what is life exactly?

[Ilander]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I think the essential thing to consider when discussing mankind's existence and advancement is the nature of Mankind itself. To do this, we begin with a look to the meaning of these two words that make up the word "Mankind." Mankind breaks down into two basic ideas imbedded in these words: "Mank" and "Ind." The problem is that no one knows what these words mean. And, thus the nature of Mankind will forever remain a mystery. (Credits to Jack Handy)

In the words of Chef from South Park..."That doesn't make any G$#@$&% sense!"

[burnzey boi]

another thing, what do you reckon a spirit is? Life, Death or other?

[burnzey boi]

well with the help you guys gave me i am pleased to say that i got a b+.
thanx!!

[shadowhound]

Evelution, plain and simple. We are the latest step (or are we?) in Darwin's Thoery.

We started out as a single cell organism and through millions of years we evolved into what we are now.

But thats just my humble opinion (and my humble opinion is pretty bloody top-notch).

EDIT: I just noticed that you have already done the assignment, typical (but congrats on the B+)

Also: Spirit - A myth created by the human race to make it seem that there is more to life that it appears.

[ 10-12-2004, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: shadowhound ]

[Sir Kenyth]

The definition of life changes with discovery. Prions (Mad Cows disease pathogens) are at a level that may or may not be life. Are they a pathogen, or a poison? They are so simple as to look like a protein, but they reproduce by causing a chain reaction which destroys the hosts brain tissue in the process. They are also passable from one person to another through consumption. Is this perhaps how life started? A randomly formed reactive chemical that was able to reproduce itself at the expense of it's immediate environment? Was this the start of the biological order that lead to us?

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by shadowhound: Evelution, plain and simple. We are the latest step (or are we?) in Darwin's Thoery. We started out as a single cell organism and through millions of years we evolved into what we are now. But thats just my humble opinion (and my humble opinion is pretty bloody top-notch). EDIT: I just noticed that you have already done the assignment, typical (but congrats on the B+) Also: Spirit - A myth created by the human race to make it seem that there is more to life that it appears.

The question of the day is, where did that single cell come from?

[Jaradu]

I think we can safely say that humans aren't going to evolve at all... well, maybe a teeny tiny bit, but not much. The way evolution works is that the weak ones die whereas the strong ones live. In human society, we look out for one another and save peoples lives, therefore halting the process of evolution.

As for that 'single cell organism' question, that's difficult. We assume that time has a beginning, therefore before the beginning, there was nothing... so what made the beginning? There was no mass, matter, sound, light, or even a blank space to put this blank stuff in... Or, we could scrap that and say that time had no beginning, but that just kinda confuses it even more. [img]smile.gif[/img] I don't think humans yet have the ability to comprehend how all this started. I have my own beliefs, but let's not religify another thread .

[Ilander]

"Religify"...that's a funny word...

Anyway, the question of the beginning is tied intrinsically to the fact that we experience beginnings and ends near-constantly...there are too many theories of the beginning to really say...even quantum theory can't do it...and religion, imo, doesn't quite solidify a good theory of the beginning either .

[daan]

Originally posted by shadowhound: Evelution, plain and simple. We are the latest step (or are we?) in Darwin's Thoery. We started out as a single cell organism and through millions of years we evolved into what we are now.

With the only glitch there being that according to Darwin, a single cell would never evolve into multiple cells. Scientists at the moment are looking for a different explanation, as Darwin's theory contradicts the existence of multi-celled beings.
As any singular organism has its own survival as its highest priority, it is very much unlike darwinistic evolution for a cell to team up with other cells, thereby depending on others to survive, which decreases it's chances on ( manipulating ) his survival.

The reason why organism have evolved into multi-cellular organisms is still scientifically unexplained AFAIK.

[Dirty Meg]

Originally posted by daan: With the only glitch there being that according to Darwin, a single cell would never evolve into multiple cells. Scientists at the moment are looking for a different explanation, as Darwin's theory contradicts the existence of multi-celled beings. As any singular organism has its own survival as its highest priority, it is very much unlike darwinistic evolution for a cell to team up with other cells, thereby depending on others to survive, which decreases it's chances on ( manipulating ) his survival. The reason why organism have evolved into multi-cellular organisms is still scientifically unexplained AFAIK.

That is the kind of nonsense creationists make up to convince stupid people. There is nothing in Darwin's theory of evolution which states that organisms can't cooperate for mutual benifit.
Organisms manipulate their environment to survive and reproduce. This includes manipulating other organisms. If a group of organisms can get some kind of advantage from cooperating they will do it, whether it is a herd of antelope or a bacteria colony.