Evolution? How?

No. That's a characteristic of something that is alive. That's not the same as a definition of life.



Those would also be descriptions of life, based on what living things we see here on Earth. As of yet we have no decent scientific definition of life, only descriptions of what is alive.

This is a contention which i consider to be absurd on the face of it.

If there isn't already a scientific concensus on the definition of life, maybe we can propose one (just to see what we get).

I propose that the minimum requirement for the definition of life should be replication. But in order to eliminate purely chemical replicative processes, we might want to add an additional requirement, but I'm not sure what.

Suppose I suggest that viruses should *not* be considered to be alive, because they cannot exist without some more complex form of life to support them (in other words, they could not have evolved on their own). Would that be valid?

If viruses are not considered alive, then our definition for life can contain something about consumption and excretion. Otherwise we're going to have to fine tune our replication minimum with something less specific (like energy usage or something).

It's very tricky, but good fodder for discussion.

Sorta with ya ros - I'd say metabolism is the deal; no metabolism, no life.

The standard model of life as I learned it was outlined in the mnemonic list ROMGAR
Reproduction
Organization
Metabolism
Growth
Adaptation
Response to stimuli.
ROMGAR was a code word used for the supply line for gen Merrils troops in the Burma IndoChina campaign of WWII.

Lynne Margulis (whose novel work is, IMHO, the only credible challenge to Darwinian evolution has developed a molecularbiotic definition , but thats beyond our discusssions.

Viruses drop out of contention here



And I think a bacteria has everything up to here.

Are there any life forms between Virus and Bacteria with regard to the ROGMAR list?



Interesting. How do you happen to know that?

my Dad was one of those that survived that battle campaign.The fact that i turned his supply line into a teaching aid gave him great satisfaction."At least something good came of it all"


Protists still live , Ill have to check Margulis for some of the mid microbes. Where do Rickettsia fit? Theyre smaller than bacteria .

I always like the idea of symbiogenesis, but I could never understand how mitochondria were evidence of that, given that they seem to retain discrete genetic codes apart from the cell.

Then I heard something a while back about viruses actually clipping and transferring genetic material into cells which got into the reproductive cells somehow. What ever happened with that?

remember mitochondria are a later feature. MArgulis evidence includes the fact that many plants and primitive animals share whole sections of their genomes.

She had a book that she wrote with her son about capturing genomes.

What process allows the genomes to merge? That's what I don't understand.

Could be the virus is the link between the inanimate and the living as it is half chemical and start living under certain circumstances such as an enriched puddle.

Set:

The use of 'self' is not the philosophical use of 'self' but more like technical "auto". In the military there is the self-propelled guns i.e. the propulsion is internal.

See self-propelledguns below:





Link:

German self-propelled guns

If it don't "breathe"... it ain't got "life"...

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Hmm..interesting on a few levels.
I am not sure whether this refutes or supports my opinion.
Once again timber you have given me mental homework.
Just don't expect an apple on your desk.

Random Thought:

If we look in the mirror and don't like what we see... can we change it? We are the only one's who really see ourselves for who we are. We know all our deepest thoughts. Our brightest ideas. How it is we came to be what we are. But if we only show it to ourselves, has it really done us any good?

see next thread for the continued conversation with myself...

Actually, that's a Porsche-designed heavy tank detroyer, officially the SdKfz 184 Panzerjäger Tiger (P) Elefant. It was developed on the chassis Porsche had submitted in '41/42 for the competition to build the Tiger 1, which went eventually to Henschel. 90 were produced, all in 1943. It mounted the formidable 8.8 cm StuK 43 L/71 in a fixed turret, extraordinarily accurate and capable of a 1-shot kill against a Soviet T-34 or US Sheman at over 3 miles. It weighed a bit over 65 tons, had very wide treads for improved soft-ground performance (so wide special arrangements had to be made for rail transport), utilized an electric drive system powered through generators spun by a pair of 300HP Maybach gasoline engines, and its steeply sloped frontal armor was over 200mm of specially formulated Krupp armorplate - all but impervious to incoming fire (though the sides, rear, top, and belly of course were less well armored). Only one regiment, Jagdpanzer Regiment 656, was equipped with Elefants. Contrary to Russian propaganda, the piece was quite successful; in 1943, the type recorded over 800 confirmed enemy Armored Fighting Vehicle kills at a cost of 40 Elefants; of the 40 lost in combat that year, 17 definitely fell to mines, 16 to battlefield mechanical failure, and only 2 are known to have been knocked out by anti-tank artillery. There is question as to the fate of the remaining 5. Following their introduction in July of '43, at Kursk, they fought in Russia untill mid-December, their last action on The Eastern Front being the defense of the Nikopol Bridgehead, destroying more than 200 Soviet AFV's in that action alone. 48 of the surviving pieces were recalled to Germany, refitted/refurbished, and redeployed in early/mid '44 to Italy, where they saw heavy losses to Allied airpower and continued mechanical failures while gaining for themselves a reputation bordering on legend among their opponents. A half-dozen survived to participate in the Battle of Berlin. Only 2 survived the war; one taken by the US in Italy during the breakout from Anzio, the other captured by the Russians near Berlin at the close of the war. Both now are museum pieces.

One thing the Germans did well was keep records.

I think RexRed just wrote off a pretty large chunck of the biosphere.

Insects don't breathe, they simply extract oxygen from the ambient atmosphere which enters their bodies by diffusion--not by breathing. Do you contend that insects are not alive?

That is a meaningless contention when the phrase you used was self-conscious--do you now contend that a valid criterion for life is that it be "auto-conscious?" How absurd.

It's really very nice that you think nazi amored vehicles are cool, but hardly relevant to a definition of life.

ros, one of the mechanisms of sharing genomes ws by infection in the early eukaryotids. The host wasnt much bigger han the genome . Later features , like why lichens contain shitin, is a more difficult trace, and I, frankly , am not the guy to ask. I will see what I can find over the next week(Ive gotta go over to school and get ready for classes).