Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
511 online now:
Astrophile, AZPaul3, dwise1, Percy (Admin), Phat (5 members, 506 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,886 Year: 998/6,534 Month: 998/682 Week: 51/182 Day: 25/26 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 116 of 374 (773165)
11-25-2015 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
11-25-2015 10:45 AM


Re: Mules again ...
RAZD writes:

Is the recent extinction of the quagga an evolutionary path? I don't see how you can say otherwise --

Agreed. I think this is the main point that NoNukes is disagreeing with, but I can't tell if it's because he disagrees with it or thinks you're saying something else.

What immediately follows seems like it might be an overgeneralization:

extinction of species is necessary to evolution just as individual death is necessary to evolution. Without death and extinction selection does not occur.

Sorry if I'm begin nitpicky, but it does seem like selection can occur without the death of individuals or extinction of species.

Concerning death and individuals of a population, what you said feels a little too confined if you're using the definition of selection where it means selecting who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. Death is only one form of selection.

Concerning extinction and species, what you said also feels a little too confined, since a species can cease to exist by evolving to a different species. The fossil record might cease to contain any record of a species, and paleontologists might conclude that it went extinct, but extinction means "the death of the last individual of the species" (Wikipedia), and the population might simply have evolved over time into something else.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2015 10:45 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2015 4:48 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 120 of 374 (773185)
11-26-2015 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by RAZD
11-25-2015 4:48 PM


Re: death and extinction -- a part of evolution
RAZD writes:

Agreed, but rather than selection death is also necessary for the succession of life, genetic drift and to remove less viable forms from the population to make room for new individuals; without death habitats would become overcrowded. Likewise the extinction of species is necessary to make room for the new species - an ecological view of evolution.

Sure, but that's orthogonal to my point, that death isn't necessary for selection. The way you expressed it was a statement that death *is* necessary for selection.

In which case you would be talking about anagenic or cladogenic speciation,...

Both those terms are new to me, so I had to look them up. I'm definitely not talking about cladogenic speciation. Anagenic speciation would be closer but because it posits "rapid evolution in the ancestral form without speciation taking place" I don't think it's what I was talking about. I had in mind evolution of a population (slow, fast, doesn't matter) that over time becomes significantly different than the original. Species are a continuum. There was no point in time where the ancestral species became a new species, but at some point it became so different that it must be labeled a new species. There was no extinction. There was no death of the last individual of a species.

AbE: Granted that once a species no longer exists we do call it extinct, but in the case I'm talking about there is no extinction event, no death of the last individual.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : AbE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2015 4:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2015 12:53 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 127 of 374 (773242)
11-27-2015 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by RAZD
11-26-2015 12:53 PM


Re: death and extinction -- a part of evolution
RAZD writes:

Well curiously, as regards mules in particular, I was not talking selection, I was talking death and drift as an evolutionary mechanism that stochastically removes genes. In the case of mules whole phenotypes are culled, whether their genes are beneficial or not.

This may be what you meant to say or wished you said, but it isn't what you actually wrote: "Extinction of species is necessary to evolution just as individual death is necessary to evolution. Without death and extinction selection does not occur." This seemed a little bit too restrictive to me, because selection can indeed occur without death or extinction, and that's all I was saying.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2015 12:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 11-30-2015 11:16 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


(2)
Message 140 of 374 (773380)
11-30-2015 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by AlphaOmegakid
11-30-2015 11:25 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphaOmegakid writes:

Well not to make a big deal about this, but it is done all the time. There is black paint, and there is white paint. Grey is a mixture of the two.

There exists only one shade of white. There exists only one shade of black. There are an infinite number of shades of gray. What you're doing is akin to picking one point in this image and calling everything to its left white, and everything to its right black, in effect ignoring all the different shades of gray:

The analogy is to the differing degrees of life. You're attempting to create a definition where everything is either living or dead with no shades of gray in between. Not likely possible with anything so complex.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-30-2015 11:25 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-30-2015 6:26 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 143 of 374 (773408)
12-01-2015 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by AlphaOmegakid
11-30-2015 6:26 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphaOmegakid writes:

This just isn't so.

What just isn't so? About shades of gray being analogous to degrees of life? About you just picking one point and hoping everything is unambiguously on one side or the other? And whatever it is yo're referring to, you can't just declare something not so without providing evidence and a rationale.

What you and others are wanting to do is say that life is a continuum from chemicals to life, and that is a faith based premise that I do not accept.

That's it? Just blindly declare it a faith-based premise and be done with it?

It ignores the many things in life that are not chemical. ie organization, architecture or shape, electromagnetic radiation, and gravity. ( none of which are chemical)

Chemicals don't have "organization, architecture or shape"? Chemicals aren't subject to "electromagnetic radiation, and gravity"?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-30-2015 6:26 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2015 6:22 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 155 of 374 (773447)
12-02-2015 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid
12-01-2015 6:22 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphaOmegakid writes:

You said "You're attempting to create a definition where everything is either living or dead with no shades of gray in between."

That just isn't so. I clearly identified entities in the grey area. You are just unhappy, because I don't call them alive.

No, I'm saying there's a region between alive (white in the image analogy) and not alive (black) that is neither living nor non-living (a shade of gray).

You and RAZD want the grey area to be living.

Speaking just for myself, no, I don't want the gray area to be living. Giving the gray area a clear and unambiguous designation such as "living" would be the opposite of a gray area.

Then you must decide your definition of life and the differentiation between life and death.

No. I merely recognize that there's a gray area between living and non-living.

Percy writes:

That's it? Just blindly declare it a faith-based premise and be done with it?

No. I said a lot more than that which you ignored. Read it again.

Well, yes, you did say more in your very next sentence, and I quoted that next. You have responded:

Percy writes:

Chemicals don't have "organization, architecture or shape"?


You've got to be kidding, Right?

Don't you realize that every atom, molecule, and chemical combination has an architecture or shape associated with it?

My sentence wasn't a statement. Didn't you see the question mark? My question was rhetorical.

Now that you've made it obvious that you understand that chemicals have "organization, architecture and shape," I'll have to reinterpret your original statement from Message 141:

quote:
It ignores the many things in life that are not chemical. ie organization, architecture or shape, electromagnetic radiation, and gravity. ( none of which are chemical)

Are you saying that the view of life as a continuum ignores "organization, architecture or shape, electromagnetic radiation, and gravity"? Why do you think that?

Percy writes:

Chemicals aren't subject to "electromagnetic radiation, and gravity"?


So you don't think heat and light affect chemical reactions? Would you like to research this a little before I embarrass you? And gravity also?

I was asking another rhetorical question. When you quoted me you removed my question mark and replaced it with a period, and you left out the close-quote. I fixed it in my above quote region.

I may as well comment on one more thing from your Message 141:

quote:
And finally, any good definition of life must also identify it's opposite (or death).

This is just another bald declaration. We do have opposite ends of a continuum. A dog is obviously living. A block of lead is obviously non-living. Some things inhabit the region between living and non-living, like perhaps prions and viruses.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2015 6:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 9:57 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 159 of 374 (773452)
12-02-2015 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 7:59 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphaOmegakid writes:

The best term is abiotic! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiotic_component

So now we (you and I) have clarified the grey area. We have categories:

(1) White=Living==>by some unequivocal definition of life
(2) Grey=Abiotic=non-living
(3) Black= Dead

Within this model dead organisms are also abiotic material, but abiotic material that has never been alive is just abiotic material. I think this model works very well within Biology and especially well with my definition of life.

The Wikipedia definition lists some examples of abiotic components, making clear just what an abiotic component is:

quote:
In biology, abiotic factors can include water, light, radiation, temperature, humidity, atmosphere, and soil.

You're saying that, for example, water that was once but is no longer part of a living creature is "dead", but that water that has never been part of a living creature is "abiotic". I don't think that definition is going to work for anybody.

The problem I was having was everyone else in this forum was referring to the grey area as "life" (the "grey area of life"). This makes no sense, because every abiotic thing would be on the pathway to life which is obviously false.

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.

Now look at your last sentence, and consider a virus. If it is considered alive within the host cell. Then when the cell is destroyed and the virus is released again, then all life functions would be gone. It would be dead. Both abiotic and dead.

And then the virus enters another cell and is alive again? Really?

Look at the list of examples of abiotic components from Wikipedia again. Why do you think a virus outside a host cell belongs on that list?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 7:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 11:46 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 165 of 374 (773461)
12-02-2015 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 9:57 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphaOmegakid writes:

OK, then show me the semantics that clarify "alive" and "non-living" or the model of a grey area makes no legitimate scientific sense.

By "show me the semantics" are you asking for definitions of "living" and "non-living" of a specificity that we keep telling you doesn't exist? Dogs are living, a lead block is non-living. That's pretty unambiguous. The area between is ambiguous.

See post 152

See Message 155.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 9:57 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 3:05 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


(2)
Message 171 of 374 (773485)
12-02-2015 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 3:05 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphaOmegakid writes:

Percy, you need to think this through logically. You just refuted yourself in two sentences. You just said that we cannot specifically define "living" and "non-living". Then you said specifically that a dog is "alive" and Lead is "non-living".

*You* might need a definition to know that a dog is alive and lead is not, but no one else does.

The ambiguity lies in the middle, not at the endpoints, and in the middle is where your attempt at a definition of life fails, because anywhere you draw the line between what is living and what is not is ultimately arbitrary, and inevitably it will be uninformed by what we do not know.

