| Revision as of 23:19, 24 May 2009 editStevertigo (talk | contribs)43,174 editsm →Removal of talk comments← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:30, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,789,420 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 12 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 1 page: Level 1 vital articles.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{wpb|1= |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Biology|class=B|importance=top}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Tree of Life|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
| action1 = PR |
|
{{Vital|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
|
| action1date = 17 October 2007 |
|
}} |
|
|
|
| action1link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Life/archive1 |
|
{{to do|1}} |
|
|
|
| action1result = Not reviewed |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
| action1oldid = |
|
{{WP1.0|core=yes|v0.5=pass|class=B|category=Natsci}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action2 = PR |
|
{| class="infobox" width="150" |
|
|
|
| action2date = 13 June 2012 |
|
|- align="center" |
|
|
|
| action2link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Life/archive2 |
|
| ] |
|
|
|
| action2result = reviewed |
|
''']''' |
|
|
|
| action2oldid = |
|
---- |
|
|
|- align="center" |
|
|
| ] ] ] |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action3 = GAN |
|
|
| action3date = 22:50, 30 December 2015 |
|
|
| action3link = Talk:Life/GA1 |
|
|
| action3result = failed |
|
|
| action3oldid = |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action4 = GAN |
|
== Since When is Life a Taxonomic Supergroup? == |
|
|
|
| action4date = 05:12, 4 April 2016 |
|
Just a question without a response. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
| action4link = Talk:Life/GA2 |
|
|
| action4result = failed |
|
|
| action4oldid = |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action5 = PR |
|
== Archiving talk == |
|
|
|
| action5date = 14:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
|
As a general rule, I would favor only archiving talk threads that have been quiet for a while, say a month. Exceptions can of course be made for persistent soap-boxers, etc, but even then some notice (? a week?) would be nice. ] (]) 07:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| action5link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Life/archive3 |
|
|
| action5result = reviewed |
|
|
| action5oldid = |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| action6 = PR |
|
|
| action6date = 7 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
| action6link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Life/archive4 |
|
|
| action6result = reviewed |
|
|
| action6oldid = 1101785030 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7 = GAN |
|
:(--] (]) 16:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)). Hi. I would like to express I think ] is right. Particularly I'd like to express it would be better to archive a talk page when the extension of its content made it convenient. |
|
|
|
|action7date = 14:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|action7link = Talk:Life/GA3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action7result = listed |
|
::Rest assured that the extension of its content was inconvenient. ] (]) 05:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7oldid = 1177381926 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus = GA |
|
|
|
|
|
| dykdate= 5 November 2023 |
|
:(--] (]) 15:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)) .- Well, guess that was a good beginning. |
|
|
|
| dykentry= ... that ''']''' exists in every part of the ], from the deepest parts of the ocean ''(bacterium pictured)'' to altitudes of up to 40 miles (64 km) in the atmosphere? |
|
|
|
|
|
| dyknom= Template:Did you know nominations/Life |
|
== Discussing definition == |
|
|
|
|topic = Natural sciences |
|
From the article: |
|
|
|
}} |
|
----- |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
"There is no universal definition of life. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists, and when derived from an analysis of known organisms, |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=top}} |
|
life is usually defined at the cellular level." |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Tree of Life|importance=Top}} |
|
----- |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Animals|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Microbiology|importance=mid}} |
|
Er... How about this one: '''life is a form of information that have found its way to survive''' |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Plants|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Fungi|importance=mid}} |
|
It correlates nicely with the physical characteristics ]: |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Algae|importance=low}} |
|
* feeds on negative entropy; |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Marine life|importance=high}} |
|
* continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy; |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Science|importance=top}} |
|
* DNA/RNA is just information; |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Palaeontology|importance=mid}} |
|
* cultural heritage is just information; |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|ethics=yes}} |
|
* etc... |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=top}} |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
It includes viruses and every other possible 'living creature'. It gives nice definition of evolution - based on entropy. |
|
|
|
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|{{U|Sdkb}}|Level-1 vital article}} |
|
It even gives the definition of the 'intelligent life' - one that can formulate a clear definition of the term :) |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|
|
|
|target=Talk:Life/Archive index |
|
--] (]) 07:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|mask=Talk:Life/Archive <#> |
|
|
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
P.S. Support that definition and become the very few first species of the 'intelligent human life' on the planet :) |
|
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
P.P.S. The idea is definitely NOT O.R. See ], "The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations ....." |
|
|
|
| algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|
|
|
| archive = Talk:Life/Archive %(counter)d |
|
P.P.P.S. Regard the ] ;) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
| counter = 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
:I have re-ordered the above addition, in line with the standard talk-page system of putting later threads last. Then if later comments come in on earlier threads, the only defense against hopeless confusion (that I know at least) seems to be careful indentation and rigorous signing & date-stamping of posts. |
|
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
:I do support the general notion that this article needs to be broadened beyond the "cell-chauvinistic" position previously advocated by ] (see the ]). I think there is ample place to discuss ] and ] in Misplaced Pages already, while this article should (besides surveying traditional Earth biology) at least try to address the physical and philosophical issues involved in the definition in terms of function, and mention broader proposed extensions that are not arbitrarily tied to a particular chemical or physical substrate. As we begin to escape from our terrestrial environment, we may encounter life forms that are really different that earthly cellular life. How are we to recognize those, deal with them, and value them? Without some more extensive prior thought we could just dismiss them as "rocks" and grind them up to make toasters or Barbie Dolls. (If they do not do something similar to us first, of course.) Even on Earth, we encounter borderline bioforms, such as ]es, ]s, and ]s that do not fit the cellular model, but which are clearly biological. Technology also is leading us swiftly to systems that behave more and more like "life" but do not yet clearly qualify. I agree that the fundamental issues seems to revolve around information and entropy. |
|
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
:In my opinion none of the above suggestions by ], or me, or others can go into article space itself without ]s because of our ] disciplines, which appear absolutely necessary to this enterprise. However there ''' ''is'' ''' such a literature, as referenced in ] and ], ], going back at least to ]'s seminal paper in 1978, ]'s famous 1944 book '']'' and probably well before. Some of this is already mentioned in the references and the "See also" links. (My own background is in physics, so I am not well-qualified in these areas, and hoped to find more expert information here.) |
|
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
:The discussion of what is known and published in the literature, and how it might best fit into this article (or perhaps spin off a separate article on definition?), seems to me to be valid material for our talk page. ] (]) 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
::We can make up definitions, the fact remains that they are ]. The universal scientific consensus is that the cell is the basic unit of life. It is not "chauvinistic", it is simply that angels and invisible galactic pink unicorns are not available for analysis. I personally have faith in the ], but if each of us begin to write about our own faith, beliefs on "living rocks", living sotware, etc., the article will degrade in quality and usefulness. Fringe theories can be interesting and even catalysts for research, yet they are beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages. However, experts in astrobiology are quite aware that hypothetical extraterrestrial life could be different from what we know. Astrobiology programs are -of course- questioning how we can detect extraterrestrial life if different from ours. Astrobiologists are not inside a laboratory bubble as you want us to believe. For example, NASA’s Astrobiology Program addresses three fundamental questions: How does life begin and evolve? Is there life beyond Earth and, if so, how can we detect it? What is the future of life on Earth and in the universe? . There are at least other 2 or 3 formal astrobiology programs, and all are asking the right questions.... all outside of the box, and indeed, they make use of philosophy as their noble premises are largely hypothetical. Until we come across an extraterrestrial living rock, an angel or a galactic invisible pink unicorn, all forms of life identified so far by science are terrestrial, physical, and cellular. ] (]) 03:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Thanks, I hope I see your point, yet I am not sure. I do not see a definition as "research", only as a proposed meaning for a word, which may or may not become accepted as useful. I know the status of viruses as life is somewhat controversial, but I was unaware that it was settled dogma, or universal consensus. And what about ]s? They are not cells, but are they a kind of organism? (If not, why are sponges or people organisms?) Would you then deny the ''possibility'' of our encountering a non-cellular life form, on or off the Earth? Is astrobiology ''by definition'' limited to searching for cellular life? If we we were to encounter something that preserves and reproduces its core information content, metabolizes and processes energy to enable it to hold off the Second Law, and manipulates its environment to its advantage, would we then deny the possibility of it being life if it were non-cellular? (Perhaps ] is the key issue here? Your cells actively maintain an internal environment, whereas a virus does not, or barely does.) |
|
|
:::Forgive me for not deferring to you obviously greater expertise, but I do believe there is some respectable literature supporting my questions about these issues. Cheers, ] (]) 04:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Uh. It's interesting how you've started talking about 'beliefs' right away. And I don't mind that at all. People beliefs ARE important and maybe we can find a place in the article describing some common ones. On the other side though stays scientific definition, and it's department of logic, not beliefs. There are obviously several most common definitions, with the biological leading the way. And lets keep it that way; only lets call it what it is -- 'biological definition of life'. --] (]) 17:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: To BatteryIncluded. It's very difficult to use your comments. Not logical, not NPOV, O.R., mixed with your personal beliefs. Even the phrase: "''The universal scientific consensus is that the cell is the basic unit of life.''" - says who?! The '''universal'' board of science?!?'. And the rest of your comment is entirely your personal beliefs. Please keep ]. --] (]) 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Gentlemen, under yor proposed definition, an ancient cave painting that survived time, erosion and humidity would be considered alive. Please feel free to go back to the drawing board. Better yet, why reinvent the wheel? What is the centuries-old scientific discipline in charge of studying and describing life?: ]. So let's consider instead what biologists have brough forth so far. Regarding non-cellular life (excluding virus), there is no evidence of it, yet astrobiologists are open to notice its different possible manifestations. The day an invisible galactic pink unicorn or talking fire-ball crosses the path of earthlings, then hopefully we will notice its particular biology and sure enough, a new definition of life will be formulated, based on the observed phenomena. Although the world convention is that the basic unit of life is the cell, biologists have not agreed on a definitive definition of it; never mind trying to define hypothetical organisms we don't even know or may not even exist. The problem with your making a definition so wide and general so that everything gets included "just in case", is that such definition would have no practical usefulness. Now if it is religion you want to discuss, (soul, god, angels, demons, satan, heaven, hell, salvation, damnation, ghosts, holly ghosts, etc.), there are several religious and faith-related articles dealing with their empirical perception of life and spirituality. If it is ]/], there are articles on that too. If it is natural science and biology, e.g: the study of ], I am in. Cheers, ] (]) 22:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: "''under your proposed definition, an ancient cave painting that survived time, erosion and humidity would be considered alive''". -- This is correct. But the entropy here is going to be quite high. And the amount of information - very low. Usefulness: clear, almost mathematical definition can be useful. And it is natural science and biology that I like to discuss here, not beliefs or religion. --] (]) 01:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: On the other hand any biological 'system' is immensely complex, the amount of information high and entropy quite low. --] (]) 01:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Well, of course my suggestion started by saying that life has a kernel of core information, which it reproduces (fairly) faithfully. That excludes cave paintings. By reproducing its information core, it actively organizes its surrounding materials, which requires free energy G, and thus metabolism. This is physics and chemistry, nothing spiritual suggested (meant without prejudice). Saying life is necessarily "cells", without a physical definition of the term, seems to me to hark back to ], almost; though I would not accuse ] of that heinous sin. (But I would appreciate it if you, my learned friend, would drop the pink unicorns.) I admit if I actually encountered pink ghostly unicorns that satisfied my physical criteria (cruelly archived, alas; anyone who is interested can look near the end of ]), especially if these critters had a large ratio of core information kernel size to environmental information content, then I suppose I would have to at least consider the possibility that they might qualify as alive. |
