Viewing 47 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #563
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      Seldon do i post outside zoology, but this is a good guestion. God is dog backwards, live is evil backwards. If biology is the study of life than the main question is life. Life was formed from bubbling chemicals with a mixture of lightning ( as is the modern proposal). Purpose is what you make out of it. The question of life is… can you put a value on it. For example does a amobea of less “life value” than a human? And how does bio’s opposite death respond?

    • #20665
      biostudent84
      Participant

      Value on life? Sure ya can.

      As of 2003, an average (150lb) person is worth $118.13 in American dollars ๐Ÿ˜‰ Well…at least the chemicals are…

      But seriously…when you ask what the value of life is…you need to ask yourself…what is “value”? By then…you get out of science and into philosophy…a place I refuse to go into…

      Maybe other people can help you out…

      Kyle

    • #20670
      mith
      Participant

      It’s worth teh genes it carries. Each life is responsible for evolving a specie to being better adapted at the environment.

    • #20687
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      What the use of superior genes if they aren’t passed down. Life’s value may have something to do with contiuning life. Think about it. evolution is survivor of the ones who reproduce. Just something to chew on…

    • #20688
      biostudent84
      Participant
      quote Inuyasha:

      What the use of superior genes if they aren’t passed down. Life’s value may have something to do with contiuning life. Think about it. evolution is survivor of the ones who reproduce. Just something to chew on…

      You’re halfway there…but there is one thing you should adjust. Continuing life, passing down one’s genes is not a value of life…it is the purpose of life. In biology, the only purposes of life are to gain enough energy to pass the genes down to the next generation. I.E. Eat and mate.

    • #20690
      mith
      Participant

      @Biostudent
      Mmmm, if only life were that simple!

    • #20692
      biostudent84
      Participant
      quote mithrilhack:

      @Biostudent
      Mmmm, if only life were that simple!

      Lol…in Biology, it is.

    • #20702
      2810712
      Participant

      I think, Inuyasha wants to ask can we call some organism more alive [ living ] than other one eg. bacts are less alive [ living] than humans etc. Right ?
      But, how to measure ‘livingness’
      This is to be decided here.
      I think it would be decided in a way similar to the one we use to classify the organisms is a phylogenetic system. Here, we have to draw cumulative conclusion based on fulfilment of followin criteria-
      1. degree of biological complexity
      2. degree of presence of feelings
      3. How much sensitive it is , towards the external stimuli . -no. of senses – etc.

      I’ve interpreted the q. this way, correct me whereever possible.

      thanks

      hrushikesh

    • #20725
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      Life is so hard to define, so defining the value of it is is more hard. That’s why its a good question. 2810712 makes a good point. That is where my focus was towards. HOwever you can expand onit if you want

    • #20916
      biostudent84
      Participant

      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.

      Disclaimer: This is not my own work…it is the work of the biological community. If you do not agree with it, go to the PhD’s and all other scientists, don’t bash me, ๐Ÿ˜†

    • #21070
      2810712
      Participant

      Ya, you are right. but these chara. are common to all linings so it can’t help us decide the degree of there livingness. In the ancient scripture i’m quite aware of, I remember that, they have mentioned many levels life , they have told that they have some energy inside them the energy corresponds to oja and teja. but surprisingly they tell that non-livings also have teja and oja. They also tell that if you improve the energies of non-livings eg. by giving them some cosmic-ray energy to them-or REKI they improve performance, So the energy content of bodies determine the degree of livingness.
      So, nonlivings are at zero level. but how to get the levels of other living things ? ? ? Also, according to REKI theory, for a body requirement of REKI changes time to time, so can we conclude that we also undergo slight changes of life levels???- probably yes, what do u think???
      Don’t hesitate to ask queries.

      hrushikesh

    • #21086
      MrMistery
      Participant

      Why is everyone intersted in deffinitions? The deffinition of life, the deff of a cell etc
      I hate biosistematics!!!!

    • #21093
      biostudent84
      Participant

      Ever do Logic problems? Modus Tollens, Law of Contrapositives, ect.

      Definitions are sets standardized facts that the scientific community created. They are also the most difficult to refute. If you can find a definition that supports your ideas, it makes your ideas much more credible.

    • #21114
      MrMistery
      Participant

      Nobody ever believes me anyway… ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€
      It is just my nature guys, don’t mind me. I do not like to get trapped in words and defs.
      I need action, i need the spark..
      That is why i want the nobel ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€

    • #21120
      biostudent84
      Participant
      quote MrMistery:

      Nobody ever believes me anyway… ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€
      It is just my nature guys, don’t mind me. I do not like to get trapped in words and defs.
      I need action, i need the spark..
      That is why i want the nobel ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€

      Haha, let’s just wait. Maybe you’ll get it for redefining the definition of life. ๐Ÿ˜ฎ ๐Ÿ˜ฏ ๐Ÿ˜†

    • #21138
      2810712
      Participant

      โ— So, what is the inference here :
      1] those who hate deff.s hate biosystematics
      2] those who love logic like it
      3]Those who hate biosystematics will to get nobel ๐Ÿ˜ฏ
      โ“ I like both logic and nobel, where do i fit then ? ? ?

      ๐Ÿ’ก Presently , if we just continue like this, nobody is going to let us fight for nobel .

      hrushikesh

    • #21210
      cytochromeP
      Participant

      “Scientists animated by the purpose of proving that they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study”.
      – by i-dunno-who-said-it

    • #21213
      2810712
      Participant

      Is this all in vein ๐Ÿ˜ฅ ???

      hrushikesh

    • #21224
      biostudent84
      Participant
      quote 2810712:

      Is this all in vein ๐Ÿ˜ฅ ???

      Kinda like your efforts while quitting heroin? ๐Ÿ˜‰ ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • #21254
      2810712
      Participant

      ya , people quiting heroin mostly don’t think about their body , they quit because they are made to realise that they must have some ethics ๐Ÿ˜‰

      hrushikesh

    • #21255
      biostudent84
      Participant

      Lol, it was a reference to an old George Carlin joke. “I tried quitting heroin, but my efforts were all in vein.”

    • #21263
      MrMistery
      Participant

      Good one Kyle…
      I’m glad to see that those who hate biosystematics will get the nobel ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€

    • #21290
      2810712
      Participant

      No. they will to get nobel, read that carefully. ๐Ÿ˜€

      hrushikesh

    • #21435
      dr.pnj
      Participant

      life started with bubblig chemicals
      do you know that99% of all species that exited on earth some time ofr the other are extinct today
      the value of life is as determined by nature
      darwins thoery of natural selection
      nature takes the best and leaves the rest
      it values only the”best” for survival
      the “rest”get killed
      htere is nothing philosophical about it
      if amoeba is stronger than man it will survive long after the human species becomes extinct or vice versa
      the value of life— size does not matter
      and evenif it does the cockroach is a more successful oraganism than us
      the dinosours were most successful
      they dominated the earth for75 million years waay before humans even existed or

    • #21436
      cytochromeP
      Participant

      This discussion appears to be inherently pointless – offers no benefits to the participant.
      Conclusion: Natural selection with erase any further participants in this discussion. ๐Ÿ˜ˆ

    • #21505
      2810712
      Participant

      Yeah why do we want to give life a value ? ? ? I don’t know what are its benefits .
      But see i’ve tryied to solve problem and researched , it has helped me understand some new things, so i’ve been benefited!!!

      hrushikesh

    • #21520
      Ambika79
      Participant

      Hi, I’m new to this forum, but had an interesting thought this morning, and then happened to stumble upon this discussion while researching it. I’m not an expert on biology, but what I remember about how we define something as living, say a rock vs. a cat, included most of what’s been said here, including the property of movement. Anyway, it occured to me that a living being encompasses all 3 stages of manner, i.e. solid, liquid and gas, in one complete being. I can’t think of anything that has all 3 of these and that is not alive. Or vice versa. Can you โ“

    • #21522
      Poison
      Participant
      quote Ambika79:

      I’m not an expert on biology, but what I remember about how we define something as living, say a rock vs. a cat, included most of what’s been said here, including the property of movement.

      We discussed it in the forum. there are some criteria to decide if something is living or not.

    • #21524
      cytochromeP
      Participant
      quote Ambika79:

      Anyway, it occured to me that a living being encompasses all 3 stages of manner, i.e. solid, liquid and gas, in one complete being. I can’t think of anything that has all 3 of these and that is not alive. Or vice versa. Can you โ“

      Well Abmbika u need to brush up your PHYSICS concepts as well !
      I DO KNOW of such a substance(s) and is not ALIVE …
      At ‘triple point’ (a substance specific temperature) of a given substance, that particular substance exists in ALL THREE states of matter – solid, liquid and gas.

      Howwwzzzzzaaaaaat ๐Ÿ‘ฟ !!!

    • #21528
      mith
      Participant

      there are 5 states of matter ๐Ÿ˜›

    • #21530
      biostudent84
      Participant

      (In order of increasing energy) Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma.

      What’s the fifth?

    • #21531
      mith
      Participant

      bose-einstein condensate i.e. super cold

    • #21540
      EmmVeePee
      Participant
      quote biostudent84:

      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.

      Disclaimer: This is not my own work…it is the work of the biological community. If you do not agree with it, go to the PhD’s and all other scientists, don’t bash me, ๐Ÿ˜†

      Isn’t that the “cell theory” by definition?

      Just trying to label it.

    • #21543
      biostudent84
      Participant

      Yes, but with part 1, it doubles for a definition of life.

    • #21557
      2810712
      Participant

      defining life is okay, but probably we were giving ranks to the degree of livingness And note non-living thing have 0 livingness while so there may be a gradual increase in livingness of things in thins world… ๐Ÿ˜ฏ , this was the attempt of inuyasha atleast. [and mine also. ] As definition of life has been given by scientists,
      And Ambika79, ๐Ÿ™„ if you analyse more eg.s then you u’ll get why that can’t be a definition.

      hrushikesh

    • #21623
      Rowen
      Participant

      biostudent and all who are reading or hav read this message… You r going into too much detail. There is no possible way to “define” life. life is a mysterious thing and it exists not to be defined. Life is not a technical thing it is simple and everthing that has life is individual. Some of u may not want to go into philosophy but it is the only way to come to and agreement. i do not wish to define life, only to give my opinion so, here it is. life is made up of many things and like all things in existance , it ends. Some people may say there is no real valuse in life, but what greater value is there than to have life? seriously, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if we didn’t value or want to understand life, now would we. Oh and i may have contradicted myself several times in that discussion so it may e hard to look from my point of view.

    • #21660
      2810712
      Participant

      As u say rowen , we want to understand the life, if we don’t have an agreement doeasn’t mean that nobody understands life as people have been continuing the thoughts in this line from ancient times. Also if we have a agreement then also, it doesn’t mean we understand or everybody understands life. I liked ur open thinking, but it leads to anti-self statements, this happens with me also , in daily life , so i’m with u ๐Ÿ™‚ .

      We must go into detail if we have time to instead of wasting it in some foolish activity.

      Best wishes.

      hrushikesh

    • #21666
      biostudent84
      Participant

      As long as disagreements are kept under control, they are very good. They constantly test us and challenge us to work harder to find what the correct answer is. They also force us to learn more about both sides of the argument.

    • #21671
      James
      Participant

      Can’t we say life is anything that is an ancestor of the very first organism. When we figure out exactly what has evolved from that very first organism- does it not automatically be classed as alive. If not, could a ‘living’ organism evolve into a non-living organism; eg if and what viruses evolved from.

    • #21831
      2810712
      Participant

      life isn’t an organism …
      Is life a property,
      probab. its a phenomenon , isn’t it ? ? ?

      hrushikesh

    • #21843
      MrMistery
      Participant

      From my point of view, life is the sum of all organisms… like the biosphere… when there aren’t any organisms on a planet you can say it is lifeless

    • #24169
      Izumi_Tachikawa
      Participant
      quote Inuyasha:

      Seldon do i post outside zoology, but this is a good guestion. God is dog backwards, live is evil backwards. If biology is the study of life than the main question is life. Life was formed from bubbling chemicals with a mixture of lightning ( as is the modern proposal). Purpose is what you make out of it. The question of life is… can you put a value on it. For example does a amobea of less “life value” than a human? And how does bio’s opposite death respond?

      Well of coarse life is evil backwards. As the dominate species, we often abusse our power. The fact that we destroy the planet we live on, our only life souce, is extreamly dumb whitted.
      P.S. it’s actually efil backwards ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • #24214
      Inuyasha
      Participant

      lol, i ‘ve totally forgot i posted this one up. oops. Izzy reminded me. This is going to be a hot topic in the future for no other reason than it deals with issues such as abortion, the rampaging of humans, embryos, genetic enigneering, and biology. I perosnally believe we should draw a land in the sand and never cross it. The difficulty is in drawing this line. Any suggestions?

    • #111965
      TheMatrixDNA
      Participant
      quote biostudent84:

      Defining life:
      Here is the current definition of life. ๐Ÿ˜†

      Hey, Biostudent84;

      I have a question: What if we change the word "cell" by the word "atom" at every assertion of this biological community work? 1 and 2 continues the same; 3) I don’t know how new atoms emerges; 4) maybe atoms contains it too; 5) The difference between chemical and physical is only a human concept. From the viewpoint of Nature it makes no sense. All atoms are the same natural composition;6) metabolism&biochemistry could be primordial mechanisms with a degree of complexity.
      The problem, I think, is that we don’t know the whole true of atomic system. Then, this definition is not definitive, it can be changed in the future. I think our scientific method is not complete because Biology and Physics are two different approaches and two different world visions. Your definition is from Biology point of view which does not considerate the priors natural systems that belongs to cosmological evolution. In Matrix/DNA Theory the models suggests that universal evolution is the history of evolution of a unique universal system. Then, atomic, astronomic, biologic traits are merely different shapes of this universal system, like baby, teenager, adult, are merely different shapes of a unique human body. If this is true, it makes no sense saying that a biological system is alive and am electro-magnetic or astronomic system is not. But, then, the Matrix/DNA is suggesting a new model of atom, where the properties of biological systems are showed. Only food for thought…cheers… ๐Ÿ™„

    • #111966
      TheMatrixDNA
      Participant
      quote biostudent84:

      You’re halfway there…but there is one thing you should adjust. Continuing life, passing down one’s genes is not a value of life…it is the purpose of life. In biology, the only purposes of life are to gain enough energy to pass the genes down to the next generation. I.E. Eat and mate.

      Hey, Biostudent84,

      I don’t agree. Only to gain energy and passing down genes are not the ultimate result of life. The ultimate result is that life has gained levels of complexity since its first shape that emerged from the primordial soup. Passing down genes to next generations with no other purpose would be eternal return, merely recycling of closed systems. This is the normal of astronomic systems, which are closed systems, then, they are closed doors to evolution. The struggle of life , I think, is to keep itself as opened system, permitting evolution to working. It is different of the supreme tendency of simple matter, which is to get inertial thermo-dynamic equilibrium and the eternal accommodation in this state. Then, if Matrix/DNA Theory is true, life is matter and its tendency, plus a unknown thing with another tendency, which is permitting the increase of complexity. The models are suggesting that this "unknown thing" is coming throughout natural light. When a electro-magnetic spectrum of light penetrates inertial matter, its seven kind of vibrations (frequencies) imprints the process of life’s cycle into that matter. But, then, the models does not answer a fundamental question: what’s the source of this light? Maybe the models are answering this question when they suggests that this Universe is merely the tool for an ex-machine process of genetic reproduction. Cheers…

    • #111967
      TheMatrixDNA
      Participant
      quote 2810712:

      Also, according to REKI theory, for a body requirement of REKI changes time to time, so can we conclude that we also undergo slight changes of life levels???- probably yes, what do u think???
      Don’t hesitate to ask queries.hrushikesh

      Hey, 2810712,

      Very interesting, I think. From the viewpoint of Matrix/DNA Theory, there is no such division between living and non-living, as understanding modern biology. Which is not alive is death, or separated from its system, like a leave that falls from a tree, a stone in the space, etc. The problem is that they are making comparison between systems and abandoned pieces of systems. Then, the models of Matrix/DNA goes crazy when suggesting that all natural systems has a common systemic formula, which I called Matrix/DNA. The biological DNA is only a new shape of this universal matrix, with increased level of complexity. The formula is composed by bi-lateral symmetry in all aspects, so, in its energy also. There is the growing energy and the decaying energy, which could be oja e teja, or yin and yang. So, the question should be: how ancient people and REKI could get the true aspect of life? Matrix/DNA answers that is due the Matrix is registered at our DNA, it is inside neurons, our memory, and certain altered states of mind can bring on this memory to consciousness. Only food for thought. But, thanks, a lot: you woke me up for the fact that I need go back studying the books of REKI. Cheers…

    • #111969
      TheMatrixDNA
      Participant
      quote dr.pnj:

      life started with bubblig chemicals

      This is not a scientific statement. You have not showed an experiment that produces life from bubblig chemicals alone. So, anyone can say that must had something else among the primordial chemicals, and scientifically there is no way to argument against it. If you see the models in Matrix/DNA Theory, they suggests that this โ€œsomething elseโ€is natural light. When waves of light are composed by different shapes of vibrations, they are carryng the code for imprint life to matter. But, then, which is the source of primordial natural light? This mystery is a key that open the question to all possibilities. It is the key for keeping an opened mind, which is the first requirement for being a good scientist. Your affirmation above is a statement of faith, not reason, I think.

      quote dr.pnj:

      htere is nothing philosophical about it

      I think that these affirmations are the worst product of scientific reductionist method creating a bad and wrong world vision. โ€œNature takes the best and leaves the rest; it values only the โ€œbestโ€ for survival; the โ€œrestโ€ get killed. The problem lays in the world โ€œthe bestโ€. Whatโ€™s is the best? What it means? It is the best in ralation to which point of reference? Which is the point in time/space where the observer is located who is saying that this is the best and that is the rest? His/her relativistic point in time and space, is the best?
      Cockroach is the best organism than us, and this is the secret of its success as long survival, but what do you prefer: being the rest among human beings or the best among insects? Which will be the future of cockroaches? They became closed system into themselves, they are going to extinction, there is no alternative. In another hand, which seems the best, has being extincted, while whose seems the rest has getting the transcendence for another evolutionary shape. Where are the dinossaurs, the lions, the whales, the eagles? The gorillas? But, the small reptile called cyanodont was the chosen by Nature for getting the transcendence to mammals.
      If you think with me how this world vision is making bad human beings among the students, because the teachers had embraced it and spikes a loud about it. I think that religions are bad world visions also, but they transmits better moral values and meaning of life than this academic world vision. This world vision will be changed when Science will evolves from reductionism towards the systemic scientific method and world vision. What do you think?

    • #111972
      david23
      Participant

      I agree, these are all manmade definitions using the best evidence they had at the time. It’s really just for education that they do it.

Viewing 47 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.