Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But by your very own definition life requires a cyclic process. If what you described was only 3/4 of a cycle then it's not life.
You truly are an awesome teacher
So what is the cyclic process you talked about? Last time I asked you told me to go see a science fiction movie, but it would help me an awful lot if you'd at least hint at which one.Not a bad student.
the rest 1/4 is the processes of dying and rejuvenation.
And, this cycle is NOT the cyclic process I talked about.
So what is the cyclic process you talked about? Last time I asked you told me to go see a science fiction movie, but it would help me an awful lot if you'd at least hint at which one.
You can't name one, can you?A cyclic process which continues within the life system, for example, A rock.
-_- only because you are a stubborn son of a gun. There are tons of people that hold on to views despite 0 evidence supporting them and a mountain of evidence going against them just because they are unwilling to change their view. You being unable to be convinced that our arguments against the idea that rocks are alive are well put is on YOU, not us. Even the view that people haven't given you conclusive arguments that rocks aren't alive is ridiculous.Yes. Because they are not able to do it.
Negatory, the rocks do not control these chemical potentials in any regard. It's still the temperature, not the rock, changing what is inside. A living cell doesn't stay the same REGARDLESS of temperature; any temperature at which the cell is alive, as well as during transitioning to a temperature at which it is not, the cell is changing its own chemical processes. Even immobile organisms which cannot control their internal temperature do not simply slow down or speed up with temperature changes; the types of proteins produced and their amounts change in response.Minimum condition: Changes caused by internal difference on chemical potential between mineral components. Normally, the ambient temperature is an important factor. This change caused the rock to grow from immature to mature stage.
-_- rocks do not contain fetuses, nor do they give birth. A geode with crystals growing inside isn't going to ever independently crack open, and the crystals aren't going to mature later on to become geodes with crystals growing in them.What we can see is:
Fetus material of rock takes a long incubation time to give the birth of a new rock. Then this rock will pass a very long period of time to grow up and gradually changed to its mature form and old form. This is part of the life cycle of rock.
-_- only because you are a stubborn son of a gun. There are tons of people that hold on to views despite 0 evidence supporting them and a mountain of evidence going against them just because they are unwilling to change their view. You being unable to be convinced that our arguments against the idea that rocks are alive are well put is on YOU, not us. Even the view that people haven't given you conclusive arguments that rocks aren't alive is ridiculous.
You are not the standard by which a good argument is measured. Heck, your arguments against mine are downright terrible. Even if you view the current definition of life as too broad, it clearly isn't broad enough to consider a shard of granite alive. Furthermore, acting as if your arguments exclusively rely on perceived ambiguity of 1 definition is wrong. You need metabolism's definition to be too broad. You need reproduction's definition to be too broad. You need the phrase "responding to stimuli" to be too broad. I could go on. The fact of the matter is, they aren't so broad that rocks could be reasonably considered to have a metabolism, reproduce, etc. Even your stretches of the definitions don't work.
Negatory, the rocks do not control these chemical potentials in any regard. It's still the temperature, not the rock, changing what is inside. A living cell doesn't stay the same REGARDLESS of temperature; any temperature at which the cell is alive, as well as during transitioning to a temperature at which it is not, the cell is changing its own chemical processes. Even immobile organisms which cannot control their internal temperature do not simply slow down or speed up with temperature changes; the types of proteins produced and their amounts change in response.
You are also ignoring my statement from before: in order to be considered alive, the rock MUST perform its own maintenance and control its own reproduction. The temperature is directly causing those internal changes in the rocks; hormones signal cells in a cascade to change protein output or divide, they do not in and of themselves change the proteins directly. Thus, this is still not an example of internally directed changes in response to a stimulus. Additionally, rocks do not and cannot maintain themselves independently under any circumstances. If I break a piece off of a rock, it is not going to take up material and grow it back in response. If left out in the open, it will just slowly erode away.
Furthermore, you'd never be able to identify a rock as being in a "mature stage" while also maintaining your ridiculously stretched definition of reproduction. As long as I can crack a rock into two or more pieces, you have expressed that you think this could qualify as reproduction. Since a single molecule or atom does not make a rock, by definition, there is no such thing as a rock that cannot "reproduce" and therefore no such thing as an immature rock.
-_- rocks do not contain fetuses, nor do they give birth. A geode with crystals growing inside isn't going to ever independently crack open, and the crystals aren't going to mature later on to become geodes with crystals growing in them.
Of course it is temperature. What do you expect? A biological cell is not affected by temperature? And, you obviously do not know. Some rocks will still change even be put on the surface of moon. I said it is due to the imbalance of internal chemical potential. It could be all internal. From this point of view, a rock is a more efficient chemical system than a biological cell.
The Black Knight never loses.So, is the "debate" here about rocks being alive or not, still raging?
It seems so.
What does it say about a thread, if for several pages, the debate topic is about wheter or not rocks are alive?
It is an assumption in the first place in assuming that creatures having the genetic info for features not used is evidence for evolution and that any designer cannot design a program for life which has dormant info included. As with the paper posted earlier there may have been a universal code that included all programs for life where some have been switched off but can be activated again.One could try to argue that, but there's not a single creationist I know of that can explain why any creator would make chickens with enough teeth formation genes that they actually have teeth briefly as embryos, when at no point do chickens use teeth. Or why the heck emus have tiny arms without any musculature.
The point is how did the fin come about which is the prototype for the foot. As the fin is so like the foot there is no great change for evolution to achieve but rather a simple tweaking and switching on or off of a gene to make the slight alterations. It is an assumption that a blind and random process produced this because if it did then we would see 100s of feeble attempts to get the foot right. But what we see is maybe two or three set designs that make the foot all within the capacity of a pre-existing body plan. We see the sudden appearance of all the phylum body plans in the Cambrian explosion for which all life has stemmed from.The concept of an "incomplete" feature is a creationist misunderstanding of evolution. At no point is it claimed that fish evolved feet via having a useless half foot first. Rather, they start as simplistic, complete structures, with the start of feet being fins with some motion to them that were beneficial for moving along river beds, etc.
Then if teeth were lost through deselection out of the genomes of Dinos then why do they still exist with the capacity to be switched on to produce teeth again. It is also an assumption to think that because there are some creatures in millions of year old fossils with smaller teeth that this is evidence of the loss of teeth along a particular line of evolution. THis is a very patchy way of establishing things as there is also contradictory evidence showing that dinos didnt evolve into birds through Darwins theory of random mutations and blind selection.Lol, what are you talking about? The loss is gradual, in that the teeth got smaller over the course of bird evolution. Members of the genus Jeholornis, for example, had very few, small teeth, and didn't even have a diet that utilized them much. How's about looking up bird evolution before making assumptions?
It is an assumption that Darwinian evolution that has caused any change in the fossil record, and second it is an assumption when looking back at fossils that any variation is a transition and not just a variation within a type of creature. This is the problem with Darwin’s evolution, it claims there are plenty of examples when it supports transitions, but it is because of the rarity of fossils when it doesn’t. Similarities show transitions between related creatures but it's convergent when it doesn’t. Evolution is gradual except when it's punctuated. Etc. Whereas there are other processes that fit the evidence better and don’t need all these extra explanations to account for anomalies. They can accommodate the contradictions because they are not trying to fit what we see to an idea that just can’t account for what we see.Nah, it's totally expected to see sudden changes in lineages when it comes to fossils, considering the rarity of fossils. Especially for organisms with soft bodies like squid, and organisms with fragile bones such as birds. Not that there aren't organisms that left behind tons of fossils for their lineage, such as trilobites. And guess what? We see plenty of more gradual changes in that lineage. Even with them, it's not like we get to see every 10th generation represented in the fossils so that we can see every significant evolutionary event (I'm not saying that there's only ever 1 such event within 10 generations, I just know that having that would make the evolution of any given lineage more gradual than a flip book).
But that is not what we see in the fossil records. We see the sudden appearance of complex creatures representing all the phylum in the Cambrian explosion coming from virtually nowhere. This supports a pre-existing code that all life is built upon. There are no simple feet, and this is a false idea that is painted and presented to help tell the story. This is just an extension of the junk DNA idea and that early life must have been simple like dumbed down ape-men. Everything is complex in evolutionary terms even what has been presented as simple if we consider the whole picture of how something is made including at the molecular level.Your misunderstanding of evolution persists. Simple feet, not incomplete feet. Simple lungs not incomplete lungs.
That is what they said about the antibiotic resistance in bacteria where antibiotics were the result of recent additions to medicine so bacteria must have mutated this into existence. Yet we have now discovered that antibiotic resistance has been an ability well before antibiotic drugs and may go back 1000s if not millions of years. Also, ancient bacteria has been found to be very similar to modern bacteria. As mentioned the complexity of life was around from the beginning as it is basically built on the same program.Bacteria studies demonstrate otherwise. There is a bacteria evolution experiment that has gone on since the late 1980s, and one of the E. coli lineages developed the capacity to effectively digest citrate. They kept samples of every single generation, and thus not only could confirm that the bacteria didn't start out with this capacity genetically but noting that the digestion of citrate like this demands multiple genes, they were able to pinpoint the generation that was 1 mutation away from being able to effectively digest citrate, and repeat the result. Complex traits can arise via mutation, even if multiple intermediate steps have very little impact compared to what happens after the final mutation.
-_- it is demonstrable that the original E. coli from which the citrate digesting population is descended from cannot digest citrate and doesn't have any of the key genes for citrate digestion. They keep frozen samples of each generation in order to pinpoint when significant mutations occur and to repeat experimental conditions with previous generations.That is what they said about the antibiotic resistance in bacteria where antibiotics were the result of recent additions to medicine so bacteria must have mutated this into existence. Yet we have now discovered that antibiotic resistance has been an ability well before antibiotic drugs and may go back 1000s if not millions of years. Also, ancient bacteria has been found to be very similar to modern bacteria. As mentioned the complexity of life was around from the beginning as it is basically built on the same program.
Scientists have found antibiotic resistance genes in the bacterial flora of a South American tribe that never before had been exposed to antibiotic drugs. The findings suggest that bacteria in the human body have had the ability to resist antibiotics since long before such drugs were ever used to treat disease.
Bacterial flora of remote tribespeople carries antibiotic resistance genes | The Source | Washington University in St. Louis
I can't convince you if you rely on me to tell you things.
Shemjaza is asking questions. If you do the same, you might be able to convince yourself.
Unless you are willing to walk out the confinement of your traditional biological view. This discussion is meaningless to you. You better save energy and do not reply. I think you are still young and have time. Try to consider geology, which will definitely open your eyes.
I want you to tell me what your definition of life is. Do you think this is unreasonable? If so, tell me why it is unreasonable. If it is not unreasonable, answer the question.
So you are redefining things to mean what you want them to mean.
By that logic, I could say that the sun rising is the same thing as going to the toilet, provided I redefine "going to the toilet" to include "the sun is rising."
Your argument has not accomplished anything.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?