Life - an Unequivicol Definition

I think you need to consider the context of the terms. Microsporida are cells and can survive (live) for some time outside of a host. They do produce a small amount of ATP during Substrate-level phosphorylation.After infecting a host, they need much more ATP than they can manufacture. So they have other pathways to "steal" this.Both contexts are alive according to my definition. A virus, however has no metabolic pathway for ATP outside of a host.All life comes from pr-existing life The law of Biogenesis

That's quite a philosophical statement. I would say the foundation is there at birth, and it pre-exists knowledge. But that's another forum I think.

Equivocation whether in definitions or argumentation is a logic issue. In Scientific definitions, the logic should be sound. In general, I would think that biologists who put definitions of life in papers would tend to believe their definitions are unequivocal. However after publication, those definitions get challenged with counterfactuals and the only way they survive is through equivocating terms. RAZD is having a ball equivocating on his definition of life. He is squirming all over the place trying to defend it. It is rather amusing to read his posts right now as he is being challenged.I don't think that when he wrote it, he thought it was equivocal. (Actually this is basically NASA's definition of life) However, as he tries to defend it, he is forced with equivocation to defend it. Let me use your example of "reproduction". Some organisms don't reproduce. It doesn't matter what the reason is, they just don't. So then the defender tries to argue that cells of multicellular organism do reproduce. So he just equivocated on what the organism is to make his argument work. Not to mention that some unicellular organisms don't reproduce. Then what does he say? Who Knows?This is often referred to as "mental gymnastics" in argumentation rather than just accepting a defeater.Now I get to your first question. Yes! Now biologists knowingly put forth equivocal definitions, because they've been trained that "life" is undefinable without equivocal terms. Today they list "characteristics of life" rather than trying to define it unequivocally. They are fine with fuzzy things, so OOL funding can continue and "life" is good. So the people using these definitions aren't purposefully equivocating, but the definitions are. Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

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

What you are doing is the epitome of equivocation. The definition you used requires populations to evolve. I pointed this out to you and now you equivocate on what the organism is and what the population is. But this is easily fixable logically. All you have to do is the thought experiment of the last man on earth... healthy or unhealthy with all kinds of human somatic cells mutating and evolving within his body. (I don't disagree with you on this point) We all agree that he is alive. We all agree that his cells are alive. But he is the last human male with no human females. And those mutating and evolving human cells within eventually cause his death.Now we have a food farm for bacteria, but not any more humans. That human population of one was incapable of evolution. And the frequency of his genome and all of its genetic traits just went to zero as the last DNA of his body was consumed by the bacteria within.That's why over and over again, People who are experts on evolution will tell you that individuals do not evolve, populations evolve.

quote:

---

Populations evolve, not individuals. In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change.
Evolution

---

quote:

---

Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

---

quote:

---

Evolution:
Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Definitions.html

---

quote:

---

When we start to discuss evolution, it is important to keep in mind that this term is used to describe three different phenomena:

​

Change in the genetic composition of a population of organisms. Although we often speak loosely of organisms evolving, to be more precise we should only discuss the evolution of populations of organisms.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~brokawc/Bi11/Organisms.html

---

I've already cited this, but you've ignored it. So if you want to equivocate about a population of cancer cells within an organism as being a population of the same species then you go right ahead. I cannot stop you. It will require the population of neurons inside you to do that. But maybe they have evolved where they can no longer recognize equivocation??? The other entity you want so desperately to be alive is a virus. But assume a world full of viruses yet the world is sterile of any living cells Not one of those viruses is capable of evolution, because they cannot breed as a population on their own.So your definition fails on multiple levels. And so does NASA's.I will address your strawman challenges to my definition after the weekend. It was you who claimed this definition as your own. I just pointed out the deception. You might be in good company with NASA.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Are you even aware of Cell Theory? Let me help you with a citation of the "modern" version.

quote:

---

The generally accepted parts of modern cell theory include:

​

All known living things are made up of one or more cells[11]
All living cells arise from pre-existing cells by division.
The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms.[12]
The activity of an organism depends on the total activity of independent cells.[citation needed]
Energy flow (metabolism and biochemistry) occurs within cells.[citation needed]
Cells contain DNA which is found specifically in the chromosome and RNA found in the cell nucleus and cytoplasm.[13]
All cells are basically the same in chemical composition in organisms of similar species .
Cell theory - Wikipedia

---

Now , in case you didn't realize, evolution theory is dependent on Cell Theory. According to Evo theory life began (cellular Life) about 3.5B years ago. Before that.....NO LIFE. Before that, rocks and water, and any combination of solutions therein. From which you desire to call self replicating RNA molecules as being alive according to your definition. To do this you have to ignore cell theory totally, and there is no good reason to do that.So, according to your words above, if OOL is completed, then it must be cellular unless you ignore Cell Theory which evolution theory depends on. This means you either must reject Cell theory or your definition becomes reasoned though circles, because TOE relies on Cell Theory.