|
|
:::::::Anyhow, I still think cells are good examples of life, but not necessarily a good definition of life. And I think we are approaching a level of awareness where it would behoove us to think hard about what the real physical and chemical qualifications might be that distinguish life from non-life. My proposal makes a stab at defining a number, the ratio of kernel to environmental information content, according to which candidates might be classified and ranked—without being too committal yet as to what the threshold value should be, or if there should even be a definite threshold. I do not really think this idea can be original, but I had hoped (and still do hope) that some of the more expert people interested in this subject might provide useful guidance, and perhaps entree to the relevant literature, either for correcting and refining my idea, with a view to strengthening this article, or conceivably starting a new one. KILLING the idea off decently, entirely, would of course be OK, but I am not yet convinced that has been done. Cheers, ] (]) 02:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::: Er.. Wwheaton. FYI - cave paintings have their peculiar way of reproduction and evolution. Apparently you need an ape to copy and spread one. --] (]) 03:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Good point. The cave man is part of the environment for the "Painting Life" to grow, and he has a lot of information in him, more than the painting itself, so the information ratio would be very small, thus I would call it "not very lifelike". Cheers, ] (]) 03:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::: Er.. would you call information "''not very informationlike''" if the number of bits is to few? --] (]) 03:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::: Look at this cave painting . It's fascinating to estimate just how much information (]) have been just transferred from that ape to you. And how it will evolve. --] (]) 04:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:See {{cite journal |author=Nealson KH, Conrad PG |title=Life: past, present and future |journal=Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. |volume=354 |issue=1392 |pages=1923–39 |year=1999 |month=December |pmid=10670014 |pmc=1692713 |doi=10.1098/rstb.1999.0532 |url=http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/7r10hqn3rp1g1vag/fulltext.pdf}} hopefully a useful intro to the literature. ] (]) 02:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hey, thanks! This is helpful. (And still cells, BI!) BTW, let's resolve that if our argument just goes around in circles, we take it to our personal talk pages, OK? ] (]) 03:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The way to solve the problem is to put your own opinions to one side and just summarise what the sources say on the topic. Our own ideas have no relevance or use, we have to report what the sources say - and nothing more. ] (]) 04:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Of course the referenced paper deals with cells. Could it be that ...... cells are the basic unit of life? This discussion reminds me of a child trying to fit a trianglular block inside a circular hole. You can't discuss bilogy and mix fantasy so that one day you may be proven right. There is no evidence of non-cellular life (viruses got a debatable pass), so it can't be included. On the other corner, an editor here believes that entropy is the magic word that would vest almost any object with life. Energy by itself is not enough; it has to be expressed in a physical form (matter) and carry on with complex biochemical pathways that support the structural and functional elements of metabolism, homeostasis, reproduction, etc. To be fair, it is a tough enterprise to formulate a definition of life; it is relatively easier to '''describe''' its observable phenomena. Finally, I am glad the pink unicorns got archived, and regarding the information kernel ratio thing, I have 2 leters: ]. I agree with Tim Vickers, report what the reliable sources say - and nothing more. Cheers, ] (]) 04:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Thank you, TimVickers. But your comment is a bit off-topic on this discussion page. Not to mention, that if you follow your own logic, your own message have no relevance or use. I would also suggest reading ] policy. It almost explicitly says - it's OK to think for yourself and summarize!!! --] (]) 04:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: BatteryIncluded.... I'm only using logic and proven facts and summarize them. I agree with you, that from the biology perspective "cells are the basic unit of life" would be a true statement. But would you agree that RNA is just information? And that neat, almost mathematical definition of any term is the best one? --] (]) 04:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Which sources use this mathematical definition that are you referring to Mitra? ] (]) 05:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: TimVickers, I've only used logic and summarized information in the original ] article. No O.R. No external references. --] (]) 06:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Dear Mitra, your statements are extremely flawed. There is nothing mathematical about it, and RNA is not "just information". For homework, please find out the functions of tRNA, rRNA, mRNA and snRNA. Reagarding your response to Tim Vickers, i disagree with you; Tim's response is at the very heart of what Misplaced Pages is, and it brings about guidance (e.g: a stop) to the conjectures and ill "definitions" some intend to include in this article. Cheers, ] (]) 05:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: BatteryIncluded, again I can't find any logic in your assertion. Random biological terms. I do know, for instance, the function of tRNA - Transfer RNA. What it does in terms of the cellular machinery. But being professional you should know what it does in terms of the information transfer from one part of the cell to another! As to my response to Tim, again, I've only used logic. --] (]) 06:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)..... edit... My mistake. I've messed up tRNA with mRNA. --] (]) 17:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You flunked to the abyss. I see now where you stand. Dispense with your "logic" and dig some referenced material. Cheers, ] (]) 07:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: BatteryIncluded, again I can't find any logic in your assertion. Your statement is also irrelevant and personal. It does not sound professional as well. Please refer to ] for more information on that. --] (]) 07:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I can also find links: Please refer to ] for more information on ramblings. Cheers, ] (]) 08:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Uh. Thanks. Point taken. Exactly my point :) --] (]) 08:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Is that the abyss of biologists with good intentions, the kind that use abbreviations meaninglessly? --] (]) 17:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::'''Trolling''' (WP:DFTT) refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Misplaced Pages for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Misplaced Pages. The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. If a troll gets no response to their spurious edits, then they can hardly be considered a troll at all. ] (]) 18:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At an everyday practical level the links between ''information entropy'' and ''thermodynamic entropy'' are not close. Physicists and chemists are apt to be more interested in '''changes in entropy''' as a system spontaneously evolves away from its initial conditions, '''in accordance with the ].''' |
