What does science say? What do you say?

"Ability to reproduce" is commonly cited as part of what it means to be alive, along with (according to the Oxford dictionary) "the capacity for growth, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." [...] every living thing is made of cells that divide.

Rocks, volcanoes, and Data are not made from cells that divide. They are not alive.

The cells inside donkeys, mules, drone bees all divide by mitosis and asexually reproduce in the growth of the organism.

 

Are you saying you can perform remote viewing yourself? If so, that can be tested. Sadly, Randi is no longer with us and the million dollar challenge for demonstrating a paranormal ability is no longer offered.

But that is not what I was asking for anyway. I asked for evidence for your claim that the U.S. military uses remote viewing. Whether or not it works is not even relevant to that ciaim.

.
It looks like I'm wasting my time.
You didn't even bother to read my Post.
If You were truly interested in finding out something new,
I'd be glad to point You in the right direction, sadly, that's not the case.

May You lead an interesting Life.
.
.
.

 

@strantor

Fair enough but what is to separate that from a rock 'spontaneously' increasing its mass over time then breaking apart into two new rocks? Each rock having the properties of the parent rock. I'll admit I am pushing the limits, but the above statement should be considered as it loosely meets your criteria. If we are talking about the frog, all this is explained by an organism's genetic code which is governed by the same set of rules.

 

@strantor

Fair enough but what is to separate that from a rock 'spontaneously' increasing its mass over time then breaking apart into two new rocks? Each rock having the properties of the parent rock. I'll admit I am pushing the limits, but the above statement should be considered as it loosely meets your criteria. If we are talking about the frog, all this is explained by an organism's genetic code which is governed by the same set of rules.

mi·to·sis
/mīˈtōsəs/
noun
BIOLOGY

1. a type of cell division that results in two daughter cells each having the same number and kind of chromosomes as the parent nucleus, typical of ordinary tissue growth.
   "the single large egg cell subdivides by repeated mitosis"

I suppose if the daughter rocks were a chromosomal match to parent rock then I would be forced to concede.

 

@strantor

Fair enough but what is to separate that from a rock 'spontaneously' increasing its mass over time then breaking apart into two new rocks? Each rock having the properties of the parent rock. I'll admit I am pushing the limits, but the above statement should be considered as it loosely meets your criteria. If we are talking about the frog, all this is explained by an organism's genetic code which is governed by the same set of rules.

Do you have an example of a rock "spontaneously" increasing in mass? That concept is completely against the rules of this site - it is literally the same as saying over-unity energy generators exist.

if, on the other hand, you mis-understand "spontaneous", and mean that more rock crystalizes around an existing rock of the same type - like sugar crystals "growing" in the bottom of your homey jar, well, in that case, your definition of "alive" is outside of my definition of "alive".

 

.
It looks like I'm wasting my time.
You didn't even bother to read my Post.
If You were truly interested in finding out something new,
I'd be glad to point You in the right direction, sadly, that's not the case.

May You lead an interesting Life.
.
.
.

So, still no evidence.

 

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20220926-portugals-mysterious-birthing-stones

kv

 

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20220926-portugals-mysterious-birthing-stones

kv

The best of it: people renting them to become fertile. Good reading

 

I suppose if the daughter rocks were a chromosomal match to parent rock then I would be forced to concede.

Consider an allotrope of carbon - graphene which is a 2D crystal. Natural forces brought the carbon atoms together (or maybe someone made it) and because a recipe was met a lattice was formed. We now know that bonds are made at specific angles and distances and its these parameters that define an atom or molecules properties relative to another.

So, if gravity or a collision forces some carbon atoms to draw near to form graphene and then another collision causes the newly formed graphene to separate into two new pieces, this meets the definition as the new bodies are exact copies of the parent. I'm not going to argue how often this occurs, but I think we can agree it can occur

Of course, since only carbon is present with no molecules relatable to chromosomes, then that part of the definition cannot apply. However, we can represent this as a comparison in time where X is the different path to the same result as it pertains to the definition:

A -> X -> B

Where A is a single "parent" body, X is some chemical reaction and B is two "daughter" bodies that result.

 

Consider an allotrope of carbon - graphene which is a 2D crystal. Natural forces brought the carbon atoms together (or maybe someone made it) and because a recipe was met a lattice was formed. We now know that bonds are made at specific angles and distances and its these parameters that define an atom or molecules properties relative to another.

So, if gravity or a collision forces some carbon atoms to draw near to form graphene and then another collision causes the newly formed graphene to separate into two new pieces, this meets the definition as the new bodies are exact copies of the parent. I'm not going to argue how often this occurs, but I think we can agree it can occur

Of course, since only carbon is present with no molecules relatable to chromosomes, then that part of the definition cannot apply. However, we can represent this as a comparison in time where X is the different path to the same result as it pertains to the definition:

A -> X -> B

Where A is a single "parent" body, X is some chemical reaction and B is two "daughter" bodies that result.

I don't even know what you're arguing at this point.

If I clone a CD like it's 1999, does that mean it's alive? No.

Cells
Respiration
Division
Reproduction
Chromosomes
DNA
These are the requirements for life and they aren't present, there is no life.

 

So, if gravity or a collision forces some carbon atoms to draw near to form graphene and then another collision causes the newly formed graphene to separate into two new pieces, this meets the definition as the new bodies are exact copies of the parent.

So your example is no different from claiming the sugar crystals at the bottom of the honey jar are alive because the crystals can grow as the jar is cooled. You believe those sugar crystals are alive because they got bigger?

Do you believe the droplets of condensation in the window in your bathroom are alive because they grow from a tiny haze to droplets large enough to run down the window?

 

I don't even know what you're arguing at this point.

If I clone a CD like it's 1999, does that mean it's alive? No.

Cells
Respiration
Division
Reproduction
Chromosomes
DNA
These are the requirements for life and they aren't present, there is no life.

Now you add criteria because I met replication with my example. I asked for a list before and no one spoke up. Now that I present a reasonable example to the criteria offered which was replication, it is folly without any counter argument.

If you can't understand where I'm going with this then maybe insinuating I'm a moron isn't the best thing to do. I'm also starting to think you wouldn't yield even if you did agree just to save face.

MrSalts in example of taking this out of context suggesting I think sugar crystals are alive in the previous post. Being argumentative I suppose, at least I'm trying to get to the bottom of the author's views.

 

Now you add criteria because I met replication with my example. I asked for a list before and no one spoke up. Now that I present a reasonable example to the criteria offered which was replication, it is folly without any counter argument.

If you can't understand where I'm going with this then maybe insinuating I'm a moron isn't the best thing to do. I'm also starting to think you wouldn't yield even if you did agree just to save face.

MrSalts in example of taking this out of context suggesting I think sugar crystals are alive in the previous post. Being argumentative I suppose, at least I'm trying to get to the bottom of the author's views.

This whole debate has been patently absurd from the start. We all learned these most basic concepts of biology in elementary school and again in high school. Even here in the USA where education is supposedly subpar. You think I presented a list of criteria as a counter to your argument? I can't counter your argument because as I said, I don't know what it is. I would have presented the list earlier if I had reason to suspect anyone in the conversation didn't already know it. And no, I don't believe that you didn't already know it. I believe that you know just as well as I do, just as well as we all do, what "alive" means. So please, what is your point? You hint that you're going somewhere with this, so forego the drumroll and just spill it. I didn't assume or intentionally insinuate that you are a moron; I assumed you are either trolling me or being contrary for the sake of being contrary (and on a topic where there is no room for that). I find either option irritating and that probably shown through my words.

 

 

MrSalts in example of taking this out of context suggesting I think sugar crystals are alive in the previous post. Being argumentative I suppose, at least I'm trying to get to the bottom of the author's views.

Well, please tell me the difference between extending the lattice of a graphene sheet and growing a crystal of sugar. You don't like that sugar is a lattice of weakly bound molecules into a crystal instead of covalently bonded atoms? Well, then your graphene thought experiment more like the polymerization of ethylene into covalently bonded polyethylene? Slow or stop the polymerization by halting monomer addition. Then resume adding monomer to "grow" the "living" molecule? Looking for you to explain why my examples are somehow different than your graphene example.

 

This whole debate has been patently absurd from the start. We all learned these most basic concepts of biology in elementary school and again in high school. Even here in the USA where education is supposedly subpar. You think I presented a list of criteria as a counter to your argument? I can't counter your argument because as I said, I don't know what it is. I would have presented the list earlier if I had reason to suspect anyone in the conversation didn't already know it. And no, I don't believe that you didn't already know it. I believe that you know just as well as I do, just as well as we all do, what "alive" means. So please, what is your point? You hint that you're going somewhere with this, so forego the drumroll and just spill it. I didn't assume or intentionally insinuate that you are a moron; I assumed you are either trolling me or being contrary for the sake of being contrary (and on a topic where there is no room for that). I find either option irritating and that probably shown through my words.

I do not consider this discussion absurd at all. I think it is the kind of topic that should be on people's minds as humanity moves forward into the technological revolution.

I don't talk about it often, but it is directly relevant to this topic: I have been vegan for a short time and the prominent reason for my lifestyle choice is that I have identified shared characteristics across all life forms and do not want to control something similar in character to myself. This has been proven with chemistry traceable back to the Last Universal Common Ancestor.

The point I am trying to drive home is this: Yes, we have a reasonable classification of living vs non-living that I agree with. However, what has not been disproven is the physical similarities that exist between all living and non-living things.

Then there are our biases to deal with which brings me back to veganism. There are people who think animals like a dog aren't alive like us. How do I compete with that trying to be objective as possible? So, this kind of biological debate comes with everyone's philosophical baggage as well. Even if presented with compelling evidence we all know most are too hardheaded to agree because it comes with an element of ego.

This all does strike a nerve so maybe I am just shouting into space.

 

However, what has not been disproven is the physical similarities that exist between all living and non-living things.

Ah, so you're talking about opinion.

 

Well, please tell me the difference between extending the lattice of a graphene sheet and growing a crystal of sugar. You don't like that sugar is a lattice of weakly bound molecules into a crystal instead of covalently bonded atoms? Well, then your graphene thought experiment more like the polymerization of ethylene into covalently bonded polyethylene? Slow or stop the polymerization by halting monomer addition. Then resume adding monomer to "grow" the "living" molecule? Looking for you to explain why my examples are somehow different than your graphene example.

Now characterize what DNA is doing in the same way. You can't without employing the same set of rules. You guys are dancing around the issue here that you cannot identify the transition from non-living to living but insist on saying there is a difference. It is convenient to say a volcano is not alive because it does not have defined characteristics, but what about the non-living aspect of the volcano! It is just hanging out doing its thing in a non-living way despite being made of the same stuff in the same region of space-time? Hmm..... Now I'm sounding like a crackpot to myself. Good day!

 

Good day!

Have a blissful day.

 

I do not consider this discussion absurd at all. I think it is the kind of topic that should be on people's minds as humanity moves forward into the technological revolution.

I don't talk about it often, but it is directly relevant to this topic: I have been vegan for a short time and the prominent reason for my lifestyle choice is that I have identified shared characteristics across all life forms and do not want to control something similar in character to myself. This has been proven with chemistry traceable back to the Last Universal Common Ancestor.

The point I am trying to drive home is this: Yes, we have a reasonable classification of living vs non-living that I agree with. However, what has not been disproven is the physical similarities that exist between all living and non-living things.

Then there are our biases to deal with which brings me back to veganism. There are people who think animals like a dog aren't alive like us. How do I compete with that trying to be objective as possible? So, this kind of biological debate comes with everyone's philosophical baggage as well. Even if presented with compelling evidence we all know most are too hardheaded to agree because it comes with an element of ego.

This all does strike a nerve so maybe I am just shouting into space.

From the tone of your reply I gather that any offense I may caused to you has blown over, and I am glad for that. I feel like you made an earnest attempt to explain your position (thanks again) and I don't mean to kick a dead horse, but I still don't get it. It seemed as if you were seeking inclusion of rocks, volcanoes, and such into the ranks of the living (or, near-living?). While some might find nobility in that, it seems to me that it would be counterproductive to what I perceive to be your motive. Vegan, meaning you don't hurt animals; I applaud your conviction. And you love mountains and rocks too; again, laudable. But if you managed to convince someone that a big mossy stone holds the same biological value as a dog, what does that mean for the dog? You already apparently have enough trouble convincing folks that "dogs are people too" without having to contend with "rocks are dogs too."

The rest of what you said I get. There are definitely some differences of opinion among different folks about what among nature deserves respect, and there is definitely some baggage. But it should not be allowed to water down the science. The science is the only concrete thing any of us have to fall back on. Science doesn't (or, isn't supposed to) have baggage. The philosophical quandaries like, "why is it ok to commit genocide on mosquitoes but not kittens?" and "why is it ok to pee on a tree but not a horse?" and "why is it a crime to kill an unborn sea turtle but not an unborn human" are all important issues that science can't help us with, and appealing to science or trying to bend it to support a philosophical viewpoint is folly indeed.

And that is exactly the exception I take with the quoted sections of the biology textbook in the OP. It was utter nonsense, scientifically speaking. Maybe it had merit in some other book, but not in that one.

Can we agree that mountains are important and valuable (more important and more valuable than a lot of the humans that are allowed to walk over them) without trying to classify them with a taxonomic rank?