Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 227 of 374 (773642)
12-05-2015 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2015 10:38 AM


Re: self-replicating virus - again ...
In message 138 you said..
RAZD writes:
Indeed, especially as we see more and more viruses that are capable of replication without high-jacking cells, and as we look closer and closer into the possible development of life. Viruses are being more and more accepted as an intermediate stage from first life to modern cellular life.
Unfortunately, there are no parentheses here!
These claims are false. I gave you plenty of time to correct yourself, and it only appears that you want to dig your hole deeper. Viruses outside a host cell DO NOT replicate or metabolize. That's why I asked for evidence, which you haven't provided.
That would appear to be true, and I may have been a little careless. Now I have found an old citation from my research for Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) that seems to talk about this:
... but on re-reading, it is a little unclear (and I'm not paying for access for it).
So I will retract the statement. I have made corrections to previous posts - please check to see that I got all instances.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

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 185 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 10:38 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-07-2015 7:48 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 228 of 374 (773643)
12-05-2015 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by AlphaOmegakid
12-03-2015 10:38 AM


Definition problems.
... The definition is one that identifies "life" or "living organisms". So viruses or any other chemical arrangement must be evaluated against the definition and not your parody of it. ...
Yet, curiously, I quote your definition when I address it, so that would make it a parody of itself.
... The definition does not "ignore and pretend that viruses are non-life" (paraphrase) Instead the definition clarifies what a virus really is. A virus is a poison to living cells. When it is outside a host cell the definition identifies that it is not life. It cannot respire, make proteins, replicate, grow, adapt, or evolve. When it enters a living host, it actively starts disturbing the cell. My definition properly identifies the living organism as an infected host cell. That cell is alive. This is consistent with Cell Theory. The virus is only "alive" in the sense that it is part of a cell. Within that environment, the virus self-assembles duplicates and those populations evolve. But once the damaged cell explodes or the viral particles are released, the virus goes back to its chemical state, which is not living. ...
So a virus is alive then dead then alive again? That doesn't jibe with any common conceptions of what is alive and what is not alive -- resurrection is not a recognized trait of life in any definition I know of.
Please clarify.
... All Life comes from pre-existing life. There are no exceptions to this. ...
Except the first life. We know that circa 4 billion years ago there was not life on earth (there is no record of it) and that circa 3.5 billion years ago that was life (there is a record of it), ergo there was a first life.
Panspermia only move the time and place for a first life someplace else and some time older.
... Those scientist you appeal to as claiming that viruses are "alive" are only claiming this within a host cell. ...
Can you substantiate this? My reading is that scientists either believe it should be regarded as a form of life irrespective of location, or that it is not a form of life; I don't know of any that say it is sometimes alive and sometimes not alive.
... So my definition properly and consistently with all other scientific observations and theories clarifies what a virus is in all of its forms. ...
Except that it is not consistent with those who view them as alive, nor with those who view them as not alive, which would appear to be virtually all scientists.
It has always amazed me how evos always appeal to viruses and prions which kill living tissues as being "evidence of evolving life forms" . They are actually the opposite. At least, that's the way the medical field treats them.
That is a small subset of the viral population, just as lethal bacteria are a small subset of the bacteria population. There are thousands of types of viruses, inhabiting all corners of the earth (including inside).
And by the way- viruses are very much like rocks and they often are a part of rocks.
Um, no. They often live on and in rocks but they are not part of those rocks.
And I will answer your other failing objections as I get around to it. ...
Promises. See Message 142.
You still have a problem with whether or not viruses are alive or not alive, your definition does not explain viruses.
How do you get from living cells to multicellular life when your definition only applies inside the cells?
Tardigrades? Seeds? Spores?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 185 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 10:38 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-07-2015 3:03 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 229 of 374 (773655)
12-05-2015 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 7:59 AM


