you can't force rigid people to think outside their tiny world. Either you have seen the point I have been trying to make or you haven't. There is no point in repeating it over and over. Some other people got it and thought about it, filled in the gaps themselves, corrected it according to their views etc. Apparently you are one of these people that doesn't get it. It is not my problem. Read it again and think again. If you are really a student you should be able to do some independent thinking. I do not have to chew everything out for you.
I did and it seem very vague to me you only define life as biological entity that evolve under Darwinian principles. I mention that self-replicating DNA falls under this and you responded that that’s out of out of its proper context, well then what is proper context, it seem it be in context to me and you still refuse to explain this to me.
so it replicating, you never specified self replicating, even so the by your definition the DNA of the cell is the only living part.
why? edit: no fuck why, let us get back on the topic. People what do you think about the definition of life?
Life? Any system that consciously or unconsciously acts to continue it's own existance and/or the existance of it's like. I can think of extreme circumstances in which my definition does not work, but every one includes higher consciousness and either an act of self sacrifice or stupidity. - KitNyx
What about computer programs which perform that function? Algorithms like "life" satisfy your definition. Would you call it "alive" then? I wouldn't call a non-conscious algorithm "alive".
Yes, I think that a computer program that meets my criteria are at least as alive as viruses. I know that many on this board do not believe viruses should be categorized as life, and that may be. Perhaps all they are in carbon nanomachines, attempting to fulfill thier singleminded drive to reproduce. However, many insects do little more than the same and no one questions whether they are alive (of course the same can be said of most men). I purposely came up with a definition that would include some computer programs. - KitNyx
By the definition of life, Mules are not alive. A mule is a cross between a horse and donkey. They are sterile. Theirf ore they cannot reproduce. In science, we learned today the 5 necesarry guidlines of life. Cellular organization Metabolism reproduction Homeostasis Heredity I was about to ask act like a smart aleck inclas and give the instructor a hard time...but then peole would call me a nerd. Btw im in the IB program so yea...its really really hard.
an evolutionary biologist's perspective this is a perfect example of how a simple biological question, 'what is life?' can devolve into an argument about semantics. depending on how one defines 'life,' one can include or exclude any life form. it's all bullshit. we probably can agree what is life to the level of bacteria. the question remains 'are viruses alive?' this question is not solved by taking a survey of biologist's opinions. it's not a popularity contest. what it does is raise the question of whether or not we have an adequate definition of life. it appears that we do not. since viruses evolve, reproduce, and (at least potentially) have enzymatic catalysis, does this not make them alive? ask yourself the question, if viruses have evolved into the super-parasites that they are from some single-celled organisms (like a bacterium), would you still consider them non-life (given the same characteristics that they have now)? if so, one must ask the question whether life forms can 'evolve' into non-life forms.
What about strange life. Like silicon based lifeforms or artificial life forms. If a android is made with the inteligence of a person but is a machine then is it alive? The true definition of life needs two include these as well.
