Login

Join for Free!
25611 members


life and non-life...

Debate and discussion of any biological questions not pertaining to a particular topic.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby kotoreru » Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:04 pm

Hmm here's all I could find on that stuff I mentioned earlier in the thread:

http://space.newscientist.com/channel/a ... -dust.html

Truth be told, it's all a bit abstract but may interest you.
"What are humans if they don't learn at University? Animals, yes."

^^One of my ex-girlfriends said that. I stress the ex part.
User avatar
kotoreru
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:25 pm
Location: London

Postby pd84 » Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:04 pm

At school, we were taught living things are those that: move, reproduce, react to stimuli, grow, respire, excrete and require nutrition.

But then just as an extra note, someone quipped that fire has all these properties so is this a living thing, blah blah...
pd84
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:33 pm

Postby ragav.payne » Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:34 pm

Okay, I think that I need to put forth the bio-philosohical version of my question.

Is consciousness/(point of view) an essential component of a living system?

May be all the living systems possess a point of view of its surroundings (We may never be able to emperically base our comments on its existence/nature/non-existence)

Anyway, where is the plant's brain? Does it have a centralized brain? Does its DNA store and process all the information that it needs to?

Anyway, why can't the presence of DNA (as information storing components) in a system make it a living being?

And why exactly is fire not a living thing? On what basis is it not qualified as a living thing? We all seem to instinctively reject the notion that fire isn't living? but what is the base for such rejection?

Cheers.
ragav.payne
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:08 pm

Postby siroma » Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:32 pm

siroma
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:31 pm


Postby zx1108585 » Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:20 am

i can't quite follow you
zx1108585
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 11:09 am

The distinction between life and nonlife?

Postby titanman » Mon Aug 27, 2007 11:27 am

According to Freeman Dyson, who is author of "origin of life", living things have two primary characteristics: metabolism and replication.
All nonliving things do not possess either of those characteristics.
Then we can define life. But the main problem now is the nature of metabolism and replication.
titanman
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:42 am

Postby anfiosso » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:42 pm

I think that a living being is an organism that has all biochemical e teleonomic structures necessary for surviving. Furthermore, regarding a foetus, for example, at early points of development it couldn't be considered "life" because it doesn't even reached the phylogenic stage characteristic of its species
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream
anfiosso
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: Italy- genova

Postby anfiosso » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:10 pm

errata corrige "hasen't even reached"
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream
anfiosso
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:19 pm
Location: Italy- genova

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest