their belief interfere with the scientific analysis of information. No, it's not still that. The field has blossomed with the addition of xenobiology - the study of life on other planets, and how to identify it - and the study of self-replicating molecules - see Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II). There is a mechanism that makes it non-random: molecules only bond in certain ways, so two molecules don't bond in any random pattern. Then you're in luck - see the Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) thread.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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) • • •

In case you didn't know I was being humorous and half-teasing. I say only half-teasing because on some level it was offensive. Several people have reduced me to a moron when I know that I haven't said anything so scientifically incorrect to warrant character-assassination. People are seriously apt to split hairs on this forum. But if that's how you honestly feel, I can't stop you from believing whatever you want about me. I don't need your validation and you are entitled to your opinions. It makes for a free society. My sarcasm is intended to be amusing and fun. I like to have fun. Of course there is a very real and serious message in it. Maybe it is presumptuous of me, and holier-than-though, but I see myself as being more objective about this than most on this particular subject. To me, though, that seems like the logical position in the face of such scarcity.I take no sides until a sufficient answer is given. Often when people examine science it comes with ideological filters which gives them the answer they're looking for. All other possibilities are ruled out beforehand. I'm not a fan of that.You've been very candid thus far and have also, as best I can tell, tried to be as fair as possible. You have in some places defended me and in others placed me over your knee and gave me a spankin'. I suppose I should thank you for that. So thanks!I just don't see the point though. You know we're just gonna go around in circles some more. I think you can see some people are being ridiculous, desperately trying to defend molehills as if they're mountains. The whole life/non-life thing is well beyond the realm of the absurd.Whatever his name was about rocks decaying. He knew I was referring to biological decay, but instead decides to introduce semantics by using radiological decay. He knows I'm not talking about isotopes, but he continues being disingenuous anyway. Everything I say, someone reduces it to an argument about semantics. No one wants to really discuss the meat and potato's of it, presumably because they can't!Because if they keep the topic on what constitutes life, they're free to distract from the obvious inadequacy of their own position, which is that abiogenesis doesn't have a lot going for it in the proof department.So please remind me again why this should continue?

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Whether you continue or not must be your own choice. I've been involved in the creation/evolution debate for over 25 years, and what keeps me going most is concern over the threat to science education. Along the way I have learned a great deal, and the opportunity to learn also plays a role. You flatter yourself. And denigrate others with criticism that applies as easily to yourself as anyone else. And cast yourself as the judge of what is reasonable.My advice is to skip all the editorializing and personal commentary and just focus on the topic. If your arguments are sound then the outcome will take care of itself.--Percy

Then let's examine this further. Do rocks decay? Well, in light of the qualifiers that were previously established, such as the difference between life and non-life, no they don't decay (as in putrefy).Parent isotopes radiologically decay in to daughter isotopes at different rates. I suppose some equivalence could be made as it relates to the immutable physical law that all matter eventually breaks down and is reconstituted elsewhere and likely in different form.As far as that relates to living and non-living, I don't see how that presents a problem in differentiating between living and non-living. Everyone seems to agree there is a difference between organic and inorganic matter, only that determining which is which on the microscopic level is difficult to determine.That seems to be the point... That it was on the nano level that life made its transition from non-life in the first place. Perhaps so. The problem is that we can't be sure of anything about it! What seems almost inevitable is that this conversation is bound for an infinite regression, that is to say, the further we break down the source of life and matter, the more it will eventually reach absolute zero. Then we're at the First Cause and quite frankly that doesn't help the situation either.Nonetheless, plead your case and I will follow your lead. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Hey, we didn't say that! There are certainly some things we define as being alive, and other things we don't. The important thing to take away from the thread is that where we draw that line is arbitrary; we can still draw the line if we understand that the only real change is how we consider it, not what it actually is.For instance, what is the difference between a pile of gravel and a gravel parking lot? Between the two extremes the difference is obvious and it wouldn't make much sense to treat them as equivalent would it? On the other hand, we do understand that as you start spreading the pile out there isn't any point where the gravel undergoes anything but a conceptual change into a parking lot. We cannot pick up a single piece of gravel and call it part of the pile or part of the lot; it simply is what it always was.

I was intentionally exaggerating for effect. One is paved and the other isn't.I'm not seeing how that is analogous to our current conversion, though.

---

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

A gravel parking lot is not paved. It is gravel.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts