Moved thread: Ron Paul Doesn't Accept Evolution

[athon]

Wrong example.
Burning applies to trees, not to molecules.
Trees burn, molecules do not.
Cells undergo mitosis, Catholic priests do not.

Burning is an exothermic reaction defined by the addition of oxygen to form a novel compound (putting it simply). Saying it doesn't apply to molecules is blatant nonsense. However, stating that a tree burns is completely understood to be a collective observation of this phenomena, just as 'the crowd cried out' is understood to be 'people in the crowd cried out', and 'the flock flew south for the winter' means 'the birds that made up the flock flew south for the winter'.

Again, having you endeavour to teach us about the subtle nuances of the English language when you have such a weak grasp of it yourself is rather laughable.

I again assume you have no intention of explaining what relevance your nonsense rebuttals have to the criteria I proposed? Fine. Then obviously they've been a waste of time.

Athon

[Matteo Martini]

Conclusions
The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Globule

[Matteo Martini]

Ah, sorry, my fault. It wasn't the way you phrased it that made a difference. The first time you asked I didn't consider reproduction at the cellular to be relevant. Since then the thread focused on this particular issue, and I read the second question in a different context.


I beg to underline that I have not talked about reproduction at the cellular (level)


If mitosis means that the priest's cells regenerate themselves, my answer is yes.

Then, about "If mitosis means that (some of) the priest's cells regenerate themselves", also my answer is yes.
But, my question is another one

[Matteo Martini]

Burning is an exothermic reaction defined by the addition of oxygen to form a novel compound (putting it simply). Saying it doesn't apply to molecules is blatant nonsense. [..]

I did not say that
I said that molecules do not burn

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
What is your point, then?

Athon

That you can not have strict criteria about what is life and what is not, which work 100% of the time

[Matteo Martini]

Sure there is. He's this jolly old fat guy who delivers presents to all the good boys and girls in the world in the space of 24 hours once every year. Which (a) doesn't happen and (b) is impossible, therefore Santa Claus does not exist.


24 hours?


[..]
Then they also undergo mitosis.


No.
Some of their body cells do.


Molecules don't burn?

No.

[athon]

That you can not have strict criteria about what is life and what is not, which work 100% of the time

Then provide a single example! This is insane. The only example you can give is Eunuchs and Catholic priests, which don't produce offspring...but you then agree that producing offspring isn't part of the criteria. Then you desperately try to insinuate some semantic problem with the way the criteria is phrased in spite of the fact your command of the English language is clearly inferior to ours.

So, again, clearly give an example of an organism which does not subscribe to all of those criteria. The simple truth is you can't, so you hide behind word games and silly childishness.

Athon

[zooterkin]

That you can not have strict criteria about what is life and what is not, which work 100% of the time
Who said you could? Or rather, who said we have, yet? Especially since we have yet to see what life on other planets may look like.

24 hours?

No, more like 31 hours (http://www.religioustolerance.org/santa2.htm).




No.
Some of their body cells do.
If this is really all you're arguing, please stop. Yes, you might argue that 'undergoing mitosis' applies to the whole organism, which is plainly incorrect. On the other hand, since mitosis is defined as something which happens to a cell, it's clear that it applies to the cell of the priest or eunuch or strawman.





No.

If burning does not happen at the molecular level, what do you think is happening? (Wikipedia is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion).)

[athon]

No.

Again, you're digging your hole deeper and deeper, showing you know less and less about anything:

Combustion (http://www.answers.com/topic/combustion?cat=health) (the process of burning)

n.
The process of burning.
A chemical change, especially oxidation, accompanied by the production of heat and light.
Violent anger or agitation: Combustion within the populace slowly built up to the point of revolution.In its broad definition, combustion includes fast exothermic (http://www.answers.com/topic/exothermic) chemical reactions, generally in the gas phase but not excluding the reaction of solid carbon with a gaseous oxidant.

So molecules don't burn? Aren't you even a little bit embarrassed by your ignorance?

Athon

[athon]

Who said you could? Or rather, who said we have, yet? Especially since we have yet to see what life on other planets may look like.

To be fair, I have. I've argued that the criteria I proposed for life (several pages back...I'd need to find them again) suits all life on this planet. There are some interesting discussions to be had on the particulars, such as what constitutes a single system, etc., but Matteo hasn't gotten past word games to even touch on them. It's easy to see why when one looks at his level of understanding of biology and chemistry...or English for that matter.

As for whether life on other planets might subscribe to these criteria, my argument is that if they don't, what about them might lead us to believe they can be considered 'alive'?

Athon

[zooterkin]

To be fair, I have. I've argued that the criteria I proposed for life (several pages back...I'd need to find them again) suits all life on this planet. There are some interesting discussions to be had on the particulars, such as what constitutes a single system, etc., but Matteo hasn't gotten past word games to even touch on them.


Indeed; as I remember from school, there are things which test the limits of the definition, and these may be worthy of a separate discussion, but not the naive examples that MM has used. For example, some consider viruses to be alive, when they plainly do not fulfil all the criteria, and some bacteria rely on hosts to provide some of the functions of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life).


As for whether life on other planets might subscribe to these criteria, my argument is that if they don't, what about them might lead us to believe they can be considered 'alive'?

If there is something, then I suspect it will be something unexpected, so hard to speculate. :) As we explore just our own solar system, we constantly find surprises in areas we thought we knew what the answer would be.

[athon]

Indeed; as I remember from school, there are things which test the limits of the definition, and these may be worthy of a separate discussion, but not the naive examples that MM has used. For example, some consider viruses to be alive, when they plainly do not fulfil all the criteria, and some bacteria rely on hosts to provide some of the functions of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life).

I find it interesting that all this time I'm expecting the virus as an example to come up...and he says 'Eunuchs'. I mean...wtf?

Viruses are indeed tricky, but then they can't exist independent of a living system. It's a living factor which seems to exist 'between' individual organisms, which is why I've tried to be clear that the boundaries of what constitutes an individual are vague. I still have no answers as to where such boundaries necessarily lie for any one organism. That is something I think makes for fascinating discussion.

If there is something, then I suspect it will be something unexpected, so hard to speculate. :) As we explore just our own solar system, we constantly find surprises in areas we thought we knew what the answer would be.

Indeed. However, if we find such a phenomena that is totally unexpected, there must still be some criteria by which we say 'Jesus Christ! That thing is alive!'. At its core, I can't see how we could do that and not observe those criteria which all life on this planet can be reduced to. There could be all sorts of amazing things happening in addition to those events, and there could be mind-blowing ways they are accomplished...but I fail to see that if it doesn't do those things how we could still come close to wanting to describing it as living, especially given the argument on something so close to being alive - viruses.

Athon

[Kotatsu]

Ouch. I fear that's way over my head. :boggled:

Oops, sorry^^. I just meant that your interpretation of Matteo's stance did not mean sexual individuals were not alive, because they produce sperms and eggs (s.l., which still qualify as self-replication.

Fortunately, that point wasn't part of my actual argument. I think all else being equal, if human cells were static during the lifetime of an adult individual (assuming for a moment that this is possible), humans would still qualify as a form of life.

Yes, of course. Counting humans as life by athon's criteria does not hinge on their cells reproducing themselves, but on something doing it. If they were static but still produced gametes (eggs and sperms) by some mechanism, they would still be replicating themselves imperfectly.

As they show that mitotic division applies to cells, not to Catholic priests.

And where, pray, does either of us argue against this?

Well, we have to determine who is Santa Claus in first place.
As there is no clear definition on that too.

So what's the clear definition of the homogenizing force?

We have no evidence for such a force, and have evidence against such a force. But still you seem to feel we cannot dismiss it. Why is that?

Since mitosis is the division of cells, some cells of Catholic priests undergo mitosis.

I think it would be more correct to state that most of the cells undergo mitosis.

I understand where you're coming from since I had the same point of view originally. However, even if you believe this, the cells themselves are life, and the organism would be a population of cells. No matter what, we would still have found something alive.

That is an excellent point!

Conclusions
The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.

I fail to see the relevance of this quote. How is TalkOrigin's correct observation on the silliness of calculating probabilities for the occurrence of life at all relevant to a discussion on how probable it is for that life, once it has occurred, to be similar to Earth life? It does not even address the same points!

[Matteo Martini]

Again, you're digging your hole deeper and deeper, showing you know less and less about anything:

Combustion (http://www.answers.com/topic/combustion?cat=health) (the process of burning)

[/LIST]

So molecules don't burn?

No, no and no.
They do not


Aren't you even a little bit embarrassed by your ignorance?

Athon

I am not ignorant.
Molecules do not burn

[Matteo Martini]

Who said you could? Or rather, who said we have, yet? Especially since we have yet to see what life on other planets may look like.


You have to tell "Especially since we have yet to see what life on other planets may look like" to other people here (Kotatsu, DrKitten and Belz), who claim to be able to make definite predictions about how life would look like in other planets


No, more like 31 hours (http://www.religioustolerance.org/santa2.htm).


Go tell PixyMisa
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3337081&postcount=1250


If this is really all you're arguing, please stop. Yes, you might argue that 'undergoing mitosis' applies to the whole organism, which is plainly incorrect.

This is what I am arguing about.


On the other hand, since mitosis is defined as something which happens to a cell, it's clear that it applies to the cell of the priest or eunuch or strawman.


I have tried to clarify this point many times, but got insulted (kind of)


If burning does not happen at the molecular level, what do you think is happening? (Wikipedia is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion).)

I never said that "burning does not happen at the molecular level".
I have said "molecules do not burn"

[Matteo Martini]

Then provide a single example! This is insane. The only example you can give is Eunuchs and Catholic priests, which don't produce offspring...but you then agree that producing offspring isn't part of the criteria.

Yes, as this is not the criterion you wrote in your post 1120.


Then you desperately try to insinuate some semantic problem with the way the criteria is phrased in spite of the fact your command of the English language is clearly inferior to ours.


I am doing copy and paste of what you have written


So, again, clearly give an example of an organism which does not subscribe to all of those criteria. The simple truth is you can't, so you hide behind word games and silly childishness.
Athon

An eunuch, for example.

[athon]

Yes, as this is not the criterion you wrote in your post 1120.
It is the result of replicating chemistry and has replicating chemistry in its functioning.
*snip*
Eunuchs display replicating chemistry and are the result of replicating chemistry.

These are the only two criteria I posited in 1120.

Eunuchs are indeed the result of replicating chemistry - they are the result of a sperm (replicated cells deriving from germ cells) and an ova (female equivalent) uniting, forming a zygote...which replicates and differentiates. Eunuchs also have replicating chemistry in their functioning - nearly every cell in their body, in fact.

The amazing thing is that it's there for the linking. No subterfuge - nothing. Everybody is free to judge.

Again, how do Eunuchs contradict this criterion?

I am not ignorant.
Molecules do not burn

Life is so much simpler when you ignore inconvenient facts. I assume you didn't read the evidence? Yeah, it's annoying when science doesn't agree with you, I know. But I guess that's why you're ignorant in the first place.

Now, these are the original criteria:

It facilitates the translocation of structures or chemicals (movement)
It generates imperfect copies of its chemistry (reproduction)
It responds to environmental change (senses)
It assimilates chemicals from its immediate environment into its own chemistry (growth and nutrition)
It directly uses energy to change its chemistry (respiration)
It dispels chemicals it no longer has use of (excretes)

It's number two you seem to have a big problem with. You're hung up on the fact I later complicated it with '...and is the result of complicated chemistry'. I fail to see how something that generates replications of its own chemistry could possibly result from something that couldn't replicate its own chemistry, hence it's implicit in the criteria. I know this is a little hard for somebody without high school-level science education to grasp, but it's illogical to have it otherwise.

So, we'll make it simple for you and return to the original criteria; how do Eunuchs not generate imperfect copies of their chemistry?

Athon

[Matteo Martini]

As they show that mitotic division applies to cells, not to Catholic priests.


And where, pray, does either of us argue against this?


PixyMisa did:

[..]Do Catholic priests breathe?
Do Catholic priests digest food?
Do Catholic priests think? Speak? Urinate? Cry?

Then they also undergo mitosis.
[..]

You did:
Matteo: Do Catholic priests undergo mitosis??
The healthy ones do.


So what's the clear definition of the homogenizing force?


I have no idea.
You are the one who started to talk about this force, not me..


We have no evidence for such a force, and have evidence against such a force. But still you seem to feel we cannot dismiss it. Why is that?

I feel we can dismiss it, where "dismiss"=not talk about it and do not consider any "homogenizing force" in our discussions


I think it would be more correct to state that most of the cells undergo mitosis.


Yes, you are right


I fail to see the relevance of this quote. How is TalkOrigin's correct observation on the silliness of calculating probabilities for the occurrence of life at all relevant to a discussion on how probable it is for that life, once it has occurred, to be similar to Earth life? It does not even address the same points!

The point was not the same, but very close to, as they said we can not make definite predictions about life, etc.

[Kotatsu]

You have to tell "Especially since we have yet to see what life on other planets may look like" to other people here (Kotatsu, DrKitten and Belz), who claim to be able to make definite predictions about how life would look like in other planets

Yes, we do. We make definite predictions like "some should be autotrophic", "some may move around, and will do so by using appendages", "the worm bauplan is very useful", and "the chemical composition of these organisms is likely to differ from that of Earth organisms". These are hardly Earth-shaking predictions for which we have no evidence. You simply have no idea what they mean.

An eunuch, for example.

Seriously, a single eunuch is not an organism. A whole population of them could be argued to constitute an organism, but you would still have to take into account where they come from, and as one of the most endearing characteristics of a eunuch is that they do not reproduce, new eunuchs must come from some population that does. Thus, even collectively eunuchs do not constitute an organism.

[zooterkin]

I never said that "burning does not happen at the molecular level".
I have said "molecules do not burn"

I know you have; what do you think is happening then? And exactly what do you see as the difference between those two statements?

Combustion or burning is a complex sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat or both heat and light in the form of either a glow or flames.

What do you call what is happening to the molecules taking part in this reaction if not burning?

[Matteo Martini]

These are the only two criteria I posited in 1120.

Eunuchs are indeed the result of replicating chemistry - they are the result of a sperm (replicated cells deriving from germ cells) and an ova (female equivalent) uniting, forming a zygote...which replicates and differentiates. Eunuchs also have replicating chemistry in their functioning - nearly every cell in their body, in fact.

The amazing thing is that it's there for the linking. No subterfuge - nothing. Everybody is free to judge.

Again, how do Eunuchs contradict this criterion?



Life is so much simpler when you ignore inconvenient facts. I assume you didn't read the evidence? Yeah, it's annoying when science doesn't agree with you, I know. But I guess that's why you're ignorant in the first place.

Athon

I beg your pardon.
Your post, where you set the criteria, was number n. 1046, not 1120


[..]
Life is an interaction of complex chemistry which complies to the following criteria:

It facilitates the translocation of structures or chemicals (movement)
It generates imperfect copies of its chemistry (reproduction)
It responds to environmental change (senses)
It assimilates chemicals from its immediate environment into its own chemistry (growth and nutrition)
It directly uses energy to change its chemistry (respiration)
It dispels chemicals it no longer has use of (excretes)
[..]

Bold mine.

Post n. 1120 was the post in which you said eunuchs fulfill the criteria

[Matteo Martini]

I know you have; what do you think is happening then? And exactly what do you see as the difference between those two statements?


As the two statements:
"burning does not happen at the molecular level".
and
"molecules do not burn"
are different

The first is wrong and the second is right


What do you call what is happening to the molecules taking part in this reaction if not burning?

Is it oxidation??
Sorry, I may well be wrong, it is long time since I took the courses in University

[athon]

I beg your pardon.
Your post, where you set the criteria, was number n. 1046, not 1120

Bold mine.

Post n. 1120 was the post in which you said eunuchs fulfill the criteria

My apologies - I anticipated you might have erred there, and edited my post in view of that while you were writing.

Athon

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, we do. We make definite predictions like "some should be autotrophic", "some may move around, and will do so by using appendages", "the worm bauplan is very useful", and "the chemical composition of these organisms is likely to differ from that of Earth organisms". These are hardly Earth-shaking predictions for which we have no evidence. You simply have no idea what they mean.


I keep disagreeing.
You can not make absolute predictions about something you have never seen, not heard of, and you do not even know if it exists


Seriously, a single eunuch is not an organism.


WHAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!??????????
In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an individual living system (such as animal, plant, fungus or micro-organism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism
You are making fun of me, Kotatsu..

[Matteo Martini]

My apologies - I anticipated you might have erred there, and edited my post in view of that while you were writing.

Athon

No problem.
It was my fault, I forgot the right number of your post

[athon]

As the two statements:
"burning does not happen at the molecular level".
and
"molecules do not burn"
are different

The first is wrong and the second is right

Nope. Wrong and wrong. Molecules do indeed burn. Oxidation which creates heat and light is broadly termed 'burning'. I knew you didn't read the link I posted.

Is it oxidation??
Sorry, I may well be wrong, it is long time since I took the courses in University

And it seems you slept through it. Or just found it too hard, even then. Oxidation is the addition of oxygen, which could well result in something such as iron oxide. Yet rusting iron is not 'burning'. Oxidation of methane, on the other hand, is.

I love how you admit your weakness in science, which your readily admit you haven't studied for quite some time (I doubt at all, based on your posts), and yet people here who do it for a living you have the balls to contradict. Unbelievable. Arrogance and ignorance are always a volatile mixture.

Athon

[Matteo Martini]

Nope. Wrong and wrong. Molecules do indeed burn. Oxidation which creates heat and light is broadly termed 'burning'. I knew you didn't read the link I posted.


No, molecules do not burn
Combustion or burning is a complex sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat or both heat and light in the form of either a glow or flames.


And it seems you slept through it. Or just found it too hard, even then. Oxidation is the addition of oxygen, which could well result in something such as iron oxide. Yet rusting iron is not 'burning'. Oxidation of methane, on the other hand, is.

I love how you admit your weakness in science, which your readily admit you haven't studied for quite some time (I doubt at all, based on your posts), and yet people here who do it for a living you have the balls to contradict. Unbelievable. Arrogance and ignorance are always a volatile mixture.

Athon

As I said, I may be wrong on the oxidation point.
But, no, molecules do not burn
Athon, show me evidence that molecules burn, please.
Since you are there, show me evidence that Catholic priests undergo mitosis

[athon]

WHAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!??????????
In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an individual living system (such as animal, plant, fungus or micro-organism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism
You are making fun of me, Kotatsu..


Dare I say, I can understand why you're confused. The lay understanding is that a single entity is 'an organism'. In biology, the term for an individual would be 'a specimen'. For a type of living thing, such as 'lion' or 'earthworm', it is 'an organism'. One lion is no longer 'an organism'...but is referred to as 'a specimen'. It's a subtle difference in the use of the term inside the academia and outside of it.

Athon

[Matteo Martini]

[.]]One lion is no longer 'an organism'...[..]

In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an individual living system (such as animal, plant, fungus or micro-organism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

[Kotatsu]

PixyMisa did:
You did:
Matteo: Do Catholic priests undergo mitosis??

