Define the term "life"

viruses (for fuck's sake, it's viruses, not virii, as an aside)
Click to expand...

Sorry old habit. Many still use this defintion, though viri is total wrong (its latin for men-s).

sure enoguh I really don't care how life is defined but strange thing is this is as thread asking just that, so saying that is "really does not matter" does not answer the threads question.

As for a virus I am ok with it not being consider alive if you do consider it alive then you allow the possibility of other things even less associated with life begin called "alive"
 
Why a cell or virus particle, is that specified in your definition? Because if it is then your committing the same mistake biologist did 50 years ago when they made the standard definition revolve around the cell.

oh then what happens if we go to titan and find free floating self replicating DNA?
 
Obviously titan life is not part of the evolutionary process on earth. Everything goes therefore.

flexibility is the key to scientific thinking. learn to live with it.
 
well then you should learn to live with a virus not being alive, as you said flexibility is the key then one should be learn to live the definition given, it already universally agreed here that the definition of live does not change anything.
 
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
well then you should learn to live with a virus not being alive, as you said flexibility is the key then one should be learn to live the definition given, it already universally agreed here that the definition of live does not change anything.
Click to expand...

The flexibility being that I HAVE to accept what someone else says.



dictionary

"flex·i·ble
Responsive to change; adaptable "
 
exactly adapt to the things given. The standard definition would have to adapt and so would your definition, what’s the deference? If you present a more adaptable definition then that would be something to discuss.
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
I was under the impression that the definition of life is flexible and changes accoring to the need of the scientists in question.

However, you know if something is alive or not when you see it.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
evolve and 'evolution' are 2 different things. I could of course have spilled it out for you by saying

Let's start by defining life as everything biological evolution as described by the theory of evolution by means of natural selection and possibly auxillary mechanisms has produced and is still replicating at some point in time or functions to support this function.

although if we really define 'life' and not just what is still alive we should have said:

Everything biological evolution has ever produced.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
but we might add...


'in its proper context.'
Click to expand...

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey

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.
Click to expand...
 
those don't answer my question. Again free floating replicating DNA under your defintion is alive, do you except that as fact or not? also what is 'in its proper context.'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top