Problems caused by definition
... So when does a virus die? No one is questioning that it is "alive" in the host cell (actually it is the infected cell that is alive). But outside the host, is it alive or dead? ...
This problem is caused by your definition, which makes it alive inside a cell and dead outside. No other definition does this. That is just one of the problems associated with defining life at the cellular function level.
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
One could equally say:
(1) White = Living ==> by any\every definition of life (common consensus)
(2) Light Grey = living in some cases but not all (spores, seeds, tardigrades, transplant organs, ... viri), objects or organisms that need life support of some kind (fetus?).
(3) Grey=Abiotic\Prebiotic = not quite living and not quite dead
(4) dark grey = Dead (once living, but no more, decomposing)
(5) Black = never living ==> by any\every definition of life (eg rock)
That would be more of a spectrum.
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. The reality is that most abiotic things have no chance at life, many are dead, and some have some of the characteristics of living things.
Let me suggest a term that you, as a fanatic religious person*, should be aware of: limbo.
White = living by every known definition, universal consensus.
Black = never living by every known definition, universal consensus.
Grey = Limbo -- neither living nor never-living, with various degrees in between.
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. This makes a lot of sense using this model. So a virus would not be in the grey area at all. It would be black.
And yet when it enters a new cell it becomes alive again by your definition (and because you consider it alive inside a cell). So you have alive, then dead, then alive again. Not one other known definition of life allows resurrection as a quality of life, as far as I know. Do you know of any?
The same holds for tardigrades.
Now most (virtually all) biologists consider seeds, spores, desiccated tardigrades, and non-active bacteria and viri to be dormant -- in limbo between active and inactive, ... between life and death, ... neither alive nor never-alive. Grey.
Is there a functional difference between DNA from a cell and DNA from a virus when they are inside a cell?
Is there a functional difference between RNA from a cell and RNA from a virus when they are inside a cell?
Is there a functional difference between DNA not from a cell and DNA from a virus when they are outside a cell?
Is there a functional difference between RNA not from a cell and RNA from a virus when they are outside a cell?
If viral RNA/DNA needs a cell to reproduce and this means it is not alive outside the cell, then would not a flower\plant that needs a pollinator to reproduce mean that it is not alive without the pollinator? Don't both groups need some other life form to assist them in reproduction? What about seedless oranges?
Enjoy.
* - anyone who lets religious beliefs impact their thinking.
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : added at end
Edited by RAZD, : *
Edited by RAZD, : .

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 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 7:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 10:08 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 236 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 10:21 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 237 of 374 (773718)
12-08-2015 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by AlphaOmegakid
12-07-2015 3:03 PM


Continuing Definition problems for viri
First, let's recognize that the consensus in science regarding viruses is that they are non-living. ...
Some scientists say living some say non-living -- that is not a consensus, that is a disagreement.
... I as the medical industry, have properly identified them as poisons to living things.
What you personally call things is irrelevant to how other people talk about them. There are viri that are non-lethal to organisms, some even that are non-lethal to cells. You make the logical error of part for the whole.
Second we must realize that viruses today are properly identified as "live" and "dead".
So now the consensus is that there are "live" viri and "dead" viri ... fascinating.
Skipping over the equivocation of using two different definitions in an argument as if they were the same, the major difficulty for you is that if there are "dead" viri, then (again your argument re life and death) there must have been living viri, and that the consensus here is that there are "dead" viri ...
