Talk:Life/Archive 3

I'm offended to the very soul (10th September 2007)
So which one of you so called "professionals"

Can't even put in an alternate theory?

For example.

"There is an alternate theory relating to relegion that their idol/god created the universe"

Would at least make me LESS mad.

This one needs one serious Re-make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.21.38 (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's right, it's unforgivable . I also claim that theory of Flying Spaghetti Monster is acknowledged . --Faustnh (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That theory was proven wrong many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.217.130 (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but the Spagetti Monster, and some scientists say Mikey Mouse, were created by Molok God.


 * I happen to agree. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to take a Neutral position in these sorts of things. OtherAJ (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a matter of neutrality but of proofs. Parabols and metaphors in an old book simply don't stand a chance against the answers brought forth by science. Faith and religion are best discussed in their own articles. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For those of you sarcasticly mentioning the Flying Spaghetti Monster, think of the words of the theory's inventor: "I don't have a problem with religion. I have a problem with religion posing as science." As long as everything is represented as a view on Life, and not the ultimate-go-against-this-and-go-to-hell-truth, religion could AND SHOULD be included!!! 80.217.105.223 (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just repeating what Wikipedia has said. Neutrality. We can accept Neutrality and say that there are various theories to how something was created, or we can be close minded of different theories and limit the educational material of this article. -- OtherAJ (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it is about neutrality and objectivity, and religion lacks both in this subject.BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's be close minded then. --OtherAJ (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say: let's be objective. How about you start a new article entitled something like: "Religious theories on the origin of life." Being a religious topic, the requirement of evidence will certainly won't be a hurdle. An existing article for religious beliefs about the creation of life, see creation myth. Respectfully, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this article needs renaming, as there are more views to life than the scientifical approach. This article should be something like "Scientific definition of Life" (I'm not so good at making articles, so please, could somone fix this if they agree?). Not only is there the religious way to see life, there's also the "philosophical" way. Is life only the material world, or is it maybe also thoughts, emotions and memories? It's impossible to exclude religious and "philosophical" perspectives on life by referring to scientific proof, neutrality and objectivity. It is not natural for everyone to think of life as creatures physical existances and their internal processes. Upgrade article please! 80.217.105.223 (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article, like many other "factual" articles are biased towards science. You say that Religion wouldn't stand a chance against science, and yet, in many cases, they can work together. And in many cases, science has proven different aspects of this "old fairytale" book. Instead of being sarcastic and idiotic, have an open mind about the issue, please. Something you "scientists" claim to have. This article SHOULD be marked as a scientific viewpoint of life, as life can be defined in many many ways, by science AND religion.

If Wikipedia ever wants to be neutral on these issues, simply present BOTH sides of view on these delicate issues. I don't care who objects, it's the "neutral" thing to do. Many of my own friends have looked at Wikipedia and called it "biased". And some of them are evolutionists, or atheists or even science enthusiasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.41.46 (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone said before, does the article on horses has to include unicorns in order to be "neutral"? Why should Wikipedia bend scientific facts in order to sooth all religious sensibilties and persuations? It is not a democracy, but an encyclopedia. The solution is that you should start a religious article about your spiritual views, and make sure it includes the Flying Spagetti Monster to ensure religious "neutrality" and open mindedness.  76.98.227.82 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In order to explain life we need to understand cause and effect so we need to study the mechanism underlying the observed properties. Religion is essentially a point of view which largely disregards the physical phenomena. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion. Include or exclude?

 * I would agree that the article should mention the possibility of creation of life by a sentient being, since its an idea a lot of people would think plausible. It should suggest some possible creators (a supernatural god or gods, extraterrestrial intelligence etc.) but should point out that there is no known evidence for such a creation. This should be done to present a wider range of views on a subject about which little can be said with certainty, but still retain scientific accuracy and neutrality. Furthermore, some of the references are not very useful (reference 10 just leads to the Royal Society homepage, which in itself contains no relevant information). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.110.66 (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is BatteryIncluded. I agree that the article on Horses does not 'have to' include unicorns, and I asses that that same concept of mythology/beliefs applies to this scientific article on Life. Presenting the religious perspective of Life has been a challenged topic in this article: On one hand, this encyclopedia shoud present all versions or definitions by the major schools of thought. On the other hand, there is a real risk of having the religious perspectives hijack the the article away from the facts and scientific acomplishments. For example, if one was to include the Christian religion perspective, soon, a large subsection would be created with the agonizing details of the Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. perspectives on life, which will be followed/counteracted by additional subsections on all different sects from Moslem, Judaism, New Age etc. doctrines. And what we'd have is a mess, complete with its accompanying war of edits on doctrinal interpretations and faith assays taking this article and drifting away from the scientific concept of life. This is not an assumption, as we can see that the very first comment on this discussion page was from someone "offended to the very soul" who may be followed by a stream of "offended" editors, motivated by their faith, to proceed on a holly crusade/Jihad/fun/etc. to either "correct" or introduce their religion's point of view, which we KNOW are many and all have plenty of printed sources to defend each other's claims and make references to.

Therefore, although I am -personally- against including religion in this article, per Wikipedia policy and other editor's requests, I would be willing to test the effects of adding a small section with a single short parragraph of this theory/belief and only present the existence of the general religious concept of a supreme being(s) as a creator of life, while linking that parragraph the main articles: Religion and orReligious belief. No specific religions WILL be mentioned here.

As an example, I am thinking not so much on a religious description/definition of life because each religion has its own, but just the existence of religion, so we could include one parragraph taken from the Religion and Religious belief articles:

I propose that this small section on religion be semi-protected and be deleted from the Life article if such non-scientific theory beguins grown to unproportional size and hijack this scientific article. Your comments are welcome with regards to aprove or reject this request, or edit its proposed content. Respectfully, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought, lets stick with the basic principle that limits science to natural phenomena and natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, which by definition is beyond natural explanation. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit
editsemiprotected

Under the section: "Proposed definitions of life include"  I would like to propose the addition of the  following definition proposed by Johnjoe McFadden, professor of molecular genetics at the University of Surrey, England.

6. Life is a system that uses internal quantum measurement to capture low entropy states that sustain the state of the system against thermodynamic decay.

Citation:

McFadden, Johnjoe (2000). Quantum Evolution: How Physics' Weirdest Theory Explains Life's Biggest Mystery. New York W.W. Norton and Company


 * Is this a notable idea? I must admit I've never even heard of it. Has McFadden's proposal been cited in any secondary source? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've found one that discusses it link but this seems to dismiss the idea entirely. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is this phrase to that effect in the introduction: "A physical characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy.[1][2] In more detail, according to physicists such as John Bernal, Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner, and John Avery, life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form (see: entropy and life).[3][4]" -BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Per BatteryIncluded's observation that said definition is already included in lead section.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is in it's current state worthless
As I've already commented in several of the below posts, the definition of life should not exclude religious or philosophical definitions. The term "Life" can mean several things of which the scientific definition is one! What about emotions, memories and thoughts if seen not as various results of chemo-electric impulses or whatever? These views needs to be represented as well. At the moment, all of Wikipedia is being infested by way to narrowminded science-followers, who delete or exclude everything that has to do with non-scientific stuff. The greatest scientists have always been open-minded individuals, accepting that they don't know everything, and always ready to learn. Don't you think religious people, or people who see the mental world as a separate world, have the right to read about their views on Wikipedia? 80.217.105.223 (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This article focuses on modern scientific research on life. For religious beliefs about the creation of life, see creation myth. Alternatively, see Abiogenesis -BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do the article on Horses HAS TO include unicorns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.125.5.210 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See also everyday life and consciousness. The article I have linked in the next section is typical of an article on life. Richard001 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Definition of life
Take a look at Britannica's article 'life' written by Carl Sagan. He spends several pages just discussing the definition of life. I don't think our article should be this long (that article could be published as a small book) but I think we should spend at least this much space on life's definition. That would, of course, be too much for this article, so I think we should have a "separate" article definition of life (to be summarized here, naturally). The only other 'definition of' article that I can identify is definition of planet; I'm surprised we don't have more like this. Richard001 (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What is alive - edge cases
Would be worth some consideration of the "edge cases". For example, Viruses aren't "properly" living, and one might argue that Fire is "almost" alive, according to the definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Viruses are mentioned along with its controversy; and on the heading table, they are listed under non-cellular life. Regarding fire being alive, are you serious? Fire is the heat and light energy released during combustion. It matches not one requirement of life, although many cave-men might have disagreed with this. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Neomura and Unikonta
Both of these classifications are presently speculative, so really shouldn't be used in the main article on life as if these are the consensus view of biology. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Even more so for mentioned 'Extraterrestrial life.' -BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've deleted "Acytota" and "Aphanobionta" as words for viruses as well, since I can find no significant discussion of these words in any of the scientific literature. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Some feedback: This table is focused on the contemporary Domains (x3) and Kingdoms (x6). The displayed subdivisions of flagellates Bikonta & unikonta) down to specific species, adds confusion to this basic classification supposedly limited to Domains and Kingdoms.  In addition, the Kingdom of Plantae is displayed as as a genus of the phillum microphita (microscopic algae). I kindly suggest to actually display only the 3 Domains (bacteria, archea, eukarya) and the 6 Kingdoms (Eubacteria, archaebacteria, protista, fungi, plantae and animalia), like this: -BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as is indicated in this other table:

I think eubacteria and archaebacteria are historical names only, they weren't reclassified by the three-domain system but removed entirely. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected The word "consensus" is misspelled in the second sentence of the "Definitions" subsections: The concensus is that that life is a characteristic of organisms....Thanks for fixing! 75.161.233.85 (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ by, thanks for pointing that out! Icewedge (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was buggin me. 75.161.233.85 (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

First sentence
Instead of "Life is a state ...", more correct would be "Life is a process ..." Dr Oldekop (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection
The very nature of this article atracts a lot of vandals; I am requesting to protect this article again from edits by unregistered users. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally agree - I have requested this on two previous occasions too, but every time it subsequently becomes unprotected it gets frequently and regularly vandalised. Due to the very high profile nature of this topic, it needs to be semi-protected on a permanent basis. Different admins unprotect it 'just to see', but the result is always the same! --CharlesC (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested pro-definition of Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Faustnh/Prodefinition_Of_Life

--Faustnh (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

A physical definition of life based on information ratios
Knowing little of the literature, yet I have the effrontery to propose that life is fundamentally a phenomenon by which information expands and propagates itself.

An information structure, or organism, exists in an environment which is favorable (mild?) enough that the organism is able to maintain its own organization and preserve its core information kernel. The organism furthermore copies its information kernel, not necessarily with perfect accuracy, into the environment, producing new organisms. The complexity of the organism is measured partly by the information content of the kernel, but also by the information content of the environment in which it is able to survive and propagate, both being quantified in accordance with statistical mechanics and information theory.

The ratio, of the information content in the kernel to the information content in the necessary surrounding environment, gives a measure of the complexity of the organism, and its status in the Tree of life.

Some examples:


 * A prion may have an information content of about 1 bit (protein folded in one of two alternate configurations), and requires a complex organism (say a 1 GB cow) to inhabit, so its information ratio might be as little as 10-10.


 * A virus can survive and replicate in the environment of a living cell. The kernel/environment ratio might be tentatively said to be on the order of 1 MByte/1 GByte, or 0.001. (It might be better to express these ratios in logarithmic form; -10 in base 2).


 * A computer virus, with a length of 1 MB, living in a (machine/operating system) environment of 1 GB, might come in at 0.001, like a natural virus.


 * An environment lately discovered at a depth of ≥2 km in a gold mine in South Africa seems to contain only a single species of sulfate-reducing bacteria, living in a purely mineral environment.  Here the determination of the information ratio appears particularly simple and feasible to evaluate.


 * A human can survive in a very wide range of environments, much less restrictive than a virus requires. The genetic information content in the (individual) human kernel may be on the order of 1 GB.  The environmental information is more difficult to quantify (though it should be possible in principle) but it is clearly much less restrictive than for a virus, so the information content should be correspondingly less.  Since humans can inhabit a wider range of environments than any other form of life we know, it appears that the environmental information for homo sapiens is actually likely to be less than for any other life form yet observed.

The above schema has the consequence that organisms must have an energy source in order to copy their information kernel, by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, from the viewpoint of statistical mechanics and information theory. For classical biology, this means organisms must metabolize. It also requires that the environment be not in thermal equilibrium, but must present sources of free energy that can be used to support this organizational necessity. Absent perfect accuracy of kernel copying and preservation, it also brings the evolution of organisms and species diversification along as a natural consequence. This idea in principle appears to allow a natural path to the classification of life forms, natural and artificial, terrestrial and alien, into a physically-based hierarchy of complexity.

The chief difficulty I see lies in the accurate quantification of the information contents required. This in turn inevitably involves the boundaries one draws in specifying the environment and the organism, introducing an element of ambiguity. What is the organism? What is the environment? Should we include one organism, or the entire species? A single organism often cannot survive, and, if sexual, cannot reproduce. A hive of bees is a superorganism, and as such fits naturally into this system. But its environment must include flowers and all that is needed to support them. A modern malware computer virus may require the entire World Wide Web to thrive. A human floating in a spacesuit has a particularly simple environment, but perhaps we ought to consider the industrial infrastructure that is required to support him before being too quick. The Gaia Hypothesis proposes that the entire planetary system of Earth is a single living organism. Obviously its information content is huge, and its environmental specification is uniquely simple. Fundamentally it appears to me that the organism should be defined broadly enough so that it is able to reproduce and grow independently, and the environment should include every external thing necessary to support the survival of the life-form, but nothing beyond that minimal requirement. But, considering the environment and organism together as a physical system, the boundary one chooses to draw between the environment and the organism seems unclear, possibly essentially so.

I apologize for what probably appears to be flagrant original research, but I actually expect there must be much in the literature (with which I am only slightly familiar) that is relevant to the above arguments. If it can be sourced, then so much as may be would be allowable for this article. Thus I appeal to other more expert editors for comments and suggestions along these lines. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you consider that the basic unit of ife is the cell, then one has less cumbersome concepts to juggle with. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, but since the fields of cellular biology, microbiology, and all that builds on them, are huge and already well covered in Wikipedia, it seems to me that "Life" alone might well aspire to a more general definition, less dependent on a particular physical realization or substrate. Wwheaton (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One can not vest an object with life by simply changing its definition. One could propose a unilateral and marginal theory to include objects such as prions and computer software, but it would be fringe science -at best. The scientific consensus is recorded in the article, although it could be written much better, I believe is accurate.-BatteryIncluded (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive request
I am requesting a consensus to archive this talk page, as it has grown too large, difficult to navigate, and contains obsolete discussion. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)