|
|
I realize {{Fact}} your account in Misplaced Pages, Mitra, is of a single-purpose user, so I will not invest any more time trying to explain to you the pilars of Misplaced Pages and the need to report only what the sources say, instead of pushing your own perceptions, logic, interpretations, agenda and OR. ] (]) 16:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
: {{Fact|date=Jan 2009}} --] (]) 17:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for my childish behavior. If I've created any inconvenience for you or any other Wikipedian, I apologize here. Please forgive me. |
|
|
--] (]) 16:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] From ]<br> |
|
|
'''Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought'''. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished ] or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that ] the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. ] and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are '''directly related''' to the topic of the article, and that '''directly support''' the information as it is presented. |
|
|
|
|
|
No original research is one of three core content policies. The others are ] and ]. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. |
|
|
|
|
|
If you have original research or commentary to contribute to a subject, there are numerous other places to do so, such as at . |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I (BatteryIncluded) am pasting here a POV & original research placed in the main article by user '''Prof de loof''': |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Life''' can be plausibly defined in a way that satifies both biologists, philosophers and the humanities, if one starts from the simple observation that '''all living things are invariably organized in the form of sender-receiver compartments (= communicating compartments) that incessantly talk, anw while doing so, solve problems, most of them in an automated way'''. What we call '''Life''' is '''a verb'''. '''It is nothing else that the total sum of all acts of communication executed, at moment t, by a given sender-receiver compartment at all its levels of compartmental organization, from its lowest one (cell organelle if present) to its highest one (e.g. eukaryotic cell,tissue, organ, multicellular individual, aggregate, population, communinity, etc.). The '''causal link''' between communication and problem-solving, '''the key issue in understanding Life's very nature''', follows from the fact that '''any message''', whatever its nature, is invariably '''written in coded form'''. Hence, any receiver '''faces the problem''' as to how '''subtract''' ] from the incoming message, '''decode''' and '''amplifly''' it, and finally come up, sooner or later, with an '''energy demanding response'''. ]: how does a given sender-receiver compartment come into existence, how does it function, and how does it develop and evolve? In this approach the '''communicating compartment''' is a better candidate than '''the cell''' for serving as the '''universal functional building block of all living matter'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Respiration== |
|
|
ADD: That there is another characteristic of life - RESPIRATION. Please insert this into the page. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Cellular respiration: A series of '''metabolic processes''' that take place within a cell in which biochemical energy is harvested from organic substance (e.g. glucose) and stored as energy carriers (ATP) for use in energy-requiring activities of the cell.'' |
|
|
:It is a subset of metabolism, which is already included. . Cheers, ] (]) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Question on Conventional Definition of Life == |
|
|
|
|
|
Based on the language used in the article, it was not entirely clear to me what the phrase "Also, individual members of a species may not meet all the criteria, but are still considered alive, such as members of a species who are rendered unable to reproduce or unable to respond to stimuli" means exactly. Does this mean to imply that, if one was using the conventional definition list, that the only two exceptions that can exist and still allow something to be called life are reproduction and response to stimuli? Or does the use of the words "such as" mean more along of the lines of "for example"? To be more precise, what I mean is are any of the seven items on the list absolutely required for something to be deemed life? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks guys. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 08:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Good point. Yes, the consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit '''all or most''' of the listed phenomena. So I deleted the phrase you mentioned, as exceptions could be a separate and long list. Cheers, ] (]) 04:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::why is the definition of life not "physical materials that undergo Darwinian ]" it is the most precise definition possible ] (]) 17:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Formatting in Origin of Life Section == |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that the line "for religious views, see Creation Myth" is supposed to be italicized and indented as part of the "Main article" part of this seciton. The way it's formatted now, it looks like part of the body of text for that section. I'd fix it myself, but the semi-protection is preventing me form doing so. ] (]) 01:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}. ] (]) 02:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Prions do NOT have genes == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Viruses and prion proteins are most often considered replicators rather than forms of life. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life", '''since they possess genes''', evolve by natural selection and replicate by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly." |
|
|
|
|
|
Prions are proteins and do NOT have genes. Someone change this please. |
|
|
|
|
|
from <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9811807</ref>: "Prions are transmissible particles that are '''devoid of nucleic acid'''' and seem to be composed exclusively of a modified protein (PrPSc). The normal, cellular PrP (PrPC) is converted into PrPSc through a posttranslational process during which it acquires a high beta-sheet content." -- |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 14:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC) edleob |
|
|
|
|
|
::You are absolutely right. Thank you. ] (]) 16:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Lede == |
|
|
I made some changes to the lede which were by User:BatteryIncluded (a clever name that no doubt, in its most profound definition, refers to a '']'' and the possession thereof). I like to destroy things one at a time, so here goes. The current lede sentence reads (<u>underline</u> and numbers<sub>1</sub> mine): |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Life''' is a <u>characteristic</u><sub>1</sub> of <u>]s that exhibit certain ]es</u><sub>2</sub> such as ]<sub>3</sub> or other events <u>that result in a transformation.</u><sub>4</sub> |
|
|
|
|
|
On the positive side, it gets marks for referencing chemistry.<sub>3</sub> But "life" is not just a "characteristic."<sub>1</sub> Nor does the definition of "organism" ("any living thing, such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism") allow for any 'non-organisms' to "exhibit certain biological processes"<sub>2</sub> —hence the distinction is unnecessary at best. The computed result, that life > organisms > processes "that result in a transformation" </u><sub>4</sub> is classic Misplaced Pages wørdage, and perhaps almost unmatched in its utilitarian inaccuracy. So, That's three out of four things wrong, and we're so far just dealing with the first sentence of the current version. |
|
|
|
|
|
What "life" really is, is a ''concept.'' BatteryIncluded commented that "sentience" and "biological machines," concepts I introduced in my version, "are not terms used in biology." Certainly he may be right. But the article is not exclusively in the domain of biology, is it? If so, it should simply start with the typical context prefix: "In biology, '''life''' is..." I'm fine with that. But even then "life" is still a concept, used firstly and most importantly to indicate a distinction between ''things which are deemed living and things which are not.'' The linguistics of the term "life" are quite relevant, even when put into the semantically narrow concept of biological science. -]] 02:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) PS: Text below hidden for comment later. |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- HIDDEN FOR USE LATER |
|
|
Living organisms are capable of growth and reproduction, some can ] and many can ] to their environment through changes originating internally ("]," Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, 1999). A ] characteristic of life is that it feeds on ] (], ''What is Life?'', 1944). |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Life''' (cf. "'']''") is a concept of all ] —] and multicellular ] that employ the ]es of ''making ],'' ''using ]'', '']'', '']'', and '']'' —as being profoundly distinct from those things which do not and are thus called "inanimate." The term is highly conceptual and though it is more often used ] to indicate a biological property called "life," it is also sometimes used '']'' to indicate a philosophy — for example in usage that considers only ] to be "life." |
|
|
|
|
|
We also |
|
|
: In more detail, according to physicists such as ], ], ], and ], life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal ] at the expense of substances or ] taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form (see: ]). |
|
|
<ref> Lovelock, ''Gaia – a New Look at Life on Earth'', 2003</ref> |
|
|
HIDDEN FOR USE LATER --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hello. |
|
|
:#The article is most certainly focused on biology as it is the science in charge of the study of '''LIFE'''. (from ] βιολογία - βίος, ''bios'', "]"; -λογία, ''], study of''). |
|
|
:#The lead section is always an introduction with a general description. There is a section in this article focused on the definitions of life, and it opens with: "There is no universal definition of life." It is followed by the most current and conventional scientific definitions + references. |
|
|
:#Your definitions seems original research. |
|
|
:#What you call '' semantically narrow concept of biological science'' is the most accurate and accepted concept, based on factual evidence obtained through scientific methods. The day someone produces, say, an ], a talking rock, a little green man, etc., biology and related scientific definitions will certainly change. |
|
|
:#] is '''not''' alive; it is but the study of some aspects of its processes. |
|
|
:#Machines and software are not alive. |
|
|
:#Defining life requires measurable terms. A concept (such as ]) is not measurable. Maybe that is why it is more used in science fiction and not in science? |
|
|
:#The study of life (biology) requires of objectivity, not subjectivity (e.g. sentience). |
|
|
:#"Non-organisms" are not alive, that is why they are not included. |
|
|
:Cheers, ] (]) 04:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hi BI. While the list above looks very much like a list, and while some of the points you make in it are true, many of those points appear to either contradict material or else gloss over the problems in the current version. I am considering responses to each of your points now, but seeing as how you have not responded to many of mine, particularly as they deal with basic logic errors in the first sentence, I'm <s>repeating</s> rehashing most of them here, so you can deal with them. |
|
|
|
|
|
::A) BatteryIncluded wrote: |
|
|
:::"9) "Non-organisms" are not alive, that is why they are not included." |
|
|
::Well, that's not the way it reads: |
|
|
:::''"Life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit certain biological processes such as chemical reactions or other events that result in a transformation"'' |
|
|
::suggests not only that "life" is "a characteristic of organisms" '''and not others''', but that "life" requires "certain biological processes" '''and not others''', and worse than anything that there are "'''organisms'''" '''that do not''' "exhibit certain biological processes." |
|
|
|
|
|
::Do you see the problem? I could go on. |
|
|
::B) The computed result, that ''life > organisms > processes "that result in a transformation"'' </u><sub>4</sub> is of the highest Misplaced Pages wørdage, and is perhaps almost unmatched in its utilitarian inaccuracy. "A transformation?" Doesn't seem to be anything but original research, and bad research at that. |
|
|
|
|
|
::C) What "life" really is, is a ''concept'', used firstly and most importantly to indicate a distinction between ''things which are deemed living and things which are not.''-]] 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Stevertigo, I think you would assuage the Wikipedian distaste for original research if you could provide some support for your assertion that life is a concept rather than a characteristic. I agree that the use of "certain" in the lede is problematic for the reasons that you outline. --] (]) 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: Well my purpose here was to nuke any notion that the current lede version was wonderful. Or worth defending. I have done that, and while I understand the "distaste for original research," I consider ] that makes sense far superior to versions like the current one, which are at the same both well-sourced and ''obviously and demonstrably'' (as I've demonstrated) ''nonsensical.'' Note also that the problem isn't just with the word "certain," and in fact the word somewhat saves the expression... |
|
|
::::: "''organisms'' ''exhibit <s>certain</s> biological processes''" |
|
|
:::: ...from appearing to be as useless as it actually is. (Yes, we have no biology-less organisms). |
|
|
:::: I know not of any text that states the obvious in such a way, but perhaps quoting some credentialized linguist would work for everybody. -]] 05:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) ''Hi BI. While the list above looks very much like a list, and while some of the points you make in it are true, many of those points appear to either contradict material or else gloss over the problems in the current version. --Stevertigo'' |
|
|
:Hello. I see no point at splitting hairs over some syllogisms and semantics you seem concerned with, so I addressed your concerns on scientific accuracy. I am more interested in constructive discussions than debate. ] (]) 15:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
2) ''suggests not only that "life" is "a characteristic of organisms" and not others, but that "life" requires "certain biological processes" '''and not others''', and worse than anything that there are "'''organisms'''" '''that do not''' "exhibit certain biological processes." Do you see the problem? I could go on. --Stevertigo'' |
|
|
:That sentence in the '''introduction''', "certain biological processes" is shorthand for homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction; all listed in the 'Definitions' section. |
|
|
|
|
|
3) ''The computed result, that ''life > organisms > processes "that result in a transformation"'' </u><sub>4</sub> is of the highest Misplaced Pages wørdage, and is perhaps almost unmatched in its utilitarian inaccuracy. "A transformation?" Doesn't seem to be anything but original research, and bad research at that. --Stevertigo'' |
