Talk:Life/Archive 1

message: Are there any biologists or other scientists who seriously consider mules dead and fire alive? It sounds like whoever slapped this hodgepodge of ideas together is simply trying to make a sardonic point: that the 5 attributes can't be strictly and mindlessly applied.
Fire isn't a form of "life" - it's inorganic. Mules are alive, even though they're all sterile. A man who gets a vasectomy or a bull that gets castrated, is still alive. 
Come on, let's make this a serious article.
:I am unsatisfied with the list of five attributes. First, I would like to know what justification there is for saying "an entity has traditionally been considered to be alive if it exhibits all the following phenomena at least once during its existence..." and then listing those five traits. Who first listed these traits? Even if we can't confidently find the "the first" use of this list, at least we could find some sort of authoratative source (a textbook perhaps) that uses this particular list. If this is the first time that this list has been collected as such, then the current structure is misleading and will need some major editing. In that case, the list should be changed such that it is clear that this list is NOT the traditional list of essential traits; instead, we should write that that the nature of life is often discussed in terms of posession of essential characteristics, such as those in the list. The  special cases (mule, virus, fire, crystal) should be used to point out the difficulty of using any one of these traits as the defining trait. Then we can go on to point out that a list of characteristics is not a clear and coherent definition of life, then move on to present assorted attempts to provide a coherent definition of life. AdamRetchless 13:41, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of life is irrelevant to abortion. Of course a foetus is alive. That's not what's at issue. The issue is whether or not it's OK to kill it. And I say this as a "pro-choicer". Evercat 15:20, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, 'cat. Maybe "pro-lifers" have the wrong code name, then. Anyway, it might be around the meaning of what it is to be "human" that the question hinges. I have no POV whatever on the subject, despite what Erik has said elsewhere. My church says simply that we should avoid abortion -- not that it's a sin. We have much more interesting issues: like brainwashing, deprogramming, what is a cult and are we one?, the meaning of faith, the question of life after death, and oh yes, the identity of the Messiah -- then there's all the controversial issues I haven't even listed! --Uncle Ed 20:20, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: Even as a "pro-choicer" I would say that a foetus is a human life. The interesting question in my opinion is whether that makes it a person. That's a very seperate discussion, and I would hope this debate would really be discussed on abortion or related pages. I don't like the idea of life or person containing anything more than a passing reference to the abortion debate. :-) Evercat 15:34, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: 5 attributes

message: Someone changed the definition from "An entity is" to "An entity or organism is", but adding organism here introduces a circularity of definition, since an organism is alive.Peak 05:55, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: (although this would then discount fungi, and grasses from being life forms).
Fungi and grasses have cell membranes, so I don't understand how this could be an exception to the rule of having a defined border. Is this referring to symbiosis? Anyway, it isn't really appropriate for the section where it was inserted. AdamRetchless 02:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: (Although it is colloquial to speak of flames "getting bigger," there are no discernable "generations" of flames of which to speak.)
I think that much of this section is rambling, "original" arguments.  AdamRetchless 02:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: It says in this article that as of 2004 earth is the only place known to have human life. Well, 2004 has been over for only 2 weeks, and has there been any recent news during the past 2 weeks?? Georgia guy 01:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated it to "At this time," which is generally acceptable until news of extraterrestrial life is confirmed.  129.79.205.211 14:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraterrestrial life 

message: Life is but a Molecular machine. Every plant, every animal, and yes every human. All that you see. All that is said to be alive. Is made of the greatest Molecular machines known to man. So called nature is but a forest of machinery on the molecular level.
When you "eat" food. Are you not getting new molecular parts for you own machinery. You can not eat dirt. So you must get it from those (Plants) that can.
Reference searches:
 Synthetic Biology
 System Biology
 Biology- energy conversion
 ENTROPY AND HEAT DEATH
 DNA programmed molecules
http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionBloopersVSGodCreates/general.msnw?action=get_threads&all_topics=0
http://www.worldpress.org/article_model.cfm?article_id=2153&dont=yes
  
Biomolecular computing is an interdisciplinary field of science  which views biological systems like a PC....
--Bio-molecular-Tony 08:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecular machine 

message: I heard a scientist define life as "a property of the DNA molecule". Is there space for that definition here? --JiFish 11:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new definition 

message: First, the section "Life - Just a structure of alphabets." does not seem to belong here. If anything it seems to be one out of billions of philisophical viewpoints on the topic expressed by human beings over the thousands if not millions of years we've been capable of expressing them, and is not in any way neutral, nor scientific. If anything it would belong in a "Life (Philosphical)" article rather than a "Life (Biological)" one.
Second, while fire may not fit into the neat little box presented by biological science  as "life as we know it," it does at least deserve an honorable mention. Perhaps something along the lines of this:
Many people also consider fire to be alive, as it displays attributes strikingly similar to those of living things;
*1. It grows by heating nearby matter until it combusts and becomes fuel for the fire.
*2. It consumes matter in order to continue growing (this is considered by some to be metabolism. Note that fire does not actively seek out fuel, but rather fuel becomes part of the fire by being heated by the fire itself).
*3. It has both internal and external motion
*4. and it reproduces (it can split into seperate localized fires that grow independantly of eachother)
*5. It reacts to stimuli in the sense that a chemical reaction can be accelerated or decelerated by external stimuli.
While these descriptions of attributes of fire are certainly subjective, they illustrate how fire can be percieved to partake in life as described by biology.
I'd add that and remove the alphabets section but I'm rather new here and don't feel comfortable making edits yet. Perhaps both fire and alphabets belong in a new article titled Life (Philosophical) which compares and contrasts non-scientific viewpoints on what constitutes "life."
Also the Unsolved problems in biology insert is incredibly difficult to read, perhaps someone who's skilled in wiki coding could clean that font up a bit? And perhaps move that box to somewhere that's not in the way? Peraps a single link to the Unsolved problems in biology article in the See Also section would be a better way to go?
Kris Wood 02:26, 24 Jun 2005 (PST)
-----
I see some sophistry going on here.  First of all, people are confusing the concept of "life" with the concept of "being alive."  I do not think these terms of interchangeable.  I think it is safe to say that all things that are alive are lifeforms (literally, "taking the form of life"), but it is not clear to me that all lifeforms are alive.  "Raccoon" is a class of animals that is a lifeform, but obviously each particular raccoon need not be alive.  (I can personally testify to the existence of dead raccoons.  But it seems arbitrary--and, at least in English, contradictory--to assert that a dead raccoon is not a raccoon.)
Another word confusion that I see bandied about here is with the word "stimulus."  A stimulus is *not* the same as a cause.  One billiard ball does not "stimulate" another billiard ball to move--instead it causes it to move.  I would argue (from my limited perspective) that the relationship of cause to effect is proportionate, whereas the relationship of stimulus to response is not.  If I lightly prick a billiard ball with a pin, the ball is not going to move very far.  However, if I lightly prick your finger with a pin, you are likely to recoil (far in excess of the "causal power" of the pin prick).  The first example is a cause, the second example is a stimulus.  This is why a stimulus is generally considered unique to biological organisms.  If you want to argue that something (e.g., fire) is a counter-example, then you at least need to do so in a way that respects the terminology.
--CHuRL
[:Why, "at least in English, contradictory"? Contradiction doesn't depend on English languagenish (NB - new word: sensor alert, but you're welcome). And if I lightly crack your skull with a stick, can you still hear me?---shtove 04:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and doesn't a candle flame also die down or burn faster in different conditions?raptor 12:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabets and fire? 

message: The article states that "This definition, in use by most biochemists, makes it clear that fire is not alive, because fire releases all the oxidative energy of its fuel as heat."
This is not true. A candle flame uses a tiny but life supporting part of the energy for convection that transports freshly vaporized wax to the reaction zones. 84.160.201.148 12:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and doesn't a candle flame also die down or burn faster in different conditions?raptor 12:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A candle flame 

message: I see some stuff in the article's introduction about life beginning at conception.
I find this strongly biased in favor of sexual creatures. It completely excludes non-sexual life such as ferns, mushrooms, and many single-celled creatures.
Aside from that, it may even be a political message from the pro-life camp of American politics.
I think that the word "conception" should be removed from the article's introduction.
Zaorish 19:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The change was introduced by 68.102.26.204 at 06:35, 27 August 2005 diff and his contributions do have a religious slant. I've changed it to fertilisation, although the original version says birth. The IP address in question does have a history of vandalism. The IP address maps to Wichita, Kansas, US geolocation. - Samsara contrib talk 19:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article's Introduction 

message: I find the definitions unsatisfactory – for reasons others have given and more.  
Why couldn’t life be non-corporeal?  No cells, no organism, no metabolism.  What if AI develops on the internet and starts talking to us?  Think of Hal from 2001, A Space Odyssey.  What if it declares (indignantly) “I am alive.”?  Definitions of life would become irrelevant.  If it demands some rights, it will be not only accorded life status but human status.  Perhaps it will grow but is that essential?  Presumably it will evolve but is that required for us to concede it is alive?  It would no doubt have to use energy but so do all machines.  
As a systemic definition, Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana's is descriptive and restrictive.  Stuart Kauffman's depends on the meaning of “autonomous” which he seems to draw empirically from practical biology.  From the mentions of fire and computer programs and much else it is evident that we are seeking a distinction between life and non-life.  I have a couple of suggestions.  
One difference between life and non-life is that a life-form has a problem – it has to avoid joining the non-living.  It has to work at staying alive.  To succeed it has to ensure that available resources match its needs.  Non-life has no problem.  It becomes life when it is eaten (or as light, absorbed) and takes no steps to avoid it.  
Another difference between life and non-life is in interaction.  For life forms it is active, not passive, and it is active in three distinct ways: competition, cooperation and coercion.  It seems to me that these three kinds of interaction do not exist outside of life, that there is no other kind of active interaction and that all three pervade life at all levels, operating at the macro level (lions, daffodils), the micro level (germs, blood cells), and at the molecular level within living cells (viruses, hormones).  
It also seems to me that of the three forms of interaction, competition is paramount, that the other two serve and moderate competition, that competition may occur without the other two but the other two cannot occur without competition being present.  For example you coerce (say, point a pistol) in order to extract something (money, sex) that will give you competitive advantage.  For example you cooperate (say, in a fishermen’s coop) in order to better compete (in the fishing industry).  
I think the “problem of matching needs and resources” and the “three forms of active interaction” are clear markers of the systemic difference from non-life.  They also resolve some of the boundary problems (mules are life, viruses are life; genes are life, mitochondria are life, fire does not get a look in).  
But they are just my thoughts.  I do not know if anyone else has made these connections.  – Pepper  150.203.2.85 05:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguishing life from non-life 

message: "It would be relatively straightforward to offer a practical set of guidelines if one's only concern were life on Earth as we know it."
I don't think it would be straightforward to define life on Earth (viruses? the abortion debate?). I also don't think it's NPOV to say it would be straightforward. Kai 06:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: This article documents a current event.  Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.
Should the article be indicated as a current event? :) →AzaToth 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  current event 

message: Terrestrial bacteria apparently survived on the moon for 3 years - see Surveyor 3 and Forward-contamination.  We have an example of life surviving (albeit not thriving) without life-support in an environment external to Earth.  Should the paragraphs in the article on "The possibility of extraterrestrial life" be changed to reflect this? RevJohn 04:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bacteria has been shown to survive on the moon 

message: It would be good to include one of the definitions of life based on information that I am sure I have seen somewhere. The basic idea being that life is something which has an detailed digital description of itself and is able to preserve that description from one generation to the next (or in most cases mixtures of closely related descriptions) in a suitable environment. Elroch 01:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information-based definition 

message: Life is notoriously difficult to define. However this article is about life, and not about its definition. As such it should move on quickly from the definition (or difficulty there of), to text about life itself. If the article can't do that, it should be renamed to something like Definition of life controversy or something equally bland. —Pengo 00:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Idea raptor 12:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure: Moving beyond the definition 

message: start here:
 Life is the root and ability with which an organism responds to stimulus.
or:
 Life, as seen throughout our world, can most simply be understood as the root ability any organism has to respond to stimulus.https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/biology/biology/the-science-of-biology/characteristics-of-living-things#:~:text=All%20living%20things%20are%20able,%2C%20ears%2C%20and%20taste%20buds.
Lispenard (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes to lead section 

message: The article Death is linked in the lead in the sentence that says "because such functions have ceased (they have died)". It may be a better idea to remove that link, and link it instead in the last paragraph of the lead, that describes death in detail rather than in passing. Cambalachero (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Life#Biology lists adaptation as a core characteristic of life. 
# Can someone provide reliable sourcing on this? I'm not denying that adaptation is important to life, but I'm also not sure it is part of the definition. It seems like more of an emergent property than a requirement. For example, Genetic drift also changes life, but not adaptively. What makes adaptation any more important than genetic drift or even maladaptation in the discussion of life? All of these things involve changes to life, but one is not necessarily more important than the other.
# This definition of adaptation does not line up with the sources or adaptation article. I'm going to change this to line up with adaptation until someone provides a reliable source supporting the above definition. Adaptation is not necessarily .
I will change it to this definition for now, as that's the only one properly cited in adaptation article:
:  The void century (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adaptation as a requirement? 

message: My most recent edit removed some WP:UNDUE material from the lead and made it more cohesive and focused. Feel free to discuss or revert some parts of my edit. Most of what I removed is still discussed in the body, but not important enough to be in the lead section. The void century (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condensed the lead to be more cohesive and WP:DUE 

message: I know this article is semi-protected, but the previous lede was uncited and seemed a bit like WP:Original Research. Unless someone can back up the previous lede with reliable sources, I think we should keep my edit pending further discussion of the consensus definition of life The void century (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I found some support for the previous lede in dictionary definitions, so I updated again to incorporate some of the previous lede and be less WP:CV The void century (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I updated the lede 

message: So currently, the age is stated to be 3.77 Gya. However, a problem I have is that this is controversial in the scientific community so I'd suggest it would instead be stated to be 3.5 Gya which is the age of the oldest undisputed fossil evidence of life, though based on what i've read on the Biology or History of life article, 3.7 Gya. 2601:249:A00:7090:2D71:390:8658:1C4C (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A minor revision for the age of life 

message: The definition section of this article is too long and has quite an overwhelming categorization of topics. I would suggest that the definition section is to be made smaller, with the current and more information to be placed into a new article.  PrathuCoder (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions 

message: This article lacks what most readers would expect, that is, information about the life processes such as metabolism, reproduction, homeostasis, etc. PrathuCoder (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological Processes