Scientists Discover a Self-Replicating Protein Structure, And It Could Have Built The First Life on

[ReinyDays]

I have no idea.

Do you pretend that you know the one, correct answer?

My opinion? ... I certainly know what my opinion is in the matter ... and I'm asking for your opinion ...

What is life? ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My opinion? ... I certainly know what my opinion is in the matter ... and I'm asking for your opinion ...

What is life? ...

I really don't know. Depends on the context, I suppose. I'm not saying the conventional definitions don't work. We're just parsing those.

If parts of it repirate, parts of it move, parts of it replicate...is it life?

Is the universe alive?

 

[scruffy]

Maybe try using google, dummy.

Since when is Google the arbiter of truth?

 

[ding]

Since when is Google the arbiter of truth?

Logic is. Like I said in the other thread... The reason the seven characteristics of living things aren't arbitrary is that each characteristic has been observed in things that were alive whereas they have never been observed in inanimate objects.

 

[scruffy]

Logic is. Like I said in the other thread... The reason the seven characteristics of living things aren't arbitrary is that each characteristic has been observed in things that were alive whereas they have never been observed in inanimate objects.

Looks to me like you need to expand your definition of "observed".

Consider for example Schrodinger's cat. Which is bothe alive and dead. Until it's "observed". lol

The main problem here, is you insist on restricting your definition of life to things you can see. You're at the macroscopic level, whereas I'm talking about stuff that's not even as big as a photon.

Stuff that small, is hard to "observe". Because any measurement (any observation) destroys the state.

But scientists have come up with ways of observing things at this scale - not directly, but indirectly. For instance we can observe "ensembles" without changing the states of their components (or only so few of them that it makes no difference to the ensemble).

In the vernacular this form of observation is called "weak" measurement.

Weak measurement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Looks to me like you need to expand your definition of "observed".

Consider for example Schrodinger's cat. Which is bothe alive and dead. Until it's "observed". lol

The main problem here, is you insist on restricting your definition of life to things you can see. You're at the macroscopic level, whereas I'm talking about stuff that's not even as big as a photon.

Stuff that small, is hard to "observe". Because any measurement (any observation) destroys the state.

But scientists have come up with ways of observing things at this scale - not directly, but indirectly. For instance we can observe "ensembles" without changing the states of their components (or only so few of them that it makes no difference to the ensemble).

In the vernacular this form of observation is called "weak" measurement.

Weak measurement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No. I'm good with defining living things as things that respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and be responsive to the environment.

Eighteen distinctive characteristics of life

A practical approach in the inquiry of life is to contrast living beings with nonliving ones from different perspectives and extract the distinctive features of living beings. We can identify features and mechanisms that truthfully account for the differences ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. I'm good with defining living things as things that respire, grow, excrete, reproduce, metabolize, move, and be responsive to the environment.

Eighteen distinctive characteristics of life

A practical approach in the inquiry of life is to contrast living beings with nonliving ones from different perspectives and extract the distinctive features of living beings. We can identify features and mechanisms that truthfully account for the differences ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And there isn't much problem with that. That will work just fine, for a working biologist. I don't think anyone disputes that.

 

[ding]

And there isn't much problem with that. That will work just fine, for a working biologist. I don't think anyone disputes that.

You have been. But then again, you believe you can make a valid logical argument for the moon being made of cheese.