-->
@EtrnlVw
Unnecessary is objective. If the process can happen without some element, that element is unnecessary.
Unnecessary is objective. If the process can happen without some element, that element is unnecessary.
It's one thing to acknowledge the process, but another thing to either ignore or explain why they occur, both prospects should be of interest intellectually speaking.
If you feel it is unnecessary to explain how processes occur all by themselves from inanimate forces that is your personal feelings on the matter.
Only if you don't particularly want transhumanism within the scope of evolution. Your call, though a bit short sighted perhaps.Transhumanism is not in the scope of evolution.
Only if you don't particularly want transhumanism within the scope of evolution. Your call, though a bit short sighted perhaps.Nonetheless as far as I am concerned technological evolution will most likely exceed both humanism and transhumanism.As I stated, you are only concerning yourself with one small phase of the process of material evolution and conveniently disregarding everything that went before and everything that will possibly come after.
Would someone losing eyesight be considered an evolution or does it have to be passed onto a future generation to be evolution?
I'm fine with the definition as-is.This is not concerning the amount of people because you didn't really give that in your definition. You can give that if you want.
I'll take that as a yes.It has to be passed on. That is what descent means.
Do you consider nano machines that are added genetically added and passed on to be evolution?
Let me clarify. If some sort of foreign material were somehow integrated into the human body such that it could be passed down via inheritence, then yes, it would become an evolutionary factory.
That is not reality as far as I know yet.
Definitionally, evolution only pertains to the change in life over time via replication. Once you start introducing non-living components, those are outside the scope. This isn't about what I "particularly want" or what my "call" is, it's about what evolution is.
evolution only pertains to the change in life over time via replication. Once you start introducing non-living components, those are outside the scope.
Genes themselves are not living, they are part of living beings, though.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Is a tree a life?
So a man or woman who have been sterilized are not life?
Do you have to show change every single instance of your existence or what is passed onto future generations? Don't know how you would respond to this, just seeing what you would say and I will go from there because I don't really know what example you would use.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.4. So basically metabolism?Metabolism (/məˈtæbəlɪzəm/, from Greek: μεταβολή metabolē, "change") is the set of life-sustaining chemical reactions in organisms. The three main purposes of metabolism are: the conversion of food to energy to run cellular processes; the conversion of food/fuel to building blocks for proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and some carbohydrates; and the elimination of nitrogenous wastes.What does this got to do with growth unless you are saying conversion is growth? Under the assumption I am right anabolism and catabolism are parts of the metabolism.
I don't consider maintenance to be growth if it wasn't clear already. Maintaining is preserving not improving.Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.6. This doesn't really seem like something to constitute worth as a measurement of life because I think this is begging the question.X is life because it responds. Well a rock responds to weather by being moved. No I was talking about stimuli. So responding doesn't actually constitutes life only if you have stimuli that works? This is where you come in
No. We can define a bicycle as a pedal-powered vehicle with two wheels, but it doesn't stop being a bicycle if I take a wheel of to change it. Being sterile is an deviation from the normal template of a human. They don't stop being living, they are just deviations from that norm.
You have to have the ability to change, not that you have to change.
Metabolism is the method by which growth happens.
Certainly "response" exists on a spectrum here, but I think it's more important to understand that just meeting one of these requirements doesn't make something a life. But generally a "response" to a stimulus is some change in the internal state of the organism.
So reproduction is not essential for calling something a life?
You have to have the ability to change, not that you have to change.Can you give me an example?
Metabolism is the method by which growth happens.So conversion is growth? Please the link the two to me.
Certainly "response" exists on a spectrum here, but I think it's more important to understand that just meeting one of these requirements doesn't make something a life. But generally a "response" to a stimulus is some change in the internal state of the organism.This is begging the question. We weren't actually proving God's existence we were proving if it would respond to us. Meaning it was assumed stimuli is life and we are using responses to determine the responsiveness of stimuli not that stimuli is life. Do you think I am correct?