Yes, it is. My definition is consistent with cell theory as well as evolution theory. Nope, not even close. In your dream world yes, but not according to my definition. You can't just pick and choose which parts of it you like. My definition does show the boundary quite well. It requires a self contined entity in which ATP is used for metabolism and proteins are being synthesized from a DNA to RNA synthesis. Life does not require evolution. We have plenty of asexual populations which don't vary from generation to generation. That doesn't make them not alive according to your definition.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Amazing. Just Amazing. Not only can you equivocate on what a population is within your own definition, you can distort the meaning of mine. Just amazing!Here is the definition of self-contained which you evidently are unaware...

quote:

---

1. containing in oneself or itself all that is necessary; independent.
Self-contained Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

---

A living organism, by my definition , has everything within itself to use and synthesize ATP, It has DNA, and RNA, and it has proteins.NO, A MOLECULE DOES NOT CONTAIN WITHIN ITSELF THESE ABILITIES. This is just one big strawman joke. 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:

quote:

---

The genetic potential of an organism carried in the base sequence of its DNA (or, in some viruses, RNA) according to the genetic code.
Oxford Languages | The Home of Language Data

---

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.

RAZD,The sign of a good definition is how it relates to it's opposite. You have defined life in relationship to its ability to evolve. So my question is then, using your definition, describe death to us. When does an organism die, and when do populations die? or become extinct?So with your molecules that you desire to define as "alive", please describe what makes these molecules die? With viruses which you desire to define as "alive", please describe the death of a virus. And of course your descriptions should be in relationship to your definition of life. And finally, describe the death of cellular life in relationship to your definition.You have said that "death is a part of evolution". Just what exactly does that mean? Do dead things evolve too?

So you cannot understand that the cells within the mule are evolving, and are potentially undergoing genetic drift? Therefore the mule is evolving, and therefore "alive". I cannot understand why anyone cannot understand this fallacious goobledeegunk!

RAZD, you ought to be running for office. Oh the ways, that you can squirm and deflect, but not answer the question. Yes Yawn, just like a boring politician!Yes, I and all so far have agreed that the Last homo sapien male, and the mule were alive. But we haven't agreed on whether he or the mule was capable of evolution. You equivocate on the word population which is part of your definition: anything capable of evolution. (cue definition of evolution ^{^(1)}... ). Clearly what you are doing is equivocating on what the "population" is. So concentrate and stop yawning. In Biology a population is :

quote:

---

A population is a summation of all the organisms of the same group or species, which live in a particular geographical area, and have the capability of interbreeding.
Population - Wikipedia

---

So what you are doing is equivocating between a population being properly a population of mules or a population being some group of cells within the mule. That equivocation is deceitful, shameful, and clearly intended by you after many posts.My thought experiment exposed this, because the last man on earth, ie organism homo sapien male was not able to evolve. And clearly many organisms have populations for generation after generation that show no change in alleles either.So evolution has many defeaters which makes it a very poor definition, but I can see why you want it. The faith in naturalism is strong. And the unsuccessful field of OOL needs such equivocation to survive. It's naturalism of the GAPS. Yet no matter what the evidence shows, the imaginations of men want to show something other than what is. It's called magic.

I know you so desperately want this to be true, but"reality says" your statement is false. Here again is Cell Theory.

quote:

---

1. All known living things are made up of one or more cells[11]
2. All living cells arise from pre-existing cells by division.
3. The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms.[12]
4. The activity of an organism depends on the total activity of independent cells.
5. Energy flow (metabolism and biochemistry) occurs within cells.
6. Cells contain DNA which is found specifically in the chromosome and RNA found in the cell nucleus and cytoplasm.[13]
7. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition in organisms of similar species

---

"All" is used in 4 out of the seven statements. That's pretty black and white. You are exchanging your faith in OOL science and naturalism for the reality of all the evidence of living things. OOL needs "reality" to be fuzzy. Life does not.Take any multicellular living organism and put it in a blender for five minutes. You have all the building blocks of that life available. You have DNA, RNA, proteins, ATP, carbohydrates. You can zap it with electricity or add heat for energy, and all you will ever have is the best primordial soup available. Only recommended for the consumption of naturalists. But not good for creating life.What the faithful OOLers are missing is organization!. Those self replication molecular experiments are highly organized and controlled. Scientists can do many wonderful things, but they cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together again. The word "organism" screams "organization."

I think you need to direct this question to RAZD. This is not my claim but his. see EvC Forum: Life - an Unequivicol Definition

OK.....but they are supposed to explain reality! Just what do you think a theory is? You just admitted and identified in your own words and logic that viruses and prions are less that life. Whether you call it grey or blue or red area doesn't matter. Your own words show that there is "life" and there is something less than "life". Baloney! Viruses are known. They are not alive!
Prions are known. They are not alive!
Many complex chemistries are know including all self replicating molecules that you and others want to be alive, and Cell Theory says they are not alive!Now is life black or is it white? Well actually I am presenting a definition which is in compliance with current scientific theories including OOL hypotheses. Everyone knows you have to identify the pathway from non living chemicals to cellular life. Its just the silly equivocating along that pathway that I have a problem. Trying to define self replicating molecules as "alive" is a joke of semantics. It's just word soup that misleads. It is still light years away from cellular life. So what good does calling it "alive" do except mislead?When scientist can put Humpty Dumpty back together again, then my faith might get challenged. But equivocal definitions which are illogical will never challenge my faith. They only enhance yours.