Life

" 'Individuality doesn't separate living from nonliving'? Sorry, I don't get what you mean by that." You said in Round 1 that: "Special, by its definition, is applicable to all living things whereby individuality also exists." Just sounded like you were saying that which has individuality is living. Seems like a misinterpretation on my part, pardon. However if not a misinterpretation, then I think the point is refuted. "Isn't it obvious that I'm not here to debate about how pointless the "lives" of rocks are but of living things; bad analogies." I repeat that I'm not arguing that life is pointless. I'm saying the CONCEPT of life is useless. That's not my main argument here however, so we don't have to focus on that. "Life- the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to Environment through changes originating internally." You try to put a swift end to my case by providing a definition of life, however things are not so easy. I wouldn't be having this debate if I was in full agreement with what is essentially a dictionary definition of life. The main three characteristics of living things mentioned here are: 1. Metabolism 2. Reproduction 3. Power of Adaptation The last point requires some more elaboration in my opinion, but I can simply define "adaptation" as: "adjustment to environmental conditions" http://www.merriam-webster.com... By these three points, we could consider a DNA-enzyme complex alive just by itself. I won't go into specifics, but there are quite a few enzymes that assist in the replication of DNA. As a result, this system would reproduce (DNA would be replicated), metabolism obviously occurs, and adaptation occurs as enzymes can "correct" errors in the copying of the DNA. If you'd like a source for all of this, I can provide one. My point is, by such a definition, the molecular machinery alone that is used to replicate DNA could be considered alive, which seems absurd. Let's look at another example, mules. They can adapt, they can most definitely metabolize, but they can't reproduce. So, are they not alive? As we see, you can't solve the problem so easily, the definition isn't universal. "I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between Life and Environment" Hopefully I'll show why that's not the case. "In ecology, Environment means the air, water, minerals, organisms, and all other external factors surrounding and Affecting a Given Organism at any time. Its general definition - the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences; surroundings; milieu." Another textbook style definition. What about internal factors, inside the organism? Inside a multi-cellular organism's cells? Does the concentration of ions in the cytoplasm of a cell not affect and influence its function? "Actually, things that are "alive" have several things distinguishing them from things that are not; significantly, them being characterized as ALIVE. Do you want me to tell you, in my mere opinion, of how things, that are alive, are different things the non-living environment? Scientifically, it's pretty easy." Sure. Provide a valid, universal definition of life. Show me how easy it is. "The boundary is not artificial. I'm glad that you don't assume our purpose for living, even though you have stated life as pointless already." Not artificial? Then as mentioned, please do provide a universal, valid definition for life. It is artificial. Tell me, what happens when something dies? When something transitions from "living" to "non-living", what changes? Also, I hope this is the last time I'll have to say it, that I never claimed anything about the purpose of life, never claimed it was pointless. "It's not a theory that life is intrinsically and inherently different than nonliving matter, it is a scientific fact. Logically, even this concept of life that you base your argument from is special." The first sentence carries no real weight in our debate, your job is to prove that sentence. And no, I don't think the concept is special, it's just a word we apply to things that we see as having reached a certain level of complexity. I'm trying to destroy the binary view of "everything is living or non-living". At this point, it seems like you have to provide a universal, valid definition of life that fits our intuitive understanding of it. Once you start trying to think of one and fail, you will realize that the boundary between living and non-living is not so definite.