Debate and discussion of any biological questions not pertaining to a particular topic.
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 .
We must go into detail if we have time to instead of wasting it in some foolish activity.
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.
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.
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
"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter
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
My friends call me Izzy. Everyone does actually!
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?
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...
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...
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...
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 “something else”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.
I think that these affirmations are the worst product of scientific reductionist method creating a bad and wrong world vision. “Nature takes the best and leaves the rest; it values only the “best” for survival; the “rest” get killed. The problem lays in the world “the best”. What’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?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests