why is it out of proper context? Do you mean it not alive because its not in vivo?
Define the term "life"
- Thread starter crazylenny
- Start date
well...good...think about it for a while then.
I have a question for you wellcookedfetus.
There is a mission to the moon Europa. They are searching for life. They take samples. They only find a strange virus-like particle. Some kind of RNA-like molecule wrapped in structural proteins-like molecules.
Would they conclude that there is life on Europa?
There is a mission to the moon Europa. They are searching for life. They take samples. They only find a strange virus-like particle. Some kind of RNA-like molecule wrapped in structural proteins-like molecules.
Would they conclude that there is life on Europa?
no its pre-biotic chemistry or psudeo-life it not alive, though the virus particle most likely needs a living source that’s making it.
jep...that's what I thought you would say.
edit: what I meant of course is that there is no flexibility in your biological thinking whatsoever. If a textbook would say that only things with a penis are alive you would say amen. Good luck with your scientific career.
edit: what I meant of course is that there is no flexibility in your biological thinking whatsoever. If a textbook would say that only things with a penis are alive you would say amen. Good luck with your scientific career.
Last edited:
But your definition suffers from the same problems.
at least it has a logical structure
so does the other definition.
it is a random list
Seems like a list of astute observations to me.
I think we went through this before when we talked about stem cells. You claimed to know everything better, and refuse any lateral thinking. Everything has to fit your little world. Is it surprising then that you always run into conflict with scientists?
I only wrote chapters for 2 different textbooks on stem cells. Still you knew much better than I did of course. Because I actually have written for text books I can tell you from experience that they mean nothing. My opinion in my chapters is still just my opinion. I could have made a list in them and by your logic you should then accept them as the truth. That is just plain strange.
I think you should get your head out of the sand and start thinking for yourself. Say something original for a change.
And maybe it is not paulsamual or me why these conflicts arise, but maybe it is partly your own fault.
let us review the list
Nutrition
Transport--involves absorption of materials, including the movement and distribution of materials within the body
Respiration
Excretion
Synthesis--involves those biochemical processes in cells by which small molecules are built into larger ones
Regulation
Growth
Reproduction"
this describes cellular life and hence a virus will not fit the definition. There is nothing astute about it. It is just a choice based on preference.
If we look what connects all these terms we can only come up with that a panel of cell biologists sat together once and drank too much coffee.
If you want to unite life, so go back and see what everything has in common. And there is one thing they do have in common, and that is that they are all the product of evolution (and you know what I mean by evolution, don't get anal here. I mean Evolution).
Therefore in my humble opinion the most logical thing to do would be to propose a definition that is based on this common characteristic.
but of course the list is perfect and you know best.
I only wrote chapters for 2 different textbooks on stem cells. Still you knew much better than I did of course. Because I actually have written for text books I can tell you from experience that they mean nothing. My opinion in my chapters is still just my opinion. I could have made a list in them and by your logic you should then accept them as the truth. That is just plain strange.
I think you should get your head out of the sand and start thinking for yourself. Say something original for a change.
And maybe it is not paulsamual or me why these conflicts arise, but maybe it is partly your own fault.
let us review the list
Nutrition
Transport--involves absorption of materials, including the movement and distribution of materials within the body
Respiration
Excretion
Synthesis--involves those biochemical processes in cells by which small molecules are built into larger ones
Regulation
Growth
Reproduction"
this describes cellular life and hence a virus will not fit the definition. There is nothing astute about it. It is just a choice based on preference.
If we look what connects all these terms we can only come up with that a panel of cell biologists sat together once and drank too much coffee.
If you want to unite life, so go back and see what everything has in common. And there is one thing they do have in common, and that is that they are all the product of evolution (and you know what I mean by evolution, don't get anal here. I mean Evolution).
Therefore in my humble opinion the most logical thing to do would be to propose a definition that is based on this common characteristic.
but of course the list is perfect and you know best.
I made such claims? I think you have greatly misinterpreted me, All I am asking you to do it enhance your definition of life for problems that it has, if you can do that I would gladly accept it. By the way I did not know knowing so much about stem cells gives you a complete understand of the philosophy of the concept of life. As a scientist you should be use to your ideas undergoing intense scrutiny by others, is this the way you respond to that?
i used the stem cell analogy to show that you are not consistent.
Inconsistent on what? You mean that post of yours was one big Ad Hominem?
Ok then serisously back to the subject,
Please state your defintion clearly then:
Ok then serisously back to the subject,
Please state your defintion clearly then:
why?
ok then you have no clear defintion of life. What are we arguing about.
I already have written several posts with my thoughts on this matter. Read those.
Now, now ,now.
Two of the best avatars in this forum should not be arguing.
*slap,kick*
Takes severe beating from both members.*
Sorry for interupting.
*backs away slowly while bowing down*
Two of the best avatars in this forum should not be arguing.
*slap,kick*
Takes severe beating from both members.*
Sorry for interupting.
*backs away slowly while bowing down*
moementum7,
That right bitch
Arguing it what we do.
spuriousmonkey,
I did but I found them vague and fragmented I would like you to state clearly your definition (so that I can scrutinize it like a drug search up grandmas butt)
That right bitch
spuriousmonkey,
I did but I found them vague and fragmented I would like you to state clearly your definition (so that I can scrutinize it like a drug search up grandmas butt)
The problem I see with the 'standard' definition in this thread, is that it was built on the premise that the smallest unit of life is a cell. However, it was also likely defined before much was known about viruses (for fuck's sake, it's viruses, not virii, as an aside). It seems silly to exclude viruses simply because they don't metabolize, when clearly they replicate, synthesize and respond to stimuli.
I think the main point that spurious is trying to make, WellCooked, is that it is a waste of time worrying about definitions, when they are really quite arbitrary. Better to ponder how and why things work.
I think the main point that spurious is trying to make, WellCooked, is that it is a waste of time worrying about definitions, when they are really quite arbitrary. Better to ponder how and why things work.