| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
TGM: Orb 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052
|
 Posted: July 08 2008 at 18:55 |
|
Who knows?
I really don't care whether there is or isn't. We've got our own problems to fix first.
|
 |
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
Posted: July 08 2008 at 19:44 |
 NaturalScience wrote:
Most likely. Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses.
|
But does the celebrated formula have an empirical basis or is it deducible from well-established scientific results? This is not to be dismissed, unless, of course, we are not interested in discussing this matter in a scientific context. A bit of personal speculation. It seems that there isn't any very good reason to believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, or at least I haven't encountered any such arguments. It may well be that we wouldn't recognize such entities, but in that case it would be useless for us to discuss it.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 08 2008 at 20:38 |
WinterLight wrote:
NaturalScience wrote:
Most likely. Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses. |
But does the celebrated formula have an empirical basis or is it deducible from well-established scientific results? This is not to be dismissed, unless, of course, we are not interested in discussing this matter in a scientific context. |
Yes and No. The equation is based on having found life on one planet orbiting a nondescript yellow dwarf star on the outer rim of a spiral galaxy, so the only empirical data is scant to say the least. This is why (estimated) results given for the equation vary greatly, indeed many of the parameters are empirically unmeasurable, so are 'calculated guesses' at best - (or pure fantasy, depending upon your point of view).
The use of the equation is not so much in calculating the number of possible planets containing technologically advanced intelligent lifeforms that are capable of being detected by radio waves, but in speculating means of determining each of the individual parameters, (rather than their actual values). For example the more accurately we can measure the 'wobble' of stars, the more accurately we can determine whether planetary bodies are orbiting that star and the more accurately we can speculate a value for fp
WinterLight wrote:
A bit of personal speculation. It seems that there isn't any very good reason to believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, or at least I haven't encountered any such arguments. It may well be that we wouldn't recognize such entities, but in that case it would be useless for us to discuss it.
|
From a scientific view, belief does not figure - it is pure speculation based upon sound scientific reasoning - it can never be proven wrong since space is infinite, and it is unlikely that it will ever be proven right because the distances between stars is vast. So by flipping that around, the idea that life does not exist anywhere else in the Universe is equally as unprovable.
Once you remove the "little-green men" and all the Area 51 nonsense from the concept of extraterrestrial life and just look at the problem of how life can exist on different worlds we learn more about how life does exist on this planet and how changes in the environment, biology, physics, etc. of this world can affect the balance of life.
Recognition of those extraterrestrials is in the main, irrelevant - they can never get here for us to recognise them and we will never be able to visit them, even if we knew where to look.
Useless for us to discuss? Probably  , but mind-games like these are something that some humans enjoy just to pass the time - the notion that there could be other lifeforms in the Universe playing the same mind-games doubles the fun. 
|
|
What?
|
|
Atavachron
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65266
|
Posted: July 08 2008 at 20:56 |
|
Well according to the headline at the top of this page, "Life on other planets posts on Progressive Rock Music Forum", so evidently it not only exists, but has great taste.
|
|
WinterLight
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 09 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 424
|
Posted: July 08 2008 at 21:59 |
Dean wrote:
WinterLight wrote:
NaturalScience wrote:
Most likely. Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses.
|
But does the celebrated formula have an empirical basis or is it deducible from well-established scientific results? This is not to be dismissed, unless, of course, we are not interested in discussing this matter in a scientific context.
|
Yes and No. The equation is based on having found life on one planet orbiting a nondescript yellow dwarf star on the outer rim of a spiral galaxy, so the only empirical data is scant to say the least. This is why (estimated) results given for the equation vary greatly, indeed many of the parameters are empirically unmeasurable, so are 'calculated guesses' at best - (or pure fantasy, depending upon your point of view).
The use of the equation is not so much in calculating the number of possible planets containing technologically advanced intelligent lifeforms that are capable of being detected by radio waves, but in speculating means of determining each of the individual parameters, (rather than their actual values). For example the more accurately we can measure the 'wobble' of stars, the more accurately we can determine whether planetary bodies are orbiting that star and the more accurately we can speculate a value for fp
Although I intended my comment in a rhetorical sense, you answered it reasonably well.
WinterLight wrote:
A bit of personal speculation. It seems that there isn't any very good reason to believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life, or at least I haven't encountered any such arguments. It may well be that we wouldn't recognize such entities, but in that case it would be useless for us to discuss it.
|
From a scientific view, belief does not figure - it is pure speculation based upon sound scientific reasoning - it can never be proven wrong since space is infinite, and it is unlikely that it will ever be proven right because the distances between stars is vast.
If "it can never be proven wrong" then it is not falsifiable, whence it does fall under the purview of science. Of course, this doesn't preclude it existentially. Also the assertion that "space is infinite" remains controversial.
So by flipping that around, the idea that life does not exist anywhere else in the Universe is equally as unprovable.
Theoretically, both claims are provable; however, their verification is practically unattainable.
Once you remove the "little-green men" and all the Area 51 nonsense from the concept of extraterrestrial life and just look at the problem of how life can exist on different worlds we learn more about how life does exist on this planet and how changes in the environment, biology, physics, etc. of this world can affect the balance of life.
Extremely difficult problem, I think you'll agree.
Recognition of those extraterrestrials is in the main, irrelevant - they can never get here for us to recognise them and we will never be able to visit them, even if we knew where to look.
Useless for us to discuss? Probably , but mind-games like these are something that some humans enjoy just to pass the time - the notion that there could be other lifeforms in the Universe playing the same mind-games doubles the fun. Ha-ha. But I mean "useless" in the literal sense, i.e. we can't draw any substantial conclusions. Of course, it's still interesting to talk about it (hence our present exchange).
|
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 02:47 |
the Baldies are living evidence for life on another planer. they are from a planet of which the name is difficult to write in Latin letters; "Wrzrllbrmdf" would come closest, but there are some sounds in our language for which no transcription exists, like smacking of lips and whistles. we don't use vowels. anyway, spoken language is a relic; we communicate via telepathy meanwhile. in our world we don't have men anymore; we got rid of them centuries ago. kids are being created by merging two egg cells. that way only women can be created (no Y-chromosome). we have come to earth to prepare our invasion. we will overtake your planet, kill all men and turn all women into baldies too. you may thnk it is foolish of me to tell, but who will believe you when you try to warn the world of our plans?
|
 A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 03:50 |
BaldJean wrote:
the Baldies are living evidence for life on another planer. they are from a planet of which the name is difficult to write in Latin letters; "Wrzrllbrmdf" would come closest, but there are some sounds in our language for which no transcription exists, like smacking of lips and whistles. we don't use vowels. anyway, spoken language is a relic; we communicate via telepathy meanwhile.
in our world we don't have men anymore; we got rid of them centuries ago. kids are being created by merging two egg cells. that way only women can be created (no Y-chromosome).
we have come to earth to prepare our invasion. we will overtake your planet, kill all men and turn all women into baldies too. you may thnk it is foolish of me to tell, but who will believe you when you try to warn the world of our plans?
|
And in the time honoured way, we will defeat you with these:
...and these:
|
|
What?
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 04:39 |
|
I won't say definitively because it's impossible to know for sure until we find it but I'd put the chances above 99%
Too many planets, plenty of them earthlike, for it not to have happened. Probability says yes. Sentient life is far less likely, of course.
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 05:34 |
Pnoom! wrote:
I won't say definitively because it's impossible to know for sure until we find it but I'd put the chances above 99%
Too many planets, plenty of them earthlike, for it not to have happened. Probability says yes. Sentient life is far less likely, of course.
|
but we have no idea what this life will be like at all. to quote Bones McCoy: "it's alive, Jim, but not as we know". this means life on another planet may not be based on DNA; there may be a completely different mechanism of procreation and storing of "genetic" (the name is misleading, since genes have a clear definition) information
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 06:49 |
BaldJean wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
I won't say definitively because it's impossible to know for sure until we find it but I'd put the chances above 99%
Too many planets, plenty of them earthlike, for it not to have happened. Probability says yes. Sentient life is far less likely, of course.
|
but we have no idea what this life will be like at all. to quote Bones McCoy: "it's alive, Jim, but not as we know". this means life on another planet may not be based on DNA; there may be a completely different mechanism of procreation and storing of "genetic" (the name is misleading, since genes have a clear definition) information
|
I agree.
Vompatti wrote:
What is life anyway? 
|
wiki wrote:
- Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
- Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
- Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism).
Living things require energy to maintain internal organization
(homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
- Growth:
Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing
organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply
accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and
expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
- Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
- Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from
the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex
reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is
often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning
toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
- Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells.
Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual
(either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually,
from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly
speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process
of growth.
|
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20248
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 07:58 |
Most likely I answered
given the number of galaxies and the strars in them, we'll find thousands of planets around those stars, some with the same condotions to our earth, some like Mars or Uranus. Life might not always be present on similar planets as Earth, but there could very well be life on a a planet similar to Uranus or Venus. It could even be mineral life as far as we know it.
But if you think of advanced lifeform such as humankind (able to change planets pretty soon), this reduces the odds quite a bit, almost down to nill. (which is why I don't believe in ET life spacecraft or starships etc...)
I mean, just the odds of finding aplanet like Earth is bad enough, finding life on it (let's say 10% chance) to have it evolved into intelligent beings adapting the conditions to him a,d his needs, instead of adapting to the conditions.... this more than a longshot... it quasi impossible. and even in the event thart this other life would be advanced as we are, would they have found us????
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
spookytooth
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 06 2008
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Status: Offline
Points: 438
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 10:32 |
|
Is there life on other planets? No doubt. Are there advanced civilizations that regularly visit Earth in a circular spacecraft? No. There is life on other planets, but its not life as we think. Most likely, most extraterrestrial life is very primitive and similar to bacteria. Many planets in the known universe can harbor life, and there may be more than we think. Its a stretch, but other planets could possibly support life that's not carbon-based.
I liked what Sean Trane posted earlier. The odds of finding a planet in the universe that can successfully harbor life is low (but most likely primitive forms of life exist on other planets, or at one time they did exist), but think of the odds of finding lifeforms on different planets that have civilization, much less life more advanced than us. The odds are very, very low for this. It would be cool if there were advanced alien civilizations that conquered space travel and observe our planet, but its not true.
|
Would you like some Bailey's?
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 11:04 |
Pnoom! wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
What is life anyway?
|
wiki wrote:
- Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
- Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
- Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism).
Living things require energy to maintain internal organization
(homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
- Growth:
Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing
organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply
accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and
expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
- Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
- Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from
the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex
reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is
often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning
toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
- Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells.
Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual
(either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually,
from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly
speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process
of growth.
|
|
the second is not really necessary to define life. it is how life is organized on earth, but on another planet it might be organized differently
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 13:59 |
BaldJean wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
What is life anyway?
|
wiki wrote:
- Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
- Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
- Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism).
Living things require energy to maintain internal organization
(homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
- Growth:
Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing
organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply
accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and
expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
- Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
- Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from
the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex
reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is
often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning
toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
- Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells.
Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual
(either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually,
from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly
speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process
of growth.
|
|
the second is not really necessary to define life. it is how life is organized on earth, but on another planet it might be organized differently
|
A couple of points. a) I generally agree with what you're saying but Vompatti wanted to know what exactly life is and that is the standard definition of life b) remove the second part and it's conceivable you could create a robot that would be "alive" c) keep in mind that life is very much a "you know it when you see it" thing and that the definition could easily be adapted to fit life on other planets d) I already feel this list is somewhat flawed because I honestly fail to see why viruses aren't a very primitive life form
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 15:34 |
WinterLight wrote:
Although I intended my comment in a rhetorical sense, you answered it reasonably well. |
Note to self:  we need a rhetorical emoticon 
WinterLight wrote:
If "it can never be proven wrong" then it is not falsifiable, whence it does fall under the purview of science. Of course, this doesn't preclude it existentially. Also the assertion that "space is infinite" remains controversial.
|
If an idea is not falsifiable it does not follow that it has no place in science. Anyway, "can never be proven wrong" does not necessarily mean "not falsifiable".
If we want to avoid the controversial then we can restrict the Universe to "that which we can observe" rather than The Infinite Beyond. Communication coming from the furthest observable reaches of the Universe emanated when the Universe was very young and unable to support life - we would have to wait another 13 billion years to observe that region of the Universe as it appears today to see whether life exists there now. If we assume that because life took ~4 billion years to evolve on this planet, similar timescales are required on other planets so the minimum observation period must also be of that order. A star born today could conceivably evolve life in the next 4 billion years - as could a star born in 10 billion years time or one created 10 billion years ago - the Infinite of space is in more than one dimension - ergo if we scan the entire Universe today and find no signs of life it does not follow that life cannot/could not exist at some other time and therefore the premise can never be proven because we can never observe all of it.
So while my statement "can never be proven" is not strictly accurate, it is close enough. 
WinterLight wrote:
Theoretically, both claims are provable; however, their verification is practically unattainable.
|
Agreed (see above).
WinterLight wrote:
Dean wrote:
Once you remove the "little-green men" and all the Area 51 nonsense from the concept of extraterrestrial life and just look at the problem of how life can exist on different worlds we learn more about how life does exist on this planet and how changes in the environment, biology, physics, etc. of this world can affect the balance of life. |
Extremely difficult problem, I think you'll agree.
|
Difficult - yes, Extremely - meh, not convinced... the 'problem' can be reduced to simpler forms than give incremental answers - speculation of possible life-supporting planets are essentially simplified versions of the Earth model with varying parameters. Anyway, if it were easy it wouldn't be a problem 
WinterLight wrote:
Dean wrote:
Useless for us to discuss? Probably , but mind-games like these are something that some humans enjoy just to pass the time - the notion that there could be other lifeforms in the Universe playing the same mind-games doubles the fun. |
Ha-ha. But I mean "useless" in the literal sense, i.e. we can't draw any substantial conclusions. Of course, it's still interesting to talk about it (hence our present exchange).
|
This is a Prog music forum - I doubt we'll ever draw a conclusion, substantial or otherwise on any subject , and I also doubt that cosmologists will be looking here for answers anyway 
|
|
What?
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 15:46 |
WinterLight wrote:
NaturalScience wrote:
Most likely. Anyone interested can look up the Drake equation and other related arguments and hypotheses.
|
But does the celebrated formula have an empirical basis or is it deducible from well-established scientific results?
|
I didn't intend to endorse the formula, but merely wanted to reference it as a guide for those who were interested but unaware, as a sort of launch point to explore the debate.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 23:43 |
Pnoom! wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
What is life anyway?
|
wiki wrote:
- Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
- Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
- Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism).
Living things require energy to maintain internal organization
(homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
- Growth:
Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing
organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply
accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and
expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
- Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
- Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from
the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex
reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is
often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning
toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
- Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells.
Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual
(either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually,
from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly
speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process
of growth.
|
|
the second is not really necessary to define life. it is how life is organized on earth, but on another planet it might be organized differently
|
A couple of points.
a) I generally agree with what you're saying but Vompatti wanted to know what exactly life is and that is the standard definition of life
b) remove the second part and it's conceivable you could create a robot that would be "alive"
c) keep in mind that life is very much a "you know it when you see it" thing and that the definition could easily be adapted to fit life on other planets
d) I already feel this list is somewhat flawed because I honestly fail to see why viruses aren't a very primitive life form
|
And apparently "alive" =/= "life" I think something can be alive without being able to reproduce.
|
|
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: July 09 2008 at 23:54 |
stonebeard wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
Pnoom! wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
What is life anyway?
|
wiki wrote:
- Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
- Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
- Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism).
Living things require energy to maintain internal organization
(homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
- Growth:
Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing
organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply
accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and
expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
- Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
- Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from
the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex
reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is
often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning
toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
- Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms.
Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells.
Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual
(either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually,
from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly
speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process
of growth.
|
|
the second is not really necessary to define life. it is how life is organized on earth, but on another planet it might be organized differently
|
A couple of points.
a) I generally agree with what you're saying but Vompatti wanted to know what exactly life is and that is the standard definition of life
b) remove the second part and it's conceivable you could create a robot that would be "alive"
c) keep in mind that life is very much a "you know it when you see it" thing and that the definition could easily be adapted to fit life on other planets
d) I already feel this list is somewhat flawed because I honestly fail to see why viruses aren't a very primitive life form
|
And apparently "alive" =/= "life"
I think something can be alive without being able to reproduce.
|
a robot does not have a metabolism. and viruses are generally not seen as life forms by biologists, because they also have no metabolism. anyway, they are definitely not primitive, at least not in the sense that they are some very early kind of proto-life. this can't be because to reproduce viruses need other organisms with a metabolism
|
A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Pnoom!
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 02 2006
Location: OH
Status: Offline
Points: 4981
|
Posted: July 10 2008 at 00:42 |
stonebeard wrote:
And apparently "alive" =/= "life"
I think something can be alive without being able to reproduce.
|
If I know what you're trying to say, which I'm not sure I do, you're wrong. Alive and life apply on different levels... alive to the individual organism, life to the species
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: July 10 2008 at 00:46 |
Pnoom! wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
And apparently "alive" =/= "life"
I think something can be alive without being able to reproduce.
|
If I know what you're trying to say, which I'm not sure I do, you're wrong.
Alive and life apply on different levels... alive to the individual organism, life to the species
|
By that definition, a sterile person could not be considered alive.
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
life on other planets