Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
33 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,757 Year: 16,793/19,786 Month: 918/2,598 Week: 164/251 Day: 52/65 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Miller and Urey Experiment: What has changed?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6565
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 57 of 85 (674695)
10-01-2012 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by LimpSpider
10-01-2012 7:02 PM


The gallop continues
Not all scientists agree with Dr. Racaniello. Do you even know who he is?
quote:
The simplest answer is: "That depends".1 This is not meant to be flippant but it recognises that much of the definition of a word like "life" comes from personal perspective. There is no real wrong or right. You make your case for why you think it is or is not alive, and that's your posiiton. Cool. At best, viruses could be considered undead. No zombie parallels please-they don't eat brains

Source

quote:
For about 100 years, the scientific community has repeatedly changed its collective mind over what viruses are. First seen as poisons, then as life-forms, then biological chemicals, viruses today are thought of as being in a gray area between living and nonliving: they cannot replicate on their own but can do so in truly living cells and can also affect the behavior of their hosts profoundly. The categorization of viruses as nonliving during much of the modern era of biological science has had an unintended consequence: it has led most researchers to ignore viruses in the study of evolution. Finally, however, scientists are beginning to appreciate viruses as fundamental players in the history of life.

Source

quote:
Viruses are infectious particles that consist of a DNA or an RNA molecule (the viral genome) packaged in a protein capsid, a protective coat that allows their transfer from one cell to another. Although it is in our nature as humans to try to classify things in order to make sense of the world around us, viruses may exhibit characteristics of both living and non-living creatures depending on the definition of life used. According to Schwann and Schleiden’s “cell theory” dating back to 1839, all living creatures are made of “individual units of life” called cells – small membrane-bounded compartments filled with a concentrated aqueous solution of chemicals. The simplest life forms are unicellular organisms; higher organisms, such as ourselves, are like cellular cities in which specialized functions are performed by different groups of cells linked by intricate communication systems. Under this definition, viruses are acellular particles and thus are definitely not alive. If one’s definition of life is a more evolutionary one, with an organism being defined as “the unit element of a continuous lineage with an individual evolutionary history” (Luria et al., 1978), then viruses are definitely alive.

Source

Science is not all black and white. Few things are. Life, as science has shown, has a lot of grey.

Oh others can argue by link too. Not much fun is it.

ABE
Oops sorry I see NoNukes beat me on this.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 7:02 PM LimpSpider has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019