Why " JUST" a theory?

[Astrid]

I have a book - that's my way of saying I really can't be fussed to look it our right now, but will do so if pressed - in which the author speaks of a science conference at which the attendees, biologists, biochemists, etc, were asked to offer their indivdual definitions of life. From around 120 participants they got over 130 definitions. I think that says it all.

"Show someone who can define life,
and I will show you someone who does
not know what it is."

 

[AV1611VET]

"Show someone who can define life, and I will show you someone who does not know what it is."

Life:

At the level of chemistry & physics it's just a complex redox reaction sequence that extends the approach to thermal equilibrium by using low entropy energy sources.

SOURCE:

At the level of chemistry & physics it's just a complex redox reaction sequence that extends the approach to thermal equilibrium by using low entropy energy sources.

At the cognitive level of agency, purposes, and goals (teleological), its function is to persist, which it accomplishes by evolution (via reproduction with heritable variation).

 

[Bradskii]

 

[Occams Barber]

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
At the level of chemistry & physics it's just a complex redox reaction sequence that extends the approach to thermal equilibrium by using low entropy energy sources.

At the cognitive level of agency, purposes, and goals (teleological), its function is to persist, which it accomplishes by evolution (via reproduction with heritable variation).

TRANSLATION:

Life = eats junk food and fornicates a lot,

(sounds about right - OB)

 

[Ophiolite]

Amendment to post #80, and a reminder of the danger of relying upon a memory from a brain subjected to three quarters of a century of entropy.

The book I couldn't be fussed to locate was A Complete Course on Astrobiology, published by Wiley in 2007, ISBN: 978-3-527-40660-9. Here is the relevant passage, from page 3:
On the occasion of a Workshop on Life, held in Modena, Italy, in 2003, each member of the International Society for the Study of the Origins of Life was asked to give a definition of life. The 78 different answers occupy 40 pages in the proceedings of the workshop.

So, I almost doubled the number of responses and had constructed a false memory of some participants offering multiple definitions. The underlying point remains, just not as colourful as my memory would have it. My apologies.

From the paragraph following the one quoted:
Perhaps the most general working definition is that adopted in October 1992 by the NASA Exobiology Program: “Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.”

 

[AV1611VET]

TRANSLATION:

Life = eats junk food and fornicates a lot,

(sounds about right - OB)

Yup.

I'm fond of pointing out how the animal kingdom murders, pillages, and fornicates.

Yet evolutionists act surprised when they see that happening at the top of the chain.

Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yup.

I'm fond of pointing out how the animal kingdom murders, pillages, and fornicates.

Yet evolutionists act surprised when they see that happening at the top of the chain.

View attachment 348771

Why do you suppose that is?

Because by and large, humans are very good at follow the social morals and ethics and laws that have been present enough for hundreds, nearly thousands of years, that big events where people go off the rails because of societies major inability to see people who struggle, or a desire to see people who struggle, catch us off guard.

Also: you're a vulture.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because by and large, humans are very good at follow the social morals and ethics and laws that have been present enough for hundreds, nearly thousands of years, that big events where people go off the rails because of societies major inability to see people who struggle, or a desire to see people who struggle, catch us off guard.

In other words, humans are so busy looking at the positive side of life, they have created a "major inability to see" the negative side when it rears its ugly head?

 

[Occams Barber]

Yup.

I'm fond of pointing out how the animal kingdom murders, pillages, and fornicates.

Yet evolutionists act surprised when they see that happening at the top of the chain.

View attachment 348771

Why do you suppose that is?

Murder, pillage and fornication are just different aspects of survival. I doubt that 'evolutionist' are particularly surprised that they occur. Survival also includes a range of more positive behaviours which enhance survivability based on mutually supportive group behaviour.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In other words, humans are so busy looking at the positive side of life, they have created a "major inability to see" the negative side when it rears its ugly head?

Not in the slightest what I said at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Murder, pillage and fornication are just different aspects of survival.

Okay?

I doubt that 'evolutionist' are particularly surprised that they occur.

No evolutionist was surprised when that happened?

Survival also includes a range of more positive behaviours which enhance survivability based on mutually supportive group behaviour.

Yes.

Warden pointed that out.

In fact, he pointed both sides of his doctrine out by calling me a "vulture".

 

[AV1611VET]

Not in the slightest what I said at all.

Perhaps you could clarify then?

Spoiler: Click on this after you respond

"No"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Perhaps you could clarify then?

Spoiler: Click on this after you respond

"No"

No = noun, a negative answer or decision, especially in voting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes.

Warden pointed that out.

In fact, he pointed both sides of his doctrine out by calling me a "vulture".

Because your insistence on trotting out every disaster, every example of mass death that exists in the 20th and 21st century and laying it at the feet of scientists, academia, 'evolutionists', is not the actions of a Christian. It is the actions of a man who desires to use death in a senseless, deceitful and just generally horrible way, just to try and pretend they even have a point to prove.

For the love of God, be better than that.

 

[AV1611VET]

For the love of God, be better than that.

And in the meantime, you evolutionists will keep on saying we're animals, won't you?

Your idea of humans being animals is some form of utopian society, where everyone gets along in harmony; while Mother Nature rages on outside of your utopian village, doing her thing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And in the meantime, you evolutionists will keep on saying we're animals, won't you?

Your idea of humans being animals is some form of utopian society, where everyone gets along in harmony; while Mother Nature rages on outside of your utopian village, doing her thing.

Again: for the love of God, be better.

 

[Ophiolite]

Again: for the love of God, be better.

Warden, I understand your frustration, but out of respect for @Estrid and this thread, just leave him be.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Warden, I understand your frustration, but out of respect for @Estrid and this thread, just leave him be.

I will. That was my parting shot. I'm gonna bow out.

 

[Occams Barber]

No evolutionist was surprised when that happened?

Why would someone who accepts evolution be surprised when people behave badly?

OP

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would someone who accepts evolution be surprised when people behave badly?

Very good question.

I've been wondering the same thing for years.