What is life?

[CraigD]

If I may respond to a couple of questions addressed to HBond…

Can a blood cell be produced without DNA doing the producing?

No. More precisely, they can't be produced except by cells that contain DNA.

If I understand correctly, it does not carry DNA and can not divide and reproduce itself.

Correct.

 

I posted a more detailed summary with some links in this “do you believe in evolution” thread post.

Under what conditions does DNA maintain or loose its integrity?

Moderately high temperature – around 75 C – causes DNA to come apart (“denatures”). So do a lot of common substances – as a rule of thumb, anything that’ll make something stop smelling strongly, like soap, detergent, bleach, or various enzyme-based cleaners like the sort sold to deodorize pet spills. Dehydrating it can mechanically break it up. The higher-energy part of sunlight – UV and above – can break it in places, making it unable to function.

 

In short, DNA is fragile, so is always surrounded by some sort of “capsule”. Even viruses, the smallest DNA containers, have fairly simple coverings, while plant and animal cells have more complicated ones. There are also various kinds of “scaffold” structures that protect DNA from mechanical mishaps, and allow it to be “rolled up” compactly to fit in smaller spaces, such as cell nuclei – though it’s taken a lot of really fine microscopy and detective work, for several years, there have been some nice graphic renderings of what this actually would look like if it was possible to see it - Structures of protein domains that create or recognize histone modifications, Britannica Concise Encyclopedia*- The online encyclopedia you can trust!, and Penn State Eberly College of Science -- Key Step in Gene Activation Discovered are a few nice ones, the last especially because it shows an actual electron microscope image.

 

Once DNA gets outside of a protective cell or capsid, it’s pretty much in trouble, so it’s a safe bet that when you read reports of DNA in snowflakes and similar unexpected places, it’s actually inside a container, such as a bacterium cell, inside some cell-friendly micro-environment, usually a droplet of liquid water. With snowflakes, this appears to be more the rule than an exception, as increasingly it’s coming to be believed that snow forms around airborn bacteria (see Snow is Filled with Bacteria, New Study Shows and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/04obsnow.html). Years ago, it was discovered that adding special, patented bacteria to the water jets in snow-making machines make them work better.

[nutronjon]

Hydrogenbond, I think your explanations are awesome.

 

This is off subject, but considering the way you wrote of hydrongen, I wonder how serious Pythagoras was when he spoke of the characteristics of numbers? Our minds seem to pay more attention when we give elements human characteristics such as a Napoleon complex. I know some mythology is about transfering survival information, by humanizing nature, and telling a story of three sisters, that is really a rock with a source of water under it.

 

However, I am not relating so well to everything you say. Magnetic potential absolutely mystifies me. Why would H have more of this than other elements? Like exactly what is it and how did we come to discover it on such a small level as molecules? It is a form of energy right? Then a plant has magnetic potential energy coming from H, and carbohydrate energy, and solar energy? Whoo, I am really over my head, and very excited. :eek_big:

[nutronjon]

If I may respond to a couple of questions addressed to HBond…No. More precisely, they can't be produced except by cells that contain DNA.Correct.

 

I posted a more detailed summary with some links in this “do you believe in evolution” thread post.Moderately high temperature – around 75 C – causes DNA to come apart (“denatures”). So do a lot of common substances – as a rule of thumb, anything that’ll make something stop smelling strongly, like soap, detergent, bleach, or various enzyme-based cleaners like the sort sold to deodorize pet spills. Dehydrating it can mechanically break it up. The higher-energy part of sunlight – UV and above – can break it in places, making it unable to function.

 

In short, DNA is fragile, so is always surrounded by some sort of “capsule”. Even viruses, the smallest DNA containers, have fairly simple coverings, while plant and animal cells have more complicated ones. There are also various kinds of “scaffold” structures that protect DNA from mechanical mishaps, and allow it to be “rolled up” compactly to fit in smaller spaces, such as cell nuclei – though it’s taken a lot of really fine microscopy and detective work, for several years, there have been some nice graphic renderings of what this actually would look like if it was possible to see it - Structures of protein domains that create or recognize histone modifications, Britannica Concise Encyclopedia*- The online encyclopedia you can trust!, and Penn State Eberly College of Science -- Key Step in Gene Activation Discovered are a few nice ones, the last especially because it shows an actual electron microscope image.

 

Once DNA gets outside of a protective cell or capsid, it’s pretty much in trouble, so it’s a safe bet that when you read reports of DNA in snowflakes and similar unexpected places, it’s actually inside a container, such as a bacterium cell, inside some cell-friendly micro-environment, usually a droplet of liquid water. With snowflakes, this appears to be more the rule than an exception, as increasingly it’s coming to be believed that snow forms around airborn bacteria (see Snow is Filled with Bacteria, New Study Shows and http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/04obsnow.html). Years ago, it was discovered that adding special, patented bacteria to the water jets in snow-making machines make them work better.

 

 

Wow, I am totally overwhelmed and excited. I really need pictures, thanks. Also relating this information to super hero's makes it easier for me to relate to it. I am going to have to chew on this information for awhile.

 

PS, I wonder how long the biblical explanation of creation is going to stand with information like this giving us a very different explanation? Oh, and bad to the chicken with teeth and fangs-wow, that is mind blowing. I think what we are learning is totally awesome!

[HydrogenBond]

I agree, but in the sense that life is still stuck at philosophy, because C is not enough to explain it. Organic chemistry was actually my favorite subject in college. The authors of the text book hinted about the hydrogen bonding angle, since it was what was defining the shapes that made the dynamics possible, i.e., secondary and tertiary structures of the C backbone of bio-molecules. This stuck with me.

 

If we started with a fully functional enzyme and carefully stretch it out, so we don't harm the C-N backbone, and then randomly put it back together, it won't work properly or at all, if the hydrogen bonding isn't positioned correctly. The analogy is the C defines the sports car, but H is in the driver's seat being the final variable that makes it work properly. There were actually two random factors at work to create life, i.e., the right C backbone and the right H-bonding arrangement. Even if we randomly get the proper C backbone for a functional enzyme, we now have to randomize the H-bonds to make it work, making the original random even more random. Using C alone, we are already at the limit of random since many still question how life could have happened with only one level of random. This extra degree of hydrogen random should preclude the random philosophy but we run with it anyway, because this assumption is based on a philosophy.

 

One of the main problems I faced trying to include the H was the existing theory of H-bonding did not have what it takes to make it work. The analogy is the C sports car has been given a governor that limits its speed. I had to fish around and remove these limitations. Now the sports car can be driven much faster and can accommodate a race car driver. I tried to point out how genetics is #2. The C is also another #2 with H being #1. Again, the C backbone needs the proper secondary and tertiary H based shape.

[christian_george]

Life is when you see an organism moving in a microscope. Life is when you wake and still yourself moving and breathing. Life is when your heart pumps and when you feel you have to love and be loved. Life is when you smile and feel that God loves you.

[REASON]

Life is when you see an organism moving in a microscope. Life is when you wake and still yourself moving and breathing. Life is when your heart pumps and when you feel you have to love and be loved. Life is when you smile and feel that God loves you.

 

Wait, I get it. In every post of yours you link to this microscope website.

 

You're a Microscope Salesman. :hihi:

 

We have ways of dealing with you. See ya.

[HydrogenBond]

Fire follows the rules of being life, but is not alive. It can metabolize almost anything. It can be based on C,N,O, H or almost anything. Fire can grow, fire can divide and fire can even reproduce itself in a bunch of ways. For example, radiational heating from a fire allows it to start a baby fire elsewhere with only energy transfer. It can also use matter transfer such as spores called embers. It has the ability to change the environment. It can even adapt, such as jumping a fire wall, so it can continue to dominate the environment. In terms of most ecosystem, it often has selective advantage. It is able to form spontaneously, from a wide variety of evolutionary ooze, i.e., spontaneous combustion. Humans have learned to domesticate it like a work horse, or even like a pet in the fireplace. It is still wild and needs to be caged. It has more philosophical properties of life than virus.

[REASON]

Fire follows the rules of being life, but is not alive. It can metabolize almost anything. It can be based on C,N,O, H or almost anything. Fire can grow, fire can divide and fire can even reproduce itself in a bunch of ways. For example, radiational heating from a fire allows it to start a baby fire elsewhere with only energy transfer. It can also use matter transfer such as spores called embers. It has the ability to change the environment. It can even adapt, such as jumping a fire wall, so it can continue to dominate the environment. In terms of most ecosystem, it often has selective advantage. It is able to form spontaneously, from a wide variety of evolutionary ooze, i.e., spontaneous combustion. Humans have learned to domesticate it like a work horse, or even like a pet in the fireplace. It is still wild and needs to be caged. It has more philosophical properties of life than virus.

 

Yeah, yeah. But it has no DNA.

[ramanand]

life is nothing but interaction. Interaction of fundamental particles

( electrons,protons,atoms and molecules), energies in such a way that it can replicate and produce similar or same or dissimilar such entities which can further replicate( where the ultimate function becomes gene propogation) and ultimately loss or malfunction of this interaction and entropy leads to death?

[nutronjon]

The question is to my way of thinking a "Non Sequitur" you could describe internal functions that keep something alive, but to gain any meaning one needs to ask... What does life do? what is its function in relation to a system that it finds itself in? This does not necessarily mean purpose, but what is its nature?, what trends and patterns can be observed? what is its intent as a force of nature?

 

Is a person in a severe comma alive or dead? How about someone with such severe Alzhiemer's disease deterioration that s/he has lost all memory of relatives and who s/he is? These people can exist as queen termites, but there human function is lost to them. By the way, this question makes me feel terribly uncomfortable.

[nutronjon]

life is nothing but interaction. Interaction of fundamental particles

( electrons,protons,atoms and molecules), energies in such a way that it can replicate and produce similar or same or dissimilar such entities which can further replicate( where the ultimate function becomes gene propogation) and ultimately loss or malfunction of this interaction and entropy leads to death?

 

Life as fundamental properties of electrons, protons, and neutrons, which form atoms and then molecules, is God. Sorry, my head is filled with the debates about God, and is not making a distinction between manifestation and God.

 

I absolutely love Hydrogenbonds explanation of fire as life. Fire has been used as an anology to life. That our planet be consumed by fire, means the existence of more life than our planet can support.

 

Now we come to the death part, where the energy of life on longer exist in what has been called living matter, and back to the person in a comma. That energy of life can be perserved in a frozen sperm sample, right? The seed carries that energy of life, but can only be expressed when the environment of the seed provides the conditions needed for the expression its of life. What is the energy of life and how did get in matter? How is it different from the energy of fire?

[Moontanman]

Is a person in a severe comma alive or dead? How about someone with such severe Alzhiemer's disease deterioration that s/he has lost all memory of relatives and who s/he is? These people can exist as queen termites, but there human function is lost to them. By the way, this question makes me feel terribly uncomfortable.

 

Nutron you are confusing human awareness with basic life, the human body can be alive while the human awareness that was once a function of that body is no longer a part of that body. Death of the body is not the same thing as the cessation of the human awareness that was an artifact of the function of that body's brain. Even after the human body is dead, as we think of death, cells inside that body are still alive and persist for some time after the body has been declared legally dead.

 

 

Life as fundamental properties of electrons, protons, and neutrons, which form atoms and then molecules, is God. Sorry, my head is filled with the debates about God, and is not making a distinction between manifestation and God.

 

There is a difference, only the electrons are involved in the basic properties of life, protons and neutrons are bit players only important as place holders.

 

I absolutely love Hydrogenbonds explanation of fire as life. Fire has been used as an anology to life. That our planet be consumed by fire, means the existence of more life than our planet can support.

 

Fire imitates life in many ways but fire has no internal complexity, no mechanism to allow it to transfer any information to it's possible descendants, fire cannot change to meet any environmental challenges. So fire is just a simple chemical reaction, no more.

 

Now we come to the death part, where the energy of life on longer exist in what has been called living matter, and back to the person in a comma. That energy of life can be perserved in a frozen sperm sample, right? The seed carries that energy of life, but can only be expressed when the environment of the seed provides the conditions needed for the expression its of life. What is the energy of life and how did get in matter? How is it different from the energy of fire?

