Orleander,

You may find this extremely hard - if not impossible - to grasp but disease has never been responsible for single human death.

anyone want to explain this to me? Is this like saying guns don't kill people, its the blood loss and organ damage that kill them.

anyone want to explain this to me? Is this like saying guns don't kill people, its the blood loss and organ damage that kill them.

He probably means you eventually die from organ damage etc. And not directly from the disease.

However, it is clear that the disease IS responsible for the death.

so its just hair splitting??

so its just hair splitting??

Yes, I think so ;)

Disease doesn't kill, guns do.

Disease doesn't kill, guns do.

In your 'philosophy' guns don't kill either.

Why are we trying to genocide these viruses, they are living things too!?!??

Why are we trying to genocide these viruses, they are living things too!?!??

Viruses are organic but not life.

Viruses are organic but not life.
Racist.

Racist.

lol It's true though.

Viruses are organic but not life.

Orderist

anyone want to explain this to me? Is this like saying guns don't kill people, its the blood loss and organ damage that kill them.
Maybe it's a joke, like that SNL bit, Deep Thoughts

Orderist

Hey it's not my fault they don't 'live' up to it ;)

The disease AIDS does not kill a person. The person usually dies from pneumonia or something similar, after AIDS breaks down the immune system.

The disease AIDS does not kill a person. The person usually dies from pneumonia or something similar, after AIDS breaks down the immune system.

but then they aren't dying from pneumonia either. They are dying from lack of oxygen to the brain. No, then they are really dying from brain cell death.

Viruses are organic but not life.

probably the stupidist thing anyone can say.

probably the stupidist thing anyone can say.
Why do you say that? Viruses do not meet all the criteria for life, but they are clearly organic. Outside of the host cell, a virus is just an inert bit of dna/rna.

but then they aren't dying from pneumonia either. They are dying from lack of oxygen to the brain. No, then they are really dying from brain cell death.
Well either way, the disease itself isn't the thing that kills you.

probably the stupidist thing anyone can say.

What the... !? :mad: It's true ! You of all people should know !

Viruses are organic but not life.

What is life?

What is life?

The American Heritage Science Dictionary
life
1. The properties or qualities that distinguish living plants and organisms from dead or inanimate matter, including the capacity to grow, metabolize nutrients, respond to stimuli, reproduce, and adapt to the environment.

This is just one of many similar definitions found at dictionary.com


And,

"It has been argued extensively whether viruses are living organisms. Most virologists consider them non-living,[1][2][3] as they do not meet all the criteria of the generally accepted definition of life. For example, unlike living organisms as defined, viruses do not respond to changes in the environment nor do they consist of cells, generally regarded as the fundamental unit of life."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus


I thought this was common knowledge though :shrug:

The American Heritage Science Dictionary
life
1. The properties or qualities that distinguish living plants and organisms from dead or inanimate matter,


"Because the human beings, my son, they believe everything is alive. Not only man and animals. But also water, earth, stone. And also the things from them........ That is the way things are. But the white man, they believe EVERYTHING is dead. Stone, earth, animals. And people! Even their own people! If things keep trying to live, white man will rub them out. That is the difference."

- Old Lodge Skins

"Because the human beings, my son, they believe everything is alive. Not only man and animals. But also water, earth, stone. And also the things from them........ That is the way things are. But the white man, they believe EVERYTHING is dead. Stone, earth, animals. And people! Even their own people! If things keep trying to live, white man will rub them out. That is the difference."

- Old Lodge Skins

Is there any point to this ?

anyone want to explain this to me?

Orleander,

This cannot be explained in the way you desire.

Death is beyond cause and effect physics.

Diseases dont kill, diseases with guns do

Is there any point to this ?

Enmos,

It's tragic don't you think?

Spiritually our sciences are still in kindergarten.

Enmos,

It's tragic don't you think?

Spiritually our sciences are still in kindergarten.

This has nothing to do with the topic..

Topic: Can a disease kill a human ?
Current subquestion: Are viruses considered life ?

Why do you say that? Viruses do not meet all the criteria for life, but they are clearly organic. Outside of the host cell, a virus is just an inert bit of dna/rna.

you going to tell a fucking biologist what life is and what not? You don't even know what a virus is according to your statement.

Life is all that evolves by means of modification with descent and which shares a common ancestor. Some of these things happen to metabolize.

This has nothing to do with the topic..
Current subquestion: Are viruses considered life ?

American Indian perspective: viruses are alive.

you going to tell a fucking biologist what life is and what not? You don't even know what a virus is according to your statement.

Life is all that evolves by means of modification with descent and which shares a common ancestor. Some of these things happen to metabolize.

That is not the current accepted definition though :shrug:
However, I do tend to agree to that. But then evolution must be restricted to organics (which is already so really).

American Indian perspective: viruses are alive.

Deepthought, according to that perspective even a rock is alive.

"Because the human beings, my son, they believe everything is alive. Not only man and animals. But also water, earth, stone. And also the things from them........ That is the way things are. But the white man, they believe EVERYTHING is dead. Stone, earth, animals. And people! Even their own people! If things keep trying to live, white man will rub them out. That is the difference."

- Old Lodge Skins

All too true and it explains a lot. White men even define expressions of life as sick, obscene, and those who make those expressions worthy of death.

That is not the current accepted definition though :shrug:
However, I do tend to agree to that. But then evolution must be restricted to organics (which is already so really).

No, evolution is not restricted to organics.

It's just that currently there are not so many inorganic evolutionary systems.

Some computer models mainly where algorithms live and thrive. And die the minute the computer is turned off.

What's special about life (as in life we belong to) is that it arose naturally and it is not designed.

Virus as life is also an accepted definition, and what's more, it's the only one that is relevant. The one you adhere to is contrived and artificial. It takes humans as the center of the universe and bases the definition of life on it.

It must metabolize. It must be cellular. blabla.

I piss on anthropomorphic views on life. They are the worst enemy of science.

Deepthought, according to that perspective even a rock is alive.

Enmos,

How do you feel about that?

Life is all that evolves by means of modification with descent and which shares a common ancestor.
It is a nice definition and surely not worse than most others. In other words, though any replicating system that does not build exact replicas would be considered as life. Like for instance a robot that is designed to build incomplete replicas of itself (one just have to add some kind of selective forces, for instance).

Personally (and as a biologist) I believe that a strict distinction between living and unliving is, for the most part, artificial. There appear to be different degrees, whereas viruses are essentially on the lower end. Kind of relating to the question whether a zygote is a human or not.

No, evolution is not restricted to organics.
It's just that currently there are not so many inorganic evolutionary systems.

I agree, but life seems to be.


Some computer models mainly where algorithms live and thrive. And die the minute the computer is turned off.

Well, it's debatable whether that is life. It's not for nothing they call it artificial life.


What's special about life (as in life we belong to) is that it arose naturally and it is not designed.

Hmm yes. It seems to me they there need to be two separate forms of life, organic life and artificial life. They are not the same thing, not yet.


Virus as life is also an accepted definition, and what's more, it's the only one that is relevant. The one you adhere to is contrived and artificial. It takes humans as the center of the universe and bases the definition of life on it.

It must metabolize. It must be cellular. blabla.

There still seems to be controversy about whether viruses can be called life though.


I piss on anthropomorphic views on life. They are the worst enemy of science.

Believe it or not, but I couldn't agree more.

Enmos,

How do you feel about that?

I feel it is bullshit.

Believe it or not, but I couldn't agree more.
Thirded. Insisting that life is restricted to the bounds that we are witnessing at the moment is just another form of insisting that humans are in some fundamental way special in nature.

There still seems to be controversy about whether viruses can be called life though.

And there is a debate ongoing on ID vs evolution.

Doesn't mean ID is a valid idea.

I piss on anthropomorphic views on life. They are the worst enemy of science.

You were obviously an Indian in your prior life.:)

so its just hair splitting??It's worse than that. People who say that are trying to convince us that death is inevitable and so we should just give up all attempts to stave it off. As I pointed out in the other thread, every death has a cause, and we have made impressive strides in conquering many of these causes. We're working from birth forward, since from a project manager's perspective it's more effective to tackle the things that cause early death first, like the diseases of childhood and the violence of adolescence and early adulthood. Many people now feel that it's time to give up, since they cannot imagine us finding a way to prevent, delay, reverse or cure the brain cell degeneration that kills people when they reach the alleged "brick wall" around age 120. To which I say balderdash. Deport the Religious Redneck Retards back to Crawford and let us get on with our stem cell research, and we may well find a way to regenerate brain cells. Memory and consciousness are to a large extent holographic so replacing the cells one at a time may not result in turning you into "a different person."but then they aren't dying from pneumonia either. They are dying from lack of oxygen to the brain. No, then they are really dying from brain cell death.Good for you. Death is nothing more or less than irreversible degradation of the synapses so they can no longer perform even rudimentary cognitive functions. This normally occurs after no more than five minutes without an oxygen supply. If we can keep blood flowing to the brain, the rest of the body is just an appurtenance.The American Heritage Science Dictionary -- life. . . .We've had to update our definitions of a lot of concepts as science marches on. Why should "life" be any different?The properties or qualities that distinguish living plants and organisms from dead or inanimate matter, including the capacity to grow, metabolize nutrients, respond to stimuli, reproduce, and adapt to the environment.Sure, but what do we do then when we encounter a thing that has some of those properties but not all of them? Could it be that "life" is *gasp* not an either-or quality, but a spectrum like so many qualities turn out to be when we leave the classroom and try to apply what we've learned there to the external universe?"It has been argued extensively whether viruses are living organisms. Most virologists consider them non-living,[1][2][3] as they do not meet all the criteria of the generally accepted definition of life. For example, unlike living organisms as defined, viruses do not respond to changes in the environment nor do they consist of cells, generally regarded as the fundamental unit of life."An important way to examine a definition is by the contrapositive. Suppose you define "non-living" as the absence of all those properties. What are you going to say about a thing that has some of them? "Well it doesn't completely fulfill this definition so it must not be non-living." Absolutes work in mathematics, but not so well in nature.I thought this was common knowledge though.Yes we've all seen this definition but that doesn't mean we accept it. We're not talking about some arcane scientific concept here where we should simply "shut up and leave it to the professionals." The definition of life is fundamental to our philosophy and our civilization, and non-scientists get to participate in the debate.Orleander, This cannot be explained in the way you desire. Death is beyond cause and effect physics.Duh? What are you, a Zen acolyte, insisting that the universe is nothing but a giant collection of sophomoric riddles? SciForums is a place of science. If you want to talk about philosophy, especially if you want to talk about it in oppostion to science, please take it to the Philosophy board. The Biology board is for people who practice the scientific method, not for skeptics who challenge everyone's assertions by reflex.

It is admittedly not possible to define the "moment of death" since we disagree on just how rudimentary the surviving brain processes can be and still call someone like Terry Schiavo "alive." But we can say unequivocally that someone whose brain has been deprived of oxygen for ten minutes is dead. And we can establish a perfectly good chain of cause-and-effect, working backward from the cessation of blood flow to the brain and tracing it to the bullet entering the heart, the poison entering the lungs, or the head smashing into the concrete at the foot of the stairs.Spiritually our sciences are still in kindergarten.Same comment applies to you. Take that drenn to the Philosophy board where you can sit around examining your navels and accomplishing nothing but feeling really fulfilled about it. This is a gathering place for scientists, future scientists and people who want to discuss and learn science. From our perspective, it is spirituality that is still in "kindergarten" because it is a relic of the Stone Age. Please take your spirituality to the sandbox of Philosophy and leave the adults alone with our civilization, the result of a ten or twelve thousand year struggle to outgrow the philosophy of the Stone Age.And there is a debate ongoing on ID vs evolution. Doesn't mean ID is a valid idea.Unfortunately the Evolution Denialists have hijacked the ID movement. The essence of ID does not deny evolution, but merely abiogenesis. The leaders of most major religions have long ago made peace with the process of evolution. They simply ask how the first organic tissue appeared, from which all life evolved exactly as we say it did. Abiogenesis has not been "proven true beyond a reasonable doubt," to use layman's language, because there are still some major gaps in the theory, so it cannot in good faith be integrated into the scientific canon the way evolution can be.

The theory that the first life was created by a supernatural being is unscientific because it does not conform to the scientific method, but it is not antiscientific because it does not contradict the scientific canon without providing extraordinary substantiation. If and when abiogenesis is duplicated in a laboratory, at that point ID will become antiscientific. For now we have good cause so separate the anti-abiogenesis faction from the crackpot creationist movement and treat them with respect even if they're not scientists. Not everyone is after all.

You were obviously an Indian in your prior life.:)

No, I was a rock. but a good one.

Doesn't mean ID is a valid idea.

Indeed. ID could in fact, be how were were created(how many "things" have archaeologists dug up from 140000 years ago?), perhaps not by "God", perhaps a precursor race(star faring or whatever).

After all we are close to being "intelligent designers":

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34234/113/

Recommend article:New York (NY) - Craig Venter, the U.S. scientist involved heavily in the effort to decipher the human genome, has made a startling announcement. He intends to create the first artificial lifeform made from man-made, or constructed DNA, built entirely from laboratory chemicals. Venter said, "...we are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before." Venter will announce the official results of his work at a currently undisclosed exact time, but sometime within the next few weeks.

And there is a debate ongoing on ID vs evolution.

Doesn't mean ID is a valid idea.

I don't think you can really compare a debate about two scientific views vs. each other and a debate about a scientific view vs. an idiotic one.

Anyway, I was just repeating the current more or less accepted view on it. In reality I agree more with what you said.

Well, it appears that we cannot agree on what constitutes life. However, we do seem to agree that it is a human construct as to what is alive and what is not.

Thus, it would seem logical to stick within the bounds of the currently accepted biological definition of what is life (after all, we shall observe the rules of the construct of thought that we set forth) until such time as someone offers a cogent reason for changing the definition.

The basic unit of life it the cell (exhibiting organization). All living things must reproduce, grow, and respond to the environment. There is some transfer of energy involved here.

Viruses: (1) are not cellular (genetic material and a protein coat is the minimum), (2) do not grow, (3) do not reproduce (the host machinery does that), and (4)do not respond to the environment. They do not give off nor take in energy.

Viruses are not alive just as the chemical components of matter are not alive.

Viruses are not alive just as the chemical components of matter are not alive.

Viruses are biological entities that reproduce parasitically. Memes and memic lifeforms are also alive.

They do not reproduce. The host cell machinery is hijacked to produce virus - the product.
What you are suggesting is the same as saying that hormones are alive.

In addition - it has to meet ALL of the characteristics of life. It does not.

In your 'philosophy' guns don't kill either.

they don't people kill people!

allbeit the person has a gun but the person pulled the trigger and shot the gun killing someone!

lol It's true though.

I'm a racist. How about "Spanish" flu. "Dutch" elm disease, " German measles" ?

they don't people kill people!

allbeit the person has a gun but the person pulled the trigger and shot the gun killing someone!

A reductionist might argue that it was the finger that pulled the trigger, which killed the man.

Viruses are biological entities that reproduce parasitically. Memes and memic lifeforms are also alive.

As the song says: " The Hills are Alive.... "

Yes it is very much splittnig hairs. Using this form of logic, death is only caused by one thing...anoxia. Cells are no longer able to metabolise and die, many things can be brought about to cause cellular anoxia...including trauma.