Neither of these quotes display ignorance on PixyMisa's or my part on where exactly the mitotic division occurs. No one here has denied that it is the cells that undergo mitotic division. However as we are familiar with how the English language is used in the biological sciences, we can claim both that the individual cells undergo mitosis, and that the individual these cells form undergo mitosis, because that is how the phrase "undergo mitosis" is used. It is as simple as that.

To use a less contestable example, it is like the difference between:

1) Solution X and solution Y react, forming solution Z.
2) Some of the molecules in solution X react with some of the molecules in solution Y, and these molecules for compound Z, which remains in solution.

These two sentences mean the same. If I say #1, that does not mean that I think #2 is false. It means that I understand the subject well enough to be able to use shorthand phrases for the things I am talking about. It also means that I assume my interlocutors are sufficiently well versed in the subject, too, to understand this. At no point is #2 correct while #1 is false, however, because of the way people use language

I feel we can dismiss it, where "dismiss"=not talk about it and do not consider any "homogenizing force" in our discussions

There are really only two possibilities. When I (and drkitten, and Belz, and WHOEVER) line up a great deal of evidence for why it is infeasible that life on other planets will be similar, or even identical, to life on Earth. One is to look at the variables involved, and reach the same conclusion. The other is to look at them and ask, "How can you be sure the same thing won't happen again?" or "You are making a lot of assumptions here with no evidence" or something similar.

You are doing the latter. That requires some reason for believing that the overwhelming odds against two similar biota occurring independently twice --- or even more --- are somehow countered, or that the odds are not as high as it appears in the evidence presented. Now, I can think of several such reasons, but I want to hear what your reason is. Why do you believe that the chances of non-Earth life being similar or identical to Earth life is sufficiently large that we do wrong to dismiss it?

If you don't believe it is, then stop saying it is.

The point was not the same, but very close to, as they said we can not make definite predictions about life, etc.

But their argument is for an entirely different discussion. We --- or at least you and I --- have hitherto assumed that life on other planets is possible. We have not discussed the likelihood of life occurring at all --- and the likelihood is demonstrably 1 --- only what is likely or unlikely to happen with that life once it has already occurred. We presuppose their discussion, and concentrate on what happens afterwards.

It is wrong to use the kind of probability calculation they are talking about, but that is a completely different probability calculation than what we are discussing. Some things are perfectly okay to predict. One of them is that life on other planets will contain autotrophic organisms. If it doesn't we'll have violated the first law of thermodynamics, because these organisms would then have the ability to do work without requiring energy; they'd either be able to create energy from nothing, or do work entirely without using energy, in a sort of energetic vacuum.

[Matteo Martini]

Neither of these quotes display ignorance on PixyMisa's or my part on where exactly the mitotic division occurs. No one here has denied that it is the cells that undergo mitotic division. However as we are familiar with how the English language is used in the biological sciences, we can claim both that the individual cells undergo mitosis, and that the individual these cells form undergo mitosis, because that is how the phrase "undergo mitosis" is used. It is as simple as that.


I have given at least 20 links with definition of "mitosis" from authoritative sites.
All of them defined "mitosis" as a process which involves cells
None of them defined "mitosis" as a process which macro-organisms/people undergo, etc.
I agree that you may use the the terms mitosis as applied to people in a colloquial way, but that is imprecise, and not matches the official definition of "mitosis"

I will reply later to the other points

[Kotatsu]

In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an individual living system (such as animal, plant, fungus or micro-organism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

Seriously, you need to stop relying on Wikipedia as if that was the epitome of truth.

Athon has given you a perfect reason why we seem to misunderstand each other. A single individual would be exactly that, an individual, or a specimen if you are doing some kind of research on it. I collect individuals of some organisms (lice), which then turn into specimens and, if I am lucky, types. An organism is sort of a collective noun; a single individual, while being part of an organism, is not an organism.

Why do you have problems with accepting how actual biologists tell you they use a biological term?

[athon]

No, molecules do not burn
Combustion or burning is a complex sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat or both heat and light in the form of either a glow or flames.
As I said, I may be wrong on the oxidation point.
But, no, molecules do not burn
Athon, show me evidence that molecules burn, please.

I have already done so, and you didn't even bother looking at it. My link stated: A chemical change, especially oxidation, accompanied by the production of heat and light.

This - even a rather broad definition - states explicitly that it is a chemical change. A change in the chemicals! Molecules oxidising, accompanied by the production of heat and light. It gets no more straight forward. But again, I can see why you'd ignore this and fabricate your own definitions.

Since you are there, show me evidence that Catholic priests undergo mitosis

Drop the stupid word game! It's over, Matteo. You're clinging to a life-raft which died and sunk pages back. Nobody is fooled; you don't have a single person who agrees with you. Your game is the equivalent of saying that 'A man doesn't walk, his legs do', or something equally infantile.

Again, how does a Eunuch - as a collection of replicating cells - not reproduce his own chemistry? Your word games, remember, don't cut it.

Athon

[Kotatsu]

I have given at least 20 links with definition of "mitosis" from authoritative sites.
All of them defined "mitosis" as a process which involves cells

And as I have said, over and over again, no one is disputing this. Please, go back a few pages and reread the post I wrote yesterday where I contrasted mitosis and meiosis to architomy and paratomy.

None of them defined "mitosis" as a process which macro-organisms/people undergo, etc.
I agree that you may use the the terms mitosis as applied to people in a colloquial way, but that is imprecise, and not matches the official definition of "mitosis"

It is not merely a colloquial way; it is a correct way. Like PixyMisa said, individuals do not digest, digestive organs digest. Therefore, can I assume that you do not digest your food?

[athon]

In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an individual living system (such as animal, plant, fungus or micro-organism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

You seriously have your head wedged so far up your...

I swear you're the type who'd tell your mechanic how to fix your car, or your surgeon how to operate, or your electrician how to wire your house. Without having a single clue as to what you're talking about, you'd contradict them.

Kotatsu happens to be a biologist, and a damn good one from what I've read. I myself am a science communicator - it's what I do every single day. Read papers, look at media reports, speak with scientists from all manner of fields. I write articles which scientists in the field then read, and can easily contradict me where I screw up. And you then feel wikipaedia and a primary school level of science education has given you enough understanding to make these outlandish statements, and blatantly make stuff up that you seriously have no experience in.

Try stopping and thinking for a moment, Matteo. I don't think you could repair the reputation you've forged for yourself in this thread, but you might regather a little bit of respect if you were to address the real issue instead of playing silly semantics games. Give it one more shot.

Athon

[Matteo Martini]

Seriously, you need to stop relying on Wikipedia as if that was the epitome of truth.

Athon has given you a perfect reason why we seem to misunderstand each other. A single individual would be exactly that, an individual, or a specimen if you are doing some kind of research on it. I collect individuals of some organisms (lice), which then turn into specimens and, if I am lucky, types. An organism is sort of a collective noun; a single individual, while being part of an organism, is not an organism.

Why do you have problems with accepting how actual biologists tell you they use a biological term?

Come on!!
Kotatsu, I know you know a lion is an "organism".
You and Athon are just making fun of me, right?
And I thought you were serious, come on!!

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary
Main Entry: or·gan·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈȯr-gə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1774
1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole
2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/organism

[Matteo Martini]

You seriously have your head wedged so far up your...

I swear you're the type who'd tell your mechanic how to fix your car, or your surgeon how to operate, or your electrician how to wire your house. Without having a single clue as to what you're talking about, you'd contradict them.

Kotatsu happens to be a biologist, and a damn good one from what I've read. [..]

This is why I can not believe he really means what he says.
He must be doing some sort of game with me, something like, let`s see this guy how long can keep up things.
But, I know he knows that priests do not undergo mitosis and that an animal is an organism.
I have no doubt

[Matteo Martini]

And as I have said, over and over again, no one is disputing this. Please, go back a few pages and reread the post I wrote yesterday where I contrasted mitosis and meiosis to architomy and paratomy.


No.
You said and repeated that priests undergo mitosis, while I kept repeating to you that they do not, while most part of their body cells do


It is not merely a colloquial way; it is a correct way. Like PixyMisa said, individuals do not digest, digestive organs digest. Therefore, can I assume that you do not digest your food?

No.
I have given you at least 20 sites, none of them speaks about mitosis as happening to invididuals, all of them speak about mitosis as happening to cells.
And I have not cherry picked any site, I went to Google, typed "mitosis", and went through all the results from 1 to 50 (yes, I have time to waste).

[Matteo Martini]

I have already done so, and you didn't even bother looking at it. My link stated: A chemical change, especially oxidation, accompanied by the production of heat and light.


"A chemical change, especially oxidation, accompanied by the production of heat and light"
different from
"molecules burn"


[..]
Drop the stupid word game! It's over, Matteo. You're clinging to a life-raft which died and sunk pages back. Nobody is fooled; you don't have a single person who agrees with you. Your game is the equivalent of saying that 'A man doesn't walk, his legs do', or something equally infantile.
[..]

I quoted some 20 links.
I can quote more.
Quote me a link that says that priests undergo mitosis

[athon]

TBut, I know he knows that priests do not undergo mitosis and that an animal is an organism.


You 'know'. Sure, Matteo. That's why you're ignorant, and will remain that way. You already know, and nobody can tell you otherwise. You won't hear of explanations, read links, or consider anything else. Because you already know. People who do this for a living couldn't possibly know as much as you, even though you barely have any experience in the field at all. Because you already know. I don't know what you do for a living (if anything at all), but I'm sure you'd be laughing hard if somebody who had zero experience in it came in and told you how to do your job.

Why do you bother? You already know it all, Matteo. :rolleyes:

Athon

[Matteo Martini]

You 'know'. Sure, Matteo. That's why you're ignorant, and will remain that way. You already know, and nobody can tell you otherwise. You won't hear of explanations, read links, or consider anything else. [..]

Did you post any link at all?

[athon]

"A chemical change, especially oxidation, accompanied by the production of heat and light"
different from
"molecules burn"

How is it different? 'Burn' = chemicals oxidising + heat + light That's the definition. Just closing your eyes and saying 'no' won't change that truth.\

I quoted some 20 links.
I can quote more.
Quote me a link that says that priests undergo mitosis

Which have nothing to do with the issue that you're playing word games. Keep it up - you've lost all hope, and now you're struggling by maintaining you've presented something.

Do you have anything of substance, or will we leave you to your semantic plays on words which you evidentally don't understand?

Athon

[Kotatsu]

Come on!!
Kotatsu, I know you know a lion is an "organism".
You and Athon are just making fun of me, right?
And I thought you were serious, come on!!

"Organism" is a slippery word, I am starting to feel. If you brought me a lion, and asked me, "Is this an organism?", I would say yes. The same applies to a eunuch, a Catholic priest, or any kind of living thing. However, and I'm having real problems expressing this distinction, we would not mean the same thing.

I would see that lion first of all as an individual, a specimen, or a type, depending on what I would actually be doing with it. I would say that "organism" is a more conceptual term, like the Biblical "kind" or so. It's an informal taxonomic level which can mean just about anything, but which is outside the system, and does not describe the system.

It is not synonymous with "taxon", of course, as "taxon" can be on every level, whereas "organism" can be only on some levels (mainly species level). But neither is it synonymous with "life" or "living thing", really, as that seems to be operating on another level as well. Yet all of these terms have the same ambiguity about them. If you asked me, "Is this lion a taxon?", I would be in the same position. It is part of a taxon, but it is also not a taxon. If you asked me, "Is this lion life?" (a strange and stupid way to phrase it, but I guess you get the point), I would, again, be in the same position. The lion is undoubtedly life, but it is also not life.

I am starting to feel that the question, "Is X an organism?" can have two possible and equally true answers: "Yes", and "No". The distinction is minute, and hardly relevant in most contexts. However, it arises because the question can be interpreted in two ways. Perhaps I can express it this way, by changing the words and thereby highlighting the difference:

1) Does this lion constitute an organism?
2) Is this lion a representative of an organism?

#1 is the one I perceive you are asking me, Matteo, and the answer to that would have to be, "No", because a single lion does not constitute an organism, as I use and understand that word. However, I think you believe you are asking me #2, to which the answer is, with equal vehemence, "Yes!". And because we perceive it differently --- if we do --- we get this controversy, and my answer seems ludicrous to you, while yours seems ludicrous to me.

"Organism", to me, works, as I said, on a different level. If I say that an individual lion is an organism, what I mean is that it is part of a group, and that the abstract concept of that group is an organism. But the individual lion would be an individual, a specimen, a type, and so on. I would not say that it is an organism, but I would say that it is part of a concept called an organism.

Also, and I have no data to back this up, I think part of it is that I am trained to think in plural in this case. I think the most common usage of "organism" is "organisms". We say things like, "There are many different organisms living in environment X", or "Many organisms use X as a food source", or something similar. And in these cases, "organisms" refer to different species; it operates on a different level than "organism". The "many organisms" that use a zebra as a source of food is not a collection of lions, but refers to lions, hyenas, vultures, jackals, and whatever else may use the zebra. This is closer to how I want to use "organism", as some informal version of the Biblical "kinds". And when this plural version is made singular, a single lion is not an organism. "Lion" is an organism, but "this lion" is not.

As you can see, I have been thinking about this a lot, and as I said, I have a hard time putting my thoughts into words. I think I have made it as clear as I could possibly do it, but I also know that it's just a horrible mish-mash of thoughts and statements, but that's the best I can do.

ETA:
I thought of this while going to buy lunch, and came up with the following:
A single lion as a physical entity does not constitute an organism, but an individual. However, at the same time that single lion is a representative of the concept of "lion", and that concept is an organism; therefore, the lion is also an organism in some kind of transferred sense. Does this make sense?

[Kotatsu]

But, I know he knows that priests do not undergo mitosis and that an animal is an organism.
I have no doubt

For the second part, see my last post. I think I have been oversimplifying my position unconsciously. However, as I have said over and over again, priests undergo mitosis, but not architomy.

No.
You said and repeated that priests undergo mitosis, while I kept repeating to you that they do not, while most part of their body cells do

And you are right. We both are, because one does not preclude the other. It is a case of priests undergoing mitosis because their cells do it. If the cells didn't undergo mitosis, the priests wouldn't either.

No.
I have given you at least 20 sites, none of them speaks about mitosis as happening to invididuals, all of them speak about mitosis as happening to cells.
And I have not cherry picked any site, I went to Google, typed "mitosis", and went through all the results from 1 to 50 (yes, I have time to waste).

Please don't go all Kleinman on me... Yes, your citations show that mitosis happens on the cellular level, and not on the individual level. However, this does not make me wrong, because I have never said anything which is in opposition to this. You characterise my position as though I held that priests undergo architomy, not mitosis. I hold no such position, I am just using a different phrasing than you do.

[Belz...]

As they show that mitotic division applies to cells, not to Catholic priests.

How do you explain this comment of yours, since it's already been explained to you ?

[Belz...]

Since mitosis is the division of cells, some cells of Catholic priests undergo mitosis.

I repeat: people do not digest food.

What a ridiculous point to be pedantic about, Matteo.

Burning applies to trees, not to molecules.
Trees burn, molecules do not.

Pray tell, then. What do molecules do ?

Conclusions

Those aren't your conclusions. You had them in the first place.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, [B]it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two

Although we know the number of different possibilities are very, very high.

Or have you missed that, already ?

I'm still waiting for you to post evidence for the existence of a homogenizing force.

[Belz...]

No, no and no.
They do not

I am not ignorant.
Molecules do not burn

"La la la la la !!"

An eunuch, for example.

For pete's sake, Matteo, drop this line of argument. It makes you look like Claus Larsen!

Post n. 1120 was the post in which you said eunuchs fulfill the criteria

And they do, since they generate copies of their chemistry.

I feel we can dismiss it, where "dismiss"=not talk about it and do not consider any "homogenizing force" in our discussions

Good! So, since you agree that the odds are very, very high, without such a force, that life from other worlds would be necessarily different from life on Earth, I believe the subject is closed.

[Belz...]

Kotatsu happens to be a biologist, and a damn good one from what I've read. I myself am a science communicator - it's what I do every single day. Read papers, look at media reports, speak with scientists from all manner of fields. I write articles which scientists in the field then read, and can easily contradict me where I screw up. And you then feel wikipaedia and a primary school level of science education has given you enough understanding to make these outlandish statements, and blatantly make stuff up that you seriously have no experience in.

This is why I can not believe he really means what he says.
He must be doing some sort of game with me, something like, let`s see this guy how long can keep up things.

"I know he knows more than I do, so I can't say he's WRONG, but since I disagree with him, it MUST be joke, at the very least."

Gold.

You said and repeated that priests undergo mitosis

And explained why...

"A chemical change, especially oxidation, accompanied by the production of heat and light"
different from
"molecules burn"

How so, since "burn" means "A chemical change, especially oxidation, accompanied by the production of heat and light" ?

[Old man]

Kotatsu, Belz, Athon, I’m about ready to nominate you folks for godhood!

I don’t know how you guys can be so patient in the face of such mindless, arrogant, hideous, and willful ignorance.

I follow this thread for two reasons –

It engenders the same kind of fascination that a train wreck does,

and, much more importantly,

I learn so much from all of you!

Keep on fighting the good fight. Your words do not fall only on deaf ears.

I have a hard time putting my thoughts into words. I think I have made it as clear as I could possibly do it, but I also know that it's just a horrible mish-mash of thoughts and statements, but that's the best I can do.
Believe me, Kotatsu, it’s not “a horrible mish-mash”. It’s clear, it’s thoughtful, and it’s elegantly written.

Matteo, do you use these same kinds of arguments in face to face conversations? :jaw-dropp

[Kotatsu]

Kotatsu, Belz, Athon, I’m about ready to nominate you folks for godhood!

Keep on fighting the good fight. Your words do not fall only on deaf ears.

Believe me, Kotatsu, it’s not “a horrible mish-mash”. It’s clear, it’s thoughtful, and it’s elegantly written.

Thank you! Last week or so, I was lamenting to UnrepentantSinner in the chat room that it felt more or less like only Matteo, US and I were reading the thread, and that I really would like to have more feedback --- of all kinds! And then I get it, and I really appreciate it! And I like the fact that more people are participating, as well.

[volatile]

Where's the chat room?

I'm following. It reminds me of my own attempts to explain philosophy to Henners, but better. Much respect to you guys.

[Kotatsu]

Where's the chat room?

I'm following. It reminds me of my own attempts to explain philosophy to Henners, but better. Much respect to you guys.

Here it is! (http://www.randi.org/chat/)

I've only used it a handful of times myself but have found it to be a pleasant experience every time.

[athon]

Kotatsu, Belz, Athon, I’m about ready to nominate you folks for godhood!

I don’t know how you guys can be so patient in the face of such mindless, arrogant, hideous, and willful ignorance.

I follow this thread for two reasons –

It engenders the same kind of fascination that a train wreck does,

and, much more importantly,

I learn so much from all of you!

Keep on fighting the good fight. Your words do not fall only on deaf ears.


Believe me, Kotatsu, it’s not “a horrible mish-mash”. It’s clear, it’s thoughtful, and it’s elegantly written.

Matteo, do you use these same kinds of arguments in face to face conversations? :jaw-dropp

Thanks. Personally, I don't persevere in threads like these to change the antagonist's mind. That won't happen. Matteo made it clear pages back that he's not interested in productive discussion, but rather this be a game of 'find the deviations in the meaning of the word'. Belz likened him to Larsen, and I think it's a perfect comparison.

However productive discussion can still result. I also learn heaps of stuff, and often hope to be corrected by somebody who is more experienced than me in the field.

Cheers,

Athon

[Matteo Martini]

For the second part, see my last post. I think I have been oversimplifying my position unconsciously. However, as I have said over and over again, priests undergo mitosis, but not architomy.


Again, do we agree that, by the (dictionary) definition of "mitosis", only cells undergo "mitosis"?
I can understand, and I take your word for it, as you are the biologist here, that you may use the word "mitosis" as for organisms that have cells that undergo mitosis.
Do we agree on this?


And you are right. We both are, because one does not preclude the other. It is a case of priests undergoing mitosis because their cells do it. If the cells didn't undergo mitosis, the priests wouldn't either.


Well, I am aware that you can not say that all the cells of the priest undergo mitotic division, while most of them do.
Anyway, you will conceed that the term "mitosis" is more properly applied to the cells of the
organism, not to the organism himself.
At least, from the dictionary definition.


Please don't go all Kleinman on me... Yes, your citations show that mitosis happens on the cellular level, and not on the individual level. However, this does not make me wrong, because I have never said anything which is in opposition to this. You characterise my position as though I held that priests undergo architomy, not mitosis. I hold no such position, I am just using a different phrasing than you do.

How can you say that I am helding that you say that priests undergo architomy, when I have never said such a word in my life?

[Matteo Martini]

"Organism" is a slippery word, I am starting to feel. If you brought me a lion, and asked me, "Is this an organism?", I would say yes. The same applies to a eunuch, a Catholic priest, or any kind of living thing.

[..]

1) Does this lion constitute an organism?
2) Is this lion a representative of an organism?

#1 is the one I perceive you are asking me, Matteo, and the answer to that would have to be, "No", because a single lion does not constitute an organism, as I use and understand that word. [..]

I do not get the difference between the first part and the second (bolded)
First you say that you would call a (particular) lion and organism, then you say you would not

[Paulhoff]

As they show that mitotic division applies to cells, not to Catholic priests.
That are MADE OF CELLS.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Matteo Martini]

That are MADE OF CELLS.

Paul

:) :) :)

What a nice avatar you have!!

[danielk]

I do not get the difference between the first part and the second (bolded)
First you say that you would call a (particular) lion and organism, then you say you would not
I think this is the key:
A single lion as a physical entity does not constitute an organism, but an individual. However, at the same time that single lion is a representative of the concept of "lion", and that concept is an organism; therefore, the lion is also an organism in some kind of transferred sense. Does this make sense?

Funnily enough, the biological term "organism" appears to match what I called "the model of an individual of a species" in my longish post a few pages ago. In that light, I'm curious whether the criteria for life are applied to the organism or to the specimen. Or is either allowed?

[Elizabeth I]

Dare I say, I can understand why you're confused. The lay understanding is that a single entity is 'an organism'. In biology, the term for an individual would be 'a specimen'. For a type of living thing, such as 'lion' or 'earthworm', it is 'an organism'. One lion is no longer 'an organism'...but is referred to as 'a specimen'. It's a subtle difference in the use of the term inside the academia and outside of it.

Athon

I just want to clarify this for myself - so the set of all lions is the organism "lion"? Is it kind of like a Platonic ideal?

Kotatsu, Belz, Athon, I’m about ready to nominate you folks for godhood!

I don’t know how you guys can be so patient in the face of such mindless, arrogant, hideous, and willful ignorance.

I follow this thread for two reasons –

It engenders the same kind of fascination that a train wreck does,

and, much more importantly,

I learn so much from all of you!

Keep on fighting the good fight. Your words do not fall only on deaf ears.


Believe me, Kotatsu, it’s not “a horrible mish-mash”. It’s clear, it’s thoughtful, and it’s elegantly written.

Matteo, do you use these same kinds of arguments in face to face conversations? :jaw-dropp

/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\

What he said - I've learned a bunch too and I thought I had a pretty good basic education in this stuff.

[Matteo Martini]

What he said - I've learned a bunch too and I thought I had a pretty good basic education in this stuff.

Can I ask you what do you exactly mean by that?

[athon]

Funnily enough, the biological term "organism" appears to match what I called "the model of an individual of a species" in my longish post a few pages ago. In that light, I'm curious whether the criteria for life are applied to the organism or to the specimen. Or is either allowed?


In my understanding, to the specimen. It stands as a means of relating the observation of a novel phenomena to a phenomena we already have described. As 'organism' is essentially a term describing a general phenomena (e.g., a type of living thing), while specimen is a specific one (e.g., a physical example of a type), it's observing the latter where the criteria would be applied.

Athon

[Elizabeth I]

Can I ask you what do you exactly mean by that?

Not sure I understand your question, but I learned the word architomy, and I learned how to calculate (or at least how Dr. Kitty calculates) the number of possible ways for DNA to recombine, and I learned what a bauplan is - lots of stuff.

"A pretty good basic education" is just what it means - I had great intro zoology and botany professors in college, and suffered my way through comparative anatomy and chemistry.

[Matteo Martini]

Not sure I understand your question, but I learned the word architomy, and I learned how to calculate (or at least how Dr. Kitty calculates) the number of possible ways for DNA to recombine, and I learned what a bauplan is - lots of stuff.

"A pretty good basic education" is just what it means - I had great intro zoology and botany professors in college, and suffered my way through comparative anatomy and chemistry.

Good.
You pointed at me when I used the word "Jap" to talk about Japanese people, and you said nothing about words like "mindless, arrogant, hideous, and willful"..
Good!!

[Elizabeth I]

Good.
You pointed at me when I used the word "Jap" to talk about Japanese people, and you said nothing about words like "mindless, arrogant, hideous, and willful"..
Good!!

What (she asked, knowing she would hate herself for asking) in the name of all that's holy or unholy are you talking about?

I begin to worry that you are becoming unhinged.

[Matteo Martini]

What (she asked, knowing she would hate herself for asking) in the name of all that's holy or unholy are you talking about?

I begin to worry that you are becoming unhinged.

That you pointed out at me for using the word "Jap" instead of "Japanese", and you said nothing about other people using words like the ones above ("mindless, arrogant, hideous, and willful ignorance"..)

[athon]

What (she asked, knowing she would hate herself for asking) in the name of all that's holy or unholy are you talking about?

I begin to worry that you are becoming unhinged.

He's upset that he's been called 'ignorant', feeling it is worse than throwing about racial slurs. I guess if he didn't prize silly word games over learning something, he wouldn't be so ignorant. Nonetheless, that's how it is in Matteo's world.

I take it this conversation is essentially over, anyway. Matteo can't come up with a single example of an organism which doesn't follow every one of the criteria without resorting to a game of semantics on what comprises of an individual life form, nor can he speculate on a possible phenomena which could have most of those criteria but not all.

Although I'm still interested in others thoughts on how they view the blurry lines of what constitutes an individual life form. That one always gets me thinking.

Athon

[Kotatsu]

Again, do we agree that, by the (dictionary) definition of "mitosis", only cells undergo "mitosis"?
I can understand, and I take your word for it, as you are the biologist here, that you may use the word "mitosis" as for organisms that have cells that undergo mitosis.
Do we agree on this?

Yes. It is a matter of terminology and how the word "undergo" is used, as I have stated all along. I have no idea why we have had this conversation, because we have never really had a different understanding of what happens, just a disagreement in how to use the words.

Well, I am aware that you can not say that all the cells of the priest undergo mitotic division, while most of them do.

This is a needless distinction, as most cells do undergo mitosis, and as it is, at best, a tangent.

Anyway, you will conceed that the term "mitosis" is more properly applied to the cells of the
organism, not to the organism himself.
At least, from the dictionary definition.

I may concede that the dictionary uses only one of the usages of the phrase "undergo mitosis", and that this may seem bewildering to the layman.

How can you say that I am helding that you say that priests undergo architomy, when I have never said such a word in my life?

Because it is not necessary to know the name of a process to be able to discuss the process.

[Kotatsu]

I do not get the difference between the first part and the second (bolded)
First you say that you would call a (particular) lion and organism, then you say you would not

Well, as I said, I have problems expressing what I really think is the distinction. Let me try another way.

Do you know set theory? Imagine that "organism" is the equivalent of "set", and that "individual" is the equivalent of "element". The question, "Is this lion an organism?" could then mean both:

1) Is this item an element in the set "lions"?
2) Is this item the set "lions"?

In one case, we ask where does this individual belong, whereas we in the other case ask, essentially, if this individual is the only element in its set, while defining the set as having a much larger extension than one element (or at least not providing any reason for further subdivision of the set "lion").

Does this make it at all clearer? And, for those of you who know set theory, is the comparison valid? I haven't had set theory in ages...

[Kotatsu]

Funnily enough, the biological term "organism" appears to match what I called "the model of an individual of a species" in my longish post a few pages ago. In that light, I'm curious whether the criteria for life are applied to the organism or to the specimen. Or is either allowed?

I think it would vary from a case to case basis. If we find an object that fulfils all criteria, it is life; if we find one which fulfil some, but not all, we cannot rule out that it may still be life, but that this particular form of life does not necessarily display all the vital characteristics for us to define it as life at the same time.

Example:
I believe tardigrades (water bears?) can enter a state of torpid hibernation which can last for very long times. During this time, they do not eat, do not reproduce, do not undergo mitosis (if I remember correctly), do not spend any energy, does not move, and pays only very little and very passive attention to the world around it. If we found a tardigrade during this hibernation period, we might well think it is just an elaborate pebble, a husk of some sort, or the shed exoskeleton of another organism. However, if we continue to study it over an extended period of time, we may notice that when conditions are right, it does all those things necessary to call it alive according to athon's criteria.

Other examples would be things like dormant flower seeds.

[Kotatsu]

In my understanding, to the specimen. It stands as a means of relating the observation of a novel phenomena to a phenomena we already have described. As 'organism' is essentially a term describing a general phenomena (e.g., a type of living thing), while specimen is a specific one (e.g., a physical example of a type), it's observing the latter where the criteria would be applied.

Then I may have misunderstood danielk's question. My answer does not, however, contradict yours, but I would like to ask for clarification, perhaps, or at least some sort of response as to which of these replies (athon's and mine) more aptly addresses what you were after, danielk.

[Matteo Martini]

Yes. It is a matter of terminology and how the word "undergo" is used, as I have stated all along. I have no idea why we have had this conversation, because we have never really had a different understanding of what happens, just a disagreement in how to use the words.

This is a needless distinction, as most cells do undergo mitosis, and as it is, at best, a tangent.

I may concede that the dictionary uses only one of the usages of the phrase "undergo mitosis", and that this may seem bewildering to the layman.


As I said, I was rather surprised when you said that people undergo mitosis.
I can not understand why, when I stated that "people do not undergo mitosis, while most of their cells do", you did not agree and kept saying that yes, people undergo mitosis.
At least, according to the dictionary definition, my sentence was correct.
Am I wrong, or is there a kind of ideological battle between evolutionists and creationists, even if I am not a creationist at all?


Because it is not necessary to know the name of a process to be able to discuss the process.

Again, I did not discuss architomy, nor the process, at least, I am not aware of this

[Kotatsu]

That you pointed out at me for using the word "Jap" instead of "Japanese", and you said nothing about other people using words like the ones above ("mindless, arrogant, hideous, and willful ignorance"..)

I am only speculating here, but it might be a case of Elizabeth I, too, not being the parent of any other poster here, and thus she feels no need to admonish people for insults unless she feel they are sufficiently unfair, based on flawed perceptions, applies to herself, or for reasons of her own comes too close events in her own life to make her feel uncomfortable. Criticizing some insults does not automatically mean the same person has to criticize all of them. If the insults become too annoying, there are moderators here who will settle things.

[Matteo Martini]

Well, as I said, I have problems expressing what I really think is the distinction. Let me try another way.

Do you know set theory? Imagine that "organism" is the equivalent of "set", and that "individual" is the equivalent of "element". The question, "Is this lion an organism?" could then mean both:

1) Is this item an element in the set "lions"?
2) Is this item the set "lions"?

In one case, we ask where does this individual belong, whereas we in the other case ask, essentially, if this individual is the only element in its set, while defining the set as having a much larger extension than one element (or at least not providing any reason for further subdivision of the set "lion").

Does this make it at all clearer? And, for those of you who know set theory, is the comparison valid? I haven't had set theory in ages...

Basically, you are saying that the organism lion is kind of the set of all lions?
Something like, the organism lion = the species Panthera Leo.
Again, this definition is not really what Wikipedia and the dictionary say..

In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an individual living system (such as animal, plant, fungus or micro-organism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

[Matteo Martini]

I am only speculating here, but it might be a case of Elizabeth I, too, not being the parent of any other poster here, and thus she feels no need to admonish people for insults unless she feel they are sufficiently unfair, based on flawed perceptions, applies to herself, or for reasons of her own comes too close events in her own life to make her feel uncomfortable. Criticizing some insults does not automatically mean the same person has to criticize all of them. If the insults become too annoying, there are moderators here who will settle things.

So, I can not see why the word "Jap", which in English English is not an insult at all, needs to be pointed out, while the words "mindless, arrogant, hideous, and willful ignorance", as long as many others, need not.
Again, I have a feeling of biasedness here, but, I would like the person herself to answer this, if she feels she has to, of course

[zooterkin]

So, I can not see why the word "Jap", which in English English is not an insult at all,

Evidence?

needs to be pointed out, while the words "mindless, arrogant, hideous, and willful ignorance", as long as many others, need not.


I haven't seen where those words were used, but I would say that you can't change your race, you can change your attitude. It also depends how they are used, they may well refer to what you said or how you said it, rather than to you.

[Kotatsu]

As I said, I was rather surprised when you said that people undergo mitosis.
I can not understand why, when I stated that "people do not undergo mitosis, while most of their cells do", you did not agree and kept saying that yes, people undergo mitosis.

Because while what you said was true, what I said was also true. Therefore, I saw no point in agreeing with you when you said that I was wrong.

At least, according to the dictionary definition, my sentence was correct.

And in the sense the phrase is used in biology, mine was, too. Dictionaries commonly do not list all possible usages of words (with notable exceptions).

Am I wrong, or is there a kind of ideological battle between evolutionists and creationists, even if I am not a creationist at all?

At no point in this thread have I believed you to be a creationist. You do use some of the same arguments, though, which is natural, because creationists, like you, have a limited understanding of the theory of evolution, and therefore, similar arguments may crop up. I cannot recall that you have tried to drag any kind of higher entity into the discussion (barring the implied possibility of a homogenizing force, which may or may not be supernatural), despite provocations from some people, so I see no point in turning this into a creationist debate.

Again, I did not discuss architomy, nor the process, at least, I am not aware of this

By asking questions which elevate the cell to the same level as the individual, you do exactly that. You phrase your question, "Do priests undergo mitosis?" and mean "Do they, and whole multicellular systems, split in half as do cells?". This is a question of architomy, not of mitosis.

Basically, you are saying that the organism lion is kind of the set of all lions?
Something like, the organism lion = the species Panthera Leo.

Scientific names are in italics, and the species epithet is never capitalized. ^^

Again, this definition is not really what Wikipedia and the dictionary say..

In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an individual living system (such as animal, plant, fungus or micro-organism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

Again, while wikipedia has its qualities, it is not absolute truth. In this case, it is needlessly obscure as well. What, in this context, is an "individual living system"? It could be an individual, a species, a population, or any of several other levels of organisation.

I maintain that "organism" is a more abstract concept, which is harder to define than most other similar concepts. But thinking of "organism" as the set, and "individual" as the element feels better for me, and makes more sense in the light of how I use the terms, and how I see them used. However, I would love input from other biologists in this. I rarely use the term myself, so...

So, I can not see why the word "Jap", which in English English is not an insult at all, needs to be pointed out, while the words "mindless, arrogant, hideous, and willful ignorance", as long as many others, need not.

I believe there is a difference of opinion on whether or not "Jap" is an insult. I understand it was used derogatorily for Japanese during the World War, which would suggest that even if it is not perceived as an insult by the user, it may be perceived as one by the listener (or reader, as the case may be), and it would be, at the very least, impolite and improper to use such a term. However, I am not English, nor Japanese, and do not pretend to speak for either group.

[Matteo Martini]

Because while what you said was true, what I said was also true. Therefore, I saw no point in agreeing with you when you said that I was wrong.

And in the sense the phrase is used in biology, mine was, too. Dictionaries commonly do not list all possible usages of words (with notable exceptions).


Big dictionaries should come with all the possible usage of words, and I have quoted few dictionaries few posts ago.
None of them said that the process of mitosis can be said to be applied to people


At no point in this thread have I believed you to be a creationist. [..]


Good


By asking questions which elevate the cell to the same level as the individual, you do exactly that. You phrase your question, "Do priests undergo mitosis?" and mean "Do they, and whole multicellular systems, split in half as do cells?". This is a question of architomy, not of mitosis.


But this is the point!!
As I never gave any meaning to the sentence "Do priests undergo mitosis?", as it was not me who came out with this sentence, in first place


Scientific names are in italics, and the species epithet is never capitalized. ^^

Again, while wikipedia has its qualities, it is not absolute truth. In this case, it is needlessly obscure as well. What, in this context, is an "individual living system"? It could be an individual, a species, a population, or any of several other levels of organisation.
[..]


Seriously, a single eunuch is not an organism.

I quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary as well
1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole
2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being

Are you claiming an eunuch is not a living being?


I believe there is a difference of opinion on whether or not "Jap" is an insult. I understand it was used derogatorily for Japanese during the World War, which would suggest that even if it is not perceived as an insult by the user, it may be perceived as one by the listener (or reader, as the case may be), and it would be, at the very least, impolite and improper to use such a term. However, I am not English, nor Japanese, and do not pretend to speak for either group.

I have asked few Japanese people around and they said that they do not feel that Japanese is an insult.
A poster in that thread also said that, in English English, the word "Jap" does not happen to be an insult.
But, that is not the point.
Even if it turns out that the word "Jap" can be seen as an insult..
The point is that Elizabeth I quickly addressed that point to me, when I wrote that word, even if later I clarified that I did not mean to use "Jap" as insult, but as a short word for "Japanese".
But she said nothing when I have been called "retard", a "liar" (despite having shown that I have not lied at all) and many other words, in this thread.
Why?
The point is that this thread has become for many (Elizabeth too?) little more than a game, where is not important to seek the truth (if there is one), but to bash the opponent.
And I am too old to play such a game.

[Matteo Martini]

Dictionary definitions of mitosis
I did not cherry picked any of the entries
to be noted that 100% of the entries speak about mitosis as applied to cells, none of the entries speaks about mitosis as applied directly to people

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: mi·to·sis
Pronunciation: \mī-ˈtō-səs\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mi·to·ses \-ˌsēz\
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek mitos thread
Date: 1887
1 : a process that takes place in the nucleus of a dividing cell, involves typically a series of steps consisting of prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase, and results in the formation of two new nuclei each having the same number of chromosomes as the parent nucleus — compare meiosis
2 : cell division in which mitosis occurs

Dictionary.com
the usual method of cell division, characterized typically by the resolving of the chromatin of the nucleus into a threadlike form, which condenses into chromosomes, each of which separates longitudinally into two parts, one part of each chromosome being retained in each of two new cells resulting from the original cell.

American Heritage Dictionary
The process in cell division by which the nucleus divides, typically consisting of four stages, prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase, and normally resulting in two new nuclei, each of which contains a complete copy of the parental chromosomes. Also called karyokinesis.
The entire process of cell division including division of the nucleus and the cytoplasm

Online Ethimology Dictionary
1887, coined from Gk. mitos "warp thread" (see miter (1)) + Mod.L. -osis "act, process." Term introduced by Ger. anatomist Walther Fleming (1843-1905) in 1882. So called because chromatin of the cell nucleus appears as long threads in the first stages.

WordNet
noun
cell division in which the nucleus divides into nuclei containing the same number of chromosomes

American Heritage Science Dictionary
The process in cell division in eukaryotes in which the nucleus divides to produce two new nuclei, each having the same number and type of chromosomes as the original. Prior to mitosis, each chromosome is replicated to form two identical strands (called chromatids). As mitosis begins, the chromosomes line up along the center of the cell by attaching to the fibers of the cell spindle. The pairs of chromatids then separate, each strand of a pair moving to an opposite end of the cell. When a new membrane forms around each of the two groups of chromosomes, division of the nucleus is complete. The four main phases of mitosis are prophase, metaphase, anaphase, and telophase. Compare meiosis.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mitosis

[Old man]

I haven't seen where those words were used, but I would say that you can't change your race, you can change your attitude. It also depends how they are used, they may well refer to what you said or how you said it, rather than to you. In my post (#1299), zooterkin.

Matteo, I will admit to (perhaps) being a little too harsh in my wording, especially the word ‘hideous’. I was trying to get your attention. You do come across as arrogant, just as you seem to be trying very hard to avoid learning the answers to the questions that YOU are asking (i.e. ‘willful’ ignorance).

All that aside, please answer this question –

Do plants respire?

[Kotatsu]

Big dictionaries should come with all the possible usage of words, and I have quoted few dictionaries few posts ago.
None of them said that the process of mitosis can be said to be applied to people

Yes, that is certainly a desirable feature in any dictionary. I can think of many dictionaries which do not even pretend to uphold this ideal, though. In fact, I can think of only five which do (though this is likely more a reflection of my bias towards using these dictionaries than an actually factual statement): Nelson's Unabridged Japanese-English Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, LEO, and SAOL (Word List of the Swedish Academy). However, these are the only ones I use regularly, or, in the case of the OED, have reason to include. The real number of such dictionaries is most likely much larger, especially in the languages I don't use.

Nevertheless, even these dictionaries do not specialize in technical terminology or specific usages limited to small groups of specialists. Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that they have all words and phrases.

Another point worth mentioning is that the dispute is not really about what the word "mitosis" means, but rather what the word "undergo" means in the present context. I could of course look this up myself, but as I see this as an inconsequential digress, I choose not to.

But this is the point!!
As I never gave any meaning to the sentence "Do priests undergo mitosis?", as it was not me who came out with this sentence, in first place

I have no idea who came up with the sentence first, and I fail to see why that is important. For my argument, it is sufficient that you have used it in a way that, to me, implies that you have conflated "mitosis" with "architomy" in your representation of my position. It can be discussed whether this was done wilfully, as some allege, or if it was a honest mistake based on inadequate schooling in biology, but I really see no reason to continue this part of the argument. Much more interesting, I find, would be to see which organisms you propose exist which do not fulfil athon's criteria for life. Let us instead focus on that, and leave the pettiness and semantics aside.

I quote the Merriam-Webster dictionary as well
1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole
2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being

Are you claiming an eunuch is not a living being?

No, I am claiming that a single eunuch is not an organism, but a representative of an organism. I will further claim that "living being" is an incredibly vague term, which adds nothing to our discussion of what is and is not an organism. You have substituted one slippery and only vaguely defined term for a worse one ("individual living system"), and then with an even worse one ("living being").

I have stated my views on what an organism is, and what it is not. Reread them if you want to discuss this further. More and more, I am starting to believe that a lot of my position on this is based on the fact that the plural form means something else than you would have the pluralization of the singular to mean. That is, the plural form of your "organism" could apply to a number of individuals of the same species; the plural form "organisms" I use could not. I think this is colouring my view of the singular form as well. An example:

Your "organisms"
If one single eunuch, lion, or other individual can be said to be an organism, then two of the same kind would be "organisms". Two eunuchs would be two organisms. Two lions would be two organisms.

My "organisms"
Regardless of if we accept your view of what constitutes an organism or not, the word "organisms", the plural form, to me, suggests more than one different species. As in my previous example, the phrase "organisms feeding off a zebra" would not be used for several lions. It would be used if and only if more than one "kind" of animal fed off the zebra: a lion, a hyena, a jackal, a vulture, and so on.

Thus, your plural form is decidedly different from mine.

I have asked few Japanese people around and they said that they do not feel that Japanese is an insult.

Which would be beside the point, as "Jap" is not necessarily the same word as "Japanese", as it does not have the same cultural and historical associations.

The point is that Elizabeth I quickly addressed that point to me, when I wrote that word, even if later I clarified that I did not mean to use "Jap" as insult, but as a short word for "Japanese".
But she said nothing when I have been called "retard", a "liar" (despite having shown that I have not lied at all) and many other words, in this thread.
Why?

Perhaps she is married to a Japanese? Perhaps one or more of her parents are Japanese? Perhaps she has a good friend who is Japanese and who resents this usage? Perhaps she is a scholar in American-Japanese relationships in the 20th century? Perhaps she is a compassionate person who feels affronted by all kinds of nicknames which are or have been used in a derogatory way? Perhaps she just doesn't feel like defending you because she doesn't like you very much? Perhaps she feels those words are appropriate to describe you?

I can only speculate, but I could go on with more, equally plausible, suggestions for quite some time. I see no point in doing so, however, as I am not Elizabeth I. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest you do so with her directly, and preferably in another thread.

The point is that this thread has become for many (Elizabeth too?) little more than a game, where is not important to seek the truth (if there is one), but to bash the opponent.

Some suggest it has become such a thread for you as well. Sometimes, I am inclined to agree.

[Kotatsu]

Dictionary definitions of mitosis
I did not cherry picked any of the entries
to be noted that 100% of the entries speak about mitosis as applied to cells, none of the entries speaks about mitosis as applied directly to people

Again, I see no evidence that these dictionaries preclude the usage of "undergo mitosis" as used by me in this thread. In fact, none of them address the matter at all.

[Matteo Martini]

In my post (#1299), zooterkin.

Matteo, I will admit to (perhaps) being a little too harsh in my wording, especially the word ‘hideous’. I was trying to get your attention. You do come across as arrogant, just as you seem to be trying very hard to avoid learning the answers to the questions that YOU are asking (i.e. ‘willful’ ignorance).

All that aside, please answer this question –

Do plants respire?

Old Man, yes, you were too harsh, and I do not know why.
Again, you are saying "you seem to be trying very hard to avoid learning the answers to the questions that YOU are asking", you are asking me "Do plants respire?"
Do you realize that I have never asked such question?
Also, I really do not know the exact answer to this (honest!!), maybe Kotatsu does

[Kotatsu]

Old Man, yes, you were too harsh, and I do know why.
Again, you are saying "you seem to be trying very hard to avoid learning the answers to the questions that YOU are asking", you are asking me "Do plants respire?"
Do you realize that I have never asked such question?
Also, I really do not know the exact answer to this, maybe Kotatsu does

Well, as the respiration is done by the cells, and not by the plant as an entity, I would say, "Yes", but your stand ought to be, "No".

[Matteo Martini]

Again, I see no evidence that these dictionaries preclude the usage of "undergo mitosis" as used by me in this thread. In fact, none of them address the matter at all.

Yes, that is certainly a desirable feature in any dictionary. I can think of many dictionaries which do not even pretend to uphold this ideal, though. In fact, I can think of only five which do (though this is likely more a reflection of my bias towards using these dictionaries than an actually factual statement): Nelson's Unabridged Japanese-English Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, LEO, and SAOL (Word List of the Swedish Academy). However, these are the only ones I use regularly, or, in the case of the OED, have reason to include. The real number of such dictionaries is most likely much larger, especially in the languages I don't use.

Nevertheless, even these dictionaries do not specialize in technical terminology or specific usages limited to small groups of specialists. Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that they have all words and phrases.

Another point worth mentioning is that the dispute is not really about what the word "mitosis" means, but rather what the word "undergo" means in the present context. I could of course look this up myself, but as I see this as an inconsequential digress, I choose not to.


Ok.
I think I have clarified my stance on this and I do not see any reason to further discuss this topic.
So, if you agree, I would like to move on..


I have no idea who came up with the sentence first, and I fail to see why that is important. For my argument, it is sufficient that you have used it in a way that, to me, implies that you have conflated "mitosis" with "architomy" in your representation of my position. It can be discussed whether this was done wilfully, as some allege, or if it was a honest mistake based on inadequate schooling in biology, but I really see no reason to continue this part of the argument. Much more interesting, I find, would be to see which organisms you propose exist which do not fulfil athon's criteria for life. Let us instead focus on that, and leave the pettiness and semantics aside.


Again, I have not conflated anything, at least, willingly, and I do not even know what "architomy" mean.
Leaving the semantic aside, let`s go back to the point of Athon`s criteria.
While I have never said that Athon`s criteria are not good in general, I am pointing out that tthat it is quite difficult (maybe impossible) to find criteria that exactly and without any discussion can separate what is living and what is not.
Another person before came out with the example of viruses


No, I am claiming that a single eunuch is not an organism, but a representative of an organism. I will further claim that "living being" is an incredibly vague term, which adds nothing to our discussion of what is and is not an organism. You have substituted one slippery and only vaguely defined term for a worse one ("individual living system"), and then with an even worse one ("living being").


Again, I am just quoting the dictionaries.
What else am I suppose to do?
Anyway, since this also is not the main point of discussion, I would like to leave you your opinion, I keep mine and we move on..


[..]Which would be beside the point, as "Jap" is not necessarily the same word as "Japanese", as it does not have the same cultural and historical associations.


My point was not that "Jap" is not a bad word at all, even if honestly, I did not use it that way (I am not racist against Japanese, believe me, I also have a Jap, err., Japanese girlfriend).
I was just surprised when Elizabeth I pointed it out, while she did not point out when I was called a retard or even a stupid (if I remember well).


Perhaps she is married to a Japanese? Perhaps one or more of her parents are Japanese? Perhaps she has a good friend who is Japanese and who resents this usage? Perhaps she is a scholar in American-Japanese relationships in the 20th century? Perhaps she is a compassionate person who feels affronted by all kinds of nicknames which are or have been used in a derogatory way? Perhaps she just doesn't feel like defending you because she doesn't like you very much? Perhaps she feels those words are appropriate to describe you?


Maybe she felt those words were appropriate to me, who knows?


I can only speculate, but I could go on with more, equally plausible, suggestions for quite some time. I see no point in doing so, however, as I am not Elizabeth I. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest you do so with her directly, and preferably in another thread.


No need of another thread.
Please!!


Some suggest it has become such a thread for you as well. Sometimes, I am inclined to agree.

Mm..
I just get pissed off (can I say this?), when I write "I have bought an apple" and someone quotes me as I said "I have bought an orange".
OK, anyway, let` s forget the past and move to the main point(s):
1) is theory of evolution as scientific as thermodynamics?
2) can we state that life in another planets will be different from ours necessarily?

[Kotatsu]

Again, I have not conflated anything, at least, willingly, and I do not even know what "architomy" mean.
Leaving the semantic aside, let`s go back to the point of Athon`s criteria.
While I have never said that Athon`s criteria are not good in general, I am pointing out that tthat it is quite difficult (maybe impossible) to find criteria that exactly and without any discussion can separate what is living and what is not.
Another person before came out with the example of viruses

I am not asking you for an example of something that may or may not comply with the criteria. I understand viruses are a borderline case, and may or may not be alive according to what criteria you use, and will let athon comment on this, as that is way outside my expertise.

Rather, I understand that you have mentioned that there are "organisms" which are undoubtedly alive, yet which do not comply with one or more of athon's criteria. These are the critters I am interested in hearing more about.

OK, anyway, let` s forget the past and move to the main point(s):
1) is theory of evolution as scientific as thermodynamics?
2) can we state that life in another planets will be different from ours necessarily?

Yes and yes, as has been shown to you.

[Matteo Martini]

I am not asking you for an example of something that may or may not comply with the criteria. I understand viruses are a borderline case, and may or may not be alive according to what criteria you use, and will let athon comment on this, as that is way outside my expertise.

Rather, I understand that you have mentioned that there are "organisms" which are undoubtedly alive, yet which do not comply with one or more of athon's criteria. These are the critters I am interested in hearing more about.


Eunuchs


Yes and yes, as has been shown to you.

No, no, it has not.

[Belz...]

Again, do we agree that, by the (dictionary) definition of "mitosis", only cells undergo "mitosis"?
I can understand, and I take your word for it, as you are the biologist here, that you may use the word "mitosis" as for organisms that have cells that undergo mitosis.
Do we agree on this?

Do we also agree on the fact that YOU do not digest your food ?

That YOU do not talk ?

That YOU do not think ?

Only your digestive system, respiratory system and nervous system do those.

[Kotatsu]

Eunuchs

These comply with athon's criteria, as they exhibit reproduction of their chemistry at the cellular level.

No, no, it has not.

Then please present your counter-evidence.

However, if this is just a merry-go-round discussion, I'll have you know that I am ready to bow out any minute.

[Paulhoff]

Good.
You pointed at me when I used the word "Jap" to talk about Japanese people, and you said nothing about words like "mindless, arrogant, hideous, and willful"..
Good!!
Another straw-man, people who know that they lost the thread start using the good old standby straw-man arguments. They just love to hang-up on the little unimportant things and miss the big picture.

Paul

:) :) :)

[volatile]

Eunuchs



No, no, it has not.

Now you're just taking the piss, right?

:hb:

[Matteo Martini]

These comply with athon's criteria, as they exhibit reproduction of their chemistry at the cellular level.


But, Athon`s criteria was not "exhibit reproduction of their chemistry at the cellular level".
I agree that eunuchs "exhibit reproduction of their chemistry at the cellular level", but Athon`s criterion was not that.
It was: "they generate imperfect copies of their chemistry"
Now, which is the copy that an eunuch generate?
You can not say the cells themselves, as they are part of the eunuch himself.
If you say that (generated) cells are the copy the criterion talks about, I would say that they are copies of other cells, not copy of the organism (however you want to call it) eunuch, as they are part of the organism (however you want to call it) eunuch, so they can not be generated by the organism (however you want to call it) eunuch.
If A generates B, B has to be something separated by A.


Then please present your counter-evidence.

However, if this is just a merry-go-round discussion, I'll have you know that I am ready to bow out any minute.

Tomorrow, as it is late here in Japan.
BTW, I am also ready to bow out any minute :)

[Kotatsu]

But, Athon`s criteria was not "exhibit reproduction of their chemistry at the cellular level".
I agree that eunuchs "exhibit reproduction of their chemistry at the cellular level", but Athon`s criterion was not that.
It was: "they generate imperfect copies of their chemistry"

Yes. And the eunuch does so, on the cellular level. Athon's criterion does not state that all of the individual needs to reproduce a complete copy of itself. It simply requires that imperfect copies are generated. And this is fulfilled as copies are generated. Denying this is inserting subcriteria which were not part of the original criterion.

Tomorrow, as it is late here in Japan.

Then I look forward to you doing so first thing tomorrow.

[Furi]

Shakes his head in disbelief that this utter asshattery is still being bounced around

MM Cellular Mitosis occurs within your castrati.

Why don't you use the phrase Castrated Male rather than Eunuch, would it be that you would then have to state that your castrati is in fact a Modified Life form, another way to modify the life form is to remove it's internal organs, The organism is still alive although the situation may only be temporary, and it will soon remove itself from the genepool

Reproduction of your Castrati or born sterile being could occur by genetic grafting into a suitable fertililsed Ova or having DNA introduced into Early Meiotic cell production cells (not sure if this is possible from generic cell types), we now have reproduced some of your previously sterile Genetic material.

Sound Stupid, go look how most Fruit and Flower hybrids have been grown over the centuries, and with a little more tolerance from the Genetic Moral Highgrounders we may achieve a lot more, not just medicinal practices to assist people, but further foods and eradication of degenerative recessive traits. please can the discussion move on from this Flyblown corpse of well tenderised horseflesh.

BTW Jap is mostly used as a derogatory term here in English England, similar to Gerry or Eyetie when used for Germans and Italians, it is not meant to be overtly offensive, just a petty dig (English allows you to be VERY VERY creative when being offensive). You may argue that it is just a contraction of the name however so is Paki for Pakistani, Nip for Nipponese, Spic for Hispanic, and yet using those shortenings is likely to result in a written warning or dismissal from your employment. (now where does mirkins for americans fits in :p).

[Belz...]

But, Athon`s criteria was not "exhibit reproduction of their chemistry at the cellular level".
I agree that eunuchs "exhibit reproduction of their chemistry at the cellular level", but Athon`s criterion was not that.
It was: "they generate imperfect copies of their chemistry"

Which is the same goddamned thing.

If you say that (generated) cells are the copy the criterion talks about, I would say that they are copies of other cells, not copy of the organism (however you want to call it) eunuch, as they are part of the organism (however you want to call it) eunuch, so they can not be generated by the organism (however you want to call it) eunuch.

Is it fun to argue just for the sake of arguing ?

Tomorrow, as it is late here in Japan.

Something's late, anyway.

[ArmillarySphere]

Actually meiosis (splitting the nucleus in half to produce sperms and ova) would be specifically excluded from athon's criterion, since a sperm is not even an imperfect copy of the original cell. You're missing half of it.

Thus, sexual reproduction is specifically excluded from being a requirement of life. Mitosis (or a similar process), however, is.

[Belz...]

Which means Matteo's example is even worse than I thought.

[Furi]

Actually meiosis (splitting the nucleus in half to produce sperms and ova) would be specifically excluded from athon's criterion, since a sperm is not even an imperfect copy of the original cell. You're missing half of it.

Thus, sexual reproduction is specifically excluded from being a requirement of life. Mitosis (or a similar process), however, is.

Well i was thinking after a succesful gamete formation, this could be used with a corresponding female donation to allow human reproduction through in vitro fertilisation (allowing only for male Eunuchs), allowing the electively sterile organism to reproduce sexually, allowing the Medical correction of a medically induced condition.

I think this derail is only continuing so that victory through attrition will occur.

[Kotatsu]

Actually meiosis (splitting the nucleus in half to produce sperms and ova) would be specifically excluded from athon's criterion, since a sperm is not even an imperfect copy of the original cell. You're missing half of it.

And how does that not count as imperfection?^^

Thus, sexual reproduction is specifically excluded from being a requirement of life. Mitosis (or a similar process), however, is.

I never thought about that, really. It makes sense, though.

[Matteo Martini]

Yes. And the eunuch does so, on the cellular level. Athon's criterion does not state that all of the individual needs to reproduce a complete copy of itself. It simply requires that imperfect copies are generated. And this is fulfilled as copies are generated. Denying this is inserting subcriteria which were not part of the original criterion.


Wait.
I requote Athon`s cr