|
|
:There is certainly room for improving this article, however I would not venture to say it is "inaccurate". I am not satisfied with "....that result in a transformation" either, and i think it does require of editing. In fact, I very much like your suggestion: "organisms that exhibit biological processes", and assuming is OK with Gimme danger, I will change it. ] (]) 15:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
4) ''What "life" really is, is a ''concept'', used firstly and most importantly to indicate a distinction between ''things which are deemed living and things which are not. --Stevertigo'' |
|
|
:Describing life simply as a 'concept' is not enough. Life exhibits observable and measurable physico-chemical phenomena, and it serves best to list the specific characteristics/definitions of life as understood by biologists. |
|
|
:I look forward to continue this constructive discussion and continue to improve this article in partnership. Cheers, ] (]) 15:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::"Hello. I see no point at splitting hairs over some syllogisms and semantics you seem concerned with, so I addressed your concerns on scientific accuracy. I am more interested in constructive discussions than debate.-User:BatteryIncluded |
|
|
:While you may call it "splitting hairs," this is not really such a case. Words have meaning, and different meanings indicate different substance. Its not a matter of "splitting hairs." |
|
|
|
|
|
:: "There is certainly room for improving this article, however I would not venture to say it is "inaccurate". I am not satisfied with "....that result in a transformation" either, and i think it does require of editing. In fact, I very much like your suggestion: "organisms that exhibit biological processes", and assuming is OK with Gimme danger, I will change it. -BI |
|
|
: Progress! You now say that there is "room" for "improving" the article. Wonderful. Let's move on. -SV |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Stevertigo/BatteryIncluded === |
|
|
; Responses to Stevertigo |
|
|
1) ''Hi BI. While the list above looks very much like a list, and while some of the points you make in it are true, many of those points appear to either contradict material or else gloss over the problems in the current version. --Stevertigo'' |
|
|
:Hello. I see no point at splitting hairs over some syllogisms and semantics you seem concerned with, so I addressed your concerns on scientific accuracy. I am more interested in constructive discussions than debate. ] (]) 15:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
2) ''suggests not only that "life" is "a characteristic of organisms" and not others, but that "life" requires "certain biological processes" '''and not others''', and worse than anything that there are "'''organisms'''" '''that do not''' "exhibit certain biological processes." Do you see the problem? I could go on. --Stevertigo'' |
|
|
:That sentence in the '''introduction''', "certain biological processes" is shorthand for homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction; all listed in the 'Definitions' section. |
|
|
|
|
|
3) ''The computed result, that ''life > organisms > processes "that result in a transformation"'' </u><sub>4</sub> is of the highest Misplaced Pages wørdage, and is perhaps almost unmatched in its utilitarian inaccuracy. "A transformation?" Doesn't seem to be anything but original research, and bad research at that. --Stevertigo'' |
|
|
:There is certainly room for improving this article, however I would not venture to say it is "inaccurate". I am not satisfied with "....that result in a transformation" either, and i think it does require of editing. In fact, I very much like your suggestion: "organisms that exhibit biological processes", and assuming is OK with Gimme danger, I will change it. ] (]) 15:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
4) ''What "life" really is, is a ''concept'', used firstly and most importantly to indicate a distinction between ''things which are deemed living and things which are not. --Stevertigo'' |
|
|
:Describing life simply as a 'concept' is not enough. Life exhibits observable and measurable physico-chemical phenomena, and it serves best to list the specific characteristics/definitions of life as understood by biologists. |
|
|
:I look forward to continue this constructive discussion and continue to improve this article in partnership. Cheers, ] (]) 15:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
;Responses to BatteryIncluded |
|
|
1) "Hello. I see no point at splitting hairs over some syllogisms and semantics you seem concerned with, so I addressed your concerns on scientific accuracy. I am more interested in constructive discussions than debate.-User:BatteryIncluded |
|
|
:While you may call it "splitting hairs," this is not really such a case. Words have meaning, and different meanings indicate different substance. Its not a matter of "splitting hairs."I have thus far has avoided dealing with the implicit meaning in the tone of your statements. Sorry again to destroy them, but you keep insisting on defending a poorly-written version through usage of inaccurate concepts. Some points with regard to your terms: |
|
|
|
|
|
a) "syllogisms" |
|
|
: ]: ''"a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises).. at the core of traditional deductive reasoning, superceded by ]."'' In reality you are just using it to debase the argument, without actually demonstrating that the argument is syllogistic. -SV |
|
|
|
|
|
b) "semantics" |
|
|
:Your diminished usage of "]" shows that you don't know that the word means "meanings." and while I'm sure you are not unconcerned with meanings, if you don't understand the word "semantics," please try not to use it in your arguments. -SV |
|
|
|
|
|
2) "That sentence in the '''introduction''', "certain biological processes" is shorthand for homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction; all listed in the 'Definitions' section." -BI |
|
|
:Is this "shorthand for " actually ''scientific,'' or did you just make it up? I'm curious. -SV |
|
|
|
|
|
3a) "There is certainly room for improving this article, however I would not venture to say it is "inaccurate". I am not satisfied with "....that result in a transformation" either, and i think it does require of editing. In fact, I very much like your suggestion: "organisms that exhibit biological processes", and assuming is OK with Gimme danger, I will change it. -BI |
|
|
: Progress! You now say that there is "room" for "improving" the article. Wonderful. Let's move on: It doesn't matter if you think its "inaccurate" or not, just that you don't revert or else impede someone like myself who knows differently and has demonstrated that there are currently 3 logical contradictions ("certain.." "organisms" "processes") and one useless conclusion ("..results in a transformation") in just the first sentence! Its a wonderful example of bad writing, though, and I'm certain that it belongs in some pantheon-homage to our slips and failures. -SV |
|
|
|
|
|
3b) "I am not satisfied with "..transformation" either." |
|
|
:Excellent! Indeed, I looked at it myself and said, to.. myself, "you know that's actually quite incompetent." If something similar was, for example, on one of our illustrious Pokemon articles, I would have done the wise thing and just left it alone. Not here though. -SV |
|
|
|
|
|
3c) BI wrote: "your suggestion: "organisms that exhibit biological.." |
|
|
:This one went over your head apparently. I made no such "suggestion," I simply broke the statement down into its constituents to indicate how entirely self-conflicted it is. If you could find a source that talks about any "<u>organism<u> that <u>does not</u> exhibit <u>biological</u> processes," that would be great. The only problem is: they <u>all</u> "exhibit biological processes." Because they "are organisms!" Get it? So making a nonsensical distinction between organisms (ie. "biological" and "") will not be accepted here. At least not by me. -SV |
