Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
485 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 478 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,887 Year: 999/6,534 Month: 999/682 Week: 52/182 Day: 26/26 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 22 of 374 (772384)
11-13-2015 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by dwise1
11-13-2015 1:02 AM


dwise1 writes:

Working scientists create working definitions with which to work.

Yes, working definitions. In my field an example is the delta forming at Oranjemund. It's been forming for and changing for millions of years.

The depositional environment works for diamond exploration in that area, but won't work in the Mississipi Delta. The processes for diamond deposition are not favourable in that Mississipi area. No Kimberlites of the right ages around around!

Maybe that's the creationist problem? They don't realise that different conditions apply in different circumstances? To me it seems as if their problem is that they don't know anything about basic science though they pretend to do it? But, when they think that everything was poofed into existence in one shot they really are not even open to contemplate reality? Hence their insistence on one definition for everything?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 11-13-2015 1:02 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 35 of 374 (772565)
11-16-2015 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid
11-12-2015 10:32 AM


AlphaOmegaKid writes:

So, at a minimum, a cell must be self contained, must metabolize, and must be a "protein factory"

This then will exclude Tasmanian Tiger Cancer from being alive.

What those guys do is to be part of a Tassie Tigers as cells (they come from Tassie Tigers, they are self-contained, they metabolize and are a protein factory), then can't do most of those things when leaving; then they infect another Tassie tiger by air and they do it all again. Are they dead or in between?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2015 10:32 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 11-16-2015 12:10 PM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 45 of 374 (772712)
11-18-2015 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Tanypteryx
11-17-2015 8:43 PM


Exactly.

Tanypterix writes:

Back to your definition of life. As a biologist, I don't think it is good enough. What difference does it make to you if biologists use multiple definitions for life?

As a coal geologist, what difference does it make whether those blackish rocks obtained from the Waterberg Coalfield are defined as coal or not?

According to international classification, the Waterberg Coalfield is comprised of carbonaceous shale. Not coal. Yet, it burns. And is used in coal-fired power plants. And can also produce high quality coking coal. And metallurgical coal.

One definition for everything relating to coal doesn't describe everything...what applies to some rocks don't apply to others. Some are not even classified as coal...yet, they can and do perform the same functions when used in real life by people. One size does not fit all.

It's also not an equivocation either; it is trying to describe reality. Reality can't always be described in one definition.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-17-2015 8:43 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 71 of 374 (772884)
11-20-2015 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by AlphaOmegakid
11-19-2015 10:08 AM


AOk writes:

Yes, and you could have a God who created all kinds of living things 6000 years ago!

Actually, the Theespruit Formation of the Barberton Supergroup started forming 3547 ma years ago. And those rocks contain fossils of prokaryotes. No elephant fossils in there.

The tonalitic and trondjemitic gneisses of that area started forming around 3645 ma ago.

These are facts whether you like them or not. So, no, Spooks couldn't have poofed all 'kinds' into existence 6000 years ago. Evidence, AlphaOmegakid, I know that evidence doesn't mean much to you, but in science the evidence is very important.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 10:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-20-2015 8:18 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 72 of 374 (772889)
11-20-2015 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by AlphaOmegakid
11-19-2015 1:14 PM


AOk writes:

That's quite a philosophical statement.

Nope. We don't have to reinvent the wheel again every time we build a new donkey-driven wagon. Nothing philosophical about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 1:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 73 of 374 (772892)
11-20-2015 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by AlphaOmegakid
11-19-2015 10:08 AM


AOk writes:

Yes, Please don't forget Cell Theory which is much more important than evolution theory regarding OOL.

Really? I thought that the modern evolutionary theory deals with genetic variation and natural selection? Have you ever published anything about evolution in any peer-reviewed scientific journal dealing with the subject?

AOk writes:

Evos have argued for years that evo theory does not apply to OOL. So what ist it? You seem to think evolution does apply to OOL. Hmmmm?

I'm not really too sure why you brought this up. For me (not being a biologist) the theory of evolution deals with genetic variation and natural selection. Basically describing the mechanisms of how all the life-forms we experience today came along from unicellular life. That's the TOE.

Life (as we know it) evolved from prokaryotes to what we encounter today by means of genetic variation and natural selection. That's the theory of evolution in a nut shell for me.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-19-2015 10:08 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-20-2015 8:54 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 75 of 374 (772894)
11-20-2015 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by AlphaOmegakid
11-20-2015 8:18 AM


AOk writes:

Actually it is you making the bodacious claims as facts. So please support yours with evidence. I made no claims that I have to support. I know reading comprehension can be difficult. Maybe that's why you are so quick to believe that these are facts.

So, you doubt the Barberton Supergroup? Do you doubt the fossils found in those rocks? What exactly do you doubt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-20-2015 8:18 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 88 of 374 (773010)
11-22-2015 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by AlphaOmegakid
11-20-2015 8:54 AM


AOk writes:

So, according to your statements TOE doesn't apply to OOL.

