Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science

Well spotted.

Hemoglobin is very much alive WHEN IT IS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS (REPEAT PROCESS) of oxygen exchange.

The black tarry stuff being flushed down the loo is not alive even though it was part of the tablet.

Same goes for the overflow of excess vitamins and minerals passing through. A tiny percentage do get into process but most just make weird coloured/flavoured loo water.

Reason I put in this post is because I'm still under the impression that there are some who have a problem with life coming from non life.

Admittedly we are along way down the path from the first time it happened.

And again admittedly we gain most of our nourishment from dead organics and not so much from raw materials.

Also the emphasis is on process to highlight life is a process, not just a collection of ingredients.

A body which has just died retains all the ingredients, it is the process which has stopped.

There is no loss of weight, no mysterious soul floating upwards (or downwards), and no still growing fingernails.

Decomposition sets in as the bacteria get to work, they don't die when you do but they do take advantage of the situation.

Your body collection chemicals which you have spent your whole life looking after (? YES/NO) take on a new life - bacteria.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uh uh. CAPITALIZING words won't make it correct. It's a biomolecule produced by and then contributing an integral part in the overall life process. Unless you can persuade biologists to radically redefine life. Good luck with that one.

Wrong again. It's a mass full of that live bacteria you mention later. Though the particular strains may vary quite a bit.

Yes - some religious folks even a 'researcher' or two do believe the body weighs slightly less when an incorporeal soul departs. Well spotted!

Not sure how it is for fingernails/toenails, but it's well known hair continues growing for several days. Poor departed Elvis had to have his naturally blonde crop on top touched up by a mortician to maintain that brunette look right to the grave.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes just thinking that way probably gets us closer.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry do not know the answer. Last I heard the atheist was still in talks with god (something about permissions).

There was a long long line of long long suffering christians.

I overheard when god got wind of the discontent he yelled out

"What's wrong with you lot. You all got infinity to play with. Don't hang around here to chat to your grandchildren".

 

Negative. Shrinkage occurs of the surrounding tissue giving a poor but sometimes appearance of hair growth.

 

Agreed a mass full of live bacteria.

A mass which is not engaged in the life of the bacteria hence not alive.

 

Movie. 22 gram. Crap.

 

Well I must retract and say you were right on that point: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130526-do-your-nails-grow-after-death
Just goes to show you can't just take one or two accounts as - Gospel. He he - there's another in for Michael to pun on about.

 

You are splitting hairs now. Haw haw - another playful pun.

 

Exactly.

The iron involved in the process is alive.

 

Michael Michael. Remember that post awhile back about doing that thing called a web search? May I suggest putting say 'what defines life' into your fav browser, and take it from there. Do let me - let us all know - if you discover a non-whacko site that suggests iron can be 'alive' by virtue of being bound up in a hemoglobin molecule. I won't embarrass by asking you to place any bets, but.....
PS; Alternative health gurus/sites hyping certain foods/supplements using catchy buzz words won't count.

 

My thoughts would be if it is involved in the life process it is alive by default.

Same goes for the water, carbon, salt, etc etc.

Lets see how well the body gets on without any water or without any iron.


Don't think the below is under your PS but looks like we both might be right depending on exactly when in the life cycle of the red cell we mean.

https://www.quora.com/profile/Louis-Puddy

This is a copy and paste from above in answer to "Are red blood cells alive?"


Interestingly enough they once were. If you consider ‘alive’ meaning they can actively divide and or have a nucleus.

They're the end product of Erythropoiesis differentiation. Where the Multipotent Harmatopoietic Stem Cell differentiates into a Multipotent Stem Cell then further to a Unipotent Stem Cell. This is all occurring in the bone marrow and the cells are under stringent regulation, so they are responsive and differentiation, gradually specifying and ultimately losing their nucleus & cytoplasm.

