New Intelligent Design Documentary

A Virus needs a host to become a virus, no host no virus, don't try to play games. Weather it can survive without a host for 24 hours, say's nothing if it become to exist without a host.
So your criterion for life is that the living thing needs a host to get started?

The rest of your message is incoherent to me and I think we are getting our wires crossed, I believe you simply don't understand me.
I absolutely do not understand you. What is your criteria to call something a living thing?

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
If a virus can only replicate inside a living system, might it not be accurate to suggest that it is only living while in another living system?
That would be fair, as long as you don't mind it dying and coming back to life. But that still doesn't specify the criterion to call something a living thing. I don't think the criterion would be "it's living if it is cooperating with a host."

~~ Paul
 
That would be fair, as long as you don't mind it dying and coming back to life. But that still doesn't specify the criterion to call something a living thing. I don't think the criterion would be "it's living if it is cooperating with a host."

~~ Paul

The criterion I was using there was cell division.
 
Separating the two actually only helps the creationist crowd.
I wouldn't be inclined to separate the issues. However, we have to be careful not to ask silly questions like "How did a full-blown cell pop into existence from nothing?" Systems much simpler than a modern cell are still subject to evolution. The interesting question is: Where is the line between a simple system that doesn't quite evolve and a slightly more complex system that does?

It also allows science to perpetuate the theory of evolution without having to answer the really big question gnawing at the back of everyone's mind.
But it's not as if biologists are ignoring the question of the origin of life.

~~ Paul
 
However, we have to be careful not to ask silly questions like "How did a full-blown cell pop into existence from nothing?"

Ultimately though, is that really a silly question? If all life is made up of matter and all matter (as we know it) "originated" from the Big Bang, where did the matter that made up the Big Bang come from? You cannot get matter from nothing. So either you violate physical laws, or you kick the can down the road by claiming the matter from the Big Bang came from the universe that existed before. But still, all matter, including that which makes up life, had to come from somewhere.

So while it's not exactly saying "a cell popped out of nowhere", BBT, at least some versions of it, is saying something very similar to that.

The origins of the universe theories have the same problem as creationist theories and evolutionary theory. It all had to come from/start somewhere. Even inserting a god into the equation isn't going to answer the question (who/what created God?) The fact of the matter is, we haven't a clue what on earth what/where that might be. Not so silly, IMO.
 
I never said they were. But it becomes a convenient device to use the "that's not part of TOE" argument when questions are asked that there are no answers to. Again, it creates a back door open for exploitation.

It's not brought up merely because someone asks how life originated. It's brought up in response to critique of the theory of evolution on the basis that it doesn't account for the origin of life.
 
It's not brought up merely because someone asks how life originated. It's brought up in response to critique of the theory of evolution on the basis that it doesn't account for the origin of life.
Whatever. I posted links that disagreed that origination is not part of TOE. If you disagree, then you disagree. Moving on...
 
Ultimately though, is that really a silly question? If all life is made up of matter and all matter (as we know it) "originated" from the Big Bang, where did the matter that made up the Big Bang come from? You cannot get matter from nothing. So either you violate physical laws, or you kick the can down the road by claiming the matter from the Big Bang came from the universe that existed before. But still, all matter, including that which makes up life, had to come from somewhere.
I agree that this is an important question, but it's really a question for physics and not for biology.

~~ Paul
 
I never said they were. But it becomes a convenient device to use the "that's not part of TOE" argument when questions are asked that there are no answers to. Again, it creates a back door open for exploitation.
I think it's mostly amateurs that worry about this separation. Biologists just work in their areas of interest and rely on other biologists to explore the rest of biology.

But Arouet is correct: Many of the objections to evolution have nothing to do with the origin of life. So in those conversations, the origin is more or less irrelevant.

~~ Paul
 
You tacitly assume that when you apply the semantic treatment of "everything is in motion" - since everything is material substance - every real thing is in motion, logically. Is the past in motion? Is the future "in motion". These are informational states and are major players in how life works. Saying everything is in motion - generates a tautological truth-table for any premise that follows.

I was perhaps careless in my use of everything there. I didn't mean it in an absolute sense as I don't know if it applies to absolutely everything. I was more referring to what we were talking about: that is living and non living things.

As for the future, I honestly don't know if it is properly categorized as a thing - or whether it makes sense to ask if it is in motion or not. I'm not sure what you mean by categorizing the future as an "informational state". I did some quick googling but my search terms I think were too broad. Do you have any links on this?

