- #36
FZ+
- 1,604
- 3
Why not refer to it as maths and be done with it? Biological chemistry is the study of a very arbitaryly made set of chemistries that hold importance to us out of familiarity. Rather like we make a lot of organic chemistry - though carbon isn't magic, and its still chemistry, the great prevalence of carbon based compounds makes this a subject to study.AG, biology is not a subject with which I am needing to understand something so basic as the difference between living and non-living. So I cannot see your logic at all in saying ". . . there is no difference between life and non life, and any distinction you make, is actually the creation of an arbitrary line . . ." If you are correct, then why have a term "life" and why have a field known as biology? Why not just refer to it as chemistry and be done with it?
I don't think we need an argument by authority, do we? I'm sure you will find some if you look, but that is rather irrelevant.Please refer me to the experts which say this is how we should look at life, and that the distinctions we make are "arbitrary."
Yes. I have read an article of John Maynard Smith where he outlines his definition, and the reasoning with which he derived it. One of his first premises is that he cannot accept a definition system that allows fire or crystals to be alive. This sort of logic is rather arbitary...A favorite definition of life of mine is taken from a little book by John Maynard Smith, and Eors Szathmary "The Origins of Life."
And in