Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 412344" data-attributes="member: 4720">Well, for one thing, I wasn't defending Tonquez' definition specifically.&nbsp; I was pointing out that WizarDru was attacking Tonquez' position based on two debatable points.&nbsp; Fire DOES grow and reproduce, using the dictionary definitions of those terms, and defining your units.&nbsp; And increasing complexity is NOT a required benchmark of life.&nbsp; Furthermore, I am well aware that not everything has a definitive death and of the nature of single-celled organisms.&nbsp; And, until very recently, oxygen was a metabolic poison to all life on earth.&nbsp; It started off as a waste chemical.Furthermore, not all living things actively maintain homeostasis.&nbsp; Some are entirely passive about it.&nbsp; Some don't need to because of the nature of their environment.&nbsp; This includes some of the critters that use a non-oxygen metabolism.And that's without bringing in sticky questions like viruses.&nbsp; And don't give me the &quot;viruses aren't alive because they don't reproduce themselves&quot; argument.&nbsp; They reproduce themselves just fine given the proper environment.&nbsp; But then, the same could be said for us, couldn't it?But wait... &quot;viruses aren't alive because they don't have a metabolism.&quot;&nbsp; Neither do many spores, yet they are alive.&nbsp; And a great many bacteria can go to a completely quiescent state for obscenely long periods of time (again, including some of your non-oxygen metabolisms)&nbsp; &quot;But that's only for a brief part of their life cycle.&nbsp; Viruses NEVER have a metabolism.&quot;&nbsp; Untrue.&nbsp; There's a case to be made that a virus has a VERY active metabolism when inside a host cell.&nbsp; They've simply got a life cycle that keeps them quiescent for more of the time.&nbsp; Very efficient solution, actually.&nbsp; Too bad we didn't think of it.You give me the standard 7-point defintion of life (or is it 8-point nowadays?) that they provide to high school kids and most college freshmen, and I'll be happy to knock it down all day.&nbsp; <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=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 412344, member: 4720"] Well, for one thing, I wasn't defending Tonquez' definition specifically. I was pointing out that WizarDru was attacking Tonquez' position based on two debatable points. Fire DOES grow and reproduce, using the dictionary definitions of those terms, and defining your units. And increasing complexity is NOT a required benchmark of life. Furthermore, I am well aware that not everything has a definitive death and of the nature of single-celled organisms. And, until very recently, oxygen was a metabolic poison to all life on earth. It started off as a waste chemical. Furthermore, not all living things actively maintain homeostasis. Some are entirely passive about it. Some don't need to because of the nature of their environment. This includes some of the critters that use a non-oxygen metabolism. And that's without bringing in sticky questions like viruses. And don't give me the "viruses aren't alive because they don't reproduce themselves" argument. They reproduce themselves just fine given the proper environment. But then, the same could be said for us, couldn't it? But wait... "viruses aren't alive because they don't have a metabolism." Neither do many spores, yet they are alive. And a great many bacteria can go to a completely quiescent state for obscenely long periods of time (again, including some of your non-oxygen metabolisms) "But that's only for a brief part of their life cycle. Viruses NEVER have a metabolism." Untrue. There's a case to be made that a virus has a VERY active metabolism when inside a host cell. They've simply got a life cycle that keeps them quiescent for more of the time. Very efficient solution, actually. Too bad we didn't think of it. You give me the standard 7-point defintion of life (or is it 8-point nowadays?) that they provide to high school kids and most college freshmen, and I'll be happy to knock it down all day. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification