1. St. Peter's
    Joined
    06 Dec '10
    Moves
    11313
    08 Feb '11 17:541 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The two problems are unrelated. You seem intent on using flawed arguments to defend your position.
    The problem if defining life is merely one of categorizing. We have similar problems with other category words such as 'species', and 'blue'. Does this mean we don't know what species are? Does it mean we don't know how species 'work'?
    What is 'blue'? Sci k factories? Does such lack of knowledge prevent you from knowing how it works?
    The difference is that a grandfather clock does not spontaneously appear from the surrounding elements now does it? Another faulty anology.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 Feb '11 19:33
    Originally posted by Diophantus
    I see, you came here for a fight. I am not about to oblige you although I'll happily hold your coat while you indulge in fisticuffs with others.
    My appologies. I mistook you for Doward in my comment about flawed arguments.
    Nevertheless, my objections to your arguments are sound.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 Feb '11 19:53
    Originally posted by Doward
    Cars can run forever, again it is a question of economics not of ability, thus your anology is false, try again.
    There is no such thing as a 'false analogy'. Only 'unsound analogies' or 'poor analogies'. In this case, I think the analogy does serve a purpose.

    At the point of "death" for a cell, does it look any different from a live cell? No.
    Yes, it looks different. If you cant see the difference, you need a better microscope (or some other tool of observation / investigation).

    Scientists have been able to distinguish between the two by testing, not by "observing".
    Testing is "observing".

    Dye is added to the slide, dead cells will absorb the dye where live cells will not. The live cells actively reject the dye, the dead cells have ceased functioning and no longer perform that process.
    Clearly there are quite profound differences in two cells. Just because you cant see those differences under a microscope does not mean they are not there.
    If I have a running car and a non-running car, you can hardly tell the difference by looking at photos of the two. You need something better for your observations.

    In form and composition there is no difference between a live and dead cell,
    So you say, but your evidence of looking at them under a microscope simply isn't sufficient.

    ,the ability to differentiate between the two lies in their functions (or ability to function).
    Which is a result of form and composition: clearly contradicting your earlier claim.

    So what then makes them dead? What makes them alive? Scientists can tell whether something is alive or dead, but not why its alive or dead (blunt force trauma etc notwithstanding). This point you cannot disprove, or you would have.
    I believe scientists, given enough time, tools and motivation, can tell why a given cell is dead. I believe that in many many cases, they already have. Do you dispute that? Are you arguing that no cause of cell death other than blunt force or trauma has ever been identified? What do you include under the heading "trauma"?

    I think you would have to give a specific repeatable example of a cell that dies for no known reason for you to have any argument whatsoever. You would then have to show that scientists have tried and failed to find the reason. Next you would have to explain why you believe the reason cannot reasonably be expected to be found at a future date.
  4. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80155
    08 Feb '11 20:10
    Originally posted by Doward
    Cars can run forever, again it is a question of economics not of ability, thus your anology is false, try again.


    At the point of "death" for a cell, does it look any different from a live cell? No.

    Scientists have been able to distinguish between the two by testing, not by "observing". Dye is added to the slide, dead cells will absorb the dye where li ...[text shortened]... (blunt force trauma etc notwithstanding). This point you cannot disprove, or you would have.
    What makes you think that a live cell and a dead cell is identical? A dead cell is certainly different from a live cell.

    A live cell is a combination of many chemical reactions working together and has dependencies on external chemical resources. It is like a miniature factory. A dead one is just where a link in the chain of reactions has broken (analogous to a broken conveyor belt).

