Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Earth might be the only place with life?


Alan McDougall

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Alan McDougall said:

Science does not even have a good definition as to what life really is , For instance, a candle or a crystal could b said to be alive.

 

How can a crystal be said to be alive?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

started.  mine is it couldn't

17 hours ago, aquatus1 said:
On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 1:44 AM, psyche101 said:
On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 6:40 AM, Rlyeh said:
2 hours ago, toast said:

Candles and crystals are not formed by DNA so there is no option to speculate that these things are "alive". To assume so is just esoteric woo-woo.

The Big Bang delivered the materials that made the development of life possible. As life is matter based, so you are as well, the term "non-material" isnt of any relevance to the discussion.

 

Garbage. You've said the answer to existence must be irrational because the rational hasn't yielded an answer.

I couldn't help but to notice the irony of a charlatan calling science bull****.

 

http://lib.colostate.edu/wildlife/results.php?q="North+American+beaver"

yes, your point is it just .

 

mods I am having problems quoting in this thread as you can see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, danielost said:

crystals grow and multiply.

Do they "respond to stimuli " ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Do they "respond to stimuli " ?

clay does.  besides most plantsv don't  fungus doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Alan McDougall said:

Science does not even have a good definition as to what life really is

That is incorrect.  Science doesn't have an absolute definition as to what life is, but that is a far cry from implying it doesn't have one.

Quote

For instance, a candle or a crystal could b said to be alive.

No, it could not.

In order for something to be considered "alive" (at least, for Earthlings), it has to be cellular, it has to maintain homeostasis, it has to exhibit growth and reproduction, and it has to respond to its environment, both directly (to stimuli) and generationally (adaptation).

As in every other case, labels are just to help scientists categorize things, and Nature doesn't really care about them, so of course there are borderlines and exceptions that come close to the above and can be argued independently, however, all subjects that meet the above criteria are incontrovertibly "alive".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, danielost said:

mods I am having problems quoting in this thread as you can see

Yeah, the new quote system is a little wonky.

I usually quote the post, and if I want to split it up, I copy/paste the rest as regular text, then highlight and use the Quote button to turn it into quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

Yeah, the new quote system is a little wonky.

I usually quote the post, and if I want to split it up, I copy/paste the rest as regular text, then highlight and use the Quote button to turn it into quotes.

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, danielost said:

besides most plantsv don't  fungus doesn't.

I call to the stand, Dr. Scholl.

4-1-1_athletes_foot_15006.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, aquatus1 said:

That is incorrect.  Science doesn't have an absolute definition as to what life is, but that is a far cry from implying it doesn't have one.

No, it could not.

In order for something to be considered "alive" (at least, for Earthlings), it has to be cellular, it has to maintain homeostasis, it has to exhibit growth and reproduction, and it has to respond to its environment, both directly (to stimuli) and generationally (adaptation).

As in every other case, labels are just to help scientists categorize things, and Nature doesn't really care about them, so of course there are borderlines and exceptions that come close to the above and can be argued independently, however, all subjects that meet the above criteria are incontrovertibly "alive".

life as we know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Correct (hence, "Earthlings").

As I said, it is not absolute, however, it does encompass everything that is unarguably considered to be alive.  Exceptions have to be argued individually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, danielost said:

crystals can be destroyed to.

The difference is whether they are being destroyed due to a function of a reaction from a particular internal organ or chemical process involving an energy-consuming reaction of avoidance (stimulus response), or whether they are being destroyed due to a simple external force calculation (brute force).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, danielost said:

crystals grow and multiply.

Clouds as well, so what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-silicon-be-the-basi/

...failing that Im sure Steven Universe might disagree with you. 

The article is irrelevant. Life is based on carbon, that is true. Diamonds are a crystalline form of carbon, but that does not mean they are alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

The article is irrelevant. Life is based on carbon, that is true. Diamonds are a crystalline form of carbon, but that does not mean they are alive.

life as we know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

The article is irrelevant. Life is based on carbon, that is true. Diamonds are a crystalline form of carbon, but that does not mean they are alive.

True... no life other than that based on water exists to date. But with the right conditions it might be possible. Hair, nails and the epidermis need silicon in some form for growth.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Leto_loves_melange said:

True... no life other than that based on water exists to date. But with the right conditions it might be possible. Hair, nails and the epidermis need silicon in some form for growth.  

I'm not saying life can't be based on silicon: that may well be possible. I meant the article is irrelevant regarding the claim that crystals are alive. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silicon based life was proposed decades ago, since then its has basically been ruled out due to chemical constraints. Its really an old idea that was fun to consider at one time, but not really possible once the actual chemistry was looked at.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where would we all be without the peculiar ability of the carbon atom to combine with other elements. There are far more compounds containing carbon, than not. Life without it seems a longshot.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.