Besides, what's really interesting about the study of life isn't whether it fits some definition, but rather the details of its inner workings.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 3:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-02-2015 4:27 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 176 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 5:39 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 182 of 374 (773510)
12-03-2015 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 5:39 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 5:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 10:46 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 190 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 12:45 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 183 of 374 (773511)
12-03-2015 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 5:43 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 5:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 184 of 374 (773514)
12-03-2015 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 11:46 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
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:
The problem I was having was everyone else in this forum was referring to the grey area as "life" (the "grey area of life"). This makes no sense, because every abiotic thing would be on the pathway to life which is obviously false.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 11:46 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 12:01 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 191 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 12:55 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 196 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 2:38 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 214 of 374 (773594)
12-04-2015 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by AlphaOmegakid
12-04-2015 8:43 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphaOmegakid writes:

I know full well what a gradient is, but it is not I who misunderstands them.

And yet to everyone here it appears you're not understanding them. Your arguments are beginning to boil down to, "I'm real smart and I know I'm right."

So please stop burying yourself deeper and deeper trying to argue that there is no edge when you yourself,and in your own words recognize that there is. You apparently are self deceived and the evidence is clear. I would take this to court any day of the week.

I think what you're saying is that there are obvious edges at the black and white extremes. That's very clear for the square gradient, and in the circular gradient there is a circle of points where it becomes all black and continues black all the way to the edges, with a central circle or point that is pure white. We all agree about this, but it is beside the point.

The key point that you're simply denying is that wherever you choose to draw the boundary between living and non-living (even at the extreme boundary that is white in the gradient analogy), it is arbitrary in the sense that you've invented your own reasons based on your own individual preferences and opinions for drawing it there. You could have looked at things differently, and that would have placed the boundary somewhere else. Other people *have* looked at things differently from you that have placed the boundary somewhere else. That's why wherever you personally happen to draw the boundary between life and death, it is arbitrary.

So please stop burying yourself deeper and deeper trying to argue that there is no edge when you yourself,and in your own words recognize that there is. You apparently are self deceived and the evidence is clear. I would take this to court any day of the week.

This is an incongruous thing to say for someone so sensitive himself to incivility.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-04-2015 8:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-04-2015 11:50 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


(1)
Message 222 of 374 (773624)
12-04-2015 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2015 2:38 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
You posted five replies ( Message 186, Message 190, Message 187, Message 191 and Message 196) to my two messages (Message 182 and Message 184). Wow! I'll condense my responses into a single message.

AlphaOmegakid in Message 186 writes:

quote:
Arbitrariness is the quality of being "determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle".[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrariness

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.

It's hard to believe you don't understand what people mean when they say your definition is arbitrary. Cat Sci provided the definition of arbitrary that covers how people are using the term in reference to your definition of life:

quote:
3a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary)

Moving on:

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.

What scientific principle requires more precision than is possible or practical? In weather, what is the boundary between high and low pressure? The answer is 30.0 inches of mercury. Do you know what the answer was in 1965? 29.96. Choosing that boundary was (to some degree) arbitrary and changeable. In our solar system, what is the boundary between a rocky planet and a jovian planet? It used to be simple, but then we discovered that Uranus and Neptune should really be classed as ice giants, and Jupiter and Saturn as gas giants. Where are the boundaries between rocky planets, ice giants and gas giants? Who knows. Scientists can argue about it all day. Pluto was once a planet and there were nine planets in the solar system. Now Pluto's a dwarf planet and there are only eight planets. The definitional precision you claim should be everywhere in science is largely a fiction, except perhaps for the simpler things, like black and white.

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's a very strange and nonsensical interpretation. Are you trying to be funny again? Is English not your native language? I'm not being uncivil. I'm honestly seeking an explanation for how what you just said makes any sense.

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.

Declaring things contradictory or illogical while providing no evidence or rationale is all you're doing.

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.

Of course we have.

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.

This represents a gross misunderstanding of what people have been saying. You seem to have it almost backwards. As Bob and Ray used to say in one of their jokes about baseball, "You've got that base so screwed up no one can play it."

Of course a dog is obviously living, and of course a lead block is obviously non-living, but we believe there is no clear line of demarcation between living and non-living. When you say that, "You haven't said where that line exists, but it obviously is 'obvious' to you," you're saying something that very much is not true. We're saying the opposite, that where that boundary exists is the last thing we'd assert we know because we consider it something not unambiguously knowable nor even useful.

Ok, I see where the confusion lies. The virus that enters the cell is not the same as the viruses that leave the cell. These are different entities. "offspring" so to speak. So, No, the same entity that infects the cell is basically destroyed and the new virions are released. It is not that a virus is moving back and forth between living and non-living.

It is most certainly the case that by your definition a virus moves back and forth between living and non-living and living again. First it is created in the cell, where by your definition it is living. Then it is released from the cell, where by your definition it is non-living. Then the virus infects a cell by reentering it, where by your definition it is living again.

The host cell has living tissue within it.

Living tissue inside a cell? I don't think so. You mean living material? Like what? When you're not considering the entire cell together, the mitochondria are all I can think of that fit your description of life.

A single cell of a dog could not live by itself outside the dog. Is that cell living by your definition?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarify a paragraph.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 2:38 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-04-2015 7:08 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 231 by NoNukes, posted 12-07-2015 12:32 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 239 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 11:05 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20506
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 8.3


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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022