sunshaker Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 While that may have some truth, especially metaphorically, it says nothing about the Earth as a living organism (which it obviously isn't). In my opinion it comes life down to size scales, Take any part of a human/life and you can break these down to atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks etc, none of these are classed as having life, but together they make up all life forms, If there was say civilizations living within one of these protons/quarks within us, they would scoff at the idea that all these atoms had life or where part of a life form. Life can only sometimes be seen by looking from the right perspective.
Phi for All Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 To me, Life adapts to new challenges, The strong/those able to adapt survive, the weak and those that cannot adapt die, Human thrive on challenges and it is what allows us to grow as a species, A good catastrophe can bring out the best in us. But evolution continues no matter what. Even during times of stability, small changes in genes within a population cause those populations to change. Be very careful trying to equate the challenges we face within our lifetimes to any evolutionary processes. Once you're born and then pass along your genes to an offspring, evolution doesn't care what challenges or catastrophes you as an individual face. Earth as a nursery for life seems to have all "it needs". But the Earth was still the Earth when there was no life. It just wasn't the Earth that we're able to adapt to. It was still the Earth when oxygen began to saturate our atmosphere, and a lot of the life around at the time died off. I think it's pretty premature to think the Earth has been preparing for human life. We're not nearly as stable and successful as some of the dinosaurs, and we certainly aren't as successful as many present lifeforms. We're just the only ones currently able to discuss it over the internet. Without going of topic to much, Yes i do believe "our universe" is part of a living system/entity. I think there's a danger in this belief. I value life extremely highly, and I worry that the value is diminished if we're part of a larger living entity. As Strange pointed out, that might seem to make us parasites living off a larger creature. I already think there are too many humans who don't place enough value on the Earth as our home. For the same reason I worry that many religious people think a god will take care of our planet no matter what we do, I think there are those who would love to kiss it all off to a vast, universal entity that will sort everything in the end. To me, this is more like faith or wishful thinking rather than a rational stance that recognizes both our strengths and weaknesses as a species. In my opinion it comes life down to size scales, Take any part of a human/life and you can break these down to atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks etc, none of these are classed as having life, but together they make up all life forms, If there was say civilizations living within one of these protons/quarks within us, they would scoff at the idea that all these atoms had life or where part of a life form. Life can only sometimes be seen by looking from the right perspective. OK, take your thumb and cut it off. How long will it live without the rest of you? If there were civilizations living within some of the cells in your thumb, what happens to them? I think you're just doing what humans are so good at, trying to find patterns to explain what seems difficult to grasp. I understand if you like to think of it this way, but there is absolutely nothing to support the idea, so it's a belief you arrived at without reason, or just a wishful thought that pleases you. Both are OK I guess, but they shouldn't be confused with a more trusted explanation rooted in reality.
Strange Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 If there was say civilizations living within one of these protons/quarks within us... Yes, but there isn't.
sunshaker Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 But evolution continues no matter what. Even during times of stability, small changes in genes within a population cause those populations to change. Be very careful trying to equate the challenges we face within our lifetimes to any evolutionary processes. Once you're born and then pass along your genes to an offspring, evolution doesn't care what challenges or catastrophes you as an individual face. I agree, but after a catastrophe, the changes will be multiplied over the first few generations. But the Earth was still the Earth when there was no life. It just wasn't the Earth that we're able to adapt to. It was still the Earth when oxygen began to saturate our atmosphere, and a lot of the life around at the time died off. I think it's pretty premature to think the Earth has been preparing for human life. We're not nearly as stable and successful as some of the dinosaurs, and we certainly aren't as successful as many present lifeforms. We're just the only ones currently able to discuss it over the internet. The dinosaurs where "stable" perhaps to stable which is why they died out/evolved to birds to make way for for a new dominate life form, One that was not so "stable" and was able to adapt at a faster rate, and discuss their ideas across the internet to increase their capabilities to evolve using science/tech. I think there's a danger in this belief. I value life extremely highly, and I worry that the value is diminished if we're part of a larger living entity. As Strange pointed out, that might seem to make us parasites living off a larger creature. I already think there are too many humans who don't place enough value on the Earth as our home. For the same reason I worry that many religious people think a god will take care of our planet no matter what we do, I think there are those who would love to kiss it all off to a vast, universal entity that will sort everything in the end. To me, this is more like faith or wishful thinking rather than a rational stance that recognizes both our strengths and weaknesses as a species. I also value life extremely high, I do not see us as parasites on a larger creature, or protected by a "god", I see us living within ourselves, every electron a universe which contains all, we are within everything and everything within us. So what each of us do effects the world we live in. OK, take your thumb and cut it off. How long will it live without the rest of you? If there were civilizations living within some of the cells in your thumb, what happens to them? I think you're just doing what humans are so good at, trying to find patterns to explain what seems difficult to grasp. I understand if you like to think of it this way, but there is absolutely nothing to support the idea, so it's a belief you arrived at without reason, or just a wishful thought that pleases you. Both are OK I guess, but they shouldn't be confused with a more trusted explanation rooted in reality. Again down to scale, Yes the finger would eventually die/decay, But those "hypothetical beings/us" may in there time scales live for billions more of their years. I believe in science and most of it's processes, But i also believe what we see as reality is also within the quantum, I suppose I am a fractal -multiversal believer.
Phi for All Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I believe in science and most of it's processes, But i also believe what we see as reality is also within the quantum, I suppose I am a fractal -multiversal believer. This is where I'd have to focus on reality. Does your belief really affect the way you live your life? Do you save all your toenail clippings so the trillions of little universes inside aren't murdered by your callousness? Or are you able to always justify your murderous ways by claiming it's always "down to scale"? Just pointing out some absurdities that don't seem to scale, certainly not accusing you of anything illegal. Personally, I think you should get rid of those boxes of toenails as fast as you can. 1
sunshaker Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 This is where I'd have to focus on reality. Does your belief really affect the way you live your life? Do you save all your toenail clippings so the trillions of little universes inside aren't murdered by your callousness? Or are you able to always justify your murderous ways by claiming it's always "down to scale"? Just pointing out some absurdities that don't seem to scale, certainly not accusing you of anything illegal. Personally, I think you should get rid of those boxes of toenails as fast as you can. I don't worry about these trillions of universes, From what I understand, you cannot split an atom or anything smaller using nail scissors . And food I eat goes no further than breaking down into atoms, At best you will move these trillions of tiny universes to a different location and they will be none the wiser..
Phi for All Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I don't worry about these trillions of universes, From what I understand, you cannot split an atom or anything smaller using nail scissors . And food I eat goes no further than breaking down into atoms, At best you will move these trillions of tiny universes to a different location and they will be none the wiser.. I worry about them even less than you.
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 No progress yet, I see. As Lance seems to be willing to moderate his attitude, I thought I'd give him another chance. So, in the hope that counter-evidence won't be dismissed as being "nitpicking", there are a number of fundamental characteristics of life that are not met: Reproduction: The best you have managed is "mountains" which are just tiny ripples in the surface structure. You have failed to explain how this is different from a wart on the skin. Your answer was that a mountain has the same structure as the Earth, which is obviously not true. When challenged on this you suggested that the mountain could fly into space but later denied this. Also, because the Earth does not feed, even if it did manage to split of a child planet (disappointed you haven't pointed to the Moon, by the way) it could only do this by getting smaller. That is not reproduction, any more than having your leg amputated is. So we are left with no evidence at all of reproduction. Homoeostasis The planet does not have mechanisms to keep itself at some stable set of conditions. It is entirely dependent on external factors. It has gone through periods of ice ages and could, in principle, end up like Venus. Feeding and excreting waste The Earth does not feed in any meaningful sense. It absorbs a bit of energy from sunlight. But that does nothing to keep the Earth itself "alive". It is, of course, essential for most of the life on Earth. And the Earth does not excrete, except losing a small amount of gas (mainly hydrogen) from its upper atmosphere. So, in the end, as some have said, it is an interesting analogy but nothing to be taken too seriously. And certainly not taken literally. . The reason I haven't mentioned the moon yet is because that isn't a prove event. Earth recycling it's self is. You can see it every time a volcano erupts. Let me clarify about the mountains. Mountains are a product of tectonics, the "Earth" the mountain is comprised of is recycle (reborn) Earth and the Mountain is just one phase of the life cycle of that particular recycled Earth. I hope that clears up that confusion. Humans fight for homeostasis is through all the systems of the body carrying out their own fight for their own homeostasis and as a result, the bigger system (the human body) sustains its homeostasis. The Earth is the same way. The symbiotic relationship all of the spheres of Earth working for their own homeostasis is what gives Earth its homeostasis. Let me clarify a few things, hopefully without being too off-topic. I promise to bring them around to the OP. I needed to moderate this thread pretty heavily to begin with, and I took an approach that didn't sit well with Lance_Granger. I apologize, it happens, we don't mean to chase anyone away, but the majority of members prefer a well-regulated discussion, so we have our rules. When Lance_Granger ignored my modnotes repeatedly, I recused myself, not for impartiality but because I wanted another staff member to take over in hopes of a better match. So I'm just a member in this discussion, but we still don't want a Wild West brawl going on. We discuss science here, and that means criticism of ideas. If you're not willing to entertain the possibility you may be wrong, then all you're doing is preaching at us, or soapboxing. That's not how science works, and it's not how discussion works. This is a far cry from formal peer review, but then it's also a far cry from formal presentation of a scientific hypothesis. It's what we've got and it seems to be interesting enough to put us in the top five science discussion sites worldwide. We don't attack people here, we attack ideas, with the hopes of making the ideas stronger or showing them to be wrong. Again, a big part of the scientific method. Leave your ego at home, it has no place here, that's what everyone likes to see. We don't know you, but we know your idea, so that's what we're talking about. It's essential that we don't tie ourselves to our ideas. We've all had dumb/bad/wrong ideas, but that doesn't make US dumb/bad/wrong. It makes us human. I've tried very hard to show where your concept is weak, Lance_Granger, and needs some work. These are the parts that are trivially falsified, like your misconceptions about evolution. You can't ignore the cracks in the foundation of your idea, calling them nitpicky, and expect to build anything substantial on top of it. Experience tells me it's pointless to continue to discuss this without fixing what's wrong. I hope you can see that. Thank you so much, arc, this is good solid evidence, and I know Lance_Granger really means it when he compliments the info you've given. I'm curious to know, however, if what you've said has given him any new insights on his idea. This is really the true test of a scientific mind, the ability to look at real evidence and judge its merit with regard to an hypothesis. So I'll ask directly. Lance_Granger, do you still stick by your hypothesis 100%, or have you begun to modify it? If so, how so? This also ties back to before the Earth had any water or life on it. Are there any other living organisms that start out dead, slowly gain life, and then cycle back and forth between practically frozen/dead and abundantly living? Let me clarify a few things, hopefully without being too off-topic. I promise to bring them around to the OP. I needed to moderate this thread pretty heavily to begin with, and I took an approach that didn't sit well with Lance_Granger. I apologize, it happens, we don't mean to chase anyone away, but the majority of members prefer a well-regulated discussion, so we have our rules. When Lance_Granger ignored my modnotes repeatedly, I recused myself, not for impartiality but because I wanted another staff member to take over in hopes of a better match. So I'm just a member in this discussion, but we still don't want a Wild West brawl going on. We discuss science here, and that means criticism of ideas. If you're not willing to entertain the possibility you may be wrong, then all you're doing is preaching at us, or soapboxing. That's not how science works, and it's not how discussion works. This is a far cry from formal peer review, but then it's also a far cry from formal presentation of a scientific hypothesis. It's what we've got and it seems to be interesting enough to put us in the top five science discussion sites worldwide. We don't attack people here, we attack ideas, with the hopes of making the ideas stronger or showing them to be wrong. Again, a big part of the scientific method. Leave your ego at home, it has no place here, that's what everyone likes to see. We don't know you, but we know your idea, so that's what we're talking about. It's essential that we don't tie ourselves to our ideas. We've all had dumb/bad/wrong ideas, but that doesn't make US dumb/bad/wrong. It makes us human. I've tried very hard to show where your concept is weak, Lance_Granger, and needs some work. These are the parts that are trivially falsified, like your misconceptions about evolution. You can't ignore the cracks in the foundation of your idea, calling them nitpicky, and expect to build anything substantial on top of it. Experience tells me it's pointless to continue to discuss this without fixing what's wrong. I hope you can see that. Thank you so much, arc, this is good solid evidence, and I know Lance_Granger really means it when he compliments the info you've given. I'm curious to know, however, if what you've said has given him any new insights on his idea. This is really the true test of a scientific mind, the ability to look at real evidence and judge its merit with regard to an hypothesis. So I'll ask directly. Lance_Granger, do you still stick by your hypothesis 100%, or have you begun to modify it? If so, how so? This also ties back to before the Earth had any water or life on it. Are there any other living organisms that start out dead, slowly gain life, and then cycle back and forth between practically frozen/dead and abundantly living? Honestly I haven't had the time to reflect. I will though, all science is ever changing and my idea can change as well. Please keep in mind that this is just an idea, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything nor do I want to rewrite science. I will reflect on all points brought up both for and against the idea and modify my ideas accordingly. Sorry for the Ahab jab early, sometimes my scientific passion supersedes of common sense. It was bad form on my part. The important thing about a baby is that it grows up to be an adult. Just as soon as you can show one of those baby earths growing up into a big earth and having babies of its own, you will have shown that you are right. Until then, everyone will know that you are wrong. Great point John ty
John Cuthber Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 . Let me clarify about the mountains. Mountains are a product of tectonics, the "Earth" the mountain is comprised of is recycle (reborn) Earth and the Mountain is just one phase of the life cycle of that particular recycled Earth. I hope that clears up that confusion. So, it's not reproduction. So the earth is not alive. To be alive the earth has to make little earths that grow up to be adults. It doesn't.
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 Strange, on 18 Oct 2014 - 09:12 AM, said: Perhaps a "stable set of conditions" is not what Earth needs, If things don't change they stay the same, Which in my book would be bad for evolution. We have not ended up like venus, Earth as had a say in ice ages through volcanoes/greenhouse gasses, So perhaps these ice ages are a important part of a "planet organisms" life cycle, And these " external factors" are important built in factors, I don't see these as external factors. They are the atmosphere and the other spheres working together for homeostasis. It is a very long process and it might not have been suitable for all of the life in the biosphere at that time, but this was the Earths systems bringing balance to the Earth organism. Why do you think stability would be bad for evolution? It is the unsuitability of the Earths systems that force migration, adaption and natural selection which are the building blocks evolution. In my opinion it comes life down to size scales, Take any part of a human/life and you can break these down to atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks etc, none of these are classed as having life, but together they make up all life forms, If there was say civilizations living within one of these protons/quarks within us, they would scoff at the idea that all these atoms had life or where part of a life form. Life can only sometimes be seen by looking from the right perspective. Great points Sun!!!! It is the composition of all of these things that creates a living organism, which it the very basis of my idea, It is the composition of all of the Earth systems working symbiotically, that creates the Earth organism. Quote Earth as a nursery for life seems to have all "it needs". But the Earth was still the Earth when there was no life. It just wasn't the Earth that we're able to adapt to. It was still the Earth when oxygen began to saturate our atmosphere, and a lot of the life around at the time died off. I think it's pretty premature to think the Earth has been preparing for human life. We're not nearly as stable and successful as some of the dinosaurs, and we certainly aren't as successful as many present lifeforms. We're just the only ones currently able to discuss it over the internet. Then it was a dead Earth or Dead planet.
John Cuthber Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 You seem to be trying to ignore the fact that living things have offspring and the earth doesn't so it's not alive. Why is that?
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 So, it's not reproduction. So the earth is not alive. To be alive the earth has to make little earths that grow up to be adults. It doesn't. That leads me to the question that I have asked a few time. Does the product of reproduction have to "leave" its source to be considered living? You seem to be trying to ignore the fact that living things have offspring and the earth doesn't so it's not alive. Why is that? I'm not avoiding anything I just hadn't made it all the way through the other posts yet.
Strange Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 The reason I haven't mentioned the moon yet is because that isn't a prove event. So you are going to ignore something for which there is quite a lot of evidence. (Nothing is ever "proved" in science, by the way.) While continuing to defend an idea which isn't supported by any evidence. And is contradicted by quite a bit. Let me clarify about the mountains. Mountains are a product of tectonics, the "Earth" the mountain is comprised of is recycle (reborn) Earth and the Mountain is just one phase of the life cycle of that particular recycled Earth. I hope that clears up that confusion. So not reproduction after all. I'm glad you agree now. So not alive. Humans fight for homeostasis ... But the Earth doesn't. The Earth is the same way. Except it isn't. It has no mechanisms to maintain a given state. The symbiotic relationship all of the spheres of Earth working for their own homeostasis is what gives Earth its homeostasis. Except they don't. It was life on Earth that produced the toxic (at the time) oxygen atmosphere. It is life that is causing global warming and hugely disturbing the status quo. Honestly I haven't had the time to reflect. So despite arrogantly telling other people to think before answering your questions, you can be bothered to think about their replies. Nice. I will though, all science is ever changing and my idea can change as well. That is the best thing you have said so far. Although I will wait for the evidence... That leads me to the question that I have asked a few time. Does the product of reproduction have to "leave" its source to be considered living? I'm sure this has been answered. Can you think of an example of reproduction in the animal or plant kingdom, where the offspring just remains as a minute pimple on the surface of the adult and never have offspring of their own?
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 Quote The symbiotic relationship all of the spheres of Earth working for their own homeostasis is what gives Earth its homeostasis. Except they don't. It was life on Earth that produced the toxic (at the time) oxygen atmosphere. It is life that is causing global warming and hugely disturbing the status quo. I'm not sure what your experiences is in meteorology, but if you study it you learn that the atmosphere and climate are in a constant state of change. The green house gas's are just a product of those changes to create and new balance. Hence atmospheric homeostasis. So if toxic gas is causing issues in the atmosphere, this will cause climate change which will make life in the biosphere migrate, adapt and change in ways to will help the atmosphere find its balance with those gas's and create a new climate balance. This is a on going process that never stops which helps support the idea that the spheres of Earth are apart of a greater organism fighting for homeostasis. Lance_Granger, on 18 Oct 2014 - 2:57 PM, said: That leads me to the question that I have asked a few time. Does the product of reproduction have to "leave" its source to be considered living? I'm sure this has been answered. Can you think of an example of reproduction in the animal or plant kingdom, where the offspring just remains as a minute pimple on the surface of the adult and never have offspring of their own? This is one: The G0 phase (referred to the G zero phase) or resting phase is a period in the cell cycle in which cells exist in a quiescent state. G0 phase is viewed as either an extended G1 phase, where the cell is neither dividing nor preparing to divide, or a distinct quiescent stage that occurs outside of the cell cycle.[1] Some types of cells, such as nerve and heart muscle cells, become quiescent when they reach maturity (i.e., when they are terminally differentiated) but continue to perform their main functions for the rest of the organism's life. Multinucleated muscle cells that do not undergo cytokinesis are also often considered to be in the G0 stage.[1] On occasion, a distinction in terms is made between a G0 cell and a 'quiescent' cell (e.g., heart muscle cells and neurons), which will never enter the G1 phase, whereas other G0 cells may. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G0_phase
Strange Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I'm not sure what your experiences is in meteorology, but if you study it you learn that the atmosphere and climate are in a constant state of change. The green house gas's are just a product of those changes to create and new balance. Hence atmospheric homeostasis. Quite. A constant state of change. Therefore NOT homeostasis. (Perhaps you should look up the definitions of the words you are using, instead of making up your own.) This is one: The G0 phase ... So, that's a "no" then. (You did notice that the question was about organisms reproducing?)
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) Quite. A constant state of change. Therefore NOT homeostasis. (Perhaps you should look up the definitions of the words you are using, instead of making up your own.) So, that's a "no" then. (You did notice that the question was about organisms reproducing?) you know a cell is an organism right? Posted Today, 04:35 PM Lance_Granger, on 18 Oct 2014 - 3:21 PM, said: I'm not sure what your experiences is in meteorology, but if you study it you learn that the atmosphere and climate are in a constant state of change. The green house gas's are just a product of those changes to create and new balance. Hence atmospheric homeostasis. Quite. A constant state of change. Therefore NOT homeostasis. (Perhaps you should look up the definitions of the words you are using, instead of making up your own.) That's why I always say "The fight for homeostasis" Human's fight for homeostasis too, but never quite achieve it. The body still fights to achieve it though. Edited October 18, 2014 by Lance_Granger
Strange Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 you know a cell is an organism right? So we can add "organism" to the growing list of words you have redefined. No, a cell (in a multicellular organism) is not an organism. And the page you linked to is not about reproduction. And if it were, it is not about the offspring of a parent being a little wart on the side that eventually gets washed away. The whole point about reproduction is that you end up with offspring which are copies of the parent(s) and which can go on and have their own offspring. This very obviously does not happen with planets. Human's fight for homeostasis to, but never quite achieve it. The human body does a very good job of maintain temperature, for example, within a narrow range. The Earth is not able to do that. Therefore not homeostasis. This is pointless. You just dismiss every flaw in your idea by redefining the words.
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) So we can add "organism" to the growing list of words you have redefined. No, a cell (in a multicellular organism) is not an organism. And the page you linked to is not about reproduction. And if it were, it is not about the offspring of a parent being a little wart on the side that eventually gets washed away. The whole point about reproduction is that you end up with offspring which are copies of the parent(s) and which can go on and have their own offspring. This very obviously does not happen with planets. The human body does a very good job of maintain temperature, for example, within a narrow range. The Earth is not able to do that. Therefore not homeostasis. This is pointless. You just dismiss every flaw in your idea by redefining the words. You not knowing the definitions of words is different then me redefining them. Read this. Many life forms consist of a single cell. As well as simple bacteria, there are more complex organisms, known as protoctists. Unlike bacteria, they have complex internal structures, such as nuclei containing organized strands of genetic material called chromosomes. Most are single-celled, but some form colonies, with each cell usually remaining self-sufficient. AMOEBAE An amoeba is a predatory single cell that does not have a fixed shape. It can project parts of its cell to create jellylike tentacles called pseudopodia. The amoeba uses these to move, touch, and grab prey. Amoebae live in water, where they creep along rotting vegetation. They hunt smaller single cells, such as bacteria. SLIME MOULD Slime moulds start out as amoebalike cells hunting for food in damp habitats. Later, the cells join together to build spore-producing structures. ALGAE Algae are now classed as protoctists, although scientists used to include them in the plant kingdom. Algae can make food by photosynthesis, as they contain green chloroplasts. Euglena algae live in ponds. They lose their chloroplasts in the dark and then feed like animals. Seaweeds are the best-known algae. They are made up of huge communities of algae cells. MALARIA PARASITE Some protoctists obtain food by invading other organisms and living as parasites. The malaria parasite first enters its human host through the bite of the Anopheles mosquito. Once inside, it multiplies inside the blood and may infect the liver. The parasite causes malaria fever, a disease that may be fatal. BIOGRAPHY: ANTONI VAN LEEUWENHOEK Dutch, 1632-1725 Lens-maker Antoni van Leeuwenhoek made the first practical microscope in 1671. With it, he observed bacteria and protoctists, which he called “animalcules”. Van Leeuwenhoek went on to study yeasts, plant structure, insect mouthparts, and the structure of red blood cells. Read more: SINGLE-CELLED ORGANISMS | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/dk/science/encyclopedia/single-celled-organisms.html#ixzz3GXlSKsvW The human body temperature regulation is just one part of it's fight for homeostasis. You realize homeostasis to comprised of the balancing of multiple systems right? Edited October 19, 2014 by Lance_Granger -3
John Cuthber Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 You seem to be trying to ignore the fact that living things have offspring and the earth doesn't so it's not alive. Why is that?
arc Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) Lance, Strange defined what you are mistaking. So we can add "organism" to the growing list of words you have redefined. No, a cell (in a multicellular organism) is not an organism. Bold mine. Lance, the goal for science is to describe the cosmos, and all that is in it, as accurately as possible. Thus there is the long tradition of classifying what is studied, everything in its proper place, so to speak. When I was a kid there was a show called "The Incredible Machine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incredible_Machine_(film) The Incredible Machine, which included some of the first pictures taken inside the human body and presented on film, using some of the earliest film that medical researchers had taken inside the human digestive tract and bloodstream. It ranked as the most-watched program in Public Broadcasting Service until 1982, when it was overtaken by The Sharks. If animals were classified as machines would this help in their understanding anymore than is already known? It may be novel to re-categorize biological systems to highlight their amazing adaptations but would it really help in the study of the natural world and all that is in it? Life through adaptation has taken advantage of mechanical concepts. From simple appendages to more complex mechanisms like pumps, levers, bellows, pipes, wings, the list goes on and on. The Earth has electro-mechanical systems from its magnetic field generator to its plate tectonics, the oceans drive thermo-mechanical weather systems like hurricanes and El Nino. And huge volumes of water are moved around the globe in the great ocean conveyor. Even the stars and our own Sun could be described as massive nuclear driven electro-mechanical machines. If all these systems; cars, animals, planets, anything that flies from bugs to birds to bats to planes, stars, anything that crawls, ships, anything that swims etc. etc. can be re-classified to one single category called "Glorious Machines" why don't we do it? Probably because it would not add anything to understanding the cosmos and all that is in it. There is a need to have a logical order of things to efficiently study such massive systems containing what seems to be endless discoveries down to the minutia. What would happen if overnight your grocery store reorganized the shelves according to price. Aisle 1 bottom shelf is the cheapest item in the store, aisle 30 top shelf all the way at the end the most expensive. Wouldn't that be helpful. Edited October 19, 2014 by arc 2
Strange Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 You not knowing the definitions of words is different then me redefining them. The page you linked to still had nothing to do with the question. Again: can you name a single plant or animal where the offspring consist entirely of small lumps on the surface of the parent, which eventually get washed away without having any further offspring. Of course you can't because any such organism would be extinct after one generation. The human body temperature regulation is just one part of it's fight for homeostasis. You realize homeostasis to comprised of the balancing of multiple systems right? Yep. The human body does that and other things. The Earth does none of them. Ergo, not living.
davidivad Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 peer evaluation can be the hardest step in the process.
Phi for All Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 peer evaluation can be the hardest step in the process. And one that is often taken personally, when it was never intended to be.
sunshaker Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 Why cannot life be the "offspring" of earth? Why does offspring have to "resemble" the parent, We are like the seeds of earth who will one day travel to the stars and and carry earths/our/lifes dna to other worlds that we will terra form, Passing on earths dna, which as far as we know is unique to earth., As for "homeostasis" The earth balances multiple systems, Some we understand and others are still beyond our understanding, Ice ages have been mentioned but who is to say these are not an important part of this system, perhaps to lower the temperature so earth did not overheat or to allow different species to thrive while others die of, Some grand design we are yet to understand. We still do not completely understand how life began, Some prefer to think it was a random coming together of elements/rna etc, But perhaps it was not so random/by chance, but earths ways of reproducing. Along term plan, that would eventually spread her dna to new worlds. Battle of the planets, to spread their seeds to worlds yet claimed. We are "intelligent seeds" with a built in urge to expand our territory.
John Cuthber Posted October 19, 2014 Posted October 19, 2014 Why cannot life be the "offspring" of earth? Why does offspring have to "resemble" the parent, "Why does offspring have to "resemble" the parent," They don't Plenty of animals and plants have young that don't seem much like their parents. But the important thing is that they grow up to be like their parents. And that's why life can't be the offspring of the earth. We won't grow up to become planets. "We are like the seeds of earth who will one day travel to the stars and and carry earths/our/lifes dna to other worlds that we will terra form, " And we still won't grow up to be planets. And nor will anything else. That's because planets are not alive. Why are you even trying to pretend that they are?
Recommended Posts