Defining Life: The Debate Over Whether Viruses Qualify

[kuzao]

totally agreed :)

 

[DaveC426913]

we are talking about viruses and life here of course taht implies that we talk biology here.

We are trying to define life. That means we cannot refer to life processes as definors.

do you realize that transcription and translation are synonymes for the presence of rna and dna?

Only in a biological context. And an Earth biological context at that.

All I am requiring is that you create your life definition without referring to life processes in doing so.

if your point would be valid that woul mean that you need life to define transcription and translation. but you dont.

Transcription is the process of copying something from one medium to another.

Translation is more broad, and involves moving something from one place to another, and several other definitions.

If you wish to further define or qualify those, do so. If you qualify those words in the context of the very thing we are trying to define, you will end up with a circular argument.

translation and transcription are chemical processes. you do not have to use 'life' to define them.

Now you're getting closer to a valid definition. You've removed the reference to biology (life - the circular reference), and are defining it on terms of chemistry. That is not how you were contextualizing it previously.

That is what I was asking for.

"Life is that which performs chemical transciption."

by the way i feel sorry for the other discussion participants because we take up to much space. should we continue this conversation in skype or via email?

They are quite capable of jumping in when and if they wish. It's not like walkie-talkies, where they have to wait for us to finish.

 

[kuzao]

ok maybe i assumed too much.

let me make it absolutly clear: whenever i talk about translation and transcription i mean the biological transcription and translation which is a) copying dna to rna and b) rna to poly peptide.

i thought evrybody realizes that these are chemical processes which can even be done invitro. thus i was bewilderd by your staement that this is a circular argument.



and i stated before that i only talk about Earth and biological life.


to explain what an airplane is can you use wings? i believe you can because you can explain what wings are and then say that an airplane is a thing with attached wings. if however you only say in the first place wings are the things attached to an airplane and then in the second step that an airplane is a thing with attaaeched wings that would be plain stupid.

but you can explain the whole matter by saying tha wing are surfaces generating lift utilizing bernoullis principle. i believe that is the way i try to explain life. i do not use life to define transcription and translation. hence i say that the presence of dna and rna or transription and translation are a nice compact definition of life. (assuming you know what is translation and transcription)

in molecular biology or gentics or biochem or biotech you do never call transcription or translation chemical because these processes take place in the cell and are thus biochemical or by comon agreement 'biological'

so i would say

life is what performs transcription and translation


alex

 

[DaveC426913]

ok maybe i assumed too much.

let me make it absolutly clear: whenever i talk about translation and transcription i mean the biological transcription and translation which is a) copying dna to rna and b) rna to poly peptide.

You could have made it absolutely clear by putting it in your definition anytime after post 52!


It's not that I didn't understand your point, it's that it doesn't make it a definition. Definitions narrow generalities.

 

[kuzao]

as for transcription and translation, i used these as biological terms. they are defined as coppying dna to rna and then making poly peptides out of rna.
this means that there are actually no artificial 'things', entitys or what ever who translate and transcribe.

i belived i made it clear in post 62. i guess i was wrong. sry for that. :)

i see the short commings of this definition my self. there can or better there could be exceptions but i still think this is a good starting point and defines life in its essence (but may be not in total... still curious about the organism which is supposed to contain no dna...)

 

[CRGreathouse]

let me make it absolutly clear: whenever i talk about translation and transcription i mean the biological transcription and translation which is a) copying dna to rna and b) rna to poly peptide.

life is what performs transcription and translation

So life is that which

• Copies DNA to RNA
• Copies RNA to polypeptides

So a virus, which performs neither, is not alive by your definition. A genetics lab which performs ligation and transcription would be alive.

 

[sokrates]

So life is that which

• Copies DNA to RNA
• Copies RNA to polypeptides

So a virus, which performs neither, is not alive by your definition. A genetics lab which performs ligation and transcription would be alive.

Great post.

Very well put after all that hullabaloo.