They will further differentiate into Erythroblasts then Polychromatophilic cells, then an Orthochromatic cell, and it'll expel its nucleus to become a Reitculocyte. I suppose you could argue it would no longer be alive here, though it srill contains residual RNA before expelling that and becoming an Erythrocyte (Red Blood Cell). All this time it keeps most cellular organelles besides gradually losing cytoplasm/nucleus and changing shape/appearance.

also

Not in the sense that they can reproduce themselves - they cannot. They do fit the remainder of the definition, though.

The same would apply to neurons - they also cannot reproduce. There's a thought - your brain is made up of all non-living matter!

Sob sob

Alternative health gurus/sites hyping certain foods/supplements using catchy buzz words won't count.

Didn't think you would think that I would go anywhere near such wacko sites.

My feelings are hurt.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Poe

 

That Quora article comment was a nice little piece informing about where RBC's (red blood cells) come from, but as to being 'alive', not without controversy. From Wikipedia, under Mammalian erythrocytes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell#Mammalian_erythrocytes

But then further down, under Life Cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell#Life_cycle

And on we could go further and further into the minute of RBC's. But really, while a fascinating detour, not a word about 'living iron' there Michael.
Not to harp on and on like one or two aggressive professional Trolls at SF are wont to do, I'd say let's call it a day and maybe down a long cool one. Sounds good?

 

From one non troll to another sounds like a plan. My cool one will have to wait until I go back Bali Easter. Don't drink in Oz (no reason just don't).

As I put the question to 4 others on the site (those were answers already present) I reserve the right to post a reply if any other info comes my way.

Thought the brain being made of non living matter is food for thought.

Also 2 other examples

• outside layer of skin. Look at naked body the only alive part seen are the eyes
• mature eggs and sperm are not alive until fusion

Great Scott has the beginning of life been under our nose all this time.

Non living egg + Non living sperm = life

Can't find the tongue in cheek icon.
Uses Poe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ah, no. Sperm cells are alive. So is skin, it's the largest organ in the human body.

 

Do they?...perhaps. Most though with an inkling of astronomy/cosmology knowledge, take the Drake equation as an estimated probability, and of course the SETI folk have good reason to continue their long vigil with a mix of both hope and faith, based of course on current scientific knowledge.
Remember just a couple of decades ago, science had only "faith" that extra solar planets, planets around other stars were certain to exist. That faith has been validated of course many times over.
Both of those course are based on scientific possibilities, observations and current knowledge, unlike the unscientific application of ID and some magic spaghetti monster.
I mean compare that with those that prefer to drop down on their knees praying for some sort of divine intervention, to strike at the heart of science in general and cosmology in particular.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, Galileo had trouble convincing the church that Earth/Sun were not the center of some imaginary creation event.

Particularly so with the near infinite numbers involved and near infinite extent of the universe we inhabit, plus the stuff of life being everywhere we look.
Basically just chemistry and physics.

Bingo! Although scientists readily accept that we have no evidence for any life off this Earth, most do have "faith", based on current knowledge, and observations, that we most probably are not alone. Time and distance though are two formidable barriers preventing inter-species contact.
Remember it has only been a couple of decades now that we have even been able to confirm that extra solar planets were a fact of life, so validating that same faith.
Faith of course based on accepted scientific knowledge and observations.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Spot on. I must say though, that many astronomers/cosmologists, appear to now be holding out hope that we will be able to confirm some sort of life off this Earth within the next decade.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sometimes Alex, when transposing articles with math terms, things like powers of numbers etc, do not transpose correctly.
PS: Most of those recent papers I have posted are lengthy, so I suggest going to the link I gave and read fully.....quite interesting in how possibly abiogenisis can be gauged as certain to have occurred at least once.

 

Guess you missed the tongue in cheek.

Also, puts on pedantic hat, correct skin is the largest organ, but it is on and part of the body, not in (contained within) the body.

Guess you also missed reference to only the outside layer of skin being dead.

 

It doesn't.

No, it isn't. That's a fair summary of every argument you have posted or linked here, for example, (other than the probability estimate errors) - and you yourself described your links as the best and most "cogent" of the ID arguments.