A "live" virus is one that can infect a living cell, ... uses the machinery within the living cell to replicate and eventually destroys the cell releasing the replicated viruses. (some do not destroy the cell, but "live" inside for years) ...
So you are saying the viri are alive inside the cell. They certainly are not "dead" nor inanimate never-living molecules (the other group of "not-alive").
... It is important to note that the parent virus is now non-living and dead, and it is the offspring who are released from the cell. ...
It is also important to note that giving birth to offspring with hereditary traits means they evolve over time.
... The offspring viruses outside the cell are considered "live" viruses in that they are capable of repeating this process of infecting another living cell.
So now you are saying the viri are alive outside the cell. They certainly are not "dead" nor inanimate never-living molecules (the other group of "not-alive"). Fascinating.
A "dead" virus is a "live" virus in which the DNA/RNA has been damaged to such an extant that when it "infects" the cell, the virus is incapable of replicating and reproducing and creating offspring. This damage usually happens with some type of EMR. So a "dead" virus has properly been identified as being "alive" previously within a living host. It was non-living outside the host, and it is "dead" when it has no chance at living ever again.
And now they are back to being "non-living outside the host" ... you really need to make up your mind here.
A "dead" virus is a "live" virus in which the DNA/RNA has been damaged to such an extant that when it "infects" the cell, the virus is incapable of replicating and reproducing and creating offspring. ...
There are also viri that are inactivated by the cell ... from your wiki link:
quote:
Viral infections in animals provoke an immune response that usually eliminates the infecting virus. ...
So viri are not always lethal to cells or organisms ...
quote:
... Immune responses can also be produced by vaccines, which confer an artificially acquired immunity to the specific viral infection. However, some viruses including those that cause AIDS and viral hepatitis evade these immune responses and result in chronic infections. Antibiotics have no effect on viruses, but several antiviral drugs have been developed.
Looks like competition - arms race - selection - life and death battles - - - evolution ...
The scientific community for the most part recognizes that viruses in a sterile world would be "dead" ends. ...
So would many bacteria and multicellular animals: irrelevant.
... This is why I've never understood the logic of hope for "viral life" in a sterile OOL world.
Also irrelevant to the issue of whether\when viri are alive by your definition and when they are dead. So far it seems you are arguing both sides of the coin and then (still) stating living when inside a cell and dead (not living) when outside a cell.
Again please clarify.
Now, just to clarify. A "live" virus is not necessarily living, but one which has been living in the past. It is not dead, but non-living, and may "die" in the future by giving birth to many more viruses, or it may "die" without offspring.
Clear as equivocal gray mud.
Using this definition, the virus is alive by my definition and most definitions within the host cell. But as I said earlier, the virus is only alive in the sense that it is within the self-contained entity of the cell.
So alive when inside a cell. By your definition.
A Virion is non-living. My definition clearly identifies this, and it is a much better way of understanding viruses, and it fits with the medical industries knowledge of them.
So not alive when outside the cell. By your definition. They are not of the inanimate never-lived category, so dead? Or gray limbo?
Again, skipping over the equivocation of using two different branches of science in an argument as if they were the same, let's look at that definition of virion again:
quote:
While not inside an infected cell or in the process of infecting a cell, viruses exist in the form of independent particles. These viral particles, also known as virions, consist of two or three parts: (i) the genetic material made from either DNA or RNA, long molecules that carry genetic information; (ii) a protein coat, called the capsid, which surrounds and protects the genetic material; and in some cases (iii) an envelope of lipids that surrounds the protein coat when they are outside a cell. ...

Structure
A complete virus particle, known as a virion, consists of nucleic acid surrounded by a protective coat of protein called a capsid. ...
So the virion is the virus (nucleic acid) inside a self-contained envelope ... interesting.
From a naturalistic worldview, of course. But there are other world views. Mine does force me to these dilemmas. I have other logical explanations.
Again, whether natural or supernatural, there would be a first life. But your claim that " ... All Life comes from pre-existing life. There are no exceptions to this. ... " leaves you with the dilemma that once a virus enters a cell and becomes alive - by your definition - and can only come from pre-existing life (with no exceptions) that it then must have been pre-existing alive - ie living - before entering the cell.
It would appear that the virus is both alive and dead at the same time outside the cell (Schrodinger's cat?) ... by your argument and definition. But there is another problem: viruses can be created in the lab ...
quote:
Redefining viruses: lessons from Mimivirus
... A virus can be generated from synthetic oligonucleotides by whole-genome assembly to produce infectious virions [35]. ... Experiments which showed that synthesized or purified nucleic acids from either viruses or bacteria can infect hosts and be replicated, show that there are no fundamental differences between these living entities. ...


35. Smith, H. O., Hutchison, C. A., Pfannkoch, C. & Venter, J. C. Generating a synthetic genome by whole genome assembly: phiX174 bacteriophage from synthetic oligonucleotides. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 15440—15445 (2003).
Does this mean that life was created in the lab?
They are arguing that a virion and a virus are different, and a virus is alive and virion not.
And where do they argue that a virion is not alive? It seems to me that they are arguing that both are alive or in some blurry gray area not quite life. They use the type of self-contained membrane to distinguish between (cell) and (capsid) organisms, and they also seem to be arguing that mitochondria and chloroplasts can be considered life forms:
quote:
... Although some RNA viruses (for example, arenaviruses) do contain ribosomes within their capsids, these ribosomes are native to their hosts, and the absence of genes that encode ribosomal proteins is common to all viruses. Thus, we suggest that all cellular organisms can be adequately defined as ribosome-encoding organisms (REOs), as opposed to viruses. Interestingly, in contrast to the view that is advocated by Lwoff [22], mitochondria and chloroplasts would be classified as REOs based on this definition (instead of as cellular organelles) because they contain their own translation apparatus [1]. ...
Capsid-encoding organisms
By analysing all infectious materials other than REOs, which range from a few hundred base pairs, such as the single-stranded RNA molecule that is carried by capsid borrowed from a helper virus (virusoid and satellite RNA) [19], to the giant Mimivirus, it is clear that no single common protein exists in the virosphere. There is no genetic equivalent in this group to the ribosomal-RNA or universal proteins that are common to REOs. ...
blurry gray mud.
I think I covered this above. Read the whole paper. I think it is quite interesting.
Curiously I have read it, and I too find it quite interesting. BUT ...
It seems this article you referenced keeps presenting problems for your definition -- does your definition also classify mitochondria and chloroplasts as life forms (self-contained etc etc etc)?
I don't have a problem with my definition. I have refuted all your concerns above. ...
No, you have equivocated around the issue of living-dead-living and dug yourself into further problems (creation of life inside a lab and classifying mitochondria and chloroplasts as life forms as well as presenting stuff that is blurry gray limbo mud ...
More to come on the other problems your definition creates.
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 232 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-07-2015 3:03 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

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

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


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 replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 257 of 374 (773826)
12-09-2015 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by AlphaOmegakid
12-09-2015 1:05 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
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. ...
Two problems:
(1) your definition does not say this, it makes no specification for what the enclosing envelope is made from, and
(2) you are now using life to define life. The purpose of an unambiguous* definition is to determine if something is living independently of any reference to other life -- that is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
The atmosphere is an envelope that contains all living things, it has an outer boundary made up of atmosphere\self and your current argument makes it alive.
That you don't understand this being a direct and unambiguous application of your argument is not my problem: you know what you want your definition to say and turn a blind eye to what it does say when your argument is followed.
... 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.
Your argument makes any container with living cells in it alive. To say otherwise is equivocation, because you are changing the definition between one and the other.
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.
It does indeed nullify your application of the definition to multicellular life ... because the composite structure is not doing what your definition requires to be called life -- breaking down ATP -- something else is. That makes the gut bacteria alive but not the composite. The container is not the thing contained.
You have to equivocate on the meaning of the words in your definition to stretch it as you are attempting to do.
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!
... Yes, the system has living cells that make up it's boundary. All the other cells are within the systems boundary. ...
So are those cells that make up the boundary (a) just outside the (unambiguous) boundary of contained cells, (b) part inside and part outside the (unambiguous) boundary of contained cells, or (c) completely inside the (unambiguous) boundary of contained cells? If you say (a) then they are not part of the entity, being on the outside looking in. If you say (b) then they are partly part of the entity and partly not part of the entity, which is very ambiguous, and if you say (c) then you have done precisely what I said.
Perhaps you don't understand what a strawman argument is either. Just because it says something that you don't like that doesn't make it a strawman -- it has to misrepresent your argument.
Another problem you have now created for yourself is the question of where that boundary actually ends and things outside the boundary (ie the rest of the universe) begins.
Your mouth is lined with cells forming the boundary of your "entityness", so things inside your mouth that you are chewing on are outside the boundary.
The throat that passes food from your mouth to your stomach is lined with cells forming the boundary of your "entityness", so things inside your throat that you are swallowing are outside the boundary.
Your stomach is lined with cells forming the boundary of your "entityness", so things inside your stomach that you are digesting and your gut bacteria are outside the boundary. (which would be normal interpretation of your relationship to gut bacteria).
Your intestines that pass the remains of your meal along to your anus are also lined with cells forming the boundary of your "entityness", so things inside your intestines that you are passing are outside the boundary.
Your anus that passes the remains of your meal outside of your entity is lined with cells forming the boundary of your entityness, so things that you are expell are outside the boundary. (which means that your crap is not part of your living entity, again consistent with normal interpretations of your relationship to crap).
In other words there is a tube that turns your boundary into a convoluted donut shape defined by the actual boundaries of your cells.
There are also "dimples" in that donut for you lungs and skin pores, and the tube branches to include your nostrils.
So no, you cannot say that the gut bacteria make you alive either.
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?
Curiously making fun of an argument does not refute it. Until you actually address the argument it is alive and well.
What you have to do is look at the interstices between the cells and within the out boundary (roughly) delineated by the confining cells outer boundaries ... but not inside the cells ... and apply your definition: hint -- it doesn't work.
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!
Still not a refutation, nor an honest reply. Your problem is again two-fold: the problems (1) and (2) listed above.
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!
Yes, those are your words and your argument that is not actually based on your definition of life words, but what you want it to say -- you are using different definition of the enclosure for your cells and your multicellular entity, which is equivocation. This is why it applies to the baggie with the goldfish:
The baggie is made up of molecules in a contiguous system of atoms that creates a boundary of that entity which contains the remainder of that entity, and therefore the baggie being is a self-contained entity. That is your argument.
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)
Baggie with water and goldfish contained inside ... distinct and independent existence: check.
For example I can put 50 bagged goldfish on a table and someone else can come in and count them. If some don't have a goldfish and some don't have water, then they are not the same and the person could easily count just the baggies with water and goldfish. A child could do it. I can also take one of them into a different room and it is still a baggie with water and a goldfish. Distinct and independent.
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"!!!
Wishful thinking on your part. Talk about straw men. If an object in a car is an independent entity that is also part of the car as an independent entity then the same applies to the person in the car where the entity is "occupied car" and usually the driver is an important part of its "carness". When I look at cars on the highway each one is occupied, each one is an independent entity and each one is an "occupied car" entity.
Ocean is a self contained entity as well, sorry, as it certainly has a surface and a bottom that meets the surface in a continuous envelope. Again this is a matter or you wanting words to say one thing but not another even when used the same way. And an ocean has many living things within. So it meets ALL of your definition.
Just like the baggie with water and a goldfish does.
Living entities keep multiplying all around you! This is not a straw man argument, it is why your definition fails for multicellular organisms.
... So the words ALL HAVE MEANING and ALL OF THEM must be considered in the context of the definition. ...
With no additions or any clarification addendum, and certainly with consistent application of those words without any flip-flops on what they mean.
An unambiguous definition would not classify viri as living in one location and not living in another location.
An unambiguous definition would not need to have it's application to one type of life explained by adding information on what the definition "meant" to say but didn't.
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.
See herebedragons post Message 258.
But even without that information, you are putting Chloroplasts in the same category as you put viri: sometimes living entities and sometimes not living entities. By your application of your definition. Seems a little ambiguous to me.
An unambiguous definition would not classify chloroplasts as living in one location and not living in another location.
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. ...
Curiously "the words ALL HAVE MEANING and ALL OF THEM must be considered in the context of the definition" doesn't mean you get to say what the environment is unless that is specifically listed in your definition, because that is what unambiguous means -- apply ALL of them and nothing else ... the mitochondria live and die by those words alone.
An unambiguous definition would not classify mitochondria as living in one location and not living in another location.
Or are we going to need to include environment as a critical element for all life-forms before we can consider whether or not they are alive? I don't see it in your definition ...
Enjoy

* unambiguous ... the word I think you really meant to say when you wrote unequivocal -- that is the way you have used "unequivocal" and you object when the word is used properly by others, eg two different definitions in the same argument.
unambiguous
adjective
1. not ambiguous; clear: an unambiguous message
ambiguous
adjective
1. having more than one possible interpretation or meaning
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..

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 255 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 1:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 6:36 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 7:46 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 261 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 8:49 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 262 of 374 (773849)
12-09-2015 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by AlphaOmegakid
12-09-2015 6:36 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
... My definition does not make it alive, and your false application of my definition is a strawman whether you want to believe it or not.
Jump up and down all you want to, but it is NOT a strawman -- it is your argument.
It is not your definition per se that makes it alive, it is the way you apply your definition to multicellular life that opens the door.
Your failure to understand that your definition ONLY applies to activity within a cell, and thus can ONLY make cells alive, is WHY you are jumping through hoops to make multicellular entities alive while desperately stomping around to deny that those very same hoops make other "self-contained entities" alive even though no rational person would consider them to be alive.
It is your multicellular argument that fails. As it is predestined to fail due to your definition being too particular (remember those criticisms from other posters?)
And once again CALLING it a strawman does not make it so, nor is that a refutation of my posting.
Please stop using that dodge as an excuse to fail to respond to the argument.
Curiously, I can spell it out for you step by step in detail if you wish ...
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 259 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 6:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 9:22 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 263 of 374 (773850)
12-09-2015 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by AlphaOmegakid
12-09-2015 7:46 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
It seems you still fail to see the problem ...
... The gut bacteria only make ATP within themselves. They do not make ATP for the multicellular organism. The cells which are part of the self contained entity make their own ATP. That is my definition exactly without equivocation. ...
AND that ONLY makes the CELLS alive, not the multicellular entity (you haven't determined that it is an organism yet).
You have three possibilities:
(1) the multicellular entity is defined by being self contained and includes cells that are alive, but does not have the wherewithal on it's own (enzymes, ATP, DNA, RNA, etc not in the cells) to conform properly to your definition ... so it is not actually alive by your definition, OR
(2) the multicellular entity is defined by being self contained and includes cells that are alive, so it is alive because they are alive (which is begging the question (it is alive because it is made from life) and mistaking the contents for the container (two logical fallacies in one argument, stellar) ... without actually using your definition for the multicellular entity itself, OR
(3) the multicellular entity is defined by being self contained and includes cells that are alive, which gives it (by spurious extension) the wherewithal based solely on activity within cells somewhere\anwhere within the self containing envelope to conform properly to your definition ... as if the cell walls did not exist ... and that very same argument applies to the goldfish in the water in the baggie.
Any way you cut it your definition does not make multicellular entities comply without also letting any number of other self-contained entities also alive ... ones that no rational person would consider to be living entities.
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 260 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 7:46 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 265 of 374 (773854)
12-09-2015 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by AlphaOmegakid
12-09-2015 8:49 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
Another strawman. My definition doesn't do this. It identifies virions as non living in any location, and viruses as non-living in any location. I have said this over and over again. I have only said they are "alive" (DO YOU SEE THE QUOTE MARKS) in the sense that the whole host cell of which they are inside is alive, and they are part of the infected cell. By my definition strictly, they are non-living.
Dance dance dance. Yes I see the quotes ... they are marks of equivocation, ie using a different definition of "alive" ...
Are they dead? or are they (never lived \ not living \ never will live)? Obviously not the latter option because:
Here are my previous words:
AOK writes:
Using this definition, the virus is alive by my definition and most definitions within the host cell. But as I said earlier, the virus is only alive in the sense that it is within the self-contained entity of the cell.
The only way your argument works is if you ignore the gold word. And that's what you do, and that is a strawman.
Here again same post Message 232
A Virion is non-living. My definition clearly identifies this, and it is a much better way of understanding viruses, and it fits with the medical industries knowledge of them.
Crystal clear, nothing ambiguous.
Here agin same post:
So clearly the countering and consensus opinion is that viruses are not alive. They are only considered alive, as I have said multiple times now, in the sense that they are part of the living host cell.
Again, crystal clear but ignored by you.
Here agin same post:
Um, No. they don't live anywhere except in a host cell, and in the sense that the infected cell is alive, and they are a part of that.
And once again your constant whining about straw man arguments are neither correct nor any kind of response to my arguments nor any kind of refutation of it.
What I am doing is applying your arguments to situations that would not normally be considered living to show you how your definition fails -- see Reductio ad absurdum: "or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."
You continue to equivocate in your funny little dance to try to make your definition work. You are too emotionally attached to it, it is your precious.
The real question here is whether or not your definition can determine clearly and concisely, without ambiguity, explanation or equivocation, whether an entity is alive or not, based solely on the entity in question, with no additional criteria.
Obviously in the case of viri it cannot. You say it is "alive" but not alive ... and that it is not "non-living" inside a cell, and that which it is depends on where it is rather than what it is.
Equally obviously in the case of multicellular life it cannot. Clue: it doesn't say anything about any process or activity outside the cell.
Fail fail fail fail.
Dance dance dance dance.
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 261 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 8:49 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-10-2015 9:50 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 266 of 374 (773855)
12-09-2015 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by AlphaOmegakid
12-09-2015 9:22 PM


Re: the goldfish in the baggie problem.
Yes, please do. step by step. List your premises and conclusions.
Tomorrow. But not my premises and conclusions -- your arguments.
Enjoy
Edited by Admin, : Fix typo. Possibly an attempted change in italization left some remnants behind.

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 264 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-09-2015 9:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024