Incorrect. Living things respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and and respond to their environment.Ding seems to think that life requires skin and bones.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Incorrect. Living things respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and and respond to their environment.Ding seems to think that life requires skin and bones.
Abiogenesis. I had to look it up. Great word for a questionable explanation of life.I'm not trying to force people to believe as I do.
Believe in spontaneous abiogenesis, and designer-less design all you like. I'm fine with that.
You're the one who screams in all-caps when challenged to provide evidence.
I've been arguing life is different. And it is.
If you want to believe everything is living, good for you. I hope you write a technical paper and become famous. But until then...
Living things respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and and respond to their environment.That is an assertion. A conjecture. There is no physical evidence to back up that viewpoint. Only "I see what I see so it must be true".
I'm not interested in being famous. I'm only responding to a thread in a public internet forum. The thread is about common descent, and I'm arguing that it goes back a lot farther than "biology".
Right ... "My claim is [life] would be the opposite of entropy" ... this rejects rocks as being life as they occur as a result of entropy ....
Both ding and I have noticed all your examples are from cellular life ... and that does require a cell membrane ... even viruses are quiescent outside living cells ... do you have any examples of this "opposite of entropy" outside a cell membrane structure? ...
You know I'm an energy kind of guy, so I'm looking at the ADP/ATP energy transport methods as a working definition of life ... the actual agents of this "opposite of entropy" system ... as this allows for viruses and misfolded proteins ...
You seem to treat information as a material object ... I disagree ... it's strictly an artifact of imagination
... all the puma's eyes receive is light, it's in the puma's brain that the information of "delicious grouse" is generated ... it just photons, the information is strictly derived ...
You bring up evolution? ... how do rocks evolve? ... and are the rock's traits inheritable? ... perhaps to a small degree, but no where close to even the simplest cellular life form ... and important here as this simplest life form, blue-green algae, represents the halfway point of evolution ... every life form that existed before this halfway point is extinct and cannot live in this second half ... the Great Oxygen Crisis killed everything except the blue-green algae that was making the oxygen ... respiration had to evolve after ... and as near as I can figure, viruses evolved afterward as well ...
So does my magnetic rock. All of the above.Living things respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and and respond to their environment.
So let's say I accept your claim that your magic rock can respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and respond to it's environment (which I don't), how does that prove your claim that EVERYTHING is alive?So does my magnetic rock. All of the above.
You don't seem to understand the basics of statistical mechanics. Information dissipates as heat. Energy and information are one and the same
I think the point is more that any definition given of life is completely arbitrary and is used for convenience at the time.So let's say I accept your claim that your magic rock can respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and respond to it's environment (which I don't), how does that prove your claim that EVERYTHING is alive?
Whereas I think the distinction between living things and inanimate objects - like rocks - is self evident and the seven defining characteristics of living things perfectly describes the distinction and is therefore the opposite of arbitrary.I think the point is more that any definition given of life is completely arbitrary and is used for convenience at the time.
Right.Whereas I think the distinction between living things and inanimate objects - like rocks - is self evident and the seven defining characteristics of living things perfectly describes the distinction and is therefore the opposite of arbitrary.
I just posted a whole long disproof of that conjecture. I showed you a rock that can solve a 50-city traveling salesman problem in milliseconds, which is something no human can do. Not even a super-fast digital computer can do that. But my magnetic rock can.
I already gave you one. Prions.
Misfolded proteins do not require ATP.
They misfold because they achieve lower energy states that way.
Really? Go tell the quantum computing people. They'll be happy to argue your assertion, after they get done laughing.
No, wrong. There is a whole huge science of disambiguating memory in neural networks. The state of today's AI is, I can change a single pixel in an image and fool an AI into thinking a cat is a frog.
Biological evolution is exceedingly slow compared to what has already happened with AI.
Ask yourself: what is it exactly, that is evolving? DNA? Protein sequences? If your answer is yes, then your answer is INFORMATION. Protein folding and therefore shape is a direct consequence of the information in the genes.
Simple:so how does a rock reduce itself?
My claim is, you need to change your definition of life.So let's say I accept your claim that your magic rock can respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and respond to it's environment (which I don't), how does that prove your claim that EVERYTHING is alive?
You're beating around the bush. Reduction is chemistry, which is biochemistry. Same thing.I'm not in to this piece meal bullshit ... if you think prions qualifies as "cellular life" ... then you're an idiot ... and every protein in the known universe right now was formed using ATP ... starting with photosynthesis ... do you know how ubiquitous ATP is? ...
I think you have cause-and-effect backwards ... for the cause of existing DNA, we can have the effect of creating information based on the DNA ... and that information we created is just that, a human creation ... nothing wrong with that ... I've been reading up on cell membranes and that's part of what they do, transfer information about the external world ... the food particle triggers an electric pulse that conveys the information, which in turn turns on the ion channel to suck up the food particle ... information is great, but it's not a food particle ...
Life is the opposite of entropy ...so how does a rock reduce itself? ... this is your claim remember ...
Simple:
It undergoes a reaction with chemicals in its surroundings.
Just like that ant on the ground.
You're beating around the bush. Reduction is chemistry, which is biochemistry. Same thing.
It is one "form" of life. One of many. Why do you insist on excluding the others?
Why would I have to do that? Rocks aren't just made up of that. Rocks contain lots of chemicals. We rely on it, for these devices in our hands.Can you post the equation ... what naturally occurring chemical causes a reaction to silicon dioxide? ...
It's just science, dummy.Right.
So what you kinda, sorta feel is true vs analysis.
Your definition is flawed As a universal definition for reasons mentioned and not mentioned here. It's an arbitrary definition of convenience and works very well, in certain settings.
Your claim was everything is alive. My claim is that everything isn't alive. Only the things which meet the seven characteristics of living things can be considered to be alive.My claim is, you need to change your definition of life.
For you, life is "inside" an organism. "A human" is either alive or dead. While that may be true from an observational standpoint, it's not really accurate.
As we already discussed, organs can be kept "alive" outside of the organism. And rocks exhibit many of the same "observational" characteristics of biological organisms, as long as you look at the information instead of the blood flow.
Life is nowhere near as simple as "what you see".
No, it's a definition we chose. And it may not always hold true, everywhere and at all times. It works for convenience.It's just science, dummy.