I'm not scientifically educated enough to challenge the theory, but I would say that even if glass were "alive" there are still enough differences between it and a human, an earthworm, or an amoeba to categorize it as a different form of life, an inorganic lifeform.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
Yeah, there are likely plenty among us with enough understanding of evolution to grasp his idea. But posing a question on its validity is premature. The article(s) themselves say that the idea is in its infancy, will receive scrutiny in coming years, and that England will be conducting further tests to flesh out the theory. It's an interesting angle to approach it from, so you've piqued my interest. But we shouldn't really be endorsing it or critiquing it without a lot deeper understanding, which none but a few experts in the field likely have at this point.
Indeed. One of the requirements for life is the ability to reproduce and glass obviously does not do that. Heck, even viruses aren't considered to be "alive" because they don't technically reproduce.
Don't get caught up on terms like "alive" though. I'm pretty sure the research is just looking into the fundamental physical forces that drive evolution, which may apply to various kinds of matter.
Because frankly, that sounds like the kind of false equivalency that a clickbait news article would use. "Scientist proves glass is ALIVE!" all while the scientist himself shakes his head at the wrongheaded usage and tries to promote a less confused understanding of the central idea.
Viruses aren't considered cells because they can not reproduce on their own or with others of their "species". Instead, they need a host to "hijack" into building other viruses. From what I recall, this isn't considered reproduction, at least not in the biological/cellular sense.
Last edited by ares834 on Apr 27th, 2015 at 04:44 AM
For sure. I think comparing glass with an ameoba is a terrible analogy. Analogies notwithstanding he might have something if he can fill in the grey between.
__________________ Listen, boy. Have you ever had your scrotum pulled off by a mountain goat and seen him sell it on eBay a day later?
In other news: rocks are alive, and they are more territorial than anyone ever suspected (which is why they don't move). Even if you place one in a stream, over time watch its molecular structure change as it adapts to the force of the water pushing on it. It will grow smoother and more streamlined so the water can no longer shove it around from spot to spot.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on Apr 27th, 2015 at 11:24 AM
Basically he's saying that the origins of Doomsday in Superman apply to matter. The more it's exposed to a certain set of environmental conditions the more it gets used to, adapts to and then utilises those conditions. You would have to think the conditions would have to be extremely stable over a long period for it to generate life from non-life though. Not something you can really say about early earth.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 27th, 2015 12:58 AM
