Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 412297" data-attributes="member: 177">Actually, Tonguez's definition (&quot;It Consumes fuel, requires oxygen, can grow, can reproduce and eventually dies&quot;) does not constitute an accurate representation of the &quot;standard definition&quot; of life.For one thing, the usual definition does not include &quot;eventually dies&quot;.&nbsp; While it does seem that all multicellular life on Earth does eventually die, things get a little sticky for singe-celled organisms.&nbsp; You may claim that an amoeba &quot;dies&quot; when it reproduces.&nbsp; I challenge you to show me the corpse, and prove that it is dead <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; For another, the &quot;consumes fuel, requires oxygen&quot; is inaccurate.&nbsp; This is usually phrased as &quot;has a metabolism&quot;.&nbsp; While this includes burning fuel, it is not limited to that.&nbsp; Nor do the standard definitions really rquire oxygen.&nbsp; There's usually an assumption that life requires the chemical process of oxidation, but other elements may be used.&nbsp; Technically, you can even postulate a metabolism based upon nuclear energy, rather than chemical.Most importantly, you leave something major out .&nbsp; A living thing responds to the environment to maintain homeostasis and it's own existance.&nbsp; Fire most assuredly does not do this, and so is not alive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 412297, member: 177"] Actually, Tonguez's definition ("It Consumes fuel, requires oxygen, can grow, can reproduce and eventually dies") does not constitute an accurate representation of the "standard definition" of life. For one thing, the usual definition does not include "eventually dies". While it does seem that all multicellular life on Earth does eventually die, things get a little sticky for singe-celled organisms. You may claim that an amoeba "dies" when it reproduces. I challenge you to show me the corpse, and prove that it is dead :) For another, the "consumes fuel, requires oxygen" is inaccurate. This is usually phrased as "has a metabolism". While this includes burning fuel, it is not limited to that. Nor do the standard definitions really rquire oxygen. There's usually an assumption that life requires the chemical process of oxidation, but other elements may be used. Technically, you can even postulate a metabolism based upon nuclear energy, rather than chemical. Most importantly, you leave something major out . A living thing responds to the environment to maintain homeostasis and it's own existance. Fire most assuredly does not do this, and so is not alive. [/QUOTE]

Verification