Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9054 total)
60 online now:
PaulK, Phat (2 members, 58 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,321 Year: 5,967/14,102 Month: 115/438 Week: 47/112 Day: 2/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Life
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 77 (333843)
07-20-2006 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
07-20-2006 8:32 AM


robot life?
One site I ran across in my research into abiogenesis is

http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm

It discusses the different parts of the definitions with pros and cons. Rather interesting, if not too practical in the long run -- the definitions are too frought with problems when they:

(a) includes things that are not (normally) considered alive
(2) excludes things that are normally considered alive

If we can't define life, then how can we tell where it starts and ends?

For instance, if we create self replicating robots that use raw materials to build new ones and modify the results to {suit needs\fit tasks} etc ... have we created life?

(This can also touch on the issue of abortion -- It would be best if we steered clear of this aspect or lose the thread.)

Enjoy the quest.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 07-20-2006 8:32 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 77 (334114)
07-21-2006 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2006 1:12 PM


thanks for the info and welcome to the fray.

I have usually found "fine-tuning" arguments to be the ultimate post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments -- we don't really know what would have happened if they had been different in terms of what the ultimate results would be because that hasn't been "tested"

I'm not sure you could get a giraffe on top of mount everest to test the analogy though ... :laugh:

Re: life

I'll go with : "Chemicals which, given the right environment, catalyze their own synthesis".

So crystals are life? Peptides?
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html

I kind of wonder if we shouldn't be breaking the definition down into substeps rather than try to lump (essentially) the whole abiogenesis process into a single definition.

It's kind of like trying to define an atom without defining the parts that make it up.

I do think that evolution-ability needs to be included in the definition -- the {proto-"ur"-life} needs to be able to {react\respond} to the surrounding input {environment} and {select\be selected} for fitness or it is just static growth (like a crystal).

In this view it would then need to be ""Chemicals which, given the right sets of environments, catalyze chemicals very close to their own {synthesis\type}, but which can have slightly different results in slightly different environments".

This variation could be as simple as changing certain {atom\chemical} elements to better match the chemicals available in each specific case while keeping the overall ability to catalyze chemicals very close to their own {synthesis\type}. We see this kind of variation all the time in current living things, often in places that seem to have no effect on the result (perhaps being part of structure of the molecule and not active in the synthesis - proteins only "present" parts of their molecules to act on the environment, and the ones "inside" just make it fold that way).

Note that making a near copy is less restricting than making an exact copy.

And then I think there needs to be some {encompassing\enclosing\combining} element, otherwise there is no definition distinction between what is and what isn't life -- it's all still chemical soup with slight differences in degree and not in kind. The {wall\enclosure\barrier} distinguishes between inside and outside and allows preservation of beneficial environments for replication and adaptation inside even when the environment outside becomes more {hostile\unforgiving}.

Thus I have a minimum of three particles to my {proto-"ur"-life} atom :

  • near replication of basic chemicals
  • enclosure to concentrate chemicals and raw materials
  • adapting to change in the environment
But it can be argued that these are not necessarily "life" if they don't replicate the entire package.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2006 1:12 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2006 9:00 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 07-22-2006 12:43 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 17 by cavediver, posted 07-22-2006 7:31 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 77 (334133)
07-21-2006 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2006 9:00 PM


The crystals are not, since they are not "chemicals which catalyse their own synthesis".

Some would disagree, but it is irrelevant due to

And the peptides cited in your link are alive according to my defintion, yes.

But they are not alive according to common definitions - they would be at or less than the level of prions (much less than a virus, and neither of which are considered alive ... according to common definitions) being combinations of amino acids but not as large or complex as proteins.

This is one of the reasons I think a multilevel definition can serve better -- these peptides could be considered "animations" rather than "life" -- they become animate and make copies of themselves under certain conditions.

And we can then talk about the formation of "life" from "animations" -- which conveniently excludes crystals and cars from the definition.

Now one could make the "Dawkins Selfish Gene" argument and claim that all the rest of life has evolved to assist peptide reproduction of themselves, but there are some real {logic} problems with this type of argument (begging the question, post hoc ergo propter hoc etc - I have the same problem with the Dawkins argument).

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2006 9:00 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-21-2006 9:58 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 13 of 77 (334148)
07-21-2006 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-21-2006 9:58 PM


I do not talk to rocks but I keep an open mind.

I knew a vegetarian that kept a rock garden ...

:D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-21-2006 9:58 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 77 (334222)
07-22-2006 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jon
07-22-2006 12:43 AM


life = 7 or 8 out of a possible 10 characteristics?
But then, as pointed out by the link you provided in your first posting, mules would not be considered living, since they lack te ability to evolve (seeing as how they cannot even reproduce).

Glad you read it - fascinating eh? You get the feeling that no definition will ever suffice. It certainly seems to cover all the problems.

Maybe what is needed is a definition where you need to have 7 or 8 out of a possible 10 characteristics? A life {pass\fail} score?

I was considering what needed to occur to take the first steps from chemical to life, and had not included {reproduction of the whole} yet in my package for {proto-"ur"-life}, not necessarily going "all the way" at this time.

Technically the mule can still 'evolve' (it can mutate, make copy errors during cell replacement, it can react to the environment to live or die, etc), what they lack is the ready ability to pass on their {changes\adaptations\selection fitness} to another generation.

Yet, to exclude something so obviously alive as a mule from the deffinition of life makes the deffinition a little useless.

And any other individual organisms that are sterile, like Lance Armstrong, all females in all species beyond menopause, worker bees, etc. etc. (some mules can reproduce btw, females more than males, just not very common).

Now modern medical science can get around some of these "little problems" - Lance has kids because they froze sperm before the radiation treatments made him sterile, and we also have the grandmother that just gave birth, so it is conceivable () that mules could be reproduced artificially. It is also possible that given enough {testing} that the number of mules that could reproduce would increase (would they become a new species? I think so), but that doesn't answer the question.

One could argue that these organisms are in the process of de-selection ...

The problem is that we are {conflating\equating} the definition of {life in general}, {life for organisms in a group} and {life for an individual} -- as pointed out in the article one (sexual species) individual cannot reproduce without a sexual partner. This kind of requires a definition that is {group} based rather than {individual} based for "advanced" life ... perhaps a distinction between what is {living} and what is {life} needs to be involved.

  • Life {general} includes all {groups of living individuals},
  • Life {group} is any {group} of living {individual} organisms that as a {group} exhibit the ability to create more living {individual} organisms of similar form and function, even though some living {individual} organisms may lack that ability or are not selected for that function, and which, as a group, have variations and adaptations that allow some individuals to be selected over other individuals depending on fitness to the environment or fitness for reproduction.
  • Life {individual} involves the ability to process raw materials into {molecules\assemblies} needed to repair or replace damaged, worn or non-functioning parts of the {individual organism} or to provide the energy to do such work.

Thus {individual} life does not guarantee that {group} life will exist, and {individual} life could have occurred many times before {group} life developed. Further, (general} life begins with the first {group} life but is not guaranteed to continue until there are several {group} life categories (species) such that extinction of one or more still leaves other {group} life (species) to carry on the process, and so that extinction events do not catastrophically bring an end to {general} life.

This would bridge from the previous discussion of "animate" versus "life {individual}" versus "life {group}" versus "life {general}" (ie - "life {individual}" employs "animate" chemical processes to ... etc)

Enjoy.

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 14 by Jon, posted 07-22-2006 12:43 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 77 (334224)
07-22-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Ben!
07-22-2006 8:20 AM


Re: Not what, but WHY
For what purpose am I using the word "life"?

My impression (although it could be due to my focus on the issue) is that it is for the discussion of abiogenesis -- what is the dividing line between non-life and life or what are the lines between non-life \ animate \ individual \ group \ general life ...


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Ben!, posted 07-22-2006 8:20 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 77 (334232)
07-22-2006 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by cavediver
07-22-2006 7:31 AM


Ok, let's start
Message 18

After all, stellar evolution plays an essential role in abiogenesis. Even though they're only 2-3 generations old, I have always felt that stars have to be included someway along the non-life--->life spectrum.

Certainly without stars we would not have the larger atoms to build with, but even more than that, I am convinced that stars also produce molecules -- especially in their dying throes as the gases cool, the atoms 'thrown' together have opportunity, motive and method to commit formation.

I am also convince that some of these molecules are {pre-biotic\pre-organic} molecules that contributed directly to the formation of life as we know it (RAZD - Building Blocks of Life):

"So far over 130 different molecules have been discovered in interstellar clouds (2 anon 2004). Most contain a small number of atoms, and only a few molecules with seven or more atoms have been found so far. The most abundant family of molecules in the interstellar medium, after molecular hydrogen and carbon monoxide, are the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) molecules. These molecules contain about 10% of all the interstellar carbon (3 Bregman & Temi).

In the farthest depths of the universe polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) molecules have been found by the Spitzer Space Telescope, 10 billion light-years away (4 Hill 2005). Other deep space organic compounds that have already been found are the 7-atom vinyl alcohol (5 anon 2001), the 8-atom molecule propenal and the 10-atom molecule propanal (2 anon 2004), all in interstellar clouds of dust and gas near the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, all some 24,000 light-years away - a distance so far, the molecules could not have come from earth."

But it may be even more {involved\incestuous} than that ... consider the formation of {second\plus} generation of {star\planet\debris} systems is accelerated by anything that contributes to "clumping" ... heavier atoms have higher mass to accomplish this.

But consider that {pre-biotic\pre-organic} molecules would also have increased mass and multiple ionic electrical charge areas, and thus would tend more to {interlock\bond} rather than bounce -- they may be {assistance\helpful\necessary\critical} for the early stages of planetary formation, especially considering the current thoughts on the makeup of oort cloud objects and the {pre-biotic\pre-organic} molecules in around and on comets.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by cavediver, posted 07-22-2006 7:31 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 77 (334440)
07-22-2006 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2006 7:41 PM


What are these "common definitions"? Can you quote them? Are they any good?

See wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
particularly the "conventional definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#A_conventional_definition

While there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:

1. Organization - Living things are composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

(bold in the original)

This is reviewed by Joseph Morales on
http://baharna.com/philos/life.htm

He ends by concluding that there are degrees of life, different levels that apply.

A virus is alive, certainly.

Not to everyone, ergo NOT certainly ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus

Viruses are similar to obligate intracellular parasites as they lack the means for self-reproduction outside a host cell, but unlike parasites, which are living organisms, viruses are not truly alive.

Now I would put viruses at a protolife level - they may be remnants of some first forms of life, just as life may have started with RNA before it got into DNA.

don't fall under "catalyze their own synthesis".

Technically viruses highjack a cell to do their work for them.

And another problem with this definition is that life (as we know it) has {elements\sections} that synthesis all the parts of the cell, not just replicate their own molecules.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2006 7:41 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 07-25-2006 5:41 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 77 (335321)
07-25-2006 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jon
07-25-2006 5:41 AM


... re membrane your cell
... but are you saying that the cell is the smallest unit of life (as we know it)?

It is the smallest unit we consistently recognize as being alive at the present ... but that does not make it a limit for life per se

What the argument was concerned with is the issue of replication -- if we define life as an {X that replicates itself}, we have a problem inside the cell, as the replication is handled by part of the cell and other parts have nothing to do with replication -- they need to be made by the "active agent" to make another cell -- but they are part of the environment for the "active agent" necessary (today) for it to replicate itself. Kind of a chicken and egg situation.

... we need only find the objective properties of a cell and decide if those are necessary for life. Or so it would seem, but there is something telling me it isn't quite that easy.

No, it isn't quite that easy. That is after all the whole reason why abiogenesis is in the current state of knowledge that it is eh?

Consider Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis. (click)

The protein synthesis machinery is too complex to have evolved before membranes. Therefore a symbiosis of membranes, replicators, and catalysts probably mediated the origin of the code and the transition from a nucleic acid world of independent molecular replicators to a nucleic acid/protein/lipid world of reproducing organisms. Membranes initially functioned as supramolecular structures to which different replicators attached and were selected as a higher-level reproductive unit: the proto-organism.

I propose a new theory for the origin of the first cell: fusion of two cup-shaped obcells, or hemicells, to make a protocell with double envelope, internal genome and ribosomes, protocytosol, and periplasm. Only then did water-soluble enzymes, amino acid biosynthesis, and intermediary metabolism evolve in a concentrated autocatalytic internal cytosolic soup, causing 12 new amino acid assignments, termination, and rapid freezing of the 22-acid code.

Before then we had replication and a bunch of stuff going on that is similar to what we think of a cellular life ... is it {life}? Or a stage of "activated chemicals" that responded to certain environmental conditions to catalyse their replication?

We also have no idea how many different kind of replication systems were involved, it could have just taken the right combination in the right place of two or three systems.

Perhaps a system of membranes formed of D-amino acids and that left L-amino acids in concentrated soups ...

As yet we don't know.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jon, posted 07-25-2006 5:41 AM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by inkorrekt, posted 07-31-2006 10:44 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 77 (337351)
08-02-2006 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Wounded King
08-02-2006 3:05 AM


Re: Optical isomer issues
The substrate of an enzyme can be any one of a huge number of molecules indeed there are enzymes that convert L-amino acids into D-amino acids.

Any that go the other way? It would seem (chemically) likely that there would be both. Perhaps this is what can concentrate type aminos within a membrane proto-cell?


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2006 3:05 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2006 8:52 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 77 (337469)
08-02-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Wounded King
08-02-2006 8:52 AM


Re: Optical isomer issues
I'm not sure that these would be neccessary for your concentration to occur, I'd have thought some material with a chirally selective adsorption would be more likely.

Or just that one important ingredient was more predominant in L-form to start.

If all the aminos were clumping into multi-aminos, D-form with D-form and L-form with L-form, this would tend to (a) reduce the 'toxicity' of one to the other and (b) prep the soup for the next step. Then if one had a {superlink} that the other didn't, and that started replication ...


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Wounded King, posted 08-02-2006 8:52 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 77 (337527)
08-02-2006 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
07-20-2006 8:32 AM


Here's some more 'mud' in the 'mix'
From (accessable Discover Mag article)
http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/

Few things on Earth are spookier than viruses. The very name virus, from the Latin word for "poisonous slime," speaks to our lowly regard for them. Their anatomy is equally dubious: loose, tiny envelopes of molecules - protein-coated DNA or RNA - that inhabit some netherworld between life and nonlife. Viruses do not have cell membranes, as bacteria do; they are not even cells.

Less an organism than a jumbled collection of biochemical shards, the virus eventually yielded Wendell M. Stanley, the leader of the research team that exposed it, a Nobel Prize in chemistry rather than biology. The discovery also set off an intense scientific and philosophical debate that still rages: What exactly is a virus? Can it properly be described as alive?

The usual Discovery Magazine hype eh?. Notice the seeming equation of {life} with have a cell or cell membrane -- the "netherworld" may be one of definition rather than something mysterious.

The sheer prevalence of viruses, however, is forcing a reconsideration about how these entities fit into the biological world. Researchers have characterized some 4,000 viruses, from several dozen distinct families. Yet that is a tiny fraction of the number of viruses on Earth. In the last two years, J. Craig Venter, the geneticist who decoded the human genome, has circled the globe in his sailboat and sampled ocean water every couple of hundred miles. Each time he dipped a container overboard, he discovered millions of new viruses - so many that he increased the number of known genes 10-fold.

That's a lot of viral matter out there. Now consider this:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/20/7716

The structure of a thermophilic archaeal virus shows a double-stranded DNA viral capsid type that spans all domains of life

Of the three domains of life (Eukarya, Bacteria, and Archaea), the least understood is Archaea and its associated viruses. Many Archaea are extremophiles, with species that are capable of growth at some of the highest temperatures and extremes of pH of all known organisms. Phylogenetic rRNA-encoding DNA analysis places many of the hyperthermophilic Archaea (species with an optimum growth {gtrsim}80°C) at the base of the universal tree of life, suggesting that thermophiles were among the first forms of life on earth. Very few viruses have been identified from Archaea as compared to Bacteria and Eukarya. We report here the structure of a hyperthermophilic virus isolated from an archaeal host found in hot springs in Yellowstone National Park. The sequence of the circular double-stranded DNA viral genome shows that it shares little similarity to other known genes in viruses or other organisms. By comparing the tertiary and quaternary structures of the coat protein of this virus with those of a bacterial and an animal virus, we find conformational relationships among all three, suggesting that some viruses may have a common ancestor that precedes the division into three domains of life >3 billion years ago.

Essentially that viruses that adapted to each of the different domains of life had a common ancestor virus that predates the separation of life into those 3 (for now) domains.

But here's the interesting part (discover again).

Now, with the recent discovery of a truly monstrous virus, scientists are again casting about for how best to characterize these spectral life-forms. The new virus, officially known as Mimivirus (because it mimics a bacterium), is a creature "so bizarre," as The London Telegraph described it, "and unlike anything else seen by scientists . . . that . . . it could qualify for a new domain in the tree of life." Indeed, Mimivirus is so much more genetically complex than all previously known viruses, not to mention a number of bacteria, that it seems to call for a dramatic redrawing of the tree of life.

"This thing shows that some viruses are organisms that have an ancestor that was much more complex than they are now," says Didier Raoult, one of the leaders of the research team at the Mediterranean University in Marseille, France, that identified the virus.

Or from
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1288

Giant virus qualifies as 'living organism' - Huge genome allows mimivirus to make its own proteins.

Roll up, roll up, to meet Mimi, the biggest virus in the world. This monster has just had its genome sequenced, and scientists say that, unlike its fellow viruses, it may truly be called 'alive'.

Although it shows all the trademark features of a virus, the mimivirus is much more complex, says Jean-Michel Claverie, a biologist from the Institute of Structural Biology and Microbiology in Marseilles, France, who worked on the sequencing effort.

Mimi carries about 50 genes that do things never seen before in a virus. It can make about 150 of its own proteins, along with chemical chaperones to help the proteins to fold in the right way. It can even repair its own DNA if it gets damaged, unlike normal viruses.

The new study shows that its genome contains 1.2 million bases, which is more than many bacteria contain and makes it several times bigger than the largest DNA viruses. The bases make up 1,260 genes, which makes it as complex as some bacteria, the scientists say.

What's more, viral DNA often contains lots of 'junk' sequences, genetic material that does not seem to serve any useful function. Mimi, on the other hand, is lean and mean: more than 90% of its DNA does something specific.

Although biologists sometimes divide life into three categories, the team says that Mimi is sufficiently different that it deserves a fourth branch of life all to itself.

Bacteria are the simplest branch, because they lack a nucleus to gather their genetic material together. Archaea are very similar, but are thought to have evolved separately because of their unusual cell membranes. Every other living thing is a eukaryote, that is, an organism that groups its genetic material into a nucleus inside its cells. But Mimi carries seven genes that are common to all cellular life, putting it on a par with the other life-forms, says Raoult.

Arguing that viruses should be a (new) 4th domain ... less than 50 years after the last domain was added?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : — changed to " - "


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American 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 1 by Jon, posted 07-20-2006 8:32 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 77 (337537)
08-02-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by inkorrekt
07-31-2006 10:44 PM


Re: ... re membrane your cell
I like the last part of your post that "we do not know".

That is essentially the difference between a scientific\rational approach (when confronted with a lack of data\information): admit that the data\information is insufficient, and because it is insufficient, we don't know.

The alternative is to make some assertion that is supported more by {the lack of knowledge\datainformation} and {belief in what should be}, as in concluding that it MUST be an intelligent designer.

The soup of D-and L-forms of amino acids will be biologically useless as the D-forms act as biological poisons.

We are not talking biology yet, but active chemicals that predate biology.

Also D-forms are still prevalent in the world and do not seem to have a toxic effect on the continuation of life, thus the existence of D-forms is not a barrier to life as we know it now, and presumably would be no greater barrier (other than being in the way) back then.

As noted on another thread, I think it may be possible for early life to be more of a hodge-podge than we see now - what we see now has been honed and fiddled and refined for 3.5 billion years after all - and may have included D-forms at least in some portions: we don't know.

Enjoy


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by inkorrekt, posted 07-31-2006 10:44 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 77 (357924)
10-21-2006 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by 42
10-21-2006 8:31 AM


a thin line?
Welcome to the fray, Douglas Adams fan.

... but I feel that non-reproductive stability is usually excluded from definitions of life because "alive" is deemed to require complex activity.

Perhaps the line of stability is the line between organising life and disorganising matter.

Below that line loss of organization occurs with time, above that line increasing organization occurs with time.

Something is acting to increase organization, ergo life.

Am I alive? Are my cells alive? Are their organelles alive and are the molecules they are made of alive? I feel the question is ultimately about self-perception.

The molecules aren't alive, as they continue to exist after cell death. But when does cell "death" occur? The question comes down to the organization of the molecules, and whether increased organization occurs with time or decreased organization.

Enjoy.

btw: type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quote boxes are easy


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by 42, posted 10-21-2006 8:31 AM 42 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by 42, posted 11-17-2006 2:14 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 473 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 67 of 77 (368566)
12-08-2006 8:26 PM


bump for new people
start at Message 1 - the discussion is on what is, and what is not, life.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by miosim, posted 04-15-2007 9:31 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021