Re: what is life
From: Chris Gordon-Smith (address_at_homepage.net)
Date: 08/03/04
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: A DECLARATION OF MEANING"
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Experiment - Peshwari cat and Peshwari pig [LONG Post]"
- In reply to: Tim Tyler: "Re: what is life"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: what is life"
- Reply: Tim Tyler: "Re: what is life"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 04:25:10 +0000 (UTC)
Tim Tyler wrote:
> Chris Gordon-Smith <address@homepage.net> wrote or quoted:
>
>> haiguang wrote:
>
>> > In his book "the origins of life", Freeman Dyson showed something more
>> > important than metabolism: replication. In his opinion, life must be
>> > able to reproduce itself, and that is really the meaning of life.
>> > Nowadays, more and more scientists agree with this idea.
>>
>> The key point about Freeman Dyson's book is that he is making the case
>> for life having a metabolic origin, rather than having an origin as a
>> template replicating molecule.
>>
>> I don't think anyone doubts that life must be able to reproduce itself,
>> although it is of course possible for an individual organism to be alive
>> without having the ability to reproduce.
>
> Life needs to be able to perpetuate itself.
>
> Reproduction dosen't seem to be logically necessary - it would be
> possible for a living system to consist of a single large entity
> that grew into new environments rather than reproducting itself -
> and most would still judge such an organism to be alive.
>
> There are large plants that operate like this - vegetative growth -
> rather than reproduction.
>
> Consider, for example:
>
> ``Lomatia tasmanica: the oldest clonal plant on the planet''
>
> http://www.research.utas.edu.au/reports/1998/clone.htm
>
> ...an article about the world's oldest known living thing.
The ability to reproduce is certainly not necessary for an organism to be
alive. The plant you mention is alive, as are animals above reproducing
age.
However, reproduction does seem to be necessary for the origin and survival
of the living world.
i) Lomatia tasmanica is the product of a long process of evolutionary
selection, and reproduction seems to be necessary for evolution (selection
has to have something to work on)
ii) A species that does not reproduce and which cannot evolve is unable to
adapt to changing conditions, and so is unlikely to survive in the long
term (although I suppose it might stand a better chance if other species
are also not evolving)
iii) Even though Lomatia tasmanica may perpetuate itself by growth, this
growth does of course depend on the individual cells of this multicellular
organism being able to reproduce
If you are not already aware of it, you might be interested in the
distinction that is made between 'Real' and 'Potential' life criteria that
is made by Tibor Ganti in the book "The Principles of Life". A summary of
the criteria can be found at:-
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof66.htm
-- Chris Gordon-Smith London Homepage: http://graffiti.virgin.net/c.gordon-smith/ Email Address: Please see my Home Page
- Next message: John Edser: "Re: A DECLARATION OF MEANING"
- Previous message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Experiment - Peshwari cat and Peshwari pig [LONG Post]"
- In reply to: Tim Tyler: "Re: what is life"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: what is life"
- Reply: Tim Tyler: "Re: what is life"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|