|
|
|
|
|
4) "Describing life simply as a 'concept' is not enough. Life exhibits observable and measurable physico-chemical phenomena, and it serves best to list the specific characteristics/definitions of life as understood by biologists." -BI |
|
|
: I don't recall ever saying that "describing life simply as a concept" would be "enough." If I actually did (which I didn't) I would now correct myself (which I don't have to) and state that the concept aspect is just relevant to the introductory sentence: The language/dictionary/word meaning aspects of "life" are important, but don't need to overwhelm the lede. It will of course go quickly into other things. Alchemy-derived and science-y opinions for example. -SV |
|
|
|
|
|
5) "I look forward to continue this constructive discussion and continue to improve this article in partnership." |
|
|
: Quite a nice way to end this, actually. But why then all the nonsensical reverts and pontificating rejectionism? It's sad that I have to turn in to such an asshole just to deal with things like this that even a third grader would turn his nose up at. -]] 04:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Stevertigo: |
|
|
A dead organism is an organism that does not exhibit biochemical processes. |
|
|
|
|
|
I told you before that I am not interested in debates but improving the article. |
|
|
Your comments about possession, destroying things, biological machines, nuking the introduction, being an "asshole", etc. demonstrate that you will benefit from reading the ] and ]. Also, omitting hostility in general, will be an asset to you. A required one at that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Despite your refusal to acknowledge that biology is the science in charge of the study of life, the fact remains so. If you want to debate the ''']''' about life, you may proceed to the forum of your choice. If you want to edit this article, no drama is required (really!); simply do the required research, make the changes and make sure you include quality references. Cheers, ] (]) 06:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Note:''' ''BatteryIncluded, with his above response, deleted my entire comment from the talk, calling it "inflammatory." I reverted his removal, and replaced his above comment along with my own, and the new one below, but may have lost a minor edit or two of his. In comment I instructed BatteryIncluded to consult ], where it says 'do not ever remove or alter anyone else's comments on talk pages.' His assertion that my comments were inflammatory were no doubt due to my usage of a particular epithet, but as this was directed at myself and not him, there was no issue of a "personal attack." While removal of the offending epithet would be appropriate if it was a personal attack, removing entire comment blocks is almost always a violation of our core principles.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
: (To BI, per the above comment). Keep in mind that our issue began with two hostile acts. Mine was that I changed the wording of the article! Yours was that you reverted it, claiming the previous one was better, or that the latter one was not acceptable. All I have done thus far is demonstrate that the current version doesn't actually make any coherent sense, and when unraveled, appears to be entirely not competent. Therefore you raising issues like reliable sources, original research, " in charge of life," personal attacks (Which? Against myself?), etc., makes no difference at all, if the first sentence which you still claim to be scientifically accurate, if not well sourced, is so plainly erroneous as to make blanking an acceptable alternative to keeping it. (But this fact doesn't seem to stop you from wanting to keep it, or else reject any attempt at improving it). |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't like blanking though, and simply choose to "nuke" or "destroy" anyone's concepts of keeping the old one. Have I not done so? And where therefore in those 5 Pillars you point to, does it say one cannot remove the erroneous, and obliterate any concept in which the erroneous is defended or promoted? Dealing with science-y editorial dogmas (not science dogma, which is real but different) is no different than dealing with bad editing on some New Age article. And to add it all up, your expressions are condescending at best: "despite your refusal to acknowledge that biology is the science in charge of the study of life, the fact remains so," is like using a term like "science-denier." It's just not a worthy concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
:As far as steps to improve the article go, its important to step back and take a look at what's going on. In this case, there are some basic issues: |
|
|
:1) Life is a concept - the opposite of both death and inanimate matter, that is uese to distinguish living things from not-living things. Note that while you state a "dead organism" is an "organism," it is not. An organism, by definition, has synergistic self-sustaining functions - not decaying cells. The word for a 'former organism' is usually "body" or "corpse." |
|
|
:2) The article assumes that because "biology is the science ''in charge of'' the study of life" that therefore "biology is in charge of the life article." It is not, and though it usually has some interesting things to say, these have to be put into context in order to make it work. |
|
|
:3) The current version was written by someone who understands how to use sources and that chemistry has something to do with biology, but doesn't understand English, scientific language, or what biology actually is. The term "biological machine" is appropriate and important: |
|
|
:: a. an "organelle" is a machine that performs one or two chemical operations which sustain its function |
|
|
:: b. a "cell" is an assembly of "organelles" that work synergistically to sustain its function |
|
|
:: c. an "organism" is an assembly of "cells" that work synergistically to sustain its function |
|
|
|
|
|
:Each of which are machines. Indeed you are right in suggesting that "sentience" does not fit in the context of "biology", but as |
|
|
:1) our bodies are biological machines, assembled from smaller and smaller such machines |
|
|
:2) human beings represent the pinnacle of "life," as far as we empirically know |
|
|
:3) most people don't consider themselves to be "machines," despite its factual basis in biology.. |
|
|
:..Therefore "human life", an essential dimension within "life" or even "biological life," is not entirely within the domain of "biology." |
|
|
|
|
|
:Note that you may argue that "human life" is a separate concept from "life," and therefore the articles should be different. Which is true. But in a human context, "human life" is highly relevant within the concept of "life" itself. And anyway the point is that (paraphrasing you) ''"despite your refusal to accept that 'biology' is a separate concept from 'life,' the fact remains so,"'' and therefore biology is not "in charge of" anything here. An essential dimension, yes. "In charge of," no. |
|
|
|
|
|
:With all that out of the way, I appreciate that you 1) helpfully suggest that I remove "hostility" and "drama" from my being, and I understand that 2) your above suggestion comes from your realization that you have been thus far less than helpful. I understand you wish us to turn the page? I accept. Thanks. -]] 15:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Removal of talk comments === |
|
|
:'''Note:''' Comment below (except for the comment "POV monologue") is the same comment as above. It was copied here in the context of re-adding text comments removed by BatteryIncluded. |
|
|
|
|
|
(POV monologue and debate forum-like entries by Svertigo deleted) |
|
|
|
|
|
{| width="100%" |
|
|
|- valign=top |
|
|
| width=50% | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Book ''"]"'' (2023) worth considering? == |
|
:Stevertigo: |
|
|
:A dead organism is an organism that does not exhibit biochemical processes. |
|
|
:I told you before that I am not interested in debates but improving the article. |
|
|
Your comments about possession, destroying things, biological machines, nuking the introduction, being an "asshole", etc. demonstrate that you will benefit from reading the ] and ]. Also, omitting hostility in general, will be an asset to you. A required one at that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A review by scientist ] of a new book entitled ''"]"'' (2023) by ] (editor of the journal '']'') may be worth considering?<ref name="NAT-20240205">{{cite journal |last=Noble |first=Denis |authorlink=Denis Noble |title=Book Review of ''"How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology"'' by Philip Ball, Pan Macmillan (2023) - It’s time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life - The view of biology often presented to the public is oversimplified and out of date. Scientists must set the record straight, argues a new book. |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00327-x |date=5 February 2024 |journal=] |volume=626 |pages=254-255 |doi=10.1038/d41586-024-00327-x |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://archive.ph/QNFax |archivedate=5 February 2024 |accessdate=5 February 2024 }}</ref> - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - ] (]) 04:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Despite your refusal to acknowledge that biology is the science in charge of the study of life, the fact remains so. If you want to debate the ''']''' about life, you may proceed to the forum of your choice. If you want to edit this article, no drama is required (really!); simply do the required research, make the changes and make sure you include quality references. Cheers, ] (]) 06:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} ] (]) 04:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|} |
|
|
|
:Hi , I've read it. There's nothing new. ] (]) 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Non-cellular life" in infobox == |
|
:''Note''': This is the most recent comment by BatteryIncluded, stating his reasons for violating ] (cf. ]): |
|
|
Once again, I removed forum-like entries, inflamatory comments, POV and original research that does not serve the discussion on how to improve this article. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate: (]).''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I'm aware, the biological community generally does not regard such entities as lifeforms. I am in favor of removing this. ] 15:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
Although it is entertaining seeing Stevertigo drum a war tune against the wisdon of ], the intelect of fellow editors and create a new section entitled "Stevertigo vs. BatteryIncluded", this is not the place for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:As far as I am aware, the biological community has yet to agree on a definition of life. So I disagree, it should be kept. ] (]) 16:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
For the third time: I am not entertaining a debate on your ] about life or the meaning of life, or disecting your treatese on the meaning of the word "meaning" (sic.), or your original interpretation of what biology should or should not study, as that has a place somewhere else in the internet. |
|
|
|
::@], as far as ''I'm'' aware, and you can be too if you read the respective articles, Misplaced Pages does not refer to ], ], and ] as being alive. The idea that viruses might be considered alive is brought up on their respective article, but the articles on virusoids and viroids do not even entertain such an idea. Given that the latter two are essentially just bits of RNA, should we also add rRNA, mRNA, etc. to the infobox? Regardless, my main point is that we should have some consistency within Misplaced Pages itself. ] 19:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Hi, first of all please have a look at ] and ]. I wrote ] and much of ], so I don't need to read the articles. Regarding consistency within Misplaced Pages, there is no such policy or guideline. Each article stands or falls on its own merit. So I am sticking to my argument that "the biological community has yet to agree on a definition of life. So I disagree, it should be kept." ] (]) 19:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
If you want to fix the grammar or edit the article, please do so. If you don't like your entries edited by other users, no not write on Misplaced Pages. Again, make sure you leave aside terms like "possession", "destroying things", "sentinence", "biological machines", "nuking the introduction", "being an asshole", etc. and avoid original research. |
|
|
|
::::Can you provide me a reliable source describing either viroids or virusoids as alive? Furthermore, if any infectious agent is being regarded as a lifeform, then prions might as well be added to the list. ] 23:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Can you provide a reliable source for what "alive" means? I doubt it because as I said above " the biological community has yet to agree on a definition of life". The existence of "non-cellular life" makes a definition elusive. You might find this paper interesting: {{cite journal |vauthors=Moelling K, Broecker F |title=Viroids and the Origin of Life |journal=International Journal of Molecular Sciences |volume=22 |issue=7 |pages= |date=March 2021 |pmid=33800543 |pmc=8036462 |doi=10.3390/ijms22073476 |url=}} ] (]) 09:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Meaning & definition of life == |
|
It is straight forward and no dramas are required (]): do the required research, make the changes and include quality references. Cheers, ] (]) 16:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't get the point of contention surrounding its meaning or purpose where this statement: "Life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from matter that does not." Very well captures the universal essence of life? ] (]) 07:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Saying that an organism is alive because it displays biological processes, is a fancy way of saying that an organism that's alive shows signs of life. Can you say "circular reasoning"? :) Also, some scientists say the earth itself is a "alive", in a sense. Where does that fit into the discussion? ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 21:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It's not our prerogative to ignore the controversy and complexity reflected in what sources say on the matter just because we personally find a certain definition sufficient. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 07:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::'''Note:''' User BatteryIncluded removed my comments (violating ]) twice now, which I have restored. I have also highlighted his comments above in bold text. Without having read them, I will simply note that among the reasons he states for removing my comments is "original research." This is a talk page. There is no issue of "original research" here, save that which can be identified and clarified through discussion. In addition to defending an incompetent version and violating CIVIL policy with regard to talk, BI also uses nonsensical references to policy, and, as Baseball above has noted "circular reasoning." Accurate. -]] 23:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
As far as I'm aware, the biological community generally does not regard such entities as lifeforms. I am in favor of removing this. Anonymous 15:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't get the point of contention surrounding its meaning or purpose where this statement: "Life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from matter that does not." Very well captures the universal essence of life? Wikicmon (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
level-1 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
