IS LIFE
Luis Arbaiza Thursday, June 3, 2010
Rom Pokemon Silver Cheats
LIFE IS
IS LIFE Luis Arbaiza
Biologist with a major in Genetics IS LIFE
Luis Arbaiza UNMSM
Thesis:. Life are the physicochemical processes of self-multiplication of certain substances. PROBLEM DEFINITION The definition of the problem that we will not be noted even that is exactly what I try, because it would imply that we know that is life, before defining it or whether we can define it. So we limit ourselves for now to note that mode will not try to corner the phenomenon, before trapping, if anything we can, with a simple and effective concept.
We refer to the time period of a human body or any organization either. So do not try the opposite of death. Not all beings "non-living" are dead, does not apply the concept of death to stones or stars. We can say that death is the relatively brief in the matter, which is just after the vital functions of an organism. We do not mean
conscious existence which has some organisms, including humans we have.
We do not mean every living thing (organism) or individuals but the general idea of \u200b\u200blife.
ARGUMENTATION
1 .- DEFINITION OF LIFE: NO BIOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM.
Just as we realize that science can not study what science is. The first consideration that must be noted is that what is or is not life, this should be from outside of biology. For what science is, it depends on the definition of life. Define concerning the epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies the science. 2.-
current lack of definition of life.
Today, despite the immense development of biology has not solved the most fundamental definition of this science, at the time and although surprisingly, the concept of life.
Many wonder if there will be life on other planets. Asking this question presupposes that there is a universal definition for life, allowing us to recognize it if anything is found elsewhere in the cosmos. But we have such a definition or criteria. Whatever we find, as there is no comparing the qualities of what was observed with a concept that lets us know if it is alive or not. 2.2
WRONG ANSWERS TO QUESTION WHAT IS LIFE?
1-Some say that life involves metabolism and evolution, but the definition of these concepts presupposes life, which is what we are putting into doubt metabolism are chemical reaction of living beings, but even not defined they are living beings. Same with the evolution of change of genetic structure of populations, to be alive, we must honestly dismiss outright such definitions. 2 .- The life is defined as the molecular structure capable of establishing a material homeostatic energy transfer, when stimulated by the environment under favorable conditions. REBUTTAL:
"According to this definition, life is not a process but a substance, a special formation of matter, an artifact. Several dead bodies meet this definition: Bubbles, drops, a body of water, rock etc.-The Virus and cancer cells would not be living. Human beings would not be a living being.
3 .- In biology, it is considered alive what has the characteristics:
Organization, formed by cells.
Reproduction: able to reproduce.
Development: able to grow and become more complex. Adaptation: the ability to evolve. Energy: energy used to maintain homeostasis.
REBUTTAL:
"The virus would not be no life.
-sterile animals and people would not be living
-One hand or one neuron would not be a
-living animals such as crocodiles, turtles, cockroaches and flies would not be living
-less bacteria.
-Man would not be a living
4 .- Physiology: A living organism is one composed of organic matter (C, H, O, N, S, P), capable of carrying out functions such as eating, metabolize, excrete, breathe, move, grow, reproduce and respond to external stimuli.
REBUTTAL:
is descriptive, not explanatory. My definition is shorter. And it is deducted from all these phenomena. Addition explains that it is those characteristics of life and not others
Anaerobic bacteria would not be living beings.
viruses either. 5 .- Metabolic
: A living system is an object with a definite boundary that continuously exchanges substances with the surrounding environment unaltered.
REBUTTAL:
seeds, spores, would not be living,
A lake would be a living being.
A planet would be a living being.
No such boundary between an organism and its environment, otherwise the exchange would be impossible
6 .- Biochemistry: All living organisms contain reproducible hereditary information coded in nucleic acids which control cell metabolism through molecules (proteins) called enzymes that catalyze or inhibit the various biological reactions.
REBUTTAL:
is descriptive, not explanatory, if the DNA will use other chemicals to reproduce, and would not meet this definition. The last sentence
biological responses, need prior definition of life, or that the same definition of life is accepted. My definition of life is not biological, but physical chemistry. Ignores biology. This definition would only serve for life on planet earth.
7 .- Genetics:
Life is any system capable of evolution by natural selection.
REBUTTAL: Again, natural selection is a concept that requires a prior definition of life.
8 .- Thermodynamics: Living systems are localized regions where there is a continuous increase in order without external intervention.
REBUTTAL: If we put water in a refrigerator, ice cubes would become living beings, it would increase its order,
External intervention is unavoidable, the living are open thermodynamic systems
The laws of thermodynamics are met in closed thermodynamic systems
3 .- Is there life? Perhaps the explanation for the failure of all the painstaking and ancient attempts to define life is simply that this does not exist.
We may be born with brains trained to distinguish ourselves from other natural phenomena arbitrarily. Auque aya no essential difference between this and other natural phenomena. On racism and people will spontaneously differentiate races that do not actually exist as natural phenomena that only exist in a whimsical collection.
We think that life exists and it does not exist. Not all propositions are true and the proposition: the life there could be false.
And this, biology has developed and grown almost to consume all their issues without a good definition of life. Thing I could agree with the position of Whitgestein that explanations have to end at some point. Perhaps the explanation is what life is beyond that point. I will try to see if the explanation is inside or outside the area where we think.
The existence of life or no life forces us to think about the definitions and how they should be this and the following discussion motivates
4 .- DEFINE DEFINITION
We must solve the problem if there is a definition of "natural" artificial life, capricious or necessary.
Life is certainly a type of physico-chemical phenomenon, not one other than this to "emergent properties." There is a qualitative leap in the evolution of matter. But only one type of matter by a particular thing.
There is an essence to every thing that distinguishes it. Life would be in something that is in it and nothing else besides no living thing should not have it. 5 .-
TWO CONCEPTS OF LIFE
The concept of life would have two meanings. A.
naive concept of life-
people identify life before biology unravel its overwhelming detail, in fact animals can distinguish living beings from inert. Here the concept of life is superficial and Aristotle's serious, I live is something that is not driven by something out of it but within it. Something will. In this concept would be naive beings, a robot, a complicated machine. you would not live, viruses, plants. Sponges etc.
This concept has only limited value to the human superficial experience. B.
scientific concept of life
THESIS:
Life are the physicochemical processes of self-multiplication of certain substances. O
Life is all what makes a substance to reproduce.
first thing to clarify in this proposed definition is that life is a process and not substance. If this happens on another planet, it is life.
This is not life on another planet AD If this occurs, in it is life. One bottle containing DNA is not a living being.
second thing to note is that on planet earth seems to have only two substances that trigger self-propagating process. Nucleic acids
1 .- 2 .- prions
In the present state of life is basically what makes the DNA to replicate.
first living
But apparently in the early stages of evolution was what made RNA. The first being on earth was an RNA (nucleic acid) which is a polymer of nucleotides single-stranded (not double as DNA). The first living creature was not a cell but a molecule. Its chemical composition is relatively simple, and can synthesize laboratory (to life). Are capable of self replicating and enzyme. You may reproduce and catalyze chemical reactions to do so.
We fruits from a patient and almost eternal process of selection among multiple modes of copy that chance was created.
agencies are present only some sophisticated chemical complexes of this initial model. And we differ from the `first be quantitatively, not qualitatively.
replicative capacity of self have also tested 1980spor enzyme Nobel Prize Thomas R.
Cech Cech, Thomas R. "RNA as an Enzyme," Scientific American, November, 1986.
agencies are present only chemical complexes somewhat improved this initial model. Random
could you create the enzymatic properties of RNAs?
In 1995, they created RNase at random.
That took a complex structure and function of ligase
(Eric H. Eckland, Jack W. Szostak and David P. Bartel, "Structurally Complex and Highly Active RNA Ligases Derived from Random RNA Sequences," p 364-370 v 269, Science , 21 July 1995)
Eric H. Eckland, Jack W. Szostak and David P Bartel, "STRUCTURALLY COMPLEX AND HIGHLY ACTIVE DERIVED FROM RANDOM RNA ligases RNA SEQUENCES," p 364-370 v 269 Science, 21 July 1995
LIFE
cause or effect? Dna
causes. Life
consequence, life is an effect and not a cause
LIFE: MIDDLE OR END?
Apparently this reproductive process called life is only a means, not an end, the end is the same as multiplication.
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DEFINITION OF LIFE
1.-There would be a single category of life, not like now where there are several.
2 .- There would be a sufficient definition, it is now no
3.-life viruses and prions would.
4.-Life would be a process, not a substance, we would be living longer than matter, as is the music. DNA is the instrument that touches us. But many instruments can play life. In fact, the life of an organism can be viewed as a symphony orchestra, and genes as the instruments, each gene is responsible for playing a part of the music, and at one point. This metaphor is similar to that found in the book Fedon of Plato, which says that life is music and the body his instrument.
We can also think of life as a factory in an industrial process, leading to thousands of workers (in man will be 25.000) to toil in sync on a task, this task would be to build another factory, burning the old leaving clear instructions new workers in turn makes another factory for the same purpose.
5.-The process of life is subject to an inert substance. All whole life is composed of inert elements. Indistinguishable from other elements inert, there is nothing peculiar in the process that takes place. Life is a chapter of physical chemistry. And a new level of reality.
6 .- Since life is all that makes the DNA to replicate, so what is the abiotic biotic.
And really not an end, because there is no will, the DNA is multiplied, as is inevitable in its chemical makeup, the laws of physics, leading to the multiplication inevitable, as they inevitably turn the moon around the earth .
7 .- In a fundamental sense there is nothing in life that distinguishes it from the inert and life as something different there. It is a particular type occur in the inert. And we see difference only one innate. No There are new processes in life that distinguish the chemical or physical world. In this profound sense only in this life does not exist. If man is extinguished, there would be no living things. only the mind of man distinguishes living from nonliving, in reality the two grades are physicochemical processes without distinction between them, if the human mind disappears and leaves to make that distinction no longer have the category of being alive.
REBUTTAL TO POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS TO MY DEFINITION OF LIFE
1.-Agencies that do not play, or are Sterile would not be living.
If you would, if Life is the physicochemical processes of self-multiplication of certain substances. Admittedly
that not all these processes are successful. And that process leads to accidents in which the end sought by this means is not always achieved.
also is not the same life. That the individual organism, life is something that happens in the individual organism and outside the well.
The meaning of life is just life, and sense of survival is only the very survival
The human body is the instrument of DNA to make a copy of itself in the next generation
The vacuum meaning of life is life. It is perhaps more honest and simply admit that it makes no sense.
An inert molecule is, paradoxically, the final and only star of life
life in the ultimate sense is like a river, one that plunges through the ages, an unbroken lineage of nucleic acids. That river rose without pause through the landscapes of time and as the water, took its shape as the shape of the land was flowing. Life, which is itself devoid of form, then takes the container that contains
change of life was constant, it seems they want to exhaust all possible ways of being, have no evidence of deep, one being. Neither
spice neither the individual nor the gene are the protagonists of evolution if it is not breeding, propagating modes or processes are the players and competitors in evolution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment