What is the definition of life?

I always wonder that what actually is the definition of Life and apart from the creationism theory IF life get started at its own and then why could not Life get started at own on other planets for example mars? As i assume that IF life is such a thing that does not need divine intervention then each and every planet should have its 'own' life and its own creature that evolved under its own particular environment.

As this happens we don't have any substantial proof of life at any other planet, does not this Support the Creationism Theory? ... As it seems like LIFE is more dependent on Supernatural intervention than the atmosphere under which it can sustain or get started. Had life to get started at its own that it would have got started at other planets as well and having its own 'visible' species

[edit on 23-4-2008 by LOYAL]

reply to post by LOYAL


to live is to love... and learn, in my opinion...

I believe we all have a purpose here and there is a reason to why we are born.

if we all believe we are animals for instance that could lead to some pretty bad things.

I came expecting a thread about the definition of life. This seems unrelated.

reply to post by LOYAL

As this happens we don't have any substantial proof of life at any other planet, does not this Support the Creationism Theory?

Creationism isn't a theory. Simply because we do not yet have any examples of life occurring on other planets does not mean that life HERE on Earth occurred by Magic. The rarity of something, in this case life, does not mean that it is supernatural in origin.

Had life to get started at its own that it would have got started at other planets as well and having its own 'visible' species

This is not an assumption you are allowed to make. We only have one observed instance of life, right here on planet Earth is our only example. The sample size is not large enough to make these sorts of assumptions. The same goes for when Creationists attempt the "fine tuned" argument for life, the idea that the Universe is ideal for life and if things were a little different life could not occur. With a sample size of one such assumptions are meaningless.

Please also keep in mind that we've only set foot on the Moon and sent probes to a handful of planets in our solar system. There are trillions of planets in the Universe. Again - with such a small sample size it is too early to assume anything about the scarcity of life in the Universe.

I have a story.
Once upon a time, stuff started to grow on a rock, in the middle of nowhere, and it ended up killed itself.

You can search for the meaning of life all your life, and it would be a life wasted
i heard that somewhere

On the other hand, what if we make it? to travel the galaxy i mean

Originally posted by vjr1113
I have a story.
Once upon a time, stuff started to grow on a rock, in the middle of nowhere, and it ended up killed itself.

You can search for the meaning of life all your life, and it would be a life wasted
i heard that somewhere

On the other hand, what if we make it? to travel the galaxy i mean

thinking is he best way to travel so I've heard...

I am kinda traveling the new Galaxy in the Internet Universe you know, lifeforms can be very cruel... the ones who have not evolved their being yet.

so far nothing much new

I thought this was going to be about definition but seemed to veer of as to why there are no other lifeforms we have found.

Wiki qoute:

"Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate."

It's only wiki but it shall suffice to what was said in the OP.

As people stated above, we have too small a sample size to say if life is or is not out there. I'd go even further to say we have seen so little of the universe and of time to say we do not even know if life is even rare. Possibly at other times in the universe in parts we have not seen life is a common occurance. It's not like we are even looking over a 3d image of the universe to see if you spot life like 'Where's Wally', possibly for 99.9% of the time Wally might not even be there - but not to confuse with it not ever existing.

In year... must have been year seven (so, age about 11) we were taught that life is identifiable by doing all of:

Movement;
Respiration (conversion of high-energy molecules to low energy ones);
Sensitivity (response to stimuli);
Growth;
Reproduction;
Excretion;
Nutrition;


Which is fairly basic, really, but does help. Although, as with any classification system, it stumbles a bit when you get down to the fuzzy line between living and non-living (viruses, nanocells, etc.)



EDIT: As to the second part of your question, a lack of evidence for life on other planets does not preclude its existence on such, and seeing as we only have any insight at all into a handful of planets very close to us, we really don't get to assume lack of life elsewhere. And Radio silence is a myth, by the way. There's a lot of noise coming from outer space, just not anything that we currently believe to have a living source.

Originally posted by LOYAL
As this happens we don't have any substantial proof of life at any other planet, does not this Support the Creationism Theory? ...

We've been to 2 planets, and 50% of them had life. How the hell does that support creationism?

As it seems like LIFE is more dependent on Supernatural intervention than the atmosphere under which it can sustain or get started. /quote]
What?

Originally posted by TheWill
In year... must have been year seven (so, age about 11) we were taught that life is identifiable by doing all of:

Movement;
Respiration (conversion of high-energy molecules to low energy ones);
Sensitivity (response to stimuli);
Growth;
Reproduction;
Excretion;
Nutrition;

Movement is definitely not a prerequisite for life.

reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch


Then tell me something alive that doesn't move.

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch

 

Then tell me something alive that doesn't move.

Polyps.

reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch


As a zoologist, I was really hoping you'd go with an animal, so thanks - I'd have had a hard time explaining geotaxis or phototaxis in plants. Thank also for not going for a sponge - I know that they do move, but again, it tends to be geotaxis.

Anyway, on polyps:

There are myriad forms of polyps, but they fall into two basic categories, with considerable overlap - those that feed on symbiotic algae, and are thus dependant upon light, and those that feed on suspended matter. Almost all polyps do retract if touched, to reduce harm.

When the lights go out, light-dependant anemones close, as do the polyps on both hard and soft light-dependant corals. =Movement.

In particulate-feeding corals, hydras and anemones (in the case of anemones, the "particles" are a bit vague - fish, in some cases) any tentacle that encounters organic material begins to draw it towards the mouth - movement.

So they all do move, from time to time. To add to these fairly basic movement:

Soft corals expell water and shrink to a fraction of their size when harmed or when conditions are less-than optimal.

Hard corals on reefs spent the night spewing their guts over their neighbors and digesting them

Some larval forms of corals are medusoid - that is, they look like tiny jellyfish, and move in the same way, before finally finding a place to settle down and attach.

Small anemones are often capable of detaching from their perches and "walking" across the substrate until they find more suitable conditions. It sounds bizarre, but I spent about an hour watching a particularly troublesome Aiptasia in my aquarium moving a couple of feet in this manner. It felt like some sort of close encounter of the third kind, if I'm perfectly honest.

From what I’ve seen, life is something that a puzzle or a game. We have things we need to solve or get over or fix.
And happiness appears to be pursuing things that are similar to what God had in mind for me. For example, he made people work together well in groups and to benefit from having others around. And so on.

reply to post by LOYAL


What is the definition of life?





[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7085dca4f5e0.png[/atsimg]

And veering even farther off course.
There aint no life no where-Hendrix
Everything has already died,
this is the other world.-Adi Da

...seems arrogantly biased to expect our definition of life to apply to other planets...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


Not really. The word "life" originated on this planet, to describe things on this planet.

I think provided that we define life by what it does, rather than what it's made of, it should be applicable. Although I feel that chemically, anything that spends its time pushing away from equilibrium should be defined as life.

the definition of Life

Metabolism.
Nothing more, whatever you would like to hear. It's only that.
Do not try to involve anthropocentric bullsh*^ there.
There's nothing more, only metabolism is defining "life"..
By extending that we could even say, that Earth is 'alive" too.
Matter of scale.

reply to post by LOYAL

Your post is mistitled, but you actually have a sort of a point. The problem with your point is this: To many of us there is HUGE evidence of fully-developed life throughout the universe. This is mostly a question of what you are willing to accept as evidence. Scientific research? Eyewitness testimony? Telepathic communication? Human memory?

I accept all the above on some level, and all together the data says very loudly: there is life everywhere!

As for a definition, I think any dictionary should do, It's a common English word.

However, the data I am familiar with point to another seemingly indisputable fact (and there is even some science being done on this one!): that the intention of a living entity has the ability to re-organize (perhaps even create) matter and energy. So, even though I think life is everywhere, I also believe in intelligent design, with the evolutionary process being just one possible assistant to it.

Divine creation? I don't go that far. I don't exactly see what's so divine about it. A lot of times the whole mess can get downright depressing! What created this universe and the life forms in it could only be considered "divine" in the sense that it actually had the power to do this knowingly. But we all, apparently, also have this power. So, by that token, we're all divine. So I stay away from any dogmatic ideas about what God is. However, I am quite sure that life is the creative force in this universe (and that's my new definition of "life".).