O que é “Vida”? Atual Definição da Comunidade de Biologia

Baseado no post:

http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about490.html

Postby biostudent84 » Mon Mar 28, 2005 1:41 am

Defining life:

Here is the current definition of life. In order for something to be called living, it must follow all of these:

1. all known living things are made up of cells.
2. the cell is structural & functional unit of all living things.
3. all cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
(Spontaneous Generation does not occur).
4. cells contains hereditary information which is passed from
cell to cell during cell division.
5. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition.
6. all energy flow (metabolism & biochemistry) of life occurs
within cells.

Disclaimer: This is not my own work…it is the work of the biological community. If you do not agree with it, go to the PhD’s and all other scientists, don’t bash me, :lol:

Comentário da Matrix/DNA:
Tenho dito que não houve origens da Vida porque os modêlos da Matrix/DNA Theory sugerem que a palavra vida é apenas um outro nome mais simples que os humanos dão para o sistema natural universal organizado biológicamente. Mas se fixar-mos a base “célula” como distinção entre tôdas as formas do sistema natural universal, de fato os seres vivos aparecem como uma entidade “de per se”, ou seja, unica, especifica. Mas a definição acima é questionável, pois se nela tôda vêz que aparecer a palavra “célula” trocar-mo-la pela palavra “átomo”, é possível que a mesma definição sirva para todos os sistemas naturais, desde sistemas atômicos a galácticos. Porem, ainda não temos conhecimento do átomo suficiente para garantir que um ou mais itens da definição se aplica ou não a êles.
xxx
Resposta da Matrix/DNA a Biostudent84:
Hey, Biostudent84;
I have a question: What if we change the word “cell” by the word “atom” at every assertion of this biological community work? 1 and 2 continues the same; 3) I don’t know how new atoms emerges; 4) maybe atoms contains it too; 5) The difference between chemical and physical is only a human concept. From the viewpoint of Nature it makes no sense. All atoms are the same natural composition;6) metabolism&biochemistry could be primordial mechanisms with a degree of complexity.
The problem, I think, is that we don’t know the whole true of atomic system. Then, this definition is not definitive, it can be changed in the future. I think our scientific method is not complete because Biology and Physics are two different approaches and two different world visions. Your definition is from Biology point of view which does not considerate the priors natural systems that belongs to cosmological evolution. In Matrix/DNA Theory the models suggests that universal evolution is the history of evolution of a unique universal system. Then, atomic, astronomic, biologic traits are merely different shapes of this universal system, like baby, teenager, adult, are merely different shapes of a unique human body. If this is true, it makes no sense saying that a biological system is alive and am electro-magnetic or astronomic system is not.   But, then, the Matrix/DNA is suggesting a new model of atom, where the properties of biological systems are showed. Only food for thought…cheers…
xxx

Postby biostudent84 » Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:28 am

Inuyasha wrote:What the use of superior genes if they aren’t passed down. Life’s value may have something to do with contiuning life. Think about it. evolution is survivor of the ones who reproduce. Just something to chew on…
You’re halfway there…but there is one thing you should adjust. Continuing life, passing down one’s genes is not a value of life…it is the purpose of life. In biology, the only purposes of life are to gain enough energy to pass the genes down to the next generation. I.E. Eat and mate.
xxx
Resposta da Matrix/DNA:
Hey, Biostudent84,
I don’t agree. Only to gain energy and passing down genes are not the ultimate result of life. The ultimate result is that life has gained levels of complexity since its first shape that emerged from the primordial soup. Passing down genes to next generations with no other purpose would be eternal return, merely recycling of closed systems. This is the normal of astronomic systems, which are closed systems, then, they are closed doors to evolution. The struggle of life , I think, is to keep itself as opened system, permitting evolution to working. It is different of the supreme tendency of simple matter, which is to get inertial thermo-dynamic equilibrium and the eternal accommodation in this state. Then, if Matrix/DNA Theory is true, life is matter and its tendency, plus a unknown thing with another tendency, which is permitting the increase of complexity. The models are suggesting that this “unknown thing” is coming throughout natural light. When a electro-magnetic spectrum of light penetrates inertial matter, its seven kind of vibrations (frequencies) imprints the process of life’s cycle into that matter. But, then, the models does not answer a fundamental question: what’s the source of this light? Maybe the models are answering this question when they suggests that this Universe is merely the tool for an ex-machine process of genetic reproduction. Cheers…
xxx

Postby 2810712 » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:03 pm

Ya, you are right. but these chara. are common to all linings so it can’t help us decide the degree of there livingness. In the ancient scripture i’m quite aware of, I remember that, they have mentioned many levels life , they have told that they have some energy inside them the energy corresponds to oja and teja. but surprisingly they tell that non-livings also have teja and oja. They also tell that if you improve the energies of non-livings eg. by giving them some cosmic-ray energy to them-or REKI they improve performance, So the energy content of bodies determine the degree of livingness.
So, nonlivings are at zero level. but how to get the levels of other living things ? ? ? Also, according to REKI theory, for a body requirement of REKI changes time to time, so can we conclude that we also undergo slight changes of life levels???- probably yes, what do u think???
Don’t hesitate to ask queries.
xxx
Hey, 2810712,
Very interesting, I think. From the viewpoint of Matrix/DNA Theory, there is no such division between living and non-living, as understanding modern biology. Which is not alive is death, or separated from its system, like a leave that falls from a tree, a stone in the space, etc. The problem is that they are making comparison between systems and abandoned pieces of systems. Then, the models of Matrix/DNA goes crazy when suggesting that all natural systems has a common systemic formula, which I called Matrix/DNA. The biological DNA is only a new shape of this universal matrix,  with increased level of complexity. The formula is composed by bi-lateral symmetry in all aspects, so, in its energy also. There is the growing energy and the decaying energy, which could be oja e teja, or yin and yang. So, the question should be: how ancient people and REKI could get the true aspect of life? Matrix/DNA answers that is due the Matrix is registered at our DNA, it is inside neurons, our memory, and certain altered states of mind can bring on this memory to consciousness. Only food for thought. But, thanks, a lot: you woke me up for the fact that I need go back studying the books of REKI. Cheers…

xxx

Postby dr.pnj » Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:14 pm

life started with bubblig chemicals
do you know that99% of all species that exited on earth some time ofr the other are extinct today
the value of life is as determined by nature
darwins thoery of natural selection
nature takes the best and leaves the rest
it values only the”best” for survival
the “rest”get killed
htere is nothing philosophical about it
if amoeba is stronger than man it will survive long after the human species becomes extinct or vice versa
the value of life— size does not matter
and evenif it does the cockroach is a more successful oraganism than us
the dinosours were most successful
they dominated the earth for75 million years waay before humans even existed or…
xxx
Hey Dr.PNJ,
I think that these affirmations are the worst product of scientific reductionist method creating a bad and wrong world vision. “Nature takes the best and leaves the rest; it values only the “best” for survival; the “rest” get killed. The problem lays in the world “the best”. What’s is the best? What it means? It is the best in ralation to which point of reference? Which is the point in time/space where the observer is located who is saying that this is the best and that is the rest? His/her relativistic point in time and space, is the best?
Cockroach is the best organism than us, and this is the secret of its success as long survival, but what do you prefer: being the rest among human beings or the best among insects? Which will be the future of cockroaches? They became closed system into themselves, they  are going to extinction, there is no alternative. In another hand, which seems the best, has being extincted, while whose seems the rest has getting the transcendence for another evolutionary shape. Where are the dinossaurs, the lions, the whales, the eagles? The gorillas? But, the small reptile called cyanodont was the chosen by Nature for getting the transcendence to mammals.
If you think with me how this world vision is making bad human beings among the students, because the teachers had embraced it and spikes a loud about it. I think that religions are bad world visions also, but they transmits better moral values and meaning of life than this academic world vision. This world vision will be changed when Science will evolves from reductionism towards the systemic scientific method and world vision. What do you think?
You said: “Life  started with bubblig chemicals”. This is not a scientific statement. You have not showed an experiment that produces life from bubblig chemicals alone. So, anyone can say that must had something else among the primordial chemicals, and scientifically there is no way to argument against it. If you see the models in Matrix/DNA Theory, they suggests that this “something else”is natural light. When waves of light are composed by different shapes of vibrations, they are carryng the code for imprint life to matter. But, then, which is the source of primordial natural light? This mystery is a key that open the question to all possibilities. It is the key for keeping an opened mind, which is the first requirement for being a good scientist. Your affirmation above is a statement of faith, not reason, I think.

Tags: , , , ,