 

There is no special energy of life, a sperm sample contains genetic material, information if you will, by it's self sperm is just chemicals it needs both an egg and the care of a womb to allow the expression of it's information. No special energy of life, electricity is often said to be somehow a special energy of life but it is really just a tool life has evolved to allow information to be sent to various parts of the complex life forms body. this is easily understood when you realize that chemical energy is easily transformed into electrical energy. Some fish can actually use electricity as a weapon but it is still just electrical potential created by chemical reactions and controlled by the cells of the body. The energy of fire is no different from the energy in life, life uses catalysts to control the conversion the energy of chemical reactions into metabolism, fire is simply an out of control chemical reaction.

[ramanand]

Is a person in a severe comma alive or dead? How about someone with such severe Alzhiemer's disease deterioration that s/he has lost all memory of relatives and who s/he is? These people can exist as queen termites, but there human function is lost to them. By the way, this question makes me feel terribly uncomfortable.

i think state of comma is debatable because in state of comma one criteria of life that is "metabolism" is happening but, according to some workers they state an organism as living only if it is able to propogate its information(genetic information) to the next generation so during state of comma the person is not able to propogate its genes so it MAY be consider as dead.

 

Life as fundamental properties of electrons, protons, and neutrons, which form atoms and then molecules, is God.

I don't know how you concluded with this statement that iam talking of god.

what i intended to say is that the reason for the origin of life is basically the interaction of the particles which led to the formation of biomolecules.

 

That energy of life can be perserved in a frozen sperm sample, right?

What we can store in the frozen sperm is the genetic information.which we later deliberately introduce into the ova of same species later on. Even the recognition between the sperm and ova requires some sort of interaction between the chemicals on sperm on sperm with the complementary chemicals on the ova.(this is to make species specific fertilization).

 

Some fish can actually use electricity as a weapon but it is still just electrical potential created by chemical reactions and controlled by the cells of the body.

a well stated example to show that various kinds of ions and molecules are required to create a potential that form a life supporting process in the organism.

[ronthepon]

Oh, but mules don't reproduce either. Mules are not refferable as dead. Something like vasectomy wont kill.

 

We need more than just one single determinant to judge life. And the determinants gotta be manipulated.

[CraigD]

i think state of comma is debatable because in state of comma one criteria of life that is "metabolism" is happening but, according to some workers they state an organism as living only if it is able to propogate its information(genetic information) to the next generation so during state of comma the person is not able to propogate its genes so it MAY be consider as dead.

While sterility - the inability to reproduce – is very biologically significant, I don’t think it’s very common or useful to consider sterile organisms dead. If it were, we’d consider post-menopausal women, and people intentionally surgically sterilized or sterilized by disease or injury to be dead! :hihi:

 

Also, many people in comas are not reproductively impaired. Comatose women typically continue to menstruate, and are capable of conception, pregnancy, and childbirth. Comatose men typically continue to produce viable sperm, and can ejaculate. Despite obvious ethical issues involving responsibility and consent, there are rare instances of such events actually occurring. (eg: Doctor on trial in missed pregnancy of raped coma patient - The Boston Globe; http://www.acart.health.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagescm/33/$File/deceased.pdf)

[freeztar]

Also, many people in comas are not reproductively impaired. Comatose women typically continue to menstruate, and are capable of conception, pregnancy, and childbirth. Comatose men typically continue to produce viable sperm, and can ejaculate. Despite obvious ethical issues involving responsibility and consent, there are rare instances of such events actually occurring. (eg: Doctor on trial in missed pregnancy of raped coma patient - The Boston Globe; http://www.acart.health.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagescm/33//deceased.pdf)

 

Whoa, nice stuff Craig, I had no idea! :confused:

 

Is the Medulla Oblangata responsible for this?

[Moontanman]

I think the idea of needing to reproduce to be alive is only true at a unicellular level. Complex life forms might not be able to reproduce another individual of their own species But individual cells in their bodies are capable of reproduction and even a cell that never reproduces does indeed metabolize nutrients using it's cellular machinery and would be capable of reproducing if not for being controlled in some manner by the larger parts of the organism. BTW mules do in rare instances reproduce, it is rare but mules are not sexless and will mate and at least go through the motions of reproduction if for no other reason than fun:doh: