When does life start?

[iNow]

The question in this thread was quite specific -- when does life *start*. I believe it was also relating more to the human form. As in, when does a fetus become life (or.. a combination of sperm and egg).

 

And that too is a misframed question considering the issue. It implies that the sperm and the egg are not life, or not from life.

 

The true question is, "at what point during gestation does the collection of cells fall under the purview of the government, as opposed to the woman using her own biophysiological resources to aid in it's development?"

[mooeypoo]

And that too is a misframed question considering the issue. It implies that the sperm and the egg are not life, or not from life.

 

The true question is, "at what point during gestation does the collection of cells fall under the purview of the government, as opposed to the woman using her own biophysiological resources to aid in it's development?"

 

You're correct, I allowed my own personal opinion to affect my phrasing

 

However, I am not sure the parts of "government vs woman" was a part of this specific discussion.. I think the OP was meant as a more philosophical one (though, i must admit, it seems to original poster directed towards that controversial subject). But still, I think that we should separate the two issues -- the philosophical/biological question and the legal/social/women-rights one.

[lucaspa]

I (and everyone else) would love to be able to get simple definitions so we could define complicated phenomenas, in this case life!

 

"Life" has a simple definition. Life is an entity with all 4 of the following characteristics:

1. Metabolism

2. Growth

3. Response to stimuli

4. Reproduction

 

The issue here is that the question "when does life start?" is not a biological question. The question in the OP applies to human life and is an ethical and legal question. When in the continuum of conception to death do we apply the legal rights and protections that we think ought to be applied to members of our species?

 

the beauty of all is that every process is exactly defined and controlled by genetic factors. Every new protein created, ever new cell created, every cell dying, everything is absolutely controlled.

 

That's untrue. Many processes are only loosely defined and controlled by genetic factors. For instance, the molecules that give the mechanical properties of the cartilage in your joints are proteoglycans. Proteoglycans are very complicated molecules, consisting of a protein core to which are attached long sugar molecules called glycosaminoglycans. Glycosaminoglycans are assembled by enzymes. But the length and number of the GAGs vary from proteoglycan to proteoglycan molecule.

 

It's an absolutely meaningful phrase since if were able to completely understand how the metabolic processes work on a molecular stage, we would actually have understood how life works at that stage!

 

Take a biochemistry course. You will find that we do understand the metabolic processes. What is being worked on now are the various control levels for those metabolic processes. But the metabolic process that is the Krebs cycle, for instance, is "completely" understood.

 

Subtle----gross---to visible form----goes back to its subtle form---again evolve as gross---

 

A tree is available in a seed in the subtle form. When seed is planted in earth, the seed sprouta and the subtle seed comes out as a seedling..plant and ...tree..finally the tree hides in its seeds in the subtle fom again.. This is like a circle drawn with no beginning or end

 

The science contradicts this. The tree is not available in a "subtle form" as you define subtle: "matter is the form of existence where subtle sub atomic particles join by energy bonding and when it comes to the molecular state it is detected. When it lose its form it goes back to its subtle form "

 

The molecules in the seed are not in sub-atomic particles. The DNA, proteins, and sugars in the seed are in a "molecular state". Therefore the data falsifies your theory.

 

I suggest you do a bit of studying on embryonic development instead of trying to impose your philosophy on the physical universe.

[thedarkshade]

"Life" has a simple definition. Life is an entity with all 4 of the following characteristics:

1. Metabolism

2. Growth

3. Response to stimuli

4. Reproduction

We'll there's quite a lot of complexity in that simplicity! I mean, metabolism is just a simple term that refers to something extremely more complicated, and so do the other terms below. But if this simplification is done in order to get a rough idea of what life is really 'made' of, then the summarization you do would be just fine!

[lucaspa]

We'll there's quite a lot of complexity in that simplicity! I mean, metabolism is just a simple term that refers to something extremely more complicated, and so do the other terms below. But if this simplification is done in order to get a rough idea of what life is really 'made' of, then the summarization you do would be just fine!

 

The definition isn't about what life is "made of". It's about the characteristics an entity must have in order to be alive. The entity can be made up of anything or combination of things -- as long as it has those 4 characteristics.

 

The amazing part is that it is very simple to get that complexity. That "complexity" arises out of chemistry. Read this:

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

and we can discuss it in more detail if you want. But the key here is that when you chemically put amino acids together to make proteins (by heating them), they do not form random proteins. Instead, there is internal ordering due to the side chains of the amino acids. AA are not like playing cards. Therefore, when proteins are made by heating them, it is certain that they will have a biological activity (or maybe more than one). The range of biological activities include catalyzing the reactions that make up metabolism.