Human beings Living or Non-Living?

On the basis of science and logic.

Chemistry: All matter in this universe is composed of 100+ elements. They are NON-LIVING things.

Physics: Space is also a NON-LIVING thing.

Humans: Say a human weighs 60kg. Whatever a man is composed of, all of his body is made up of matter,thus from these 100+ elements which are all NON-LIVING things, so the man is essentially a NON-LIVING thing.

Q) Can combination of two non-living things make a living thing ? No.

If someone says yes, that means living thing is made up of
non-living things? So fundamentally there is nothing which is living
thing!

Q) Can we call the different changes, movement of the non-living things as
living thing?

(What we call eating, metabolic, neural activity, growing,
reproduction etc is a change and movement of mass and energy from, one
place and form to another form and place.)
So the answer maybe NO.

But science defines a living being in similar fashion.

So what are we Humans??

LIVING BEINGS OR NON-LIVING THINGS ??

PS: Religious definitions and explanations can be kept aside for a while. Lets discuss it on the basis of Science n logic.

 

how do u define a living organism or thing?






its kind of as if u r arguing y when u add two prime numbers the resulting number isnt prime....
lmao

 

Phitu topic

 

Please explain all life processes then on basis of this same science.

I'm sure you can tell me how cells divide though they are non-living. I mean we see rocks and water dividing all the time right? Baby water is really cute don't you think?

 

there will be no such thing called as living if u apply notty's logic lol

 

Life processes are nothing but continuous chemical reactions between complex compounds and as I earlier said, Its just a transfer of mass and energy from one form and place to another.

And why is everybody asking me the definition of "living" ?

That's the question I've raised right? On what basis would you call something living?

 

Can living as I define it be percieved by something as cold and impersonal as science? I think not.

Also I don't agree with your intermingling science and logic.

 

blaaah

life is defined as
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.




although there is no universal agreement as to a definition of life, its biological manifestations are generally considered to be organization, metabolism, growth, irritability, adaptation, and reproduction. Protozoa perform, in a single cell, the same life functions as those carried on by the complex tissues and organs of humans and other highly developed organisms. The attributes of life are inherent in such minute structures as viruses, bacteria, and genes, just as they are in the whale and the giant sequoia. In seeking an understanding of life, scientists have broken down many barriers that once separated the physical sciences from the biological sciences; a result of the growth of biochemistry, biophysics, and other interrelated fields of study has been a better understanding of the composition and functioning of living tissues of all kinds.

Characteristics of Life

Organization is found in the basic living unit, the cell, and in the organized groupings of cells into organs and organisms. Metabolism includes the conversion of nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and the decomposition of organic matter (catalysis), producing energy. Growth in living matter is an increase in size of all parts, as distinguished from simple addition of material; it results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. Irritability, or response to stimuli, takes many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals; in plants response is usually much different than in animals but is nonetheless present. Adaptation, the accommodation of a living organism to its present or to a new environment, is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity. The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction; usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either a***ually, from a single parent organism, or ***ually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

The Basis of Life

Much of the history of biology and of philosophy as related to biology has been marked by a division of thought between vitalistic (or animistic) and mechanistic (or materialistic) concepts. In the most antithetic interpretations of these concepts, the vitalistic school maintains that there is a vital force that distinguishes the living from the nonliving and the mechanistic school holds that there is no essential difference between the animate and inanimate and that all life can be explained by physical and chemical laws. Such diametrically opposed views have actually seldom been held by investigators of either school; elements of both are usually involved. The animistic school, largely predicated on the inexplicability of the basic phenomena of life, has been greatly overshadowed by the accumulating weight of scientific data. As more and more is learned of the minute details of the structure and composition of the substances that make up the cell (to the extent that some have been synthesized chemically), it has become increasingly apparent that living matter is made up of the same (and only those) elements found in inorganic material, except that they are differently organized.

 

Even I believe there are things way beyond the comprehension of science.

The only reason to start the thread is to take a Concordist approach and understand those people's perspectives for whom Science is a yardstick for everything.

Anyway, if you say Humans are living beings .. why?

PS: I think there's nothing illogical about my post is there?

 

A conventional definition

Although there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to cool off.
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Production of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either a***ually, from a single parent organism, or ***ually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

 

all definitions have been made by man

ie we chose to call those who perform part or all or which parts of the metabolic activities in post 10 as living


so the choice was made by man n if u dont agree to that we can do nothing about it .... its ur choice lol

 

When you say "let us use science AND logic", it makes for a flawed argument.

Take for example what spy_game said about 2 prime numbers not adding up to make a prime number....using math AND logic, we could probably make a similar argument for this. I recall a particularly good one which proves that 1=0. There are always flaws in logical assumptions when we make arguments such as these.

In the argument you presented, I'm guessing that the flaw lies in this statement:

Q) Can combination of two non-living things make a living thing ? No.


If you say no, does this mean that you believe that life has always existed on this planet? Does this again lead to meaning that you believe in a creator...a God? If you say yes, you do not nescessarily endorse the view you stated. The correct answer to this would be "I don't know" since most of the theories regarding Origin of life are dubious at best.



Of course, I haven't researched any of this. Perhaps there is an answer to this question that I did not know of...? I just decided to present this to find a flaw in the argument. I do not believe science alone can comprehend life as we see it.

 

Isn't this a spam thread? *yay*

+ Yes, Notty there is nothing illogical in your thread.

 

I don't care.

 

+ Bah
~~~~

 

yep the divide by zero part :


back to topic

this debate will never end as it depends on ur point of view...

 

its the same old question, put in a slightly different context, that what makes us tick?

science has so far been unable to pin the answer, cuz science is all yes or no, too definitive while life, in my opinion, has variable elements to it, its not as easy as 1+2=3, it is something like 1+2+(x)-(y)=59.497 ...
considering that we ARE infact made up of very basic elements, there must be something!! some x&y that adds on to all this and animte us ..
if life was so accidental and so easy so that a combination of some chemicals could yield living organisms, we should expect some laboratory made planktons atleast .. but no! we havent even come close to producing life ..

^ thats science and logic ..

so what is it then? what makes us living (if) and a stone non-living? firstly ofcourse the characteristics of living organisms as defined by spy define as as living creatures ... and the answer to what is it? i dont know .. science doesnt know .. and logic says something x&y thats making us tick, or may it be some sublime harmony and balance of very very specific chemicals, a particular ratio of materials, together with some un explained natural phenomenon that brings it all together and blows life into it ..


so far no answer ..

however,a religious view is far more simple

 

what is this a joke

 

^
Ah notty was ryte..all ure replies seem ***y n cool..i agree

 

Who defined living and non-living anyway?
What is a definition?
How does a person think?

There is some non living way, probably some thermodynamic equation that can be applied to answer the above questions right? Please go ahead. And then tell me who decides what is hot and cold and who compares whether 2 objects are in the same thermodynamic state. Which non-living object is going to interpret the rising of the mercury in the thermometer?