Life

[doublecross]

Not sure I can parse that to be honest.

The number of generations shouldn't matter. If it is the same principle, then it is the same principle.

Sure, you won't see big change in a small number of generations, but that doesn't make it not evolution.

[Ozymandias]

Um, guys? I don't think this is talking about life. I mean, if we are arguing about if evolution is required for something to be life, that is one thing, but if we are arguing about whether or not it can happen in what could be considered one generation or could be considered multiple that doesn't change the fact that there is evolution i mean for a computer virus, it doesn't matter if it can evolve in one generation or several, it still evolves and that is what we said matters.


also, what about that synthetic bacteria?   

i remember in biology, they said that one of the things about life is that it comes from other life. no on mentioned that so far, i don't think

[OldTrees]

i remember in biology, they said that one of the things about life is that it comes from other life. no on mentioned that so far, i don't think

Oversimplification.

Life must be possible to originate from non life (abiogenesis) or life must have always existed.
As it happens abiogenesis has been demonstrated to be possible.

[doublecross]

That, or life v. non-life, really is a continuum, and thus there is no critical point where life came out of non-life, because there is no real line.

I am not saying I feel that way, I am just reminding you about the ease with which one can accidentally make illegal logical leaps.

[Feel free to point out when I do it. I know I probably do it too.]

[OldTrees]

I would include a multiple generation non life to life continuum as abiogenesis. Thank you for clarifying the possibilities.

[doublecross]

Defined that way, any universe without life existing infinite time ago [and that currently has life] requires abiogenesis, and I have never been one to disagree with a tautology. xD

[darkrobe]

Well, again, you are avoiding the problem of life v. organism v. entity that we tend to consider as unit of life


From the beginning, we more or less agreed that a cell, a kidney, a person, and a room full of people all constitute examples of life.   For the room full of people, there would be some argument as to whether it would count as one instance, or several.
Nevertheless, that was not really in contention and your "simpler definition" doesn't really solve anything, because by your simpler definition, all 4 of those have the same status.


The only definition you used that really puts some of those 4 in different categories from each other still doesn't address the point Ozymandias brought up.

Perhaps you need to clarify the point you are trying to make. I thought we were trying to define non-life from life. Not give a hierarchy of levels of life. If you want me to argue about what seperates a kidney from a human from a group of people. that is a different argument. Based on my simpler argument, yes - all of those thing have the status of life. which is the point of this post I thought.

So in summary. the title of this post is "life" not "life vs organism vs entity"

Regardless. I have already Identified using my definition a cell as an object that meets my definition of an individual life. a kidney is life because it is a group of cells. a group of people is redundantly defined as life, because they are 1. made up of cell (already defined as life) and 2. the can metabolize, grow, and evolve on their own in a way seperate from cells.

Please restate in clear words the "problem" you want me to address.