 

[kuzao]

as i said before you could take this definition and ridicule it by using it for something like a vial where you put the nececary agents in.

this however would be same as finding a definition for an airplane and then trying to ridicule that definition by carying around all the neccecary parts of an airplane and saying here see its not flying...


yes a virus would be not alive (this by the way a view shared by most of the scientific comunity to my knowledge).

what is a genetic lab using to do these tasks?

one of the most delightfull things my chemical analysis prof. said once was: no scientist however mighty or smart he/she might be can perform an analysis with a hplc or a transformation with a lab. he might however use pipets vials gloves solvents coulmns hplcs restrictionenzymes agents etc...

so who in you example is performing the tasks you mentioned? i am pretty sure there is not a single lab in the world which can perform excersion interagtion ligation translation transformation or any other gentic task. there might be however many labs which use certain ezymes and agents do this.

lets ask ourself how these things are done?
i think the answer is by using small little helpers extracted from living organisms or viruses to modify, analyse and alter organsims or generally perform microbiological tasks.

is this making the devinition i suggested before invalid? i do not thing so.
similar you could say the definition is invald because i live but do not know how to transcribe.

alex

 

[DaveC426913]

A genetics lab which performs ligation and transcription would be alive.

This argument could apply to anything you want.
"Life makes copies of itself."
"A lab can do that so it must be alive."
I think it's safe to say that "a bunch of humans performing roles that model the mechanisms of life" is disqualified as being an example of life itself.

 

[Phrak]

DaveC, what's your definition of life? This is very long thread, so if you stated it already, it's worth repeating.

Mine had been: A self replicating, adaptable system.

This leaves out crystals, and includes viruses. I'd want to have prions in the ambiguous middle, but it excludes them entirely.

Edit: The time was getting late. That should have been
A self-similar replicating, adaptive system.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This argument could apply to anything you want.
"Life makes copies of itself."
"A lab can do that so it must be alive."
I think it's safe to say that "a bunch of humans performing roles that model the mechanisms of life" is disqualified as being an example of life itself.

I would expect that most definitions of life would not apply to a genetics lab. For example, genetics labs don't self-replicate; I consider self-replication a requirement for life.

 

[kuzao]

but self replication is quite dangerous that would leave all strile organisms out of the definition so many crops would count as life anymore so many sterile organisms etc tehy can only grow on their own thei can't replicate.

you could get around that at least a bit by saying you apply the definition only to cell sized entitys but still i would say excluding annything what can't grow anymore is a bit difficult

 

[sokrates]

This argument could apply to anything you want.
"Life makes copies of itself."
"A lab can do that so it must be alive."
I think it's safe to say that "a bunch of humans performing roles that model the mechanisms of life" is disqualified as being an example of life itself.

After all those useless points (circular arguments, discussions on semantics, stating big remarks on how definitions narrow generalities), is this your definition of life: anything but "a bunch of humans performing roles that model the mechanisms of life".

I thought you were defending the view that it all depended on the definition... Based on what you complain in this thread without stating your own take on the issue, this example is a perfect satirical example of "life"...

 

[sokrates]

DaveC, what's your definition of life? This is very long thread, so if you stated it already, it's worth repeating.

Mine had been: A self replicating, adaptable system.

This leaves out crystals, and includes viruses. I'd want to have prions in the ambiguous middle, but it excludes them entirely.

Well put. I agree with this. I am just curious though, what are the adaptation mechanisms of a virus?

 

[Phrak]

Well put. I agree with this. I am just curious though, what are the adaptation mechanisms of a virus?

Can't say as I know much about viruses, or biology for that matter. Mutation and genetic mixing between subspecies comes to mind.

 

[CRGreathouse]

but self replication is quite dangerous that would leave all strile organisms out of the definition so many crops would count as life anymore so many sterile organisms etc tehy can only grow on their own thei can't replicate.

you could get around that at least a bit by saying you apply the definition only to cell sized entitys but still i would say excluding annything what can't grow anymore is a bit difficult

Fair enough. Do you have an alternate definition?

 

[DaveC426913]

After all those useless points (circular arguments, discussions on semantics, stating big remarks on how definitions narrow generalities), is this your definition of life: anything but "a bunch of humans performing roles that model the mechanisms of life".

I thought you were defending the view that it all depended on the definition... Based on what you complain in this thread without stating your own take on the issue, this example is a perfect satirical example of "life"...

You have not been following the discussion. You are interpreting my post in a vacuum.

Read https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2283100&postcount=77" (in particular, the last line) where CRG makes a satirical example of life based on kuzao's definition.

Then skip to https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2283234&postcount=80", where I demonstrate that CGR's satirical example is itself invalid, since it is so broad that anything could be defined that way.

 

[kuzao]

Fair enough. Do you have an alternate definition?

hmm

is still think that transcription and translation or the presence of rna and dna at the same time ist the most fitting definition. however i also think that this is a very strict biological /scientific definition.

the 'self replicating' defintion sounds a bit philosphical to me. if you applie it there is room for interpretation. if you are looking for this kind of defintion, i would include the ability to metabolzie.

there is something else. i think its a bit difficult to define life for single entitys. that would leave me with the need t use the word species. but i think the word species is not usefull because itself is a bit wobbly.

so how about: a group of similar organisms / entitys with the ability to metabloize and mechanism to ensure (or is promote a better choice?) the groups continued existence.

this would eliminate the problems of sterile organisms. because as long the group or species has some means of survival (be it growing, replication or something else) they would still fit in the definition. and the metabolizing part is limiting this to organic life and excluding viruses.

any thougs about this definition?

EDIT: argh some typos are ok but that was too much

 

[CRGreathouse]

You have not been following the discussion. You are interpreting my post in a vacuum.

Read https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2283100&postcount=77" (in particular, the last line) where CRG makes a satirical example of life based on kuzao's definition.

Then skip to https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2283234&postcount=80", where I demonstrate that CGR's satirical example is itself invalid, since it is so broad that anything could be defined that way.

I don't think your criticism in post #80 sticks; I don't think that most definitions would be tripped up by my (admittedly satirical) counterexample. But see post #83 where I was put back in my place by kuzao. :)

 

[CRGreathouse]

any thougs about this definition?

a group of similar organisms / entitys with the ability to metabloize and mechanism to ensure (or is promte a better choice?) the groups continued existence

I think it's an improvement over the more specific earlier one.

I do have some problems with it, though. What is "metabolize"? I think it's hard to define that without reference to life. (Feel free to disagree, with a definition!) Also, the more I think about it, the more difficulties I have with "similar". Not only is this abstract, but it also causes problems with symbiosis. What about humans and our symbiotic bacterial cultures? Worst, what about our mitochondria? How do we draw the line so those are includes but other symbiotes are not?

 

[Phrak]

but self replication is quite dangerous that would leave all strile organisms out of the definition so many crops would count as life anymore so many sterile organisms etc tehy can only grow on their own thei can't replicate.

you could get around that at least a bit by saying you apply the definition only to cell sized entitys but still i would say excluding annything what can't grow anymore is a bit difficult

Self-similar replicating system.

We're talking at odds. I'm attempting to define 'life'. You are defining 'living organisms, or living things."

What system would include crops that cannot reproduce or the product of a horse and a donkey? Individual organisms without reference to a group would not qualify, but as elements of a group, or asystem, do qualify. For instance, sexual reproduction takes two. In isolation, an individual person doesn't normally reproduce.

 

[kuzao]

I think it's an improvement over the more specific earlier one.

I do have some problems with it, though. What is "metabolize"? I think it's hard to define that without reference to life. (Feel free to disagree, with a definition!) Also, the more I think about it, the more difficulties I have with "similar". Not only is this abstract, but it also causes problems with symbiosis. What about humans and our symbiotic bacterial cultures? Worst, what about our mitochondria? How do we draw the line so those are includes but other symbiotes are not?

hmm how about replacing metabolizing with take up and process materia.

a bit difficult to answer. let me ask something in return. is a nucleus alive? he is sorounded by a wall can replicate even has sometimes dna and rna present. while the cytoplasma most offen doesn't even posses dna. so can we judge that the cell core is alive while evrything else orgaells, cytoplasma etc is dead materia?

i don't think so.

can we find a small area in a cell where we draw a circle around a partion of the space and say here inside is dna and rna. this place is alive?

i odnt think so

can we go don look at one molecule and decide if this one is living or dead materia?

no.

i think the use of the word entity is to be favored because this implies that its a unit which can consist of many parts. i guess nobody will tell you taht you are not alive but your cells are. so i would sugegst to use the defintion not for organells but only for organisms.

im not sure if we should use 'self sufficient' that would eliminate the discussion about nuclei or mitochondria but lead us to discuss only whole organisms. but then we get the problem that we have to define the environment which is enableling the self sufficiency.

 

[kuzao]

Self-similar replicating system. What system would include crops that cannot reproduce or the product of a horse and a donkey? Individual organisms without reference to a group would not qualify--but as elements of a group structure, do. For instance, sexual reproduction takes two. In isolation, an individual person doesn't normally reproduce.

im sorry but i don't understand your argument. could you elaborate?

 

[DaveC426913]

im sorry but i don't understand your argument. could you elaborate?

Many things such as mules and certain crops are unable to reproduce, yet are very much alive.

 

[Phrak]

Many things such as mules and certain crops are unable to reproduce, yet are very much alive.

Are you going to just criticize definitions or offer your own?

 

[kuzao]

Many things such as mules and certain crops are unable to reproduce, yet are very much alive.

dave do you think he/she meant that? then it would back my argument that reproductions isn't a usefull thing to inculde in a dfinition of life, or?

 

[Phrak]

im sorry but i don't understand your argument. could you elaborate?

I'm not sure I can, unless you can tell me what you want elaborated. After being unsuccessful at defining what is living vs. not-living in terms of individual organisms, I attempt to define life as more than one organism. This is what I've called a system. Living things are then part of a living system whether they can self-similarly replicate, or not.

It would be a good to define what I've been calling a 'system' in solid terms, otherwise, it's philosohpy, as you've called it. A very good point. I don't have an answer. I was hoping someone with more insight than I could identify it.

 

[kuzao]

I'm not sure I can, unless you can tell me what you want elaborated. After being unsuccessful at defining what is living vs. not-living in terms of individual organisms, I attempt to define life as more than one organism. This is what I've called a system. Living things are then part of a living system whether they can self-similarly replicate, or not.

It would be a good to define what I've been calling a 'system' in solid terms, otherwise, it's philosohpy, as you've called it. A very good point. I don't have an answer. I was hoping someone with more insight than I could identify it.

ah ok i understand :)

that would be a similar approach as in post 89, or?

there i also had problems with using species as description, i think neither species nor system is good enough. group of similar entities might be a bit better but still not good.
anyone got a good idea?

i still have some issues with replication as criteria because i think that this term complicates
the definition of the 'system' group or what ever we call it.

i will think about and write later more. now I am off to a bike tour with my wife :)

 

[DaveC426913]

dave do you think he/she meant that?

Yes.

then it would back my argument that reproductions isn't a usefull thing to inculde in a dfinition of life, or?

I wouldn't say not 'useful', I would say not unilateral.

 

[Phrak]

ah ok i understand :)

that would be a similar approach as in post 89, or?

There are two approches. You can generate a list of things like reproduction, and the ability to metabolized things, and make copies of DNA. or take this sort of list and try to identify some global attributes. The later is more abstract, with the idea that life could be more than RNA/DNA based, or include reproducing machines or software objects. You're approch is sort of in the middle.

But, let's admit it. This is all make-believe. There is no right answer; any answer is human invention. In the arena of global attributes, some want to include viruses, some don't, and both taylor their attributes accordingly.

And to throw gasoline on the fire, no one has yet brought up entropy.