Heh, that's exactly why I wasn't willing to go there. The question of "what is life?" is so broad.
It's like that discussion about when can a child make decisions for themselves. Some say 16 years of age, but even at 30 most people are just a mirror of their habitat so it doesn't say a whole lot to me.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
A nice little quote
"Scientists have several qualifications they use to define life, including the ability to reproduce and a reaction to outside stimuli, such as light or heat. But certain computer viruses can use electronics to replicate themselves, and some inorganic materials can be engineered to respond to outside stimuli- plastics which shrink from exposure to heat, for example. Obviously computer viruses and engineered plastics are not living organisms, but they each satisfy at least one of the criteria scientists use to define life. Scientific methods and principles alone cannot adequately describe all of the elements of life." http://www.wisegeek.com/why-is-it-d...define-life.htm
Well I already pointed out that they meet SOME of the criteria. Just not enough to be living. And i'd like to see these alleged plants that never grow.
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
The problem is there is no defined number of criteria that determines life, they haven’t come up with one in over 400 years, you could keep adding on to the list and most things wouldn’t meet the criteria.
Even with your list your forgot to include this part "There is no universal definition of life; there are a variety of definitions proposed by different scientists. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists"
and you have pointed out yet another difficulty in defining life
are the single cellular organisms which comprise a multi-cellular organism alive? or is the multi-cellular organism alive?
Cells buried within a plant may never grow, because they are forced into their space by surrounding cells that are growing, causing the plant to grow.
lol, ya, dude, can't define life. There is no scientific criteria for life.
the SOME criteria that viruses might meet are not objectively measures of life, thus, it doesn't matter how many they meet. Life is not definable in the way you want it to be.
Well in order to answer "is a computer virus alive?" we would need a definition. This definition is BY FAR the most commonly accepted one, so it's the one i'm using.
If you're talking about Multi-celluar organisms, the organism as a whole is alive. If you're talking about the sort of "cluster organisms" found among Protists, I have no idea. But I think both would apply.
But the plant as a whole (the organism) is growing, so it meets the criteria.
I just provided one that is accepted by most biologists.
Viruses are not considered alive because they don't meet the criteria... i'm not sure what you want. Obviously the way to tell if something is alive is to see if it meets the biological definition, that's how EVERYTHING is defined.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 24th, 2008 05:33 PM
