What came first?

Discussions on general biology and biological evolution, genetics, zoology, ecology, botany, etc.

Re: What came first?

Postby Hendrick Laursen on January 9th, 2018, 7:18 am 

mitchellmckain » January 8th, 2018, 2:35 pm wrote:
Hendrick Laursen » January 8th, 2018, 9:53 am wrote:What defines a cell from non-cell? What did the first cell posses that it's progenitors were lacking and thus, were not cells?

This is considerably simplified by the distinction between the eukaryotic cell from the much more primitive prokaryotic cell which has far less features to it. Then to get to the minimum requirements of a prokaryotic cell then we need to look at the differences from the virus. Of course both virus and prokaryotic cell have genetic material as well as some protein (and in some cases lipid) covering. What the prokaryotic cell has which the virus does not is the materials and structures needed for metabolism, protein synthesis, and reproduction. For this reason the prokaryote has RNA structures for protein synthesis in addition to its genetic material, while the virus only has DNA or RNA for its genetic material only. This also means the prokaryote needs considerably more mass which includes a body of cytoplasm in which a lot of these metabolic process take place. The covering in the case of the virus has a much more narrow function to aid in the invasion other cells.

Hendrick Laursen » January 8th, 2018, 9:53 am wrote:Should we follow boolean cutoffs, and decide matters alive and not, (like zero and one).

Yes and no.
If you believe in abiogenesis as I do, then there is a continuum between the nonliving and the living. But a lot of that continuum is due to the quantitative nature of the living process - more such processes make some organisms more alive (more aware, sensitive, independent, and adaptive). This means it is possible to look for the minimum of what constitutes life as opposed to non-life.

What makes this a little less black and white is the wealth of self-organizing processes in the universe on the side of non-life. Some of the simplest examples are found in the weather and the red spot on Jupiter, where there is a metabolism like process absorbing energy from its environment to reinforce its own structure. These self-maintaining process can, to some extent, be considered sensitive to the environment and adaptive. So what does the life process add to this? I would argue that the answer is a degree of adaptation that can be described as learning. The adaptation in self-maintaining processes which are nonliving are a simple matter of balancing forces, while the living organism can actually change its structure in response to environmental challenges.

Why? To distinguish life from non-life we have to keep our eye on the end result that living things develop endlessly to more complex forms. Thus we must pinpoint the difference between life and non-life in the fact that non-living process although they can be self-organizing and self-maintaining do not have this capacity to become something more without first developing the ability to both alter and maintain itself simultaneously. I would also argue that this is also the key to distinguishing mere self-maintenance from self-awareness, which can encompass a change of self.

Perhaps all this sounds like I am implying the simplest living organisms have some kind of mental life, but this is not my intention at all. The kind of self-awareness I am talking about can be purely chemical in nature, such as the way in which DNA encodes a material structure which thus embodies a template according to which the organism can repair itself. Yet I am speaking of this in more abstract terms because I don't think this necessarily requires DNA or RNA, but only that these do this in a way that is more flexible and efficient as well as providing a means of passing information to a next generation.

Hendrick Laursen » January 8th, 2018, 9:53 am wrote:Could this be the reason we're yet unresolved about biochemical zombies we know better as viruses, as live or dead?

unresolved? I am not. Viruses are alive. Period. I see absolutely no reason to consider them otherwise. If anything, I would consider them to boil the life we find in many organisms down to the real essentials, showing that the life of many organisms is found not in the individual but in the species as a whole as it learns and adapts to the environment genetically.


Well, though I appreciate, I don't think you really got what I'm talking about.

The definition of life, maybe properly stated the demarcation of life, is yet unsettled on and incomplete.

Gestalt psychologist Kurt Koffka proposed "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts".

Indeed, this could be a tenet in biology, as in the hierarchical pyramid of life, every superior stage encompasses not only each and every participant, but also the interactions, interrelationships, etc.

Hence a cell, is more than organelles and cytoplasm and plasmalemma. Perhaps one of the " more" properties is being alive.

Traditionally, and pedagogical indeed, the cutoff is proposed to be the Cell.

Taking a reductionist view, we want to delve deeper and examine whether life really begins in a cell or the boundary is arbitrary.

