Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)

reply to post by claireaudient


-pinches nose in exasperation- What's elementary, is you were less than precise with your explanation.

What causes wind is TEMPERATURE VARIATION. SAY IT WITH ME! The sun is the SOURCE of temperature variation, but not the fact in and of itself.

Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs

 

Also...cells require physical matter. The only physical matter in the air is all of the gases and pollutions and various atomic materials that get blown around every day.

The wind consists of precisely this: shifting temperatures. If that is all that's required to consider something a living creature, then the science books need to be rewritten pronto. What make it feel solid is the shifting temperatures, much like a current in a stream, will create a ripple in the air that affect the myriad of atomic particles from various sources, resulting in a "wave", or wind.

None of those materials will combine to create a cell capable of a metabolic process. If such could happen, strange creatures would form from thin air all the time.

As I said, interesting question...but there are no experiments needed to prove anything here. Simple science and established fact will state, with very clear evidence, that wind is not alive in the biological sense. Metaphors are a different matter entirely.

Thanks for the discussion.

ok. i see you point.
it is this:
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biochemistry) the sum total of the chemical processes that occur in living organisms, resulting in growth, production of energy, elimination of waste material, etc

metabolism, or life requires a living organism. if you define organism as cells, then yes, you need cells.
However the definition of organism is not very clear:

In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homoeostasis as a stable whole.
I would add wind to above list
In biology life can be unicellular or mulitcellular.
However:
1. How do you know wind isn't some freak (according to us) organism?
2. Since we study air movements, not wind, maybe we are looking in the wrong place.
3. Has anyone actually gone out, cuagth the wind, and examined it in laboratory circumstances? i don't think so, it not like you can catch the wind. It is very elusive you know.
OK that was the part funny part.
Now for the science.

Is a virues cellular?
I don't think so.
Is it dead or alive?

Yeah, just what I though.
We don't know a lot, including wether the wind is alive or nor.

So it is unclear from our understanding if life requires just metabolism or metabolism and cells.
Propably the first is more accurate, think extremephiles (not saying they don't have cells!)

however, if you just look at the metabolic function, it could be theorized that the wind has a complex and yet unknown metabolic system. allowing for this, it could in turn me theorized, that it does indeed have cells, or some structures hitherto unknown.
also you are forgetting that Prokaryote are one celled mainly, or is the one cell just an illusion?
How would we even find an uncelled life form, with our current knowledge?
impossible, at this moment, but we are getting closer and closer to getting there.

its a game in creative thinking. thats what this question is.
if you get bogged down, by stuff, that doesn't even support your argument to well (linking metabolism with cells off course does, but even then not well), then you are just objecting, not letting your fantasy run wild.
i don't think there is proof that the wind is alive, but i don't think observations of how it behaves are proof that it is not.
we will just have to wait and see.
Until then, 1 word, for NONcellular life: VIRUS.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by claireaudient

 

-pinches nose in exasperation- What's elementary, is you were less than precise with your explanation.

What causes wind is TEMPERATURE VARIATION. SAY IT WITH ME!

The sun is the SOURCE of temperature variation, but not the fact in and of itself.

Thanks for playing.

read above post.
i have found non cellular life. so should you.
back to is the wind alive or not.

good question, right?

VIRUS VIRUS VIRUS
lets get back to metabolism, and forget the cellular dead end you proposed.

reply to post by BBalazs


The wind...is a virus?

Well, I read your argument, as painfully flawed as it was...and now I want you to answer something for me. Just as a point. Prove to me that you aren't living in a drug-induced dream world. Prove to me that I am real, that everything is real, and that we aren't all just products of a lucid-dream drug while you are experimented upon by powerful beings of some sort.

Prove me wrong. Oh, and while you're at it, prove that the wind is alive. Surely you have some basis? The only person who would argue as you have argued is someone who either believes the wind is a creature...or is just itching for a fight.

And if you are wondering what the purpose of my analogy was...well, think about it. Apparently, you haven't used your brain too much lately.

Cheers.

reply to post by BBalazs


LOL! Provide proof that the wind has a metabolism. If you cannot provide proof on your end, you cannot disprove us at our end of this discussion.

Carry on.

no

it is the byproduct of pressure systems of varying pressures moving about the surface of the planet

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs

 

The wind...is a virus?

Well, I read your argument, as painfully flawed as it was...and now I want you to answer something for me. Just as a point. Prove to me that you aren't living in a drug-induced dream world. Prove to me that I am real, that everything is real, and that we aren't all just products of a lucid-dream drug while you are experimented upon by powerful beings of some sort.

Prove me wrong. Oh, and while you're at it, prove that the wind is alive. Surely you have some basis? The only person who would argue as you have argued is someone who either believes the wind is a creature...or is just itching for a fight.

And if you are wondering what the purpose of my analogy was...well, think about it. Apparently, you haven't used your brain too much lately.

Cheers.

NO!
I never said the wind was a virus. It was an example of non cellular life.
Hence we should be looking into metabolism.
I was taclink your previous objections, noting that all life is cellular.
Please rephrase what exactly are you arguments, as I think you have lost the plot to be quite honest.

reply to post by BBalazs


When have you ever seen an example of noncellular life? We have been around for millenia, and not ONE example of noncellular life has ever been noted.

This is now crossing the line of science into the land of make-believe.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs

 

LOL! Provide proof that the wind has a metabolism. If you cannot provide proof on your end, you cannot disprove us at our end of this discussion.

Carry on.

I never said I could provide proof for metabolism.
I am not going to rewrite, you will just have to reread.
I propsed a theory.
You debunked it with apparent cellular life missing from wind.
I showed you you were wrong.
Seems like you are more itching for a fight them me.
So what exactly do you want to say, or has your mind numbed?
You don't like to be "defeated", do you?
Having some cognitive dissonance?
Its okay.
It happens, when you start arguing with a theory, that you could not possibly prove wrong.
But go ahead. Give it another try.
But please reread the OP (and other points) as I am not going to rewrite for you, as I am perfectly sure you can write.
I would also point out your ridicule of the love of nature is blatantly arrogant and backwards with the times we live in. But hey, you do as you wish.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs

 

When have you ever seen an example of noncellular life? We have been around for millenia, and not ONE example of noncellular life has ever been noted.

This is now crossing the line of science into the land of make-believe.

yeah, its called cognitive dissonance.
just because you haven't seen it, or taken it into account, try here:
en.wikipedia.org...
so i guess based on your argument, viruses didn't exist until we found them.
well done bravo.
there is no line to cross as it is in your mind.
this is a speculative theory.
i guess you should look these words up in the dictionary.

reply to post by BBalazs


I will tell you my exact argument, in three points:

1. All life forms have cells. There is no arguing with this, for the metabolic process requires cellular function.

2. The wind has no cells, only a random assortment of th various particles our atmosphere has been flooded with over the centuries. These particles are virtually impossible to stimulate in any fashion that would produce, quite randomly, a cellular body capable of functional metabolism.

3. Wind is quite readily proven to be formed by one thing: CONFLICTING TEMPERATURES. Conflicting temperatures in no way creates nor defines a living creature.

Your entire argument is based around, "Oh, well maybe it's something we haven't discovered yet."
Not to be rude, but maybe you aren't understanding my point. That is the weakest argument I have read this week...which is saying quite a lot, considering the stuff that people like to post on here. Discovered? Science adamantly DENIES the possibility of your suggestion.

Thanks, and goodbye.

reply to post by BBalazs


Nicely done. You had to Wikipedia it. Perhaps you missed the word "presume" in the second sentence, which falls slightly short of saying, "This is FACT."

That article is theory, a debatable definition. Again, thanks for playing.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs

 

I will tell you my exact argument, in three points:

1. All life forms have cells. There is no arguing with this, for the metabolic process requires cellular function.

2. The wind has no cells, only a random assortment of th various particles our atmosphere has been flooded with over the centuries. These particles are virtually impossible to stimulate in any fashion that would produce, quite randomly, a cellular body capable of functional metabolism.

3. Wind is quite readily proven to be formed by one thing: CONFLICTING TEMPERATURES. Conflicting temperatures in no way creates nor defines a living creature.

Your entire argument is based around, "Oh, well maybe it's something we haven't discovered yet."
Not to be rude, but maybe you aren't understanding my point. That is the weakest argument I have read this week...which is saying quite a lot, considering the stuff that people like to post on here. Discovered? Science adamantly DENIES the possibility of your suggestion.

Thanks, and goodbye.

I am not even reading past point 1.
It seems you are a religious nut, as I have just proved there is non cellular life.
So go to the creationist board.
Here is the link again:
en.wikipedia.org...


Here it is in writing:
Non-cellular life
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about non-cellular organisms. For cell-like, non-cell structures, see Syncytium.
Non-cellular life is life that exists without a cellular structure. This term presumes the phylogenetic scientific classification of viruses as lifeforms.[1]
Hypothesized artificial life, self-replicating machines, and most simple molecules capable of self-replication, such as crystals, are not usually considered living. (See definition of life.)
Some biologists refer to wholly syncytial organisms as "acellular"[citation needed] because their bodies contain multiple nuclei which are not separated by cell walls, however, these cell-bound organisms are outside the scope of the present article.

Its fine if you don't classify viruses as lifeforms, then provide an alternative classification.

IF VIRUS are not alive, are they dead, in your opinion? If they are alive they have metabolic function, so you are cherry picking to fit your theory.

reply to post by BBalazs
Yep, wind is alive but than it is called "ruach".

reply to post by OldHag


Someone else has been reading that thread too, I see...

He's talking about regular wind, not the Spirit.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs

 

Nicely done. You had to Wikipedia it. Perhaps you missed the word "presume" in the second sentence, which falls slightly short of saying, "This is FACT."

That article is theory, a debatable definition. Again, thanks for playing.

yeah, come up with an alternate theory pls.
bacteria were not considered life, and fungi were considered plants not so long ago.
So you are obviously for the advancement of science.
I did a wiki for you. It is your level.
Here is further reading for you:
serc.carleton.edu...

homework:find a quote from a legitimate scientist that clearly states virus is not life. come back and play when you find such a quote.

reply to post by BBalazs


science.howstuffworks.com...

A virus particle, or virion, consists of the following:

Nucleic acid - Set of genetic instructions, either DNA or RNA, either single-stranded or double-stranded (see How Cells Work for details on DNA and RNA)
Coat of protein - Surrounds the DNA or RNA to protect it
Lipid membrane - Surrounds the protein coat (found only in some viruses, including influenza; these types of viruses are called enveloped viruses as opposed to naked viruses)

Which means that just like any other organism, there are proteins and dna strands that govern the virus. Show me where to find this in the wind, then YOU come back and play.

come at me, bro

Originally posted by nineix
reply to post by BBalazs

 

Wind is not alive.
Organisms, seeds, pollen, bacteria, and viruses may be suspended in the air, as well as water and anything that might be suspended in the water to boot, but, the air itself is just that; air.

You may as well say that water is alive.
or dirt.

It's just a concentration of elements forming a mixture.
Actual life has evolved to take advantage of these environments, but, the environmental substrate is not itself alive.

edit on 21-1-2012 by nineix because: (no reason given)

actually, my little friend, water is alive and the science has proven that...

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs

 

science.howstuffworks.com...

A virus particle, or virion, consists of the following:

Nucleic acid - Set of genetic instructions, either DNA or RNA, either single-stranded or double-stranded (see How Cells Work for details on DNA and RNA)
Coat of protein - Surrounds the DNA or RNA to protect it
Lipid membrane - Surrounds the protein coat (found only in some viruses, including influenza; these types of viruses are called enveloped viruses as opposed to naked viruses)

Which means that just like any other organism, there are proteins and dna strands that govern the virus. Show me where to find this in the wind, then YOU come back and play.

come at me, bro

edit on CSaturdayam131309f09America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

I never said you find this in the wind.
Dont hallucinate words into my mouth.
You obviously have some virus problems, maybe?
you are deflecting.
I gave this as an example of non cellular life.
now do your homework and come back with some quotes.

reply to post by BBalazs


Oh, you assumptive person...allow me to show you a quote that I wholeheartedly agree with, courtesy of Albert Einstein:

"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious."

I am not unappreciative of the mysteries of our world. However, you prefer to ignore the known laws and suggest that since there are laws beyond our comprehension, we should ignore those we have established and believe that the wind is a magical fae-like creature that is invisible and unbound by the biological laws we are so familiar with.

That is the impression I am getting.