I see this fallacy so clearly because information objects are real structure and although they evolve by changing state - they do not have physical coordinates. Their structure is on a different level of abstraction. The seed gets going more from signal agreement than from a single motion. It is a pattern of motions that carries the message to the seed - of the chance for germination.

I've been using information in the sense of how I understand it to be used in information theory and physics. I've certainly read a lot that intimately relates information to physical properties. Information appears to be as much as a physical state as solids and liquids are. I agree that information objects are real structure, though I'm not sure that it is as abstract as you suggest.

Rolf Landauer, in his paper, The Physical Nature of Information, writes:

Information is not a disembodied abstract entity; it is always tied to a physical representation. It is represented by engraving on a stone tablet, a spin, a charge a hole in a punched card, a mark on paper, or some other equivalent. This ties the handling of information to all the possibilities and restrictions of our real physical word, its laws of physics and its storehouse of available parts.

Note: spin and charge ie: structure and dynamics. This brings information down to the smallest movements of matter.

I quoted above the definition by Miller in the Living Systems article: "Information is the amount of formal patterning or complexity in any system."

Conceptual information also seems related. Here is how Miller explains it:

2.5 Conceptual Systems The units of conceptual systems are terms such as words, numbers, and other symbols. Relationships in these systems are expressed by verbs or by mathematical symbols that represent operations such as inclusion, subtraction, and multiplication. Conceptual systems are borne on information markers. Scientific conceptual systems exist in observers, theorists, experimenters, books, articles, computers, and so on. Observers form conceptual systems by selecting sets of units to study from an infinite number of units and relationships. The units selected may be purely logical or mathematical, or may be intended to have a formal identity or isomorphism to empirically determined units and relationships in concrete systems. Because observers can never be certain they have selected all units and relationships in any concrete system being studied, such selected systems are termed abstracted systems to distinguish them from the concrete systems as they actually exist. Science advances as the isomorphism increases between a theoretical conceptual system and the empirical objective discoveries about concrete systems. For this reason, it is important to distinguish between conceptual and concrete systems even though both are integrated into living systems.

Information Integration Theory seems to bridge the gap between conceptual and concrete systems. If I'm not mistaken, IIT would view the conceptual system as a result of information integration processing.

IIT and conceptual information relate to consciousness though, which is a separate issue from whether something is living. That is, a living thing might not be conscious, and a non-living thing might be conscious. The information exchanges that relate to basic life would have physical coordinates in this view, I believe.

You refer to signal agreement, and pattern of motions: Which seems to agree with my proposition that what you are referring to involves motion.

Maybe you can help clarify how your view of information differs from what I've described here. We might be talking about different concepts here. If you have any sources that would be helpful as well.
 
I agree that this is an important question, but it's really a question for physics and not for biology.

~~ Paul
I'm not so sure there's as much separation of the two in reality. However, since no one person can be expected to be an expert in everything, I can see why there is a separation academically. However, it's important that all of science works together, instead of remaining so compartmentalized.
 
I'm not so sure there's as much separation of the two in reality. However, since no one person can be expected to be an expert in everything, I can see why there is a separation academically. However, it's important that all of science works together, instead of remaining so compartmentalized.
Agreed.

~~ Paul
 
It doesn't have to be interesting,

Paul means that it is a tautology. A = A, Not A = Not A

And your host was your mother. Obviously Paul

That's not what was meant by host in the virus example. The virus can only replicate when it is inside a host. When the virus is floating out in the air, it cannot replicate. As opposed to humans, who naturally don't replicate inside their parents (ugh - the disgusting image of what that would entail has now popped into my brain - thanks for that! ;))

If living things are defined by cell replication the question is: should a virus be considered to be alive when inside a host, and not alive when outside of the host.

.
 
Paul means that it is a tautology. A = A, Not A = Not A



That's not what was meant by host in the virus example. The virus can only replicate when it is inside a host. When the virus is floating out in the air, it cannot replicate. As opposed to humans, who naturally don't replicate inside their parents (ugh - the disgusting image of what that would entail has now popped into my brain - thanks for that! ;))

If living things are defined by cell replication the question is: should a virus be considered to be alive when inside a host, and not alive when outside of the host.

.

Hi Arouet

I am not sure what you are getting at by your first response,

As for the second response I was asked.

So your criterion for life is that the living thing needs a host to get started? - Paul


So Yes. All life including a human life needs a living host to get started, Baby humans are known as parasites as they feed of a host, ie the mother.

Once we are separated from our host we can obviously still live.
 
Back
Top