Lynn Margulis, united older hypotheses about the origin of cellular organelles, in particular the Chloroplast (Mereschovsky) and the Mitochondrion (Pottier) into the acclaimed "Serial Endosymbiotic Theory".

Which stated, means mitochondria and chloroplasts were once ancient bacteria, which got inside another primordial cell. Up until which, they were free-dwelling bacteria, and hence " live ", but now subcellular organelles and not " live".

You may think, perhaps we should extend the definition one or two stages below, well, that really is the problem with defining life.

Should we stop at organelles, while considering that ribosomes are indeed tiny chemical factories, made up of some proteins and rRNA? Then, are the enzymes alive? Are the molecular catalysts alive? Are molecules alive?

Should we stop at molecules, with elaborate enzymatic compounds such as DNA polymerase?

DNA polymerase does not replicate itself and so, isn't alive? Then neurons aren't alive either because they don't participate in meiosis or replication directly. Fat cells, too, don't make sperms or oocytes.

Should we say a neuron contributes to replication and all aspects of life? As every component benefits from homeostasis and contributes it's share towards it, neuron helping by contributing to the neuroendocrinal bases of sexual behavior?

Then DNA polymerase, though not directly replicating into further DNA polymerases, contributes to a greater concept of cell cycle, the outcome of which includes expression of more DNA polymerase molecules and in a sense reproducing itself.

Indeed, a nerve cell does not make more nerve cells after a particular time in life (at least in CNS, until we research further), cardiac muscle cells can not become hyperplastic, just hypertrophic and once some die in some ischemia, they're gone, fibrous tissue fills there. (Oversimplified)

So, a neuron contributes to reproducing itself (and thus sustaining it's "life") by contributing to the more superior stage, which can end up in the organism reproducing and many nerve cells to be born.

You see, the matter is not quite that simple. Prions are not live by any definition, yet they can change the system in a way that more of them build up, replicating in a sense. Don't the viruses take over the biological system the same style?

Chlamidya and other "obligatory" intracellular parasites turn into something hardly fitting in any definition of life, once outside the cell.

What is life?
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Location: God's Green Earth
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: What came first?

Postby Hendrick Laursen on January 9th, 2018, 7:54 am 

This post is a little bit off-topic, but may give some clue, whatsoever.

In Islamic Theology, little studied and even lesser understood, even by most of scholars, "consciousness", " knowledge " and "life" have other definitions than the ones we've accepted in say, cognitive science and biology. Definitions that encompass everything in the world.

Just a clue to speculate.
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Location: God's Green Earth
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: What came first?

Postby mitchellmckain on January 9th, 2018, 12:52 pm 

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Well, though I appreciate, I don't think you really got what I'm talking about.

Back at you. I think I understood what you were talking about just fine and it is you you haven't understood what I said, so you couldn't see how it related. As I read on, I conclude that like many people you equate thinking differently and coming to different conclusions with a failure to understand you. I find that a bit naive and self-centered. The plain fact is that we just disagree and we probably always will.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:The definition of life, maybe properly stated the demarcation of life, is yet unsettled on and incomplete.

As far as a consensus in the scientific community goes you are correct. But that doesn't mean that individuals like myself have not done so.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Gestalt psychologist Kurt Koffka proposed "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts".

Indeed, this could be a tenet in biology, as in the hierarchical pyramid of life, every superior stage encompasses not only each and every participant, but also the interactions, interrelationships, etc.

Indeed, and I have been a vocal advocate of emergence over reductionism.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Hence a cell, is more than organelles and cytoplasm and plasmalemma. Perhaps one of the " more" properties is being alive.

No. Life is not emergent on that high of a scale. There is a demarcation at some point and then it is a matter of quantity. Viruses and bacteria are alive but the quantity of life is simply lower.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Traditionally, and pedagogical indeed, the cutoff is proposed to be the Cell.

And that is just wrong. The prokaryotic cell simply represents one stage of advancement and the eukaryotic cell represents another. The idea that these just came together coincidentally or by divine design are nonsense. The process for the development of life extends long before these stages in self organizing chemical processes as put forward in metabolism first theories.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Taking a reductionist view, we want to delve deeper and examine whether life really begins in a cell or the boundary is arbitrary.

This has nothing to do with any reductionist view. It has to do with examining what we mean when we call something alive. And this does not begin with cells. Nor is the boundary arbitrary.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Lynn Margulis, united older hypotheses about the origin of cellular organelles, in particular the Chloroplast (Mereschovsky) and the Mitochondrion (Pottier) into the acclaimed "Serial Endosymbiotic Theory".

Which stated, means mitochondria and chloroplasts were once ancient bacteria, which got inside another primordial cell. Up until which, they were free-dwelling bacteria, and hence " live ", but now subcellular organelles and not " live".

I am well aware of the hypothesis that mitochondria and chloroplasts are descended from prokaryotic cells. I think it is correct. But I quite disagree with this idea that they ceased to be alive because they became part of a communal organism. That idea is as absurd as the idea that our individual cells are no longer alive or that organisms living in a symbiotic relationship are no longer alive. But to be sure the whole is more alive than the parts -- that is the quantitative nature of life.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:You may think, perhaps we should extend the definition one or two stages below, well, that really is the problem with defining life.

No, I think definitions based an arbitrary demarcation like you have done are as ill-conceived as those trying to define life by a list of attributes commonly found in living things. Life is a particular kind of self-organizing process which has encompassed the ability to learn in response to changes in the environment and thus become more than it is by adapting to order to maintain itself apart from its surroundings.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Should we stop at organelles, while considering that ribosomes are indeed tiny chemical factories, made up of some proteins and rRNA? Then, are the enzymes alive? Are the molecular catalysts alive? Are molecules alive?

Ribosomes may also be descended from simpler organisms like a virus, but no, molecules are not alive. Your slippery slope type argument is as silly as most such arguments usually are. Just because I look for the demarcation beyond your arbitrary decision to stop with cells does not mean it must extend all the way down to molecules.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:You see, the matter is not quite that simple. Prions are not live by any definition, yet they can change the system in a way that more of them build up, replicating in a sense. Don't the viruses take over the biological system the same style?

I agree that prions are not alive. Neither reproduction nor changing an external system is any part of my definition of life. What viruses have which they do not is the ability as a species to alter themselves in response to environmental changes -- adapting to survive. It is simply more clear in the case of viruses that what life they have is only as a species rather than in their individuals for that is where all their adaptive learning takes place. But I think this applies to some degree to most biological organisms other than humans, for that is where most their adaptive learning takes place for them as well.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Chlamidya and other "obligatory" intracellular parasites turn into something hardly fitting in any definition of life, once outside the cell.

What is life?

Life is a process not an object. Thus the fact that some living things have a spore like stage where they are completely inactive does not support your slippery-slope type argument. The chlamidya bacterium is alive as a species because it exhibits adaptive learning in response to environmental challenges just as other living organisms do.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: What came first?

Postby Braininvat on January 9th, 2018, 1:18 pm 

The large umbrella term is always one that catalyzes disputes over its "essential" meaning. (SEE every other discussion of "consciousness" at any bulletin board) Life is a process, it covers a wide spectrum of adaptive functionality, and we hand the term out based on a sort of family resemblance (in the Wittgenstein sense of assigning meaning). Some will give life shades of meaning that include a capacity to feel (they kick viruses out of the club), others allow any sort of self-replicating molecular machinery that can adapt to ambient changes. The line is always fuzzy whenever the term is fuzzy. That's what keeps philosophers employed, I would guess. And that fuzziness and ambiguity in meaning is what keeps the silly "chicken v egg" question going, as others have so acutely observed. The only thing the egg definitely comes before is the omelet.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6474
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Hendrick Laursenmitchellmckain liked this post


Re: What came first?

Postby Hendrick Laursen on January 9th, 2018, 2:34 pm 

mitchellmckain » January 9th, 2018, 6:52 am wrote:
Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Well, though I appreciate, I don't think you really got what I'm talking about.

Back at you. I think I understood what you were talking about just fine and it is you you haven't understood what I said, so you couldn't see how it related. As I read on, I conclude that like many people you equate thinking differently and coming to different conclusions with a failure to understand you. I find that a bit naive and self-centered. The plain fact is that we just disagree and we probably always will.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:The definition of life, maybe properly stated the demarcation of life, is yet unsettled on and incomplete.

As far as a consensus in the scientific community goes you are correct. But that doesn't mean that individuals like myself have not done so.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Gestalt psychologist Kurt Koffka proposed "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts".

Indeed, this could be a tenet in biology, as in the hierarchical pyramid of life, every superior stage encompasses not only each and every participant, but also the interactions, interrelationships, etc.

Indeed, and I have been a vocal advocate of emergence over reductionism.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Hence a cell, is more than organelles and cytoplasm and plasmalemma. Perhaps one of the " more" properties is being alive.

No. Life is not emergent on that high of a scale. There is a demarcation at some point and then it is a matter of quantity. Viruses and bacteria are alive but the quantity of life is simply lower.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Traditionally, and pedagogical indeed, the cutoff is proposed to be the Cell.

And that is just wrong. The prokaryotic cell simply represents one stage of advancement and the eukaryotic cell represents another. The idea that these just came together coincidentally or by divine design are nonsense. The process for the development of life extends long before these stages in self organizing chemical processes as put forward in metabolism first theories.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Taking a reductionist view, we want to delve deeper and examine whether life really begins in a cell or the boundary is arbitrary.

This has nothing to do with any reductionist view. It has to do with examining what we mean when we call something alive. And this does not begin with cells. Nor is the boundary arbitrary.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Lynn Margulis, united older hypotheses about the origin of cellular organelles, in particular the Chloroplast (Mereschovsky) and the Mitochondrion (Pottier) into the acclaimed "Serial Endosymbiotic Theory".

Which stated, means mitochondria and chloroplasts were once ancient bacteria, which got inside another primordial cell. Up until which, they were free-dwelling bacteria, and hence " live ", but now subcellular organelles and not " live".

I am well aware of the hypothesis that mitochondria and chloroplasts are descended from prokaryotic cells. I think it is correct. But I quite disagree with this idea that they ceased to be alive because they became part of a communal organism. That idea is as absurd as the idea that our individual cells are no longer alive or that organisms living in a symbiotic relationship are no longer alive. But to be sure the whole is more alive than the parts -- that is the quantitative nature of life.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:You may think, perhaps we should extend the definition one or two stages below, well, that really is the problem with defining life.

No, I think definitions based an arbitrary demarcation like you have done are as ill-conceived as those trying to define life by a list of attributes commonly found in living things. Life is a particular kind of self-organizing process which has encompassed the ability to learn in response to changes in the environment and thus become more than it is by adapting to order to maintain itself apart from its surroundings.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Should we stop at organelles, while considering that ribosomes are indeed tiny chemical factories, made up of some proteins and rRNA? Then, are the enzymes alive? Are the molecular catalysts alive? Are molecules alive?

Ribosomes may also be descended from simpler organisms like a virus, but no, molecules are not alive. Your slippery slope type argument is as silly as most such arguments usually are. Just because I look for the demarcation beyond your arbitrary decision to stop with cells does not mean it must extend all the way down to molecules.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:You see, the matter is not quite that simple. Prions are not live by any definition, yet they can change the system in a way that more of them build up, replicating in a sense. Don't the viruses take over the biological system the same style?

I agree that prions are not alive. Neither reproduction nor changing an external system is any part of my definition of life. What viruses have which they do not is the ability as a species to alter themselves in response to environmental changes -- adapting to survive. It is simply more clear in the case of viruses that what life they have is only as a species rather than in their individuals for that is where all their adaptive learning takes place. But I think this applies to some degree to most biological organisms other than humans, for that is where most their adaptive learning takes place for them as well.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 6:18 am wrote:Chlamidya and other "obligatory" intracellular parasites turn into something hardly fitting in any definition of life, once outside the cell.

What is life?

Life is a process not an object. Thus the fact that some living things have a spore like stage where they are completely inactive does not support your slippery-slope type argument. The chlamidya bacterium is alive as a species because it exhibits adaptive learning in response to environmental challenges just as other living organisms do.


Go on and get a Nobel Prize for defining life, then. :)

I kindly disregard some of your points as I find some personal and some irrelevant. Certainly, throwing some junior high-schools biology at me is not a sign of understanding, as of to explain, what are prokaryotes and how eukaryotes differ.

Stereotyping based on a single encounter and yet extending it to "those" is another sign. You believe in abiogenesis. You can believe in anything (and be anything to talk Zootopia). I never asked for being believed or agreed with and wonder how it is relevant.

Talking empirical science means evidence, and the whole world doesn't care for what I personally think, unless I provide some reason. I have the right to talk, and I reserve the right for my listeners not to agree.

Furthering your stereotyping , somehow it disappointed me that you may never want to agree. But hey! That's your constitutional right. Still nothing wrong with it. :)

What I presented in my previous posts deal mainly with the semantics lying behind this ancient problem. How definitions can't withstand the test of simple speculation, and I'm showing you how absurd it is to exclude bacteria-like mitochondria and chloroplasts from the simple definition by rising the cutoff to cell level, by setting the bar too high.

I told that the definition of life does not obey boolean cutoffs. I proposed we should go fuzzy.

Stating that the Cell is the fundamental unit of life was not done by me, it's quite a verbatim quote from many standard textbooks, like the prestigious Guyton's Physiology. That is what we teach our children. I don't accept the definition, but there it is.

Indeed, I believe life, along with knowledge, consciousness and existence, fall outside of the biological realm to be defined, and have very fundamental definitions. Definitions that hold true in science and philosoohy. Again, a personal belief.

PS: I'm all against judging people based on stereotypes. Everybody is an individual, and I respect that individuality. I humbly think we all should. We think differently, there's nothing wrong with it.

Some years ago there was a great philosopher here with the username owleye. I used to argue with him, but he never let go of his high professional ethics. We would argue, and yet he would like the fraction of posts he agreed with, or even found thought-provoking. I have some posts in this forum dating some years ago and find some very frivolous. What astonishes me more is the considerate response I'd got from BioWizard, mtbturtle, Dave, doogles, owleye, etc.

I respect your ideas, even those I don't agree with. If my posts disturb you that much you can just add me as a foe and ignore me. It's absolutely OK :D

Sorry if I'm a bit straightforward.
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Location: God's Green Earth
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: What came first?

Postby Hendrick Laursen on January 9th, 2018, 2:35 pm 

This was a duplicate post. Admin please kindly delete it.
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Location: God's Green Earth
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: What came first?

Postby mitchellmckain on January 9th, 2018, 3:01 pm 

Clarification:

Quantitative does not mean simply additive. The quantitative nature of life is also hierarchical as well as numerical. In other words the life process does not only exist at one level in the interactions between molecules but also in the interactions between the members of communal organisms at all levels. Often this means that the communal organism is greatly more alive than the individuals -- at least potentially but not necessarily so. This is because hierarchical organization tends to increase the flexibility of the whole by putting the whole organism at one more step of removal from the environment. There are also numerous advantages with regards to awareness (both of self and the environment) due to increased capabilities in the processing of information. My caveat saying "not necessarily so" is exemplified in the human community which while having attained some of the elements of life in its own right should nevertheless not be considered a higher form of life quite yet (i.e. the human community often behaves with less awareness, intelligence and adaptability than the individual people are capable of).

The following is somewhat related if a little divergent...

I often explain the parallel I see between the development of multi-cellular organisms and the development of technology in human civilization. This can also be extended to the sub-cellular in the hypothesis that eukaryotic cells formed from a community of prokaryotic cells. It is connected to an argument I make that there are two distinct stages in the process of evolution -- the individual and the communal. This proposes that when the community begins to protect its weaker members, instead of hampering evolution, it actually stimulates it by providing a new avenue for variation as the individuals are liberated from the requirements of surviving on their own. This ties in with my usual argument that the real driving force of evolution is not natural selection but variation.

Yesterday, I latched onto another parallel in the "evolution" of animal communication to form a new kind of life that culminates in the human mind and civilization. The parallel I see there is between the development DNA/RNA and the development of language. Both of these represent a mastery of symbolization which allows the encoding of what living things have learned to a vastly greater degree of flexibility and this greatly enhances their adaptability.
Last edited by mitchellmckain on January 9th, 2018, 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: What came first?

Postby mitchellmckain on January 9th, 2018, 3:32 pm 

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 1:34 pm wrote:Go on and get a Nobel Prize for defining life, then. :)

Wow you set a pretty low bar for that!

Do you think for example that Einstein was the first to speak of the relativity of velocity or that matter could be a form of energy. I don't think so. What he did was nothing so trivial as a few new ideas.


And... I shall disregard your irrelevant comments also.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 1:34 pm wrote:Talking empirical science means evidence, and the whole world doesn't care for what I personally think, unless I provide some reason. I have the right to talk, and I reserve the right for my listeners not to agree.

Science means evidence -- that is correct. But philosophy and ideas are not irrelevant. Science has the superior epistemological status. But science does not operate without philosophy and ideas any more than it operates without imagination and creativity. While they not a part of what gives science its objectivity, nevertheless it cannot advance without the kind of visualization and speculation that explores future possibilities.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 1:34 pm wrote:Furthering your stereotyping , somehow it disappointed me that you may never want to agree. But hey! That's your constitutional right. Still nothing wrong with it. :)

Now you are equivocating dishonestly. To accept the realistic possibility (and even high probability) that we may never agree is not the same as never wanting to agree.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 1:34 pm wrote: What I presented in my previous posts deal mainly with the semantics lying behind this ancient problem. How definitions can't withstand the test of simple speculation, and I'm showing you how absurd it is to exclude bacteria-like mitochondria and chloroplasts from the simple definition by rising the cutoff to cell level, by setting the bar too high.

Well I am glad you agree this is absurd. I had no idea you were part way along a path to an argumentum ad absurdum.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 1:34 pm wrote:I told that the definition of life does not obey boolean cutoffs. I proposed we should go fuzzy.

And this is where I disagreed with you. I proposed less fuzziness but instead that there is a cutoff between life and non-life found in much simpler self-organizing processes than that of a cell.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 1:34 pm wrote:Stating that the Cell is the fundamental unit of life was not done by me, it's quite a verbatim quote from many standard textbooks, like the prestigious Guyton's Physiology. That is what we teach our children. I don't accept the definition, but there it is.

That is a mistake in textbooks which I haven't seen myself. Wikipedia does better.
The cell is the basic structural, functional, and biological unit of all known living organisms. A cell is the smallest unit of life that can replicate independently, and cells are often called the "building blocks of life".

The cell is certainly fundamental building block of biological organisms on this planet. But it is a mistake to think that the cell is the smallest unit of life or anything like atoms are to the elements.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 1:34 pm wrote:Indeed, I believe life, along with knowledge, consciousness and existence, fall outside of the biological realm to be defined, and have very fundamental definitions. Definitions that hold true in science and philosoohy. Again, a personal belief.

I believe life, knowledge, and consciousness have definitions which do not depend on the biological realm but which are applicable to the biological realm.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 1:34 pm wrote:PS: I'm all against judging people based on stereotypes. Everybody is an individual, and I respect that individuality. I humbly think we all should. We think differently, there's nothing wrong with it.

Indeed, I often compare the diversity of human thought as playing much the same role in the survival of human civilization as the diversity of the genome plays in the survival of a species.

Hendrick Laursen » January 9th, 2018, 1:34 pm wrote: I respect your ideas, even those I don't agree with. If my posts disturb you that much you can just add me as a foe and ignore me. It's absolutely OK :D

Sorry if I'm a bit straightforward.

I am sorry you have the impression that your posts disturb me or that I do not respect your ideas or that I am anywhere near contemplating adding you as a foe or ignoring you. Quite the contrary. I like straighforward and you have stimulated me as much as if not more so than any other participant on this forum.

I admit that I can be confrontational and argumentative to an overbearing degree. I am sorry if that puts you off.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: 27 Oct 2016
Hendrick Laursen liked this post


Re: What came first?

Postby Hendrick Laursen on January 9th, 2018, 4:00 pm 

No way to belittle Nobel Prize, but you'd find some little-more-than-ordinary advancements, especially regarding immunology in the first years of Nobel that are really minute compared to tackling the problem of millennia, in science and philosophy.

Honestly I'd award a Nobel to such an advancement in theoretical biology, were I the one to do.
User avatar
Hendrick Laursen
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: 12 Mar 2014
Location: God's Green Earth
Blog: View Blog (6)


Previous

Return to Biology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests