Does Science Have a Universal Definition of Life?

[Routaran]

Hello all
I was reading an article which claimed science did not have a definition for Life. that statement on face value i think is just plain wrong. I think the author may have ment that it didnt have a definition that everyone will perhaps agree on.

I am a computer programmer and my crude definition is as follows:
Life is anything that consumes fuel and expends energy to maintain its "bodily functions", reacts to external stimulus and reproduces with heredity.


So i wanted to know if there was a definition that was accepted in the professional circles and what it was?

 

[stevenb]

Hello all
I was reading an article which claimed science did not have a definition for Life. that statement on face value i think is just plain wrong. I think the author may have ment that it didnt have a definition that everyone will perhaps agree on ...

Life is anything that consumes fuel and expends energy to maintain its "bodily functions", reacts to external stimulus and reproduces with heredity.

A mule can't reproduce by heredity, yet it is still life.

 

[Routaran]

crap, good point.
any other definitions that can't be shot down in one short sentence?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

In general, living systems are defined as being capable of metabolism (by which they maintain a lower state of entropy than the environment) and the ability to replicate. Not every individual may be able to replicate, but is at least created by replication. In maintaining a state far from equilibrium with the environment, living systems increase the overall environmental entropy.