The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy is non-decreasing for closed systems. The earth is not a closed system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"order tends to disorder."
this is an interesting topic, and a very complex one...
we are order in its most complex form, in that we are life. no life becomes life. disorder becomes order. energy has to be focused into this disorder to create the order. how can that happen? do you realize the almost impossibility of that happening on its own?? we cant even begin to do that with what we know. the best we can do is make amino acids, which still isn't life. we have created order, but it still isnt life. oh, and we arent gods...
<strong>I think we should all just agree that God put an egg on the world, that egg hatched into a chicken and had some corn. Simple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is one egg and one chicken enough ? Surely at least two chickens are required for future generations, an Adam and Eve.
<strong>I think we should all just agree that God put an egg on the world, that egg hatched into a chicken and had some corn. Simple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
nah, that would stop our discussion if we all agreed... :cool:
somebody said: "we have created order, but it still isn't life"
It is interesting to note that there is no scientific definition of life so it is difficult to argue that we have not created it. Most attempts at definitions fall foul of complex systems like cities, viruses, fire and ant colonies which people instinctively reject as 'alive' and other cases like eunuchs, people in comas/on life support etc. that we recognize as alive despite not having qualities that we associate with life. This may be getting too philosophical but I am not sure that 'life' or 'intelligence' exist as the only definition we have is 'like us' which pretty much rules out meeting intelligent alien life unless it looks like something from the original star trek i.e. a human in a silly outfit.
Anyway, back on topic: a chicken is just an egg's way of producing
[quote]not only does life have to randomly form into order, bypassing the second law of thermodynamics, but it must then also pass on what its created onto the next generation. so it must have, 1. formed and 2. learned how to reproduce
......
the odds of this are incredibly small, if not impossible. i study science for a living, so i get immersed in this stuff, and i love thinking about it. but when i come across the basics of life, i always end up realizing that we still know so very little...<hr></blockquote>
here's what i theorize in regards to your two points above, which i think are valid and logical.
life has one thing going for it that counteracts the two points made above.
i'll start with an example, because i've never really figured out a good way to explain it otherwise. say you have millions of strands of RNA in the ocean, all just doing random things. most exist for a time, doing their little thing, then break down.
some few RNA strands happen to make RNA strands just like themselves, that's their thing. sure, it's just a few out of countless ones, but they have an advantage now. unlike their random brothers and sisters, these RNA strands are working to make more RNA strands like themselves. (by pure chance). this makes them slowly increase in population percentage, as they make others like themselves. slowly the number of replicating RNA strands has increased to be a significant portion of the total RNA strand population.
now you have the majority of RNA strands making RNA strands just like themselves. the better they are at making a copy, the more likely they are to continue to exist. soon all that's left are sucessfully copying RNA strands.
this process refines itself over time due to chance, as an RNA strand that replicates itself better than others will be more likely to continue to exist in one form or another.
as time goes on, the strands that are the best replicators are the survivors. (at least their "offspring" are)
so basically you've created a very simple system that actualy addresses the two issues you've raised above in what i consider a very plausible manner.
<strong>somebody said: "we have created order, but it still isn't life"
It is interesting to note that there is no scientific definition of life so it is difficult to argue that we have not created it. Most attempts at definitions fall foul of complex systems like cities, viruses, fire and ant colonies which people instinctively reject as 'alive' and other cases like eunuchs, people in comas/on life support etc. that we recognize as alive despite not having qualities that we associate with life. This may be getting too philosophical but I am not sure that 'life' or 'intelligence' exist as the only definition we have is 'like us' which pretty much rules out meeting intelligent alien life unless it looks like something from the original star trek i.e. a human in a silly outfit.
Anyway, back on topic: a chicken is just an egg's way of producing
more eggs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i said order in regards to amino acids, because that is the most complex thing we have managed to make in our own controlled experiments. no matter what definition of life you choose, amino acids are not alive. they are merely building blocks used to create more order (proteins) which are then used to build life systems.
here's what i theorize in regards to your two points above, which i think are valid and logical.
life has one thing going for it that counteracts the two points made above.
i'll start with an example, because i've never really figured out a good way to explain it otherwise. say you have millions of strands of RNA in the ocean, all just doing random things. most exist for a time, doing their little thing, then break down.
some few RNA strands happen to make RNA strands just like themselves, that's their thing. sure, it's just a few out of countless ones, but they have an advantage now. unlike their random brothers and sisters, these RNA strands are working to make more RNA strands like themselves. (by pure chance). this makes them slowly increase in population percentage, as they make others like themselves. slowly the number of replicating RNA strands has increased to be a significant portion of the total RNA strand population.
now you have the majority of RNA strands making RNA strands just like themselves. the better they are at making a copy, the more likely they are to continue to exist. soon all that's left are sucessfully copying RNA strands.
this process refines itself over time due to chance, as an RNA strand that replicates itself better than others will be more likely to continue to exist in one form or another.
as time goes on, the strands that are the best replicators are the survivors. (at least their "offspring" are)
so basically you've created a very simple system that actualy addresses the two issues you've raised above in what i consider a very plausible manner.
i'd be interested to know what you think of it.
-alcimedes</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmm...interesting. you bypassed the single-cell organisms and went straight to the genetic end of things. i assume that you also assume these RNA molecules just formed on their own based on the very small chances of such a specific molecule (ribonucleic acid) forming and then combining into RNA. we ourselves cannot even reproduce the forming of RNA on its own outside of living things. so honestly, i dont know what it would take for this type of situation to happen.
after the RNA "learns" (vague word for such a process) to reproduce, it then merges with a membrane type substance (lipids) and the system continues but at an increased scale. hmm...interesting. ok, so then the membrane splits (the reason this happens i suppose is just spontonaeity from an increase in size), taking half the genetic material in each pocket.
now, i am making many assumptions based on how life works today. i can't do that, seeing as how life now is completely different from original life, but it's all we have to work with. evolutionary theory is based on so many assumptions to keep it working...
but its all we know, and like i said before, we are constantly reminded of how little we know...
If you consider that the proto-chicken make eggs, then you should consider that the chicken come from an egg of a proto-chicken. So the egg come first in a darwin point of vue. Because eggs appears way before chicken in the long story of evolution.
<strong>i said order in regards to amino acids, because that is the most complex thing we have managed to make in our own controlled experiments. no matter what definition of life you choose, amino acids are not alive.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said there is no accepted definition of life, so you cannot out of hand say that amino acids do not have that property. You are simply defining life as something that you (as a human) have and the closer something is to you the more alive it is (e.g. animals like crabs are less alive than mammals like dogs which are less alive than primates etc.)
We (humans) have created many things that could reasonably be considered alive: jokes, computer viruses, religions. I think you are limiting yourself if you only define 'life' historically i.e. as the process that led to humans from amino acids.
As I said there is no accepted definition of life, so you cannot out of hand say that amino acids do not have that property. You are simply defining life as something that you (as a human) have and the closer something is to you the more alive it is (e.g. animals like crabs are less alive than mammals like dogs which are less alive than primates etc.)
We (humans) have created many things that could reasonably be considered alive: jokes, computer viruses, religions. I think you are limiting yourself if you only define 'life' historically i.e. as the process that led to humans from amino acids.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ok then, ill simplify it for you. ill tell you how i, and most scientists, see life.
life=something w/ a type of consiousness, ability to adapt to survive, able to reproduce on it's own.
all the kingdoms of life (i think they have been changing the orders around, so i dont know exactly how many there are now) share these characteristics, from the simplest of organisms (bacteria) to the most complex (humans).
i dont consider any of those things you have listed as "alive." even artifical intelligence, which we will make soon enough, will not be "alive." artificial intelligence is probably the closest thing we can come to between something thats not alive and something that is actually sentient with life. its a difficult concept, but its still one that should be able to be defined by science. machines are not alive, but AI will force us to reevaluate our definitions. computers cannot think, adapt, or reproduce (as of right now). they only do what we tell them to do. in the same way, amino acids cannot think, adapt or reproduce on their own.
<strong>ok then, ill simplify it for you. ill tell you how i, and most scientists, see life.
</strong>
there is no need to simplify on my account
<strong>i'll tell you how i, and most scientists, see life.
life=something w/ a type of consiousness, ability to adapt to survive, able to reproduce on it's own.
all the kingdoms of life (i think they have been changing the orders around, so i dont know exactly how many there are now) share these characteristics, from the simplest of organisms (bacteria) to the most complex (humans).
</strong>
so to be a living thing you need: consciousness, ability to adapt to survive, ability to reproduce on it's own
One, so bacteria have consciousness? Do all bugs go to heaven? Most people (including most scientists) draw the line for consciousness well above the line for life. BTW this also rules out brain dead people as living creatures.
Two, most so-called living things can only survive in a tiny range of environmental conditions. Can you adapt to vacuum, can your dog adapt to living underwater. I take it you mean 'continue to live' by 'adapt' but that's just tautological isn't it.
Three, I personally cannot reproduce on my own, neither can you unless you are some kind of haemaphrodite i.e. a chick with a dick, or a guy with a pie (not that there's anything wrong with that) and even then it would be tricky. Looks like we aren't alive then, oh well.
See, it's not as easy as it first looks, is it?
<strong>
i dont consider any of those things you have listed as "alive."...computers cannot think, adapt, or reproduce (as of right now). they only do what we tell them to do. in the same way, amino acids cannot think, adapt or reproduce on their own.</strong>
You now seem to have substituted thought for consciousness but again the line for thought is usually drawn above that for consciousness, though no one really agrees where. (Returning to my earlier point when I say 'above' I really mean closer to humans.)
<hr></blockquote>
The challenge:
I think most people would agree that the following are alive.
Severely disabled people (i.e. would die without someone to care for them),
Brain-dead people,
People unable to have children,
Bacteria,
Plants,
and the following are not
cities,
fire,
planet earth,
computer (or real) viruses
jokes,
ant colonies (not the individual ants)
but if you can come up with a definition of life that separates the two neatly then you will have impressed me. Good luck.
Comments
<strong>
The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy is non-decreasing for closed systems. The earth is not a closed system.</strong><hr></blockquote>
"order tends to disorder."
this is an interesting topic, and a very complex one...
we are order in its most complex form, in that we are life. no life becomes life. disorder becomes order. energy has to be focused into this disorder to create the order. how can that happen? do you realize the almost impossibility of that happening on its own?? we cant even begin to do that with what we know. the best we can do is make amino acids, which still isn't life. we have created order, but it still isnt life. oh, and we arent gods...
<strong>I think we should all just agree that God put an egg on the world, that egg hatched into a chicken and had some corn. Simple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is one egg and one chicken enough ? Surely at least two chickens are required for future generations, an Adam and Eve.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
[ 08-10-2002: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
<strong>
Is one egg and one chicken enough ? Surely at least two chickens are required for future generations.
the first chicken was asexual.
<strong>I think we should all just agree that God put an egg on the world, that egg hatched into a chicken and had some corn. Simple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
nah, that would stop our discussion if we all agreed... :cool:
<strong>Clearly God's desire for an omelette came first...
It is interesting to note that there is no scientific definition of life so it is difficult to argue that we have not created it. Most attempts at definitions fall foul of complex systems like cities, viruses, fire and ant colonies which people instinctively reject as 'alive' and other cases like eunuchs, people in comas/on life support etc. that we recognize as alive despite not having qualities that we associate with life. This may be getting too philosophical but I am not sure that 'life' or 'intelligence' exist as the only definition we have is 'like us' which pretty much rules out meeting intelligent alien life unless it looks like something from the original star trek i.e. a human in a silly outfit.
Anyway, back on topic: a chicken is just an egg's way of producing
more eggs.
......
the odds of this are incredibly small, if not impossible. i study science for a living, so i get immersed in this stuff, and i love thinking about it. but when i come across the basics of life, i always end up realizing that we still know so very little...<hr></blockquote>
here's what i theorize in regards to your two points above, which i think are valid and logical.
life has one thing going for it that counteracts the two points made above.
i'll start with an example, because i've never really figured out a good way to explain it otherwise. say you have millions of strands of RNA in the ocean, all just doing random things. most exist for a time, doing their little thing, then break down.
some few RNA strands happen to make RNA strands just like themselves, that's their thing. sure, it's just a few out of countless ones, but they have an advantage now. unlike their random brothers and sisters, these RNA strands are working to make more RNA strands like themselves. (by pure chance). this makes them slowly increase in population percentage, as they make others like themselves. slowly the number of replicating RNA strands has increased to be a significant portion of the total RNA strand population.
now you have the majority of RNA strands making RNA strands just like themselves. the better they are at making a copy, the more likely they are to continue to exist. soon all that's left are sucessfully copying RNA strands.
this process refines itself over time due to chance, as an RNA strand that replicates itself better than others will be more likely to continue to exist in one form or another.
as time goes on, the strands that are the best replicators are the survivors. (at least their "offspring" are)
so basically you've created a very simple system that actualy addresses the two issues you've raised above in what i consider a very plausible manner.
i'd be interested to know what you think of it.
-alcimedes
<strong>somebody said: "we have created order, but it still isn't life"
It is interesting to note that there is no scientific definition of life so it is difficult to argue that we have not created it. Most attempts at definitions fall foul of complex systems like cities, viruses, fire and ant colonies which people instinctively reject as 'alive' and other cases like eunuchs, people in comas/on life support etc. that we recognize as alive despite not having qualities that we associate with life. This may be getting too philosophical but I am not sure that 'life' or 'intelligence' exist as the only definition we have is 'like us' which pretty much rules out meeting intelligent alien life unless it looks like something from the original star trek i.e. a human in a silly outfit.
Anyway, back on topic: a chicken is just an egg's way of producing
more eggs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i said order in regards to amino acids, because that is the most complex thing we have managed to make in our own controlled experiments. no matter what definition of life you choose, amino acids are not alive. they are merely building blocks used to create more order (proteins) which are then used to build life systems.
<strong>
here's what i theorize in regards to your two points above, which i think are valid and logical.
life has one thing going for it that counteracts the two points made above.
i'll start with an example, because i've never really figured out a good way to explain it otherwise. say you have millions of strands of RNA in the ocean, all just doing random things. most exist for a time, doing their little thing, then break down.
some few RNA strands happen to make RNA strands just like themselves, that's their thing. sure, it's just a few out of countless ones, but they have an advantage now. unlike their random brothers and sisters, these RNA strands are working to make more RNA strands like themselves. (by pure chance). this makes them slowly increase in population percentage, as they make others like themselves. slowly the number of replicating RNA strands has increased to be a significant portion of the total RNA strand population.
now you have the majority of RNA strands making RNA strands just like themselves. the better they are at making a copy, the more likely they are to continue to exist. soon all that's left are sucessfully copying RNA strands.
this process refines itself over time due to chance, as an RNA strand that replicates itself better than others will be more likely to continue to exist in one form or another.
as time goes on, the strands that are the best replicators are the survivors. (at least their "offspring" are)
so basically you've created a very simple system that actualy addresses the two issues you've raised above in what i consider a very plausible manner.
i'd be interested to know what you think of it.
-alcimedes</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmm...interesting. you bypassed the single-cell organisms and went straight to the genetic end of things. i assume that you also assume these RNA molecules just formed on their own based on the very small chances of such a specific molecule (ribonucleic acid) forming and then combining into RNA. we ourselves cannot even reproduce the forming of RNA on its own outside of living things. so honestly, i dont know what it would take for this type of situation to happen.
after the RNA "learns" (vague word for such a process) to reproduce, it then merges with a membrane type substance (lipids) and the system continues but at an increased scale. hmm...interesting. ok, so then the membrane splits (the reason this happens i suppose is just spontonaeity from an increase in size), taking half the genetic material in each pocket.
now, i am making many assumptions based on how life works today. i can't do that, seeing as how life now is completely different from original life, but it's all we have to work with. evolutionary theory is based on so many assumptions to keep it working...
but its all we know, and like i said before, we are constantly reminded of how little we know...
Hmm, what does say the bible about this
<strong>i said order in regards to amino acids, because that is the most complex thing we have managed to make in our own controlled experiments. no matter what definition of life you choose, amino acids are not alive.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
As I said there is no accepted definition of life, so you cannot out of hand say that amino acids do not have that property. You are simply defining life as something that you (as a human) have and the closer something is to you the more alive it is (e.g. animals like crabs are less alive than mammals like dogs which are less alive than primates etc.)
We (humans) have created many things that could reasonably be considered alive: jokes, computer viruses, religions. I think you are limiting yourself if you only define 'life' historically i.e. as the process that led to humans from amino acids.
<strong>
As I said there is no accepted definition of life, so you cannot out of hand say that amino acids do not have that property. You are simply defining life as something that you (as a human) have and the closer something is to you the more alive it is (e.g. animals like crabs are less alive than mammals like dogs which are less alive than primates etc.)
We (humans) have created many things that could reasonably be considered alive: jokes, computer viruses, religions. I think you are limiting yourself if you only define 'life' historically i.e. as the process that led to humans from amino acids.</strong><hr></blockquote>
ok then, ill simplify it for you. ill tell you how i, and most scientists, see life.
life=something w/ a type of consiousness, ability to adapt to survive, able to reproduce on it's own.
all the kingdoms of life (i think they have been changing the orders around, so i dont know exactly how many there are now) share these characteristics, from the simplest of organisms (bacteria) to the most complex (humans).
i dont consider any of those things you have listed as "alive." even artifical intelligence, which we will make soon enough, will not be "alive." artificial intelligence is probably the closest thing we can come to between something thats not alive and something that is actually sentient with life. its a difficult concept, but its still one that should be able to be defined by science. machines are not alive, but AI will force us to reevaluate our definitions. computers cannot think, adapt, or reproduce (as of right now). they only do what we tell them to do. in the same way, amino acids cannot think, adapt or reproduce on their own.
<strong>ok then, ill simplify it for you. ill tell you how i, and most scientists, see life.
</strong>
there is no need to simplify on my account
<strong>i'll tell you how i, and most scientists, see life.
life=something w/ a type of consiousness, ability to adapt to survive, able to reproduce on it's own.
all the kingdoms of life (i think they have been changing the orders around, so i dont know exactly how many there are now) share these characteristics, from the simplest of organisms (bacteria) to the most complex (humans).
</strong>
so to be a living thing you need: consciousness, ability to adapt to survive, ability to reproduce on it's own
One, so bacteria have consciousness? Do all bugs go to heaven? Most people (including most scientists) draw the line for consciousness well above the line for life. BTW this also rules out brain dead people as living creatures.
Two, most so-called living things can only survive in a tiny range of environmental conditions. Can you adapt to vacuum, can your dog adapt to living underwater. I take it you mean 'continue to live' by 'adapt' but that's just tautological isn't it.
Three, I personally cannot reproduce on my own, neither can you unless you are some kind of haemaphrodite i.e. a chick with a dick, or a guy with a pie (not that there's anything wrong with that) and even then it would be tricky. Looks like we aren't alive then, oh well.
See, it's not as easy as it first looks, is it?
<strong>
i dont consider any of those things you have listed as "alive."...computers cannot think, adapt, or reproduce (as of right now). they only do what we tell them to do. in the same way, amino acids cannot think, adapt or reproduce on their own.</strong>
You now seem to have substituted thought for consciousness but again the line for thought is usually drawn above that for consciousness, though no one really agrees where. (Returning to my earlier point when I say 'above' I really mean closer to humans.)
<hr></blockquote>
The challenge:
I think most people would agree that the following are alive.
Severely disabled people (i.e. would die without someone to care for them),
Brain-dead people,
People unable to have children,
Bacteria,
Plants,
and the following are not
cities,
fire,
planet earth,
computer (or real) viruses
jokes,
ant colonies (not the individual ants)
but if you can come up with a definition of life that separates the two neatly then you will have impressed me. Good luck.
<strong>
The challenge:
I think most people would agree that the following are alive.
Severely disabled people (i.e. would die without someone to care for them),
Brain-dead people,
People unable to have children,
Bacteria,
Plants,
and the following are not
cities,
fire,
planet earth,
computer (or real) viruses
jokes,
ant colonies (not the individual ants)
but if you can come up with a definition of life that separates the two neatly then you will have impressed me. Good luck.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Real viruses are alive, they are belonging to the microbiological family of beings.