One final attempt. (a lousy one) Then you can all fuck yourselves and I couldn't care less.
look I'm sorry.....
its just I hate to be made fun of. its like telling people the world is round and they laugh at you and say its flat, and your insane. Its fucking frustrating.
please listen cause I am not typing it all out myself. This ses it just as well as I would say it if I had the time.
"Let’s first ask, what is life? And immediately we are stumped ok. By contrast, physicists throughout the world, regardless of country or creed, agree on a definition of matter—anything that has mass and occupies space. Matter is among the basic stuff of the Universe and we have a reasonably good idea how it (at least detectable, normal matter) behaves from quark to quasar. But biologists are hard-pressed to offer a clear, concise, standard definition of life. At issue, again, is life’s complexity. Life is so intricate, it’s hard to describe even though we ourselves are examples of it! Frankly, the biological community has been unable to reach a uniform consensus about life’s true character.
At first glance, then, we might take the italicized property above to be a peculiarity of life. But on second thought, this property is not at all restricted to life, for it’s also a property of matter. To see this, imagine removing a small part of a star normally fusing hydrogen into helium. The extracted chunk of matter would no longer release nuclear energy, since it would immediately disperse into space and grow cold. Yet if that chunk were surrounded by additional matter having an appropriate temperature and density, it would once again shine as brightly as before.
These statements are not meant to suggest that stars are somehow “living.” Quite the contrary. It is precisely because we can be sure that incredibly hot stars cannot possibly be alive that this comparison demonstrates how tough it is to define life. Thus we cannot claim that the “whole being greater than the sum of its parts” is a property solely of living systems. This property applies equally well to many objects that are not living, as in a watch, for instance, which is surely more than the sum of the gears and springs (or silicon chips and integrated circuits) of which it’s made. A watch’s structure is made of atoms, but its function tells the time!"
"Biologists often claim that the ability to heal itself is a peculiar property of a living system. A shallow cut on a finger, for example, usually heals quickly and the system goes on living. On the other hand, the aforementioned star from which a small chunk of matter was extracted would also eventually “heal” itself. The star would adjust a bit, eventually attaining a new balance between the inward pull of gravity and the outward pressure of heat. Having resumed its original spherical shape, the star would then go about its business of shining as a perfectly normal, though slightly smaller star."
"We might say that living systems have a special property that allows them to react to unforeseen circumstances. But a star wouldn’t expect to have a small part hypothetically removed, yet it would react quite adequately to this unexpected occurrence. Stars can react, and adapt, to new states too."
The ability to reproduce is clearly a special property of living systems. Still, we could imagine a contracting protostar which, because of faster and faster rotation, divides into two separate protostars. In this way, angular momentum is sometimes judged an agent of replication, or at least subdivision. Admittedly, this example probably occurs rarely, yet it has undoubtedly happened many times in the billions upon billions of years since the start of the Universe. Some of the binary stars in our Milky Way Galaxy may well have been formed in just this way. A better example of “replication among the stars” might be the process of sequential star formation proffered toward the end of the third, STELLAR EPOCH, whereby the concussive deaths of some stars naturally lead to the birth of others. Furthermore, mules don’t reproduce and neither do sterile men, so perhaps reproduction isn’t such a definitive, unique quality of life.
Surely, some property must be associated with life and only life. Bioscientists often raise the possibility that living systems can learn from experience. Most living organisms do have a memory of sorts. Yet some nonliving systems can also remember, and even learn from experience, such as chess-playing computers. When a well-programmed computer makes a mistake, it doesn’t forget it. These so-called neural networks can store mistakes in their hardware memory, never to be made again under the same circumstances. Accordingly, few humans can beat our best computers at chess and no one can beat them at blitz-chess (when the timescale for moves is much shortened). So some of our more advanced machines, which are still merely clusters of matter, can seemingly learn from experience, much like living systems.
Finally, life is often operationally defined as having an entire hierarchy of functions. Much of the activity of living systems is controlled by chemical hormones; hormones in turn are controlled by secreting organs called glands; glands by brain cells, and so on. Such hierarchies characterize all living systems from simple amoebas through advanced humans. Similarly, though, we can regard nonliving matter as being controlled by a hierarchy of functions: The motion of the Moon is dictated by Earth; Earth’s motion in turn is directed by the Sun; the Sun by the Galaxy, and so on through the galaxy superclusters. Many material systems have governing hierarchies that resemble those of living systems.
The point worth stressing is that we cannot easily specify any property applicable to life, and only life. (there, case closed.)
Apparently, under some circumstances, common properties of life can also apply to matter. In short, there seems to be no clear dividing line between what’s alive and what’s not—no obvious distinction between matter and life."
A rock is made up of matter. So there you have it. dumbasses. Don't make fun of me ok. Remember we are not looking at the atomic structure and process of the actual matter of the rock. The atoms are moving at incredible speed. The atoms are doing all sorts of things. And its also connected to other aspects which you don't see,in regards to matter itself, and processes you can't percieve when you simple observe the rock in your limited perception and understanding.
"All this back-and-forth discussion reinforces the notion that life is surprisingly difficult to define, even operationally. The old saw, popular even among biologists, that “I know life when I see it,” is cute, but not useful in a scientific context.
Degree of Difference Living and nonliving systems, then, do not seem to differ in kind. Their basic properties cannot be readily distinguished. However, living and nonliving systems do differ in degree. All forms of life are more complex than any form of matter.
eg a rock in not alive in the way that we are alive, but its matter, and you cannot really define matter as of itself. As was described above.
As a result, we could reasonably postulate that life is merely an extension of the complexities of matter. If correct, then everything around us—galaxies, stars, planets, and life—might well comprise a grand interconnected spectrum of all known objects in the material Universe, including ourselves. This is the crux, the very heart and soul, of the interdisciplinary subject of cosmic evolution.
