- #36
DaveC426913
Gold Member
- 22,443
- 6,109
ViewsofMars said:p.s. Dave, looking up at you. I really like your signature! Yee gads, I can't stop chuckling. Thanks!
Glad to know someone finally appreciates it...
ViewsofMars said:p.s. Dave, looking up at you. I really like your signature! Yee gads, I can't stop chuckling. Thanks!
ViewsofMars said:If you are implying that a virus is a pseudo life then I would say "no" because "pseudo" implies false or fraudulent such as pseudoscience.
DaveC426913 said:Yes. Without a host, they do not metabolize at all; they are nothing more than fragments of DNA in a shell. (Caveat: My facts may be out-of-date and this may be oversimplifying.)
philnow said:But they literally just expose their DNA to the host, that's certainly not metabolism. If a puzzle lands in my room and I follow the template and re-arrange the puzzle into another form (say that a part of the template was for me to copy it several times), I wouldn't say that the puzzle took any action :P
Regardless, that is simply a semantics issue. It doesn't help define if virii are life, it simply creates a third label.CRGreathouse said:Pseudopod, pseudonym, pseudocode? I don't find false/fraudulent to be the dominant meaning of the English prefix, Latin roots notwithstanding.
SpaceGuy50 said:Are viruses life?
When is a life form not a life form? When it's a virus.
http://www.microbeworld.org/microbes/virus/default.aspx [Broken]
byohannan said:Life is a borderline unit of lifeform. The exactly sit the border of the quick and the dead.
they do reproduce using a host cell
they are self contained
they mutate
they understand the presence of a potential host cell
But this is not a definition. You've found common properties, granted, but that doesn't define life.kuzao said:the presence of DNA and RNA at the same time
No, I'm unsatisfied that this defines (Earth) life.kuzao said:dear dave,
you are just arguing semantics!
are you unsatisfied with the grammar of my statement? should i rather say
any entity that contains dna and rna at the same time is to be called life?
No. Far too vague. Lots of artificial non-living things transcribe and translate.kuzao said:or how about 'life:things transcribing and translating'
Computer programs for a start.kuzao said:hmm i wonder what non living things you are referring too when you say there are some which transcribe and translate?
kuzao said:are you unsatisfied with the grammar of my statement? should i rather say any entity that contains dna and rna at the same time is to be called life?
All of which I would agree with, if he hadn't qaulified it by saying Earth life.junglebeast said:DNA is certainly not the only molecule that could potentially fill this purpose.
...
Anyway, life on other planets almost certainly will not use the exact form of DNA as here on Earth. Moreover, there is no fundamental reason why life must be molecular at all. Life could theoretically be formed out of sub-atomic particles, or even out of virtual building blocks in a computer.
junglebeast said:Understanding the function of DNA makes it obvious that DNA itself is not necessary for life. It's role is simply to store information in a way that can be copied to allow evolution to occur.
Anyway, life on other planets almost certainly will not use the exact form of DNA as here on Earth.
BoomBoom said:How can you be so certain? The "central dogma" could very well be universal...across the universe. Until we actually find extraterrestrial life, the words "almost certainly" has no substance to it whatsoever.
Understanding the function of DNA makes it obvious that DNA itself is not necessary for life. It's role is simply to store information in a way that can be copied to allow evolution to occur. DNA is certainly not the only molecule that could potentially fill this purpose.
Which is a circular argument.kuzao said:as for transcription and translation, i used these as biological terms.
Because amino acids can form a nearly infinite variety of proteins. For DNA to arise the same twice - let alone common - is astronomically unlikely.BoomBoom said:How can you be so certain? The "central dogma" could very well be universal...across the universe. Until we actually find extraterrestrial life, the words "almost certainly" has no substance to it whatsoever.
DaveC426913 said:Because amino acids can form a nearly infinite variety of proteins. For DNA to arise the same twice - let alone common - is astronomically unlikely.
Personally, I think it will be very similar, but not the same.
No and no.kuzao said:@dave
oh far from beeing true. my statement could be read as 'life is what is based on these two functions' (still doesn't sound flashy)
one could see it as a circular argument IF these were the only functions present in organism and thus they could be called the only biological functions.
maybe i should have explained more.
transcription and translation are terms closely realted to presence of rna and dna. thus saying transcription and translation is defining life means presence of dna and rna is defining life.
does this make it more clear to you? do you see now that this is not a 'soft' argument but a very ahrd one? and also not a circular one?
kuzao said:as i said before transcription and translation are terms of molecular biology and in this context i used them.
kuzao said:i do not totaly agree with boomboom on his 'central dogma' theory.
yes it MIGHT. but it might also NOT. we can't say and i proclaim we will never find out because that would require to locate and analyse ALL life (and i mean ALL! not only on Earth or in this galaxy) hencefore this is a irrelevant point and futile to discuss.