the things I mentioned have no metabolism, don’t absorb nutrients, and don’t excrete.
by your definition they are dead.
Comment on He was no friend to the middle class
Steve@communick.news 5 hours agoAll of that is true.
None if it refutes anything I’m saying.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Steve@communick.news 3 hours ago
Right. So?
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
which takes in nutrients, processes them to support itself, and expells waste products.
Is fire alive? it takes in nutrients (Hydro carbons+oxygens), reacts them to support itself, and expells waste products (CO2+water), in fact, that’s the same input and output as many organisms. Is fire a living organisms?
you missed growth (also fire)
and reproduction (also fire, but also problematic as it means a single rabbit isn’t alive but a couple are)
BTW, not an appeal to authority, just a notice that I might know what I’m talking about. I have a PhD in biology.
there are more interesting candidates for life definition, Dawkins considered that maybe the question is a waste of time and what matters is the genetic unit, “living things” are just things that spread genetic material.
Others theories are based on chaos theory, thermodynamic cascades,matter/energy waves…
Steve@communick.news 2 hours ago
Fire can be thought of as alive, in a sense. I’d hesitate to say it isn’t. But realy, it’s more accurately a chain reaction. Fire isn’t a ‘thing’, it’s not a system of repeatitively interacting parts. That said, I have no problem extending the label “Life” to non-biological systems. A machine that can maintain and repair itself is certainly alive.
Reproduction also isn’t necessary. DNA or other form of heritable instructions aren’t necessary. Muels and Ligers are genetic dead ends, but very much alive themselves.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
the things I mentioned have no metabolism, don’t absorb nutrients, and don’t excrete.
by your definition they are dead.