Trees are NOT alive.

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Enmos, Jul 28, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Even kids get that trees are alive..
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Enmos, you still have no conception of the point i am making. To you a tree and a wire are the same.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    John, the "a" in alive isn't the same with a in "asexual" or "atheist". It is not the
    opposite of live. Alive is an adjective or a feature of a living thing. What referred
    as living thing is the one who can grow, can reproduce, have respiration activity,
    etc. A wire can’t grow, can’t reproduce, don’t have respiration organ, don't have
    metabolism activity, etc. But trees do.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Please forgive a brief interruption. How about Julie Andrews and " The HIlls are Alive with the Sound of Music". Is this a good not to end on ?
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2008
  8. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    With wires it is a metaphor. With plants it is not.

    Beside, no one says a wire is alive.
    They say it is a live wire.

    Which is, John, a metaphor.

    It is not used metaphorically with plants. You clearly are not sophisticated when it comes to language.

    If I say the issue is 'dead' this does not mean it was like a human alive before.

    You are aware of the difference between metaphorical and literal meanings, yes?
     
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Thank you. The "a" i was referring to is that when we think of creatures as alive we think of animated behaviors, reactions, movement.

    A tree is staionary and does not move, this is why i used that analogy. Not the best but if you think about it in those terms than a tree and a human are as close to opposite we can get without there being trees that move from one position to another.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    All i am saying is that while it is acceptable to call trees alive it is not entirely accurate. That is all.
     
  10. kenworth dude...**** it,lets go bowling Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,034
    tree's grow.
    they move towards the sun.
    many plants move.
     
  11. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Kenworth,

    Is the Sun alive?
     
  12. kenworth dude...**** it,lets go bowling Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,034
    beside the point,but in an abstract way yes.
    in actuality,no.it doesnt reproduce.
     
  13. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    Well, the definition of life does not include "movement" or animated behaviors.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If we say movement is characteristic of life, then cars are also living things, and so do character in cartoon movies

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



     
  14. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    OK. In an abstract way a tree is alive too.
     
  15. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    Rrrr... perhaps we are all misunderstood what this guy (John) meant.

    John, were you trying to say that a tree is a living thing but not alive?

    In that case, you are right. Unless you deny that it is a living thing.

    We can say a street is alive with carnival, it does not mean that a carnival
    or a street is a living thing, but yes it is alive.
     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    A tree is a living thing, therefor it is alive.
     
  17. kenworth dude...**** it,lets go bowling Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,034
    no,trees reproduce.
     
  18. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    Not necessarily, Enmos.

     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yes, necessarily.
    How do those definitions say otherwise ?
     
  20. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    In a biological context, yes it is. In a context such as mention by number 4,
    not it is not. It's a matter of context, Enmos.
     
  21. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    The music is so alive. It does not mean that music is a living thing.
    The tree is so alive. That would be rather weird. But it is a living thing/organism.
     
  22. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    :bugeye:

    What section are we in again ?
    And only an idiot would use any other definition than the first one where trees are concerned.
    He's just trying to worm his way out of this..

    Edit: As for the context, shall I provide the original one ?
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Kenworth, if i take a glass of water and spill it onto a piece of metal and in turn we have samller water droplet then we also have reproduction. Like it or not those drops are a reproduction of the original fluid. The evaporate at different intervals, some are smaller and some are larger so we cannot say that they are identical.

    IF the sun squeezed out a smaller reproduction would that make any real difference?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page