Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, technically a virus is not alive, it is just a collection of genetic material and some other parts, but it does not have a cell structure, nor does it metabolize energy itself.
And there is that teleological cognitive bias again.
And willful ignorance, too. The answers are out there if he just bothered to look.
I was sorely tempted to comment on his earlier post #614. What a mess of ignorance and insults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeelaMonster
Similarly sincere curiosity here. Living organisms have a competitive drive for survival, but I haven't seen anyone suggesting that the chemicals of which they are composed have this same drive. Did I overlook that post?
There is actually 'chemical evolution' which is a process driven by Thermo 2, as I recall. Thus the 'evolutionary' process was originally Not competitive, but perhaps more like happy accidents in a complex biochemical mix that resulted on stable compounds (unstable ones going 'extinct'). Even the process of self -replication wasn't competitive. That (so the hypothesis goes) didn't start until one cell decided to absorb another. That was the act of predation that kicked off Competition; the arms race of evolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
No, technically a virus is not alive, it is just a collection of genetic material and some other parts, but it does not have a cell structure, nor does it metabolize energy itself.
I'd heard (long since) that a virus is somewhere between life and non -life.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-18-2020 at 07:20 AM..
its not alive. But if I froze you (such that I can bring you back to life) neither are you during that time.
If we strictly use that a thing must fit all the traits we assign life, like in a biology book, then I know of a few types of cells that are not "alive".
But when we widen the circle of what could life look like then it it becomes a set of traits that are doing something. At its base it becomes about a whole lot of work being done in a small volume.
If we ignore a "grand purpose" then its just a whole lot of work being done in a "small" volume relative to what we consider "a lot of work". (watch the inner live of a cell youtube) A virus, during its "waiting time" is not alive. Like a seed is not alive while its waiting. Or a frozen bacteria is not alive while it is waiting.
That why humans have to be careful with time. Looking up at the night sky and seeing information exchanged on human times scales, the universe is clearly "not alive". But what is we speed it up really fast? where the earths time here is 5 seconds? 2 seconds? 1/2 second? how about 0.0000001 seconds?
then what.
but that kind of talk some atheist consider straw manning. Most atheist have no problem with the possibility of a living universe. Like a person grubbing onto a only loving god as a safety blanky, some atheist are grabbing onto a "not something more" is more of an indication of their emotional state more than describing reality.
There is actually 'chemical evolution' which is a process driven by Thermo 2, as I recall. Thus the 'evolutionary' process was originally Not competitive, but perhaps more like happy accidents in a complex biochemical mix that resulted on stable compounds (unstable ones going 'extinct'). Even the process of self -replication wasn't competitive. That (so the hypothesis goes) didn't start until one cell decided to absorb another. That was the act of predation that kicked off Competition; the arms race of evolution.
how many times can we use the term "happy accidents" during our description of how humans got here before we say its not about accidents? Its about homeostasis or production? I saw a show once on evolution that happy accidents was used like 8 times in 2 minutes. Well, at some point it aint no accident.
look at the inner workings of a cell. It is described as random. Basically "happy accidents". But when we look from where we are, it is the exact opposite of "happy accidents".
yeah yeah, its not intellect or a deity. but its something. lets list our somethings to see who's is more plausible in terms of religion and spatiality? Your brand of militant atheist description or is there other more plausible explanation that explain it better.
No bias, sincere curiosity. How on earth did mere chemicals become competitive with one another - that is what the survival drive implies?
Ha, the life / non-life argument.
Teleology strikes once more. You are presuming the first life forms had a survival drive. And these would not be mere chemicals, it would be a special subset.
Similarly sincere curiosity here. Living organisms have a competitive drive for survival, but I haven't seen anyone suggesting that the chemicals of which they are composed have this same drive. Did I overlook that post?
What do you mean by drive? Awareness of danger? Maybe the first life forms simply survived because of some form of cellular protection and the ability to replicate, and without being aware of danger or food.
No bias, sincere curiosity. How on earth did mere chemicals become competitive with one another - that is what the survival drive implies?
when we are pushing a anti religion argument/agenda we can't talk about what life actually is and is not. Doing that seems to scare some anti-religious militant theist ... its like they will implode and disappear.
They really need to stick with every trait in a biology book. They need to stick so literally to it (like bible thumper literal) that if one trait is off its not life.
If we want to expand how we look at life people should look into what astronomers are looking for it. Its a wide range and water is only one subset/component/type of life they are looking for.
The paper itself. When you take a random selection of a rare components (a low probability number), and then misrepresent that as being of relevance to evolution, that means the conclusion of the paper based on that misrepresentation is rubbish.
I believe that was problem 6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Dr. Kirschner, Dr. Chaplain, and Dr. Sasak each reviewed the paper and passed it. So if it is a bad paper as you think it is then Dr. Kirschner, Dr. Chaplain, and Dr. Sasak are the most incompetent scientist on the face of the planet.
And other biologists have pointed out the problems with this paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
If it was a bad paper it would not have passed peer review, but it did by 3 different reviewers.
No, bad papers do pass peer review. And when discovered, they are then retracted. As I said, peer review
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
No the paper is not dishonest, just because you disagree with it does not make it dishonest.
Yes, the paper is dishonest. I have explained why, and I can quote the relevant section pointing out the dishonesty.
Just because you agree with it does not make it honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
The journal itself is being dishonest now and there has to be a reason for their dishonesty. You think it is because of the incompetence of Dr. Kirschner, Dr. Chaplain, and Dr. Sasak of passing a bad paper. I think it is because of the peer pressure from the Darwinian side which could cause those 3 scientist their positions.
What we think happened is irrelevant, as we do not have enough information to draw a reliable conclusion.
My point still stands. You do not have to know who the designer is to know it was designed.
actually pneuma, why not dump the "has to be aware" to make us part? take what you think to the lowest level of complexity and see if it still stand?
The only part they can argue is the "the universe was made by an intelligent thing". Like we make a car kind of "awareness."
move it down from: activity aware and made us like we make cakes. To alive and we came from that. to
not alive and we came from that.
and see where your position holds up. Can life come from not alive yesterday and be alive today?
I say that because we all are using the same data. there are statements of belief about god faith that can't use all the facts and remain "more reliable". And people only fighting religion have to avoid actual list to compare our claims side by side.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Similarly sincere curiosity here. Living organisms have a competitive drive for survival, but I haven't seen anyone suggesting that the chemicals of which they are composed have this same drive. Did I overlook that post?