Talk:Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Biology
Biology Portal

Life is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Tree of Life
Biology Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

Proposed Definitions Of Earth Life, Organism And Gene.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=225&#entry346136

Earth Life: 1. a format of temporarily constrained energy, retained in temporary constrained genetic energy packages in forms of genes, genomes and organisms 2. a real virtual affair that pops in and out of existence in its matrix, which is the energy constrained in Earth's biosphere.

Earth organism: a temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic system that supports and maintains Earth's biosphere by maintenance of genes.

Gene: a primal Earth's organism.


Suggesting,

Dov Henis

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1
To-do list for Life: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests: Detection of life; range of tolerable conditions (extremophiles, for example); panspermia; CHON; death; historical beliefs about life, including spontaneous generation; fossils.
  • Cleanup: "limitations of this definition[7]. Thus, many..." 'Thus' should be 'Though,' sans comma, for clarity.
  • Other: Citations.
Priority 1 (top) 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Life article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive

Archives
Up through July 2006 *

Contents

[edit] I'm offended to the very soul

So which one of you so called "professionals"

Can't even put in an alternate theory?

For example.

"There is an alternate theory relating to relegion that their idol/god created the universe"

Would at least make me LESS mad.

This one needs one serious Re-make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.21.38 (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That's right , it's unforgivable . I also claim that theory of Flying Spaghetti Monster is acknowledged . --Faustnh (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That theory was proven wrong many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.232.217.130 (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but the Spagetti Monster, and some scientists say Mikey Mouse, were created by Molok God.
  • I happen to agree. After all, Wikipedia is supposed to take a Neutral position in these sorts of things. OtherAJ (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a matter of neutrality but of proofs. Parabols and metaphors in an old book simply don't stand a chance against the answers brought forth by science. Faith and religion are best discussed in their own articles. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm just repeating what Wikipedia has said. Neutrality. We can accept Neutrality and say that there are various theories to how something was created, or we can be close minded of different theories and limit the educational material of this article. -- OtherAJ (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, it is about neutrality and objectivity, and religion lacks both in this subject.BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's be close minded then. --OtherAJ (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say: let's be objective. How about you start a new article entitled something like: "Religious theories on the origin of life." Being a religious topic, the requirement of evidence will certainly won't be a hurdle. An existing article for religious beliefs about the creation of life, see creation myth. Respectfully, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Its more like living orgasms. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.171.131 (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DISAMBIGUATIONS and MERGERS

I'm a student of linguistics. When I search for INANIMATE, it brings me here. Why? By INANIMATE in the linguistic sense, I mean the INANIMATE category in nouns, for example (e.g. ANIMATE MASCULINE vs. INANIMATE MASCULINE). When I search for ANIMATE, it takes me to a a totally different page devoted to some Japanese house or whatever. Why???

[edit] Seperation of Religious Belief with Life Itself

Coming across this page, I've noticed a couple of edits on the main page as well as the discussions here, about life being created by "God". It should be said that the separation of the science of the topic of life and the topics on the "Life" Wikipedia talk page should be respected by people of all religions. In no way does this page attempt to depict a certain religion - it tries to be as neuteral as possible. Let's please keep it that way!

[edit] Metaphysical Definition

"Life itself is a set of processes that are carried out by an organism causing it to possess a minimum set of characteristics.

In metaphysics an organism possesses life during the period between an organism's acquisition of a spirit, upon Fertilisation, until it's spirit's terminal evacuation, upon death."

--Considering that the word "spirit" itself and other spirit-like words like psyche and pneuma come linguistically from words for "breath" and don't have any linguistic ties to fertilization, it may be argued that associating "spirit" or breath with fertilization may be a modern connection. Spirit was biblically and (especially by the Greeks) associated with birth or the first breath. The Greeks at one time believed the vessels of the body were filled with air and that air/breath was the animating principle of people. After all, dead people don't breath.

Perhaps there should be a history of the definitions of life segment to discuss different views of life at different points in time and by different philosophical groups.

open_mind 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the word spirit implies 'breath', thus a plant or an embryo can not be considered to have a spirit since it doesn't have a breathing apparatus. But if you look further, the implication of 'breath' in Greek is to 'breath life into'. It is a mainly an animal phenomenon that young first breathe upon birth (or hatching), though it would be difficult to argue that the organism isn't alive nor has a spirit before it 'spirates' its first air. Of course, fish never breathe air though they still have an animal spirit and animal soul. The meaning of spirit is something that 'breathes life into' an organism, or an organism 'has life is breathed into' it. You may find this also a circular definition. The spirit is the metaphysical 'breath' itself. I believe the metaphysical meaning of spirit is the non corporeal substance that gives life to an organism, therefore the usage of 'spirit' in conjunction with a metaphysical meaning of life is not necessarily invalid.

KirkWolff 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't question the validity of fertilization as a modern view of when life begins. Maybe I was not clear about that. However, I do find it interesting that today with our intimate scientific knowledge of reproductive processes, we describe the spirit as something abstract (the non corporeal substance that gives life to an organism) whereas ancient civilizations may have viewed early life (and when it begins) much more literally (that air is the thing that animates all things).

Ancient civilizations were likely unaware of reproductive processes like fertilization and would likely view birth as the beginning of life as my admittedly amature linguistic analysis appears to support.

Maybe differing historical metaphysical beliefs about life should have their own page or a section could exist here for it.

open_mind 00:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newton serious??

The 2060 article says Isaac Newton thought life on earth was going to end in 2060. Do today's scientists still agree?? Please explain. Georgia guy 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Newton's 2060 theory wasn't a scientific one it was based entirely on his religious beliefs and how he interpreted those myths. On those grounds scientific method has never agreed with him and it is unlikely that they ever will.

I studied science for four years at reputable institutions, and I am greviously saddened to report that I find little compelling evidence to support Mr. Newton's bold hypothesis. -- Chris 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Bland quotation & the In philosophy section

The quotation attributed to David Bland added in the In philosophy section :

“At some point in their life, everyone asks themselves, "What is the meaning of life?" Some people say that many years from now, everything that we have created will not affect future generations, eventually everything will be gone or forgotten. The money and material possessions we have accumulated will have absolutely no impact on the world. If this is true, then the only positive thing that can come from our existence is our enjoyment of our time here. (To enjoy our lives doesn’t mean to waste it).” David Bland

This doesn't seem to be adding important information to the article. I myself have not heard of David Bland and neither has Wikipedia. I don't think this section should be a collection of proverbs and quotations from different individuals, IMHO.

This section needs some work, but I'm not sure that I'm the person to do it. My background is more in the science of life than the philosophy of life. Any philosophical takers on this one?

Benwildeboer 11:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone with the surname of Bland merits mention on Wikipedia. Especially if his strongest adherent here can't be bothered to write out a fully-correct quotation (2nd sentence: know vs. now). -- Chris 16:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's very negative. David Bland could be the X-factor addition to the Spice Girls on their farewell tour of Essex.--80.6.163.58 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death

Shouldn't the ability to die be part of the definition of life? I know it's a bit circular, since it is impossible to define death without life, but the same could be said of pretty much all distinctions in Western thought. . . . 24.14.246.12 23:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that cessation of life is (part of) the definition of death, not vice versa. horsedreamer 02:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Memius 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC) The ability to die has helped life grow and consolidate on Earth, but dying from old age is not an inherent part of being alive. There are creatures on Earth, such as sharks and crocodiles, that apparently do not age. Death and murder is only prevalent because it helps life in general by making nutrients and energy available in one convenient package (the dead body).

[edit] It'd be good to see a section of quotes about life...

Here's a starter:

"If it were not for the difficult character of life, it would not be life." -- Some depressed dude

Unfortuntely Wiki has a policy of only citing reputable, published sources, not reputable, unpublished persons, so this can't be added. Alas. -- Chris 16:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't hate! He may very well be published by Depressed Dudes Publishing LTD. 68.215.226.236

Does that quote necessarily indicate that the dude in question is depressed? -Peter

What defines a reputable source? Not scientific fact, not anything else, we all have to make a decision of faith because no one will ever know. Whether you base your theories on carbon dating (created by man) or whatever, you can never truly know. As a human you do not possess the ability to understand where life originated from or where it will end.

Some Depressed Guy (1809-1838) was an Australian philosopher and poet. Other famous quotes include: "there's no reason to be embarrased if you're blind" and "i'm oh, so very depressed"-- ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.20.51 (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but "reputable source" is not the same as an incontrovertibly true source--not that any reputable source would even make such a claim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.87.224 (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig

If you type in LIFE (block capitals), you'll be directed to the article about the Americam magazine, with no reference to this article.-80.6.163.58 03:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mass of Life

I'm removing the following text from the article: Currently the entire Earth contains about 75 billion tons of biomass (life), which lives within various environments within the biosphere. It was listed as "citation needed," and I think it's wrong to give such an arbitrary statistic without any reference. This is especially true because, for instance, Isaac Asimov (in The Power of Progression) estimated the total mass of life on earth at 20 TRILLION tons. This is off from the article's estimate by a factor of nearly 300! Kier07 05:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Removed line -Other Info- The cheif of the African tribe, Huhakaiuya meaning monkey god, thought monkey's and primates to be sexually attractive.--Liquidvelvet 02:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be semi-protected. Emanla Eraton 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Life is but a commodity"

I agree - this article seems to get almost daily vandalism, usually by users who are not logged in. It should be semi-protected. CharlesC 20:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've submitted a request for page protection, and it seems to have be done already. Good news. CharlesC 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spontaneous Generation

Shouldn't there something on spontaneous generation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.237.29.31 (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC). -That theory was proven to be false with a famous Louis Pasteur expariment.71.65.34.160 04:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously so. The history of our understanding of life, its origins and its nature belong on wikipedia--however that would make a very large article, and this article is already cool and developed, so such things should go elsewhere.160.94.28.165 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is Life ? The Process from Birth until Death

"Life is precious to anyone. However, ultimately few people lead their life with the correct understanding of life. Why do people live in the state of being unaware of life? It is because there hasn't been anyone who teaches about life or anyone who wants to learn about it either in this period.

Life can make anything happen to you. What exists in life produces your endless future. That is to say, life is the way to eternal you. Through your life, you can be born as the best human who you want or as the worst human who you never want. Seen from all these facts, there is nothing more important than knowing life in terms of the survival of a human being. In other words, life without understanding itself is the same thing as is abandoned."

I got this quote from an article called What is Life ?, which was written by Tathagata.

Any thoughts?

submitted by: Paul

I think "conception to death" makes more sense, and some animals are not born, but hatched.Junulo (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what is a virus if not alive? what is the nature of life?

The article says a virus is not alive because it is not cellular and does not have a particular metabolism. This is not a definition of life which seems good to me. There could be other life which has neither of these qualities. Extra-terrestial life, e.g. In any event a better reason why a virus is not alive is needed. Paul Beardsell 02:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree, a virus acts in an instinctual if not intellegent way.128.138.20.51 (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)ben

It really depends on what criteria one uses to define "life." A virus could be considered a very large molecule that has the odd property of self-replication (the main thing distinguishing it from other "ordinary" molecules). It does not carry on the functions of metabolism that we associate with "living" organisms. LotR (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where to put this?

I'm not sure where to put this, but I'd like for someone to see if they can look at this site for a while and see if they can update the names of families, orders, genera, classes and others according to this catalog. Currently, it lists 1,008,965 species. I cannot do this myself, being a simple 13 year old and having many other things to do. http://www.catalogueoflife.org/browse_taxa.php 67.171.167.106 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The taxon for "Life on Earth"

At this moment in the page, a taxon for Life on Earth is listed with the taxonomical name Gaeabionta. But as it is, the name Gaeabionta (or Gaeabiota) is almost never used, when you search for the name in Google, it seams to be predominantly used on the English Wikipedia and its clones. But opposed to this the name Geobiota seems to be used far more for this taxon, also the term Geobionta is used in this meaning. The term "geobiont" seems to be widely used, like in other Wikipedia's: pl:Geobiont, ro:Geobiont, but this seems to mean the same as "soil organism". Besides that, also the term Gaiabiota seems to be sparcely used. And the term Terrabiota seems also to have been suggested for this taxon.

Could anyone bring any clarity to this subject, and if so, please do. Tuganax 14:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A more simple definition for Life

    Life is anything that has the ability to reproduce.

Would that be a more simple way to define "Life?" --Iluvmesodou 08:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you neuter (sterilize) your cat and it cannot procreate any more, does it mean it is now dead? A definition of life includes several agreed upon characteristics and even then it cannot rely on a single one of them. 65.118.39.198 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello From Isabela Province, Philippines. TueSep18,2007 at 19:17 in Santiago(City approx 10 minutes drive NE of Cordon),Isabela(Province approx 8 hrs drive NE of Manila,Metro Manila),Philippines. My site is at http://www.michaelmanalolazo.lifeme.net Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.162.114 (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-carbon based life

The article has the sentence: Broader definitions of life may also include theoretical non-carbon-based life and other alternative biology. It links non-carbon-based life to alternative biochemistry. However, life based on alternative biochemistry already satisfies all of the narrow definitions given in the article, so a broader definition is not necessary for them. Should the sentence be changed to read: Broader definitions of life may also include alternative biology.--HarryHenryGebel 20:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I took out the following

Because it's poorly worded and look like original research or opinion... I like and agree with it, but I can't re-edit it to work.

"Of course we need to acknowledge that our concept of life is based on our own perception of the universe. We can experience that we are living and from there we formulated a concept of life with forms, entities with similar properties, like animals and plants. When it was discovered that we are made up of cells, being made up of cells was by some been qualified as a necessary property of life. But, as illustrated above, this is probably not the case when speaking of more hypothetical and non-traditional forms of life, thus also other properties could be an indication for life, like for example a certain form of sentience, conscience, intelligence and/or sapience. Thus the definition of life is rather made up out of multiple possibilities of life to exist, by some qualities which are unified in human life (although it needs to be considered that some possibilities might not be represented in humans, in this case it could be problematic to conclude whether it is really living or not).
But all these possibilities might hypothetically also lead to a form of life on their own."

125.237.59.43 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consideration on certain notion of life

--Faustnh (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2007 (UT)


Hi , do you consider appropriate to reflect on the article something from the following notion ?

Life can be understood as processes of formation of groups or sets , and different succesive layers or levels of such groups or sets :

> Atoms layer . Atoms are necessary for life , but not sufficent . Sole atoms are not living beings .

> The layer of groups or sets of atoms , in the form of molecules . Molecules are also necessary for life , but not sufficient . Sole molecules are not living beings .

> The layer or level of groups or sets of molecules , in the form of molecular or chemical reaction . Dynamic interactions or reactions among molecules , are also necessary for life , but not sufficient . Sole molecular or chemical reactions are not biological processes .

> The layer or level of groups or sets of molecular or chemical reactions , in the form of interactions or interdependences , among molecular interactions or reactions themselves . That is , there are different and separated molecular or chemical reactions , and these reactions , in turn , interact among them and influence each other , in a sort of inputs \ outputs trade chain . It's necessary for life , but not sufficient : the fact of these reactions of reactions ( or " hyper-reactions " ) of molecules does not constitute by itself a biological process . ( For example , existence of herbivorous depends on existence of plants ; existence of carnivorous depends on existence of herbivorous ; existence of many microorganisms depends on existence of carnivorous , as well as existence of herbivorous and plants ; and the existence of plants greatly depends on existence of those microorganisms ; but microorganisms , plants , herbivorous and carnivorous do not constitute together a living individual ) .

> The specific layer of life : life emerges when a closed , circular or cyclical set or system of interdependent and interacting molecular or chemical reactions , reaches by itself , or as an own endogenous result , a state of having own delimitation or demarcation ( as if the system of reactions tried to " protect " , " separate " or " isolate " itself from the environment ) and the subsequent state of having cohesion , durability and persistence .


When we have several individualized autonomous living organisms , they start to interact among them again . And the pattern starts to repeat . So it seems as if we could distinguish or consider three main general recurrent phases :

> 1º ) The phase of originary formation of interactions , interrelations or interdependences , among differentiated individuals .

> 2º ) The phase of consolidation of those interactions , interrelations or interdependences , and the subsequent formation of a new single individual or hyper-individual .

> 3º ) The phase of (new hyper-)individuals differentiation , diversification or specialization , so the first phase can take place again ( we could include or classify reproduction and evolution here ) .


Regards .

( Posted on my blog ) .


David George DeLancey (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

4:09 p.m.…I just came from topic Organism and someone requested that it be linked or moved to Life well here i am ,i also did something concerning this though it got deleted so be carefull for the issue is at hand, also i singely went to Human ,Seperation though i guess we all know what Of means anyway thats for now have a great day4:13 p.m.e.s.t.David George DeLancey (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC) …

[edit] Negative Entropy

User:Sadi Carnot was banned from editing Wikipedia about Oct. 2007. He placed text in this article about Life manifesting negative entropy in May 2007 editing difference Apparently that idea is a theory, the links go to physicists and not to biologists. Would anyone object to my removing that information from the introductory paragraph? 75.62.239.225 (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove away! Entropy only applies to a closed system and the Earth is not a closed system due to the constant input of solar energy form the Sun. Liquidvelvet (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

<a href="http://s222.photobucket.com/albums/dd87/mrsnickjonas18/?action=view&current=life-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd87/mrsnickjonas18/life-1.jpg" border="0" alt="defintion of life"></a>


Negative entropy has reappeared in the intro to the article. "A physical characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy." While it may be said that a characteristic of life is the increase the entropy of its surroundings to maintain a relatively low internal entropy, the sentence is ambiguous and implies that life somehow "consumes" the state function entropy, an abstract thermodynamic metric. Feelings on modifying or removing the sentence? EDIT: Looks like the same ref mentioned above. I guess it was never changed. J. Hengenius (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I recomend to avoid the use of "feed on". Also, negative entropy is a kind of mathematical language so for this article it would be clearer to state it as a "decrease of internal entropy". During the 20th cdentury, few physisists attempted to define life. Bernal, Shroedinger and Wigner all came to the same general conclusion: Life is a phenomena which is open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently excreted in a degraded form. Of course this definition (from physisists) is very general and therefore has limitations and I believe it can only be considered as one of life's qualities, but yes, must be listed nevertheless. Regards, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My answer to definition of life [Original Research?]

It is crystal clear that all life forms show one particular property which is following. All life forms carry some sort of information (basic information of life to complex information of that particular life form). All life forms try to preserve this information by either transmitting it to an off-spring or by any other means (Even the ant workers who are not reproducing themselves are trying to preserving the life information by making sure that the Queen generates off-springs). So, life is a communication system where some information is being transmitted in time. Question is who/what is the source and who/what is the destination of this information. Is such a definition exist? If yes please include it with reference, if not I have published this original research here :) Ahirwav (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Immanence- An important principle of LIfe

Self movement or immanence has always been understood to be one of the fundamental features of a living organism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.40.184 (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Article does not include a history of how life was understood from the Greeks, through the Scholastic period and up until today

This history of a topic is essential and should certainly be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.40.184 (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but it should be another article with a small reference from this site. Merilius (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The philosophical perspective on life should be included or the title of the article should be changed to the "Science of Life"

A great source for understanding both the philosophical understanding and the history of the concept of life is the "Catholic Encyclopedia" article at this link.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm

The article from the CE is far more complete (and better written) than this overly restrictive effort. The article includes discussions of the soul and the vital principle which really need to be included, at least to provide some historical perspective, in any treatment of Life.

Hello, althought I did not visit the (institutional) reference cited, I believe that philosophical and religious theories on the origins of life must be mentioned, but in an article apropriately named and linked to this one. Regards, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nanobes and nanobacteria

I noticed that nanobes are listed as possible life forms, therefore, nanobacteria may be mentioned too; peer reviewed articles in numerous biological journals have been investigating them for about 15 years and most are quoted in the nanobacteria wikipedia article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theoretical life

I have aproblem with this line: "Broader definitions of life may also include theoretical non-carbon-based life and other alternative biology. Some forms of artificial life, however, especially wet artificial life, might alternatively be classified as real life."

1)Since theoretical non-carbon-based life does not exist, it is not alive and therefore should be excluded as such. If If we wish to include theoretical life, we should include the Smurphs, dragons, Alien, Predator and Mickey Mouse :-)

2)What alternative biology?

3)Regarding, "Wet artificial life" there is no such thing. At best, SOME aminoacids may be synthesized in vitro. It is clearly not life as defined in this article and also must be deleted.

4) That line cites no references, as the article on wet alife. - BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed definitions

Why are these two lines separated and numbered? Are they actually Proposed Definitions #4 and 5?

  • Type of organization of matter producing various interacting forms of variable complexity, whose main property is to replicate almost perfectly by using matter and energy available in their environment to which they may adapt. In this definition "almost perfectly" relates to mutations happening during replication of organisms that may have adaptive benefits.
  • Life is a potentially self-perpetuating open system of linked organic reactions, catalyzed simultaneously and almost isothermally by complex chemicals (enzymes) that are themselves produced by the open system.

Whatever the format, life is already known to have negative entropy, so it cannot be "catalized isothermally".

Also, I have no clue what this means: "They are only individual instances of the living system that comprises all life forms on planet " This line needs clarification, fixing or deletion.

-BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)