Actually, the ToE for life, as we know it, only applies to life as we know it. Inhereted characteristics and natural selection might also have applied to complex organic molecules before the first cells formed, we don't know yet.

AOk writes:

Or better stated, TOE addresses first life to man, but not rocks to first life. But , if you have read this forum, you can see that RAZD wants the theory to apply to rocks to first life. So I am trying to pin him down.

I don't think a creationist would ever be able to pin RAZD down. Unlike creationists, RAZD knows a lot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-20-2015 8:54 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 89 of 374 (773014)
11-23-2015 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by AlphaOmegakid
11-21-2015 5:53 PM


AOk writes:

According to Evo theory life began (cellular Life) about 3.5B years ago.

Nope. Not at all. Struggling with the basics, aren't you? You've got it the other way round. Science works the opposite way you do.

According to the science of geology the empirical, verifiable evidence is quite clear. The oldest forms of what we call life life were unicellular. Prokaryotes. In WA those fossils are around 3.8 billion years old. In SA around 3.5 billion years old.

The theory of evolution is an explanation of what was discovered.

Seems like you're really, really struggling to know what the word 'evidence' means. Hey, AOk, in science the evidence comes first. The opposite of what you do.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-21-2015 5:53 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 96 of 374 (773058)
11-24-2015 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2015 5:02 PM


Re: Question to RAZD
AOk writes:

The sign of a good definition is how it relates to it's opposite

The sign of a good definition is how the definition can be utilised in reality.

From coal geology I deduct that a particular definition can work in some circumstances; in other circumstances another definition is more valid with similar effective outcomes.

Life is not black or white; life is black and white with lots of shades of grey in between.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2015 5:02 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 9:48 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 98 of 374 (773063)
11-24-2015 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by AlphaOmegakid
11-24-2015 8:26 AM


Re: the 6 levels of evolution
I didn't know that the theory of evolution had six levels.

From all the variations of Theory of Evolution I got from scientific sources it seems as if the theory of evolution deals with how modern life came about. Nothing to do with the formations of stars or the universe or the earth or anything like that.

The theory of evolution deals with biology.

Are you sure you've ever read anything scientific on the theory of evolution? I certainly can't anything scientific on the theory of evolution dealing with the Universe or six levels or anything like that. Anywhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 8:26 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-24-2015 9:56 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 118 of 374 (773180)
11-26-2015 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2015 4:06 PM


Duplicate post.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2015 4:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 119 of 374 (773181)
11-26-2015 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2015 4:06 PM


Ah, at last we got a creationist venturing into the definition of genetic information or how the term is used amongst biologists. Tip the hats!

AOk writes:

You do know what they say about opinions don't you? Contrary to yours, the definition of genetic information is quite well defined within a biological context. Here is a definition:

The genetic potential of an organism carried in the base sequence of its DNA (or, in some viruses, RNA) according to the genetic code.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/...ish/genetic-information
My definition describes, in part, the Central Dogma of Biology. The principles of which are taught in "every" high school Biology book around the world. If you read this wiki article you will find the word "information" is used 29 times. It seems the evidence that this is well understood in Biology is overwhelming.

This definition doesn't provide any information on how to measure genetic information though. Could you be more specific on how to measure the amount of genetic information, AOk? For example, how does this definition determine or measure whether a crocodile has "more genetic information" or "more genetic potential" or "less genetic information" or "less genetic potential" than an elephant?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2015 4:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 126 of 374 (773241)
11-27-2015 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Blue Jay
11-26-2015 7:33 PM


Re: death and extinction -- a part of evolution
Blue Jay writes:

Intuitively, any valid definition of life should probably include mules and exclude crystals, but you'll need to elaborate on your definition a bit before this is clear.

http://www.wired.com/2013/01/living-crystal/

wired writes:

THREE BILLION YEARS after inanimate chemistry first became animate life, a newly synthesized laboratory compound is behaving in uncannily lifelike ways.

The particles aren’t truly alive — but they’re not far off, either. Exposed to light and fed by chemicals, they form crystals that move, break apart and form again.

“There is a blurry frontier between active and alive,” said biophysicist Jérémie Palacci of New York University. “That is exactly the kind of question that such works raise.”

There's no real distinction between being alive or not. Even from crystals. It all is blurry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Blue Jay, posted 11-26-2015 7:33 PM Blue Jay has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Tangle, posted 11-27-2015 8:27 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2099
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 129 of 374 (773248)
11-27-2015 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Tangle
11-27-2015 8:27 AM


Re: death and extinction -- a part of evolution
Exactly Tangle, but we also can read the last paragraph in that article.

As for what’s happening now in Palacci and Chaikin’s lab, a particle currently under development isn’t mobile, but it has a metabolism and is self-replicating. “We’re working on it,” Chaikin said.
It's not a life form as we know it yet but it's getting to it. To define life really is blurry. We're working out the 0.00000001 percent we don't know!

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Tangle, posted 11-27-2015 8:27 AM Tangle has not yet 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