Biology Forum › Community › General Discussion › Living thing
- AuthorPosts
- April 21, 2005 at 3:48 am #748
adam00fParticipantIn the beginning of the year my bio teacher gave us a question to figure out…Why isn’t a car a living thing.. ive been figureing it out and saying answers im very close but i can’t seem to get it..any help.i would aphricate it
adam
- April 21, 2005 at 4:17 am #21556mithParticipant
uhhh, it doesn’t have babies? It doesn’t grow?
- April 21, 2005 at 4:20 am #21559adam00fParticipant
but then i guess my bio teacher will argue like well..man can make stuff or somthing..Ex: i was going to tell him that cars dont have DNA or the blue prints but then ..i remmberd that cars do have ablue print….and that cars havle also eveloutionized..i need something spefic…but i cant seem to grasp it..im so close
- April 21, 2005 at 4:24 am #21560mithParticipant
ok, we have a very good thread on the definition of life
viewtopic.php?t=490&start=24
But again, a car cannot make a baby car. Every living thing can. - April 21, 2005 at 4:25 am #21561adam00fParticipant
that might work..its worth a shot..
- April 21, 2005 at 4:33 am #21563adam00fParticipant
Biostudent84 wrote:
quote :Defining life:Here is the current definition of life. In order for something to be called living, it must follow all of these:
1. all known living things are made up of cells.
2. the cell is structural & functional unit of all living things.
3. all cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
(Spontaneous Generation does not occur).
4. cells contains hereditary information which is passed from
cell to cell during cell division.
5. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition.
6. all energy flow (metabolism & biochemistry) of life occurs
within cells.maby i can apply this frm the thred u sent me too look at..now i just need to put it in my own intertepation..and hopefully get the questiuon right
๐ - April 21, 2005 at 6:52 pm #21578adam00fParticipant
I think I figured the answer to the question a car isnโt a living thing cause the car doesnโt carry its blue prints or genetic material in it, un like us we carry our genetic material in our nucleus. If you guys agree with me on this Iโll stick to it.
- April 21, 2005 at 8:43 pm #21584PoisonParticipant
I think you should better say that car does not have cells. or you can say that a car can not make cellular respiration to produce ATP.that would be more scientific because genetic material isn’t the only thing. viruses have genetic material too but they are non-living.
Hope it helped… - April 22, 2005 at 2:45 am #21590adam00fParticipant
lol probaly ill try that..if that dosnt work i still have till the end of the year ๐
- April 22, 2005 at 8:33 am #21596zami’87.Participant
Hi people!I’m not sure that you can say that everything that is alive is made of cells.What about viruses?Are they “living things”?I’m not sure.Ok viruses can’t reproduce without cell’s metabolism but they can reproduce… ๐
- April 22, 2005 at 9:04 am #215992810712Participant
This is well debated subject zam , and scientists can’t draw single conclusion , but recently they found viruses similar to some bacts , This is a amaizing fact from evolution pt. also.
What’s ur opinion ? ? ? Have it.hrushikesh
- April 22, 2005 at 12:22 pm #21600zami’87.Participantquote 2810712:This is well debated subject zam , and scientists can’t draw single conclusion , but recently they found viruses similar to some bacts , This is a amaizing fact from evolution pt. also.
What’s ur opinion ? ? ? Have it.hrushikesh
Hi again! Well I think that viruses should be counted in living organisms cause they are capable to reproduce.But I’m not sure for prions I mean they don’t have genetic material but they definitely show some properties of living organism
- April 22, 2005 at 5:20 pm #21608PoisonParticipantquote zami’87.:Hi people!I’m not sure that you can say that everything that is alive is made of cells.What about viruses?Are they “living things”?I’m not sure.Ok viruses can’t reproduce without cell’s metabolism but they can reproduce… ๐
According to the definition of life, they are NOT living. But if you change the criteria of living things, they can be.. But they are non-living in the present situtation.
We discussed this in the past you can make a search to read our discussion. - April 22, 2005 at 7:15 pm #21612adam00fParticipant
zami’87. if u want to know more abour virus click this link..they will help u http://www.biology-online.org/1/9_pathogens.htm, but its true virus are not living they have genetic material and stuff but in order for them to reproduse they need a cell
- April 22, 2005 at 9:07 pm #21617zami’87.Participantquote adam00f:zami’87. if u want to know more abour virus click this link..they will help u http://www.biology-online.org/1/9_pathogens.htm, but its true virus are not living they have genetic material and stuff but in order for them to reproduse they need a cell
Ok ๐
- April 24, 2005 at 5:16 pm #21636PoisonParticipant
is that link still working? I couldn’t open the page. can you please check that adam00f?
- April 25, 2005 at 3:09 am #21651osoParticipant
doesn’t grow, doesn’t reproduce
- April 25, 2005 at 9:54 am #216582810712Participant
Yeah, i also, calling living or non-living is matter of convinience i believe that there is a level of livingness amd deadness of every organ even we are not 100% living and the PC is not 100% non living [ if u know REKI and etc u’ll understand why] So, we should actually not defined life correctly . Prions , samilar case, but less living ness as no inheriance observed.
PS: this is complicated . ARe u boared ???
hrushikesh - April 26, 2005 at 7:16 pm #21734MrMisteryParticipant
2810712 i posted something similar- one of my first posts. I’m glad to see that there is someone that agrees with me
- April 27, 2005 at 6:13 am #217642810712Participant
i’m also glad to learn this.
๐
hrushikesh
_____________________
i’m born-different, so why try to make some difference? it’s there already…
๐hrushikesh
- April 27, 2005 at 6:37 pm #21785thank.darwinParticipant
We are made up of atoms and atoms are not living so you could say that we are made up of a bunch of dead things. ๐
- April 27, 2005 at 9:14 pm #21811biostudent84Participantquote thank.darwin:We are made up of atoms and atoms are not living so you could say that we are made up of a bunch of dead things. ๐
I wouldn’t say “dead”, but rather “non-living”
- April 27, 2005 at 9:25 pm #21813mithParticipant
right because dead means it was once living.
One of the great questions about life is whether life is simply the complex interactions between simple molecules, governed by the laws of chemistry and physics, or whether life is something imbued into these atoms. Without going into a metaphysical debate, I just want everyone to consider if all life is mechanical, how can something be judged “more living”?
- April 28, 2005 at 4:27 pm #218302810712Participant
Something that is metaphysical for ‘modern’ science today, can be physical later and that things may have been realized by ancient people. This is not impossible. So , don’t neglect the metaphysical things, think upon and u may have a new discovery of yours.
hrushikesh - April 28, 2005 at 6:56 pm #21844MrMisteryParticipant
As I said in another subject, from my opinion the best way to look at life is like this: any living organism is more than the sum of it’s parts(here we mean chemical parts)
- August 2, 2012 at 10:28 am #112001greatmona1Participant
Hi adam00f,
Only who have life that’s called living things .But a car has no life ,so it is a non living things .It is only drive by man with fuel.Thanks. - August 14, 2012 at 7:53 pm #112089damasco9Participant
Hey, very simple and hard to explain in the same time isn’t it? the life itself represents a constant change and evolution..cars don’t evolve unless we develop them,secondly we make cars they don’t make us..;)
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.