Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Now, please answer whether your idea that plants are not alive is in any way related to the story of the garden of eden and how there was no death there.
Not in motivation, otherwise, I could not argue for it on science. But, if my view is good, it will certainly support whatever says in the Bible.
We can not just see fetus, egg, or seed. We need to see what would it become, which is the grown up object. And I would agree that germs, bacteria, etc. are not lives either. So we may also find them on Mars or on Europa.
Monk does not eat chicken because their doctrine said that chicken IS a life (could be a reincarnated person), while soybean is NOT. So we will not find chicken anywhere else in the universe but on the earth. By the way, some monk eat unfertilized egg. Some don't. It is fun to see the struggle. Yes, a fertilized egg is a life and an unfertilized egg (a cell) is not a life. No matter what biology says. So I will advise a monk: see the egg through a spot light, if see no speck, eat it.
Whatever "monk doctrine" may be, (taking into account there are a lot of different sorts of monks), it wont be that "chicken is a life".
They might say that a chicken HAS a life, or that it is alive.
All due respect Juv but could you please use standard English when referring to life?
"Alive" and, "a life" do not mean the same thing. To say a chicken is alive means something. To say that "chicken is a life" does not.
Oh... and do you think that plants have feelings? You didnt answer that.
And I would agree that germs, bacteria, etc. are not lives either. So we may also find them on Mars or on Europa.
Your arguments on plants are borderline, but this is just flat out wrong. Bacteria are very much alive. They undergo respiration and have a metabolism.
Something being unable to feel or think is not an accurate definition of life. This would expel many animal phyla from being alive. Sponges, are in fact animals and alive, but they do not even have nerve tissue. The word you are looking for is 'sentient'.
__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
2 + 2 = 5
In the absence of proof, there's only the absence.
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 29,498
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by shinbits
your fault here is thinking that ID is about the origin of life. it's not, and doesn't try to be. ID is simply about evidence for design in nature.
If nature is designed, then nature's origin lies in the method of that design. Therefore ID is about the origin of life.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Yes we did. I pointed out something nobody gave a satisfactory answer. So the thread was buried. The one (metabolism) many of you did answer (with rare examples) is still not convincing to me. I said plant only takes in nutrients, but does not expel wastes. That is not metabolism.
me⋅tab⋅o⋅lism
1. Biology, Physiology. the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available.
From a simple standpoint, plants take in material and grow, therefore they are taking in material using physical and chemical processes, and building onto themselves. Further, they repair damage to their structure, therefore they maintain themselves. This fits the definition of metabolism, but let's look a little deeper.
6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy => C6H12O6 + 6O2
This is the process by which plants produce sugars, oxygen is the waste of this process. These sugars are used for producing more complex organic molecules- the building blocks of plant structures, as energy stores for night and winter, as energy transport mechanisms to other parts of the plant that don't photosynthesize. Stored sugars provide energy for rapid growth during the spring, and inside the plant's cells cellular respiration takes place, converting the sugars directly into energy.
The equation for cellular respiration is:
C6H12O6 + 6O2 => 6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy
In this process the glucose molecule enters the mitochondria of the plant's cell and the process of creating the sugars is reversed, releasing the stored energy. This energy is harnessed by the mitochondria to produce ATP, which is the energy unit of individual cells. In this way the sugar acts as a carrier molecule, allowing the transport of energy throughout the plant's structure.
Basically the plant takes ADP, binds a phosphate ion to it using the released energy to produce ATP, which then does it's thing inside the cell.
There you have it, the metabolic process in plants. Now, as per your assertion that disposal of waste is essential for metabolism, there is nothing stating as such, you are once again redefining a term to suit your own means. Metabolism deals with the production of energy and building materials within the organism, not with the production of waste which is usually a byproduct of the metabolic process and not an objective. In this case, we do have waste (oxygen) which is respirated away, but that is a side issue and a red herring in terms of this discussion.
// http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~jamorgan/morgan_rhodes_ME4.pdf This is a research paper explicitly on the mathematical modelling of metabolism within plants. This is one of those areas where there is absolutely and unilaterally no debate. Any scientist who denies metabolism in plants is just screaming to be laughed out of grad school.
Last edited by ragarth; 11th May 2009 at 03:29 PM.
Let's not play word games here. The overwhelming majority of the population say plants are alive. Probably all scientists define plants as living organisms. This means your redefinition of the term 'life' is fringe status, and when scientists are looking for life on other planets, this includes plants- this is what's important.
Beyond that, I have no clue what purpose your statement serves in this thread.
I think his purpose is to de-rail your thread from it's original topic by positing a kook-fringe definition for "life", and then arguing about that. How's he doing? *looks at 5 pages not about what Intelligent design would predict about extra-terrestrial life* Pretty good job, juvenissun.
In the absence of proof, there's only the absence.
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 29,498
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by atomweaver
I think his purpose is to de-rail your thread from it's original topic by positing a kook-fringe definition for "life", and then arguing about that. How's he doing? *looks at 5 pages not about what Intelligent design would predict about extra-terrestrial life* Pretty good job, juvenissun.
I'm just rolling with the waves on this one. The thread sat here and gathered dust, apparently ID can't make the predictions.
On a side note, do you see life or non-life in this picture?
I think his purpose is to de-rail your thread from it's original topic by positing a kook-fringe definition for "life", and then arguing about that. How's he doing? *looks at 5 pages not about what Intelligent design would predict about extra-terrestrial life* Pretty good job, juvenissun.
I am not interested in the argument about ID. I am interested in extra-terrestrial life. I am not too much off the OP.
Are you saying we could not measure the feeling of plant? I am afraid many who know will disagree with you.
If not, then you are saying plant can not feel pain, joy, etc. like we do. Good. That is a very good reason to say that plant is not a life.
You know monks. Why do they still have peaceful mind when they chew all kind of veggies everyday, and will refuse to have a single taste of chicken? Are they hypocrites?
Do insects and jellyfish have feelings? How about crabs? Should we therefore claim they are not alive?
As far as monks are concerned, they abstain from eating animals. This is based on their religion, not their definition of what is alive.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Very good. But I am not sure it is true for a growing plant.
The question will be more significant for a mature plant. I have no answer to it. I don't think it comes out. But I don't know where does it go (shedding the bark?).
Hey, what is our in-house plant physiologist?
Old leaves accumulate nitrogenous products, which serve to remove waste from the plant.
The older the leaf, the more compounds it has and transport becomes one way (into the leaf) after a leaf stops growing. Kind of like a landfill.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Not in motivation, otherwise, I could not argue for it on science. But, if my view is good, it will certainly support whatever says in the Bible.
You are resorting to as hockery to support your Holy book.
I have my own Holy Book. In it, it says only mammals are a life. Therefore, I will conclude that life encompases only thoses organisms that grow hair. How am I doing?
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
In the absence of proof, there's only the absence.
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 29,498
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Buddhist sees two sinners.
Great, now respond to my post explaining the chemical process of plant metabolism. If you don't fully understand it, I can post the chemical process of animal metabolism and provide a point by point comparison to show you how plants do indeed have very similar metabolic processes as animals.
If you fail to respond to my post, then you no longer have the right to claim that nobody had sufficiently answered how plants have metabolism, since you were apparently unable to defend against the argument given. Further use of that statement without defending against the evidence provided here will only serve to reflect poorly upon you.
Linear Mode