    Once parts of the cell does not get the resources for the chemical reactions they require, it rapidly decomposes. There are still chemical reactions going on, but no longer the required ones to successfully contribute to its host in working with other cells. This effectively makes the cell "dead".
  5. gumtree
    Joined
    13 Jan '10
    Moves
    5151
    08 Feb '11 20:24
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    My appologies. I mistook you for Doward in my comment about flawed arguments.
    Nevertheless, my objections to your arguments are sound.
    Apology accepted. Not so sure you can object to my statement that my colleagues don't know exactly what life is let alone how it happens. I asked them, that is what they said. That's not an argument or opinion, that is a fact. I am sure they would be overjoyed if someone could enlighten them though.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Feb '11 05:15
    Originally posted by Diophantus
    Apology accepted. Not so sure you can object to my statement that my colleagues don't know exactly what life is let alone how it happens. I asked them, that is what they said. That's not an argument or opinion, that is a fact. I am sure they would be overjoyed if someone could enlighten them though.
    My point is that it is a category issue (and your colleagues worded it poorly). It is not that they don't know what life is, but rather they have not decided on the exact definition. The same applies to my analogies: scientists have not made an exact definition for 'species' so sometimes they cant decide whether two animals are of the same species or not. Similarly, the word 'blue' does not have an exact definition and you and I may disagree over whether a given shirt is really 'blue'.
    But none of this takes away from our knowledge of particular items that fall within these categories or even on the boundaries. Most 'living things' on earth fall well within the definition of 'life' and even your colleagues would have no doubt about them being alive.

    As for 'how it happens', they are referring to abiogenesis, which is a different subject altogether.
  7. gumtree
    Joined
    13 Jan '10
    Moves
    5151
    09 Feb '11 14:48
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    My point is that it is a category issue (and your colleagues worded it poorly). It is not that they don't know what life is, but rather they have not decided on the exact definition. The same applies to my analogies: scientists have not made an exact definition for 'species' so sometimes they cant decide whether two animals are of the same species or not. ...[text shortened]... ppens', they are referring to abiogenesis, which is a different subject altogether.
    There are a huge number of things that are on that borderline between living and not living. Viruses being a case in point. Live or dead? Depends on who you ask. I know someone who is of the opinion the whole planet is alive, I know at least two who think the universe is technically alive. Apparently it all hinges on entropy and what life does to it.

    Abiogenesis and "how life happens" may be a different subject, but I was replying to this comment from you:

    "I must take issue with that: Science does know how life happens, and has done so for a fairly long time. One could say - since the discovery of DNA."

    You now have a scientist (me, Earth system science) telling you that other scientists with relevant expertise (biology) are saying that no, we don't know how life happens even after the discovery of DNA. Some of us (not me) would sell our possibly-non-existent souls to know this. We can synthesise viral and bacterial DNA strands and there is an ongoing project to construct a living cell from scratch (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080124175924.htm) but that does not actually inform us how life happens. Unless you favour the notion that some being, possibly godlike, cooked up the first life on Earth in a laboratory just as we are now doing. I can't say I favour that notion as it just changes the question to "How did god-the-scientist/creator happen?"
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    09 Feb '11 16:421 edit
    Originally posted by Diophantus
    There are a huge number of things that are on that borderline between living and not living. Viruses being a case in point. Live or dead? Depends on who you ask. I know someone who is of the opinion the whole planet is alive, I know at least two who think the universe is technically alive. Apparently it all hinges on entropy and what life does to it.
    Exactly my point. But your mistake is thinking that we are somehow ignorant of what is or is not 'alive' when in reality we simply have not tied down our definition of the categorizing word 'life'. There are many words like this in the English language (and of course other languages) even fairly important words used in science.

    Abiogenesis and "how life happens" may be a different subject, but I was replying to this comment from you:

    "I must take issue with that: Science does know how life happens, and has done so for a fairly long time. One could say - since the discovery of DNA."


    I realize that I was not clear that I was not talking about abiogenesis, but let me put it in context - I was replying to the statement:

    We know what comprises the body, and the spirit would be called that aprt of us that makes us alive, the spark of life (science still doesn't know how this happens).

    Clearly this statement is not saying we are ignorant of abiogenesis, it is saying there is something in every day life here and now (that he calls the 'spark of life'πŸ˜‰ that we are ignorant of. That is what I was disputing.
  9. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80155
    11 Feb '11 13:421 edit
    "Life" has become so subjective that it has lost its meaning. Although I certainly wouldn't agree that it is some mystical entity that has been given to anything by some higher power.

    If someone was to get cryogenically frozen. Where does this mystical "life" go? Is this person living or dead?

    Some will argue that because when this person gets thawed out it will be animate as it was before, this person was always alive. However, I will just say this is semantics. If this person was frozen for ever, as far as he/she is concerned, will be dead. They will have the same experience (or rather, non-experience) of someone who is dead. The only difference between this person and a dead person is that they still have all the structure and chemistry in place which can allow this person to carry on as he/she was before if thawed out. If this person is woken up, this person will not be aware of time that has passed and be like having been under general anaesthetic.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Feb '11 19:38
    Originally posted by lausey
    "Life" has become so subjective that it has lost its meaning.
    I disagree. It has a wide range of meaning and has always done so historically and in most languages. I think it is often important that we be clear what we mean when we use it, or at least what sense we are using it in, but it is still a very useful and meaningful word.

    If someone was to get cryogenically frozen. Where does this mystical "life" go? Is this person living or dead?
    Though I have no major objections to your example, you seem to be equating consciousness with life.
    What about bacteria that are frozen for millenia? Are they alive or dead?
  11. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    12 Feb '11 06:23
    May I add something...

    In a human body if it is frozen lets say 2 weeks, the life force (the soul) will leave the body and take another birth.....and the body that is frozen upon thawing out will be pronounced dead, because there is no longer a soul within.

    A frog for instance can be frozen as well, and upon thawing out shall continue to live because the soul did not leave its body.....it has something to do with the fact that the frog is cold blooded and can be frozen and the human body is warm blooded and cannot be frozen.
  12. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    The Axe man
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    102622
    12 Feb '11 06:43
    Originally posted by vishvahetu
    May I add something...

    In a human body if it is frozen lets say 2 weeks, the life force (the soul) will leave the body and take another birth.....and the body that is frozen upon thawing out will be pronounced dead, because there is no longer a soul within.

    A frog for instance can be frozen as well, and upon thawing out shall continue to live becaus ...[text shortened]... frog is cold blooded and can be frozen and the human body is warm blooded and cannot be frozen.
    I thought the human soul could remain "attached" to the body for upto 49 days according to your belief system. I could be wrong, could you please clarify?
  13. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    The Axe man
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    102622
    12 Feb '11 06:49
    Indeed one could say the whole universe is alive. The rocks and the air and all the other things we have traditionally considered as dead are a neccesity for life on our planet. The "lifeless" sun is integral to our survival and devleopment. The dead plants and animals are essential nutrition for furthur life.
    So in a whollistic sense we have to consider the rocks as being alive just as much as we are, if we are going to continue living.

    I have actually "walked" on the sun, but thats for another thread.
  14. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    12 Feb '11 07:00
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    I thought the human soul could remain "attached" to the body for upto 49 days according to your belief system. I could be wrong, could you please clarify?
    Hum.....well I haven't heared that, but I can reference that and come back to you.
  15. St. Peter's
    Joined
    06 Dec '10
    Moves
    11313
    12 Feb '11 13:41
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Exactly my point. But your mistake is thinking that we are somehow ignorant of what is or is not 'alive' when in reality we simply have not tied down our definition of the categorizing word 'life'. There are many words like this in the English language (and of course other languages) even fairly important words used in science.

    [b]Abiogenesis and "how ...[text shortened]... he calls the 'spark of life'πŸ˜‰ that we are ignorant of. That is what I was disputing.
    *sigh* I guess you're just smarter than everyone else. All those dumb biologists, they should just read your posts and understand what dummys they areπŸ™„

    Fundamentalists are an embarrasment to christianity, and you are an embarrasment to Rational thought.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree