Subject: Re: Thermodynamic definition of life (was Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?)
From: Erik Max Francis
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:39:11 -0800
David L Evens wrote:
> The problem with these examples as arguments in favour of viri being
> considered alive is that they all are organisms which are, isiolated from
> other organisms, cable of carrying out life processes. Viri don't do that.
Such as parasites? :-)
Parasites can't _survive_, much less reproduce, without the host animal. But
they're certainly alive.
Not to mention that sterile humans can't reproduce, in isolation or not.
Mules can't reproduce at _all_, period. Both are certainly alive.
--
Erik Max Francis | max@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems | http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California | 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
&tSftDotIotE; | R^4: the 4th R is respect
"But since when can wounded eyes see | If we weren't who we were"
Subject: Re: Thermodynamic definition of life (was Could intelligent extraterrestrial life exist in our galaxy?)
From: Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com.see-sig (Triple Quadrophenic)
Date: 13 Nov 1996 10:06:15 GMT
In article <565qni$7og@ccshst05.cs.uoguelph.ca>, devens@uoguelph.ca (David L
Evens) says...
>
>Actually, the most common argument I've seen against considering viri to
>be alive is that they MUST have living hosts to reproduce. There exist
>no possible set of natural environmental conditions that would allow
>isolated viri to reproduce.
>
So - only phototrophs and autotrophs are alive.
--
-- BEGIN NVGP SIGNATURE Version 0.000001
Frank J Hollis, Mass Spectroscopy, SmithKline Beecham, Welwyn, UK
Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com or fjh4@tutor.open.ac.uk
These opinions have not been passed by seven committes, eleven
sub-committees, six STP working parties and a continuous improvement
team. So there's no way they could be the opinions of my employer.