Quote: Lets hypothesize that we make the hypothesis that:No living organism is possible to remain unchanged structurally.
"Scientists aren't perfect, just peer reviewed.""Eye of Sauron Observatory", featuring "Sauron's Other Eye", 16" dob, conical Royce mirror.
Celestron 8SE XLT Celestron 6SE + Antares f/0.63 focal reducer Celestron SE Goto Mount Kson 1026 ED Carbon Fibre tube Skywatcher Synscan AZ Goto Various EPs (Baader Mk III Zooom, BST, Televue, X-Cel LX)
Quote: a simple chemical reaction as long as it happens ,is the simpliest form of life
Quote: So by this definition seeds are not alive? Spores are not alive?
Quote:You can create cell-like vacuoles containing chemicals that are reacting...are they alive?
I don't believe in astrology. I am a Gemini and we're very skeptical.
Quote:Many years ago, experiments were conducted in which electrical fields were generated in a sealed container containing various elements and compounds. The result was a gooey mess that contained amino acids, that were explained as the 'building blocks' of life.This was a long time ago and I was wondering if those experiments or something similar had been done recently to try & get further up the ladder of Life?
Quote: Quote: So by this definition seeds are not alive? Spores are not alive? Well, those are again a bit of a special case. Spores and seeds are in stasis - not currently living, but with the potantial to come to life given the correct conditions. Quote:You can create cell-like vacuoles containing chemicals that are reacting...are they alive? If they aren't capable of self-replicating, then no.Jarad
Quote:I was pointing out that it is more along the line of your car example - if a factory assembles parts made elsewhere, have they "created" a car? If we inserted a genome that we had designed from scratch, I would say we have "created" life. If we insert a genome we copied from a mastodon, I am not sure how much we "created". Maybe it would be better in both cases to say "assembled". The car factory assembled the car, and by replacing the genome we have assembled a living cell.But the similarity between the two example is because the key question there is about "creating", not about "life". There is no question that what went into the factory was not a car, and what comes out of the factory is a car. So the definition of "car" isn't the issue there, and the definition of "life" isn't the issue in the other example.Jarad
Quote: The basic idea goes like this:i am arguing that life is an open system that is getting energy from the sun.BUT i am also arguing that if you consider life as a WHOLE (without dividing it into species ,organisms, etc) ,you get a sum of just RANDOM chemical reactions.The natural history of these reactions led to the forms we see today.Through our perspective, while we are studying this history, we see it as evolution. We see everywhere determinism, but its only because we are the results of all these.
Quote: How do you define what is correct?
Quote:Pess:How do you define what is correct?Selection favors combinations and reactions that offers surviving benefit.But when we have random chemical reactions, wont the most unstable and non sustainable reactions disappear or transform into more succesful(not leading to dead end) ones?So given the perspective into which we judge the phenomenon , doesnt this mean that they are the two different options of the same coin?
Quote: but it will most probably get destroyed.Life can only exist as an entire entity instead.
Quote:I don't think you can look at the spectrum of organic chemical reactions and say..'at this point there be life'...
Quote:Llanitedave: What is correct is what you discover, but if you don’t take human perspective into account, then you might make the same mistake as those that believe that earth is flat, or the sun is rotating around earth, just because that is what we observe with our eyes.Just the fact that we abandoned geocentricism , didn’t make us absolutely objective observers for everything yet.I think there is still way to go…..
Quote: Quote:I don't think you can look at the spectrum of organic chemical reactions and say..'at this point there be life'... Sure we can. We just have to be aware that there is a certain amount of arbitrariness to where we put the dividing line, and that no matter where we put it, there is going to be very little difference between things are close to the line on either side.There is no univerally accepted definition of life, but I like this one. The key is to base the definition on things that make sense. By the current definition, viruses are not alive. They are clearly close, but not quite. We could move the definition to allow them to be alive, but then we'll just have the same issue again with prions, which are a bit further down the scale, etc.Jarad
Quote:I granite to you that this is a silly argument, but is it a valid one?
Quote:Quote:I granite to you that this is a silly argument, but is it a valid one?That's a Gneiss way of putting it. Isn't life made (partly) of rock anyway? It's the arrangement that's key. (Or part of the key.)