Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-24-2019 3:42 AM
31 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,354 Year: 15,390/19,786 Month: 2,113/3,058 Week: 487/404 Day: 2/89 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
25Next
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3648
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 226 of 374 (773638)
12-05-2015 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by RAZD
12-05-2015 1:39 AM


Re: equine masochistic necrophilia
"equine masochistic necrophilia"

"Beating a dead horse."?

Though there was one formulation of that that I particularly liked: "Beating a patch of grass where there once had laid a dead horse." I seem to recall that that had been used in the context of a PRATT.

Do you agree that a population of mules is not a breeding population?

I do believe that that is precisely what NoNukes is saying. Mules are sterile hybrids, therefore by definition they cannot possibly produce any offspring, any new generation of mules. The only way to produce any new generation of mules is to breed horses with donkeys.

Wait a minute. Oh you didn't! Did you just satirize A-Z-dude's whole argument with his insistence on an arbitrary a priori definition? Dude! Subtle!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2015 1:39 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20063
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


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:

Self-replicating Semliki Forest virus RNA as recombinant vaccine

... 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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-07-2015 7:48 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20063
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


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 responded

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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20063
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(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 responded

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

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


(1)
Message 230 of 374 (773679)
12-07-2015 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by RAZD
12-05-2015 7:00 AM


Re: self-replicating virus - again ...
RAZD writes:

... 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.

Thank you. We all make mistakes. I called the "guts" of the cell "tissue". Tissue is made up of cells and what is inside them. I could argue this till the cows come home, but technically I used a term incorrectly. So as of now, I have identified this error as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2015 7:00 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 374 (773688)
12-07-2015 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Percy
12-04-2015 5:18 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Percy writes:

That's a very strange and nonsensical interpretation.

Interesting...


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 12-04-2015 5:18 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 232 of 374 (773689)
12-07-2015 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by RAZD
12-05-2015 7:51 AM


Re: Definition problems.
RAZD writes:

Yet, curiously, I quote your definition when I address it, so that would make it a parody of itself.

Quoting the definition does not absolve you from the rest of your comments/words. You have made many claims about what my definition "says" and "doesn't say".

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.

Remember, the definition is to identify life. The opposite of which is non-life, of which "dead" is a subset of non-life in that it has previously been alive. So let's look a viruses to see how mine and current definitions apply.

First, let's recognize that the consensus in science regarding viruses is that they are non-living. I as the medical industry, have properly identified them as poisons to living things.

Second we must realize that viruses today are properly identified as "live" and "dead".

A "live" virus is one that can infect a living cell, disturbs it like a poison, 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) 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. The offspring viruses outside the cell are considered "live" viruses in that they are capable of repeating this process of infecting another living cell.

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.

The scientific community for the most part recognizes that viruses in a sterile world would be "dead" ends. Without a host, they would just be decaying organic matter. This is why I've never understood the logic of hope for "viral life" in a sterile OOL world.

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.

The only reason evos look to viruses for hope is primarily with the semantics used to describe them. The proper way to understand them is by using proper language. The term virus is only properly understood in relation to its host cell:

quote:
A virus is a small infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of other organisms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

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.

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,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

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.

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.

From a naturalistic worldview, of course. But there are other world views. Mine does force me to these dilemmas. I have other logical explanations.

... 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.

quote:
Jean-Michel Claverie34 proposed that viruses are entities that are associated with an intracellular viral factory, and should not be confused with virions. interestingly, from this view, a virus is similar to an intracellular organism, which therefore further blurs the boundary between cellular organisms and viruses. The virus definition can also be modified by the distinction between a virus and a virion. A virus can be generated from synthetic oligonucleotides by wholegenome assembly to produce infectious virions35. Therefore, we believe that a virus can be entirely defined by its coding
capacity.

Redefining viruses lessons from Mimi Virus


They are arguing that a virion and a virus are different, and a virus is alive and virion not.

Except that it is not consistent with those who view them as alive,
I think I covered this above. Read the whole paper. I think it is quite interesting.

nor with those who view them as not alive, which would appear to be virtually all scientists.

quote:
... viruses neither replicate nor evolve, they are evolved by cells. Even if some viruses encode their own polymerases, some of them error-prone, their expression and function require the cell machinery so that, in practice, viruses are evolved by cells — no cells, no viral evolution. This applies to other selfish genetic elements and even to cellular genes. Analogously, human technology does not evolve by itself but is evolved by humans. Alexander and Bridges eloquently made this crucial distinction eighty years ago by declaring that viruses are “produced but not self-reproduced”15. Along with this line of thought, we can say that viruses are “not living, but lived entities” 16. In fact, as perfect molecular parasites, viruses depend completely on the metabolic machinery of cells, not only for their reproduction but also for their evolution. Thus, in the absence of cells, viruses are nothing but inanimate complex organic matter.
Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the Tree of Life

So clearly the countering and consensus opinion is that viruses are not alive. The are only considered alive, as I have said multiple times now, in the sense that they are part of the living host cell. Just as clarified in this paper, which is in context here countering the definition of "evolution" for life which you support.

That is a small subset of the viral population, just as lethal bacteria are a small subset of the bacteria population.
All viruses are in relation to their hosts. They all poison the host to some extent.

There are thousands of types of viruses, inhabiting all corners of the earth (including inside).
I always knew evos were the real "flat earthers"

Um, no. They often live on and in rocks but they are not part of those rocks.

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. Funny how they are inside the earth. I wonder if they are "part" of the earth....logic 101

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?

I don't have a problem with my definition. I have refuted all your concerns above. However you have a problem, because virions don't evolve, and in a sterile fabled RNA world there would be no evolution of Viruses. It's a dead end!

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2015 7:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2015 10:32 AM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 233 of 374 (773690)
12-07-2015 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by RAZD
12-01-2015 8:51 AM


Re: two gray areas and "dead" tardigrades, seeds and spores
RAZD writes:

(2) Because it is based on microbiological functions inside the cell, it only defines cells as being alive:

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.

... the ATP is only synthesized inside the cell, DNA and RNA are also operating inside the cell (or are viruses); as a result your "mule" is not alive but it's cells are -- a condition you implied was fatal for my definition (Message 97): "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."

Not being directly applicable to multicellular life is a fatal flaw.

So you've created two gray areas with your definition that aren't life and that aren't really non-life ... as "non-life" is generally understood: one between cellular life and first life, and one built up of multiple cells working together.

I fail to see your objection. Multi-cellular organisms are self contained entities. Oh, I just resurrected from my fatal flaw.. Maybe it is in your false understanding of "self-contained". Please elucidate me on how any species of animal or plant is not self contained.

I implied no such thing regarding the mule. I implied you equivocated on the definition of populations in your definition of evolution by pointing to the cell populations within the mule as evolving. Not to mention it's gut bacteria!:0 HAHAHA Just a ludicrous try to rescue evolution definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2015 8:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2015 3:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 234 of 374 (773691)
12-07-2015 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by RAZD
12-01-2015 8:51 AM


Re: two gray areas and "dead" tardigrades, seeds and spores
Consider tardigrades ... Tardigrades:

quote:Tardigrades (also known as water bears or moss piglets)[2][3][4] are water-dwelling, eight-legged, segmented micro-animals.[2] ...

Tardigrades are notable for being perhaps the most durable of known organisms; they are able to survive extreme conditions that would be rapidly fatal to nearly all other known life forms. They can withstand temperature ranges from −458 °F (−272.222 °C) to 300 °F (149 °C), pressures about six times greater than those found in the deepest ocean trenches, ionizing radiation at doses hundreds of times higher than the lethal dose for a human, and the vacuum of outer space. They can go without food or water for more than 10 years, drying out to the point where they are 3% or less water, only to rehydrate, forage, and reproduce.

Alive and well, most of them. Producing ATP also. How are they not alive? Scientists think they are alive, my definition clarifies why they are alive. Why do you think my definition fails here? Be specific!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2015 8:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2015 4:16 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 235 of 374 (773716)
12-08-2015 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by RAZD
12-05-2015 5:34 PM


Re: Problems caused by definition
RA...Zen...Deist writes:

* - anyone who lets religious beliefs impact their thinking.

Like Zen Deists?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2015 5:34 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2015 3:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has not yet responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 236 of 374 (773717)
12-08-2015 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by RAZD
12-05-2015 5:34 PM


Re: Problems caused by definition
RAZD writes:

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?

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.

This is what I mean about your parodies of my definition.

Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2015 5:34 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2015 4:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20063
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


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 yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 374 (773722)
12-08-2015 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by AlphaOmegakid
11-23-2015 5:10 PM


So you cannot understand that the cells within the mule are evolving

So for you it is enough to say that the cells are evolving in order to say that something is alive?

Or more to the point, do you understand such an evolution to be what RAZD and I were discussing? If so, then you missed the entire point of the discussion.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-23-2015 5:10 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 11:26 AM NoNukes has responded

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 1107 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 239 of 374 (773729)
12-08-2015 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Percy
12-04-2015 5:18 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Percy writes:

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.

It certainly is nonsensical!. I am trying to funny, and serious at the same time. Humor often exposes truth, which is why people laugh at themselves. My only concern is why you need an explanation? I just combined your words and your argument.

You said "a dog is obviously alive, and a rock is obviously non-living". This I agree!

Then you say "anywhere you place the boundary between what is living and what is not is ultimately arbitrary." This I disagree, but you evidently do agree and argue.

So my statement above is the logical re-arrangement of your argument which is, as you say, nonsensical. That is what I am elucidating to you and others that the boundary is not arbitrary nor arbitrarily chosen no matter how many times you say it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Percy, posted 12-04-2015 5:18 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by ringo, posted 12-08-2015 11:20 AM AlphaOmegakid has responded
 Message 244 by Percy, posted 12-08-2015 2:58 PM AlphaOmegakid has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17168
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 240 of 374 (773734)
12-08-2015 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by AlphaOmegakid
12-08-2015 11:05 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphOmegakid writes:

That is what I am elucidating to you and others that the boundary is not arbitrary nor arbitrarily chosen no matter how many times you say it.


The ends of the scale are not arbitrary. It's picking a point between the ends that's arbitrary.

Zero is not arbitrary and 100% is not arbitrary. Picking 55% as a passing grade is arbitrary.


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 242 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-08-2015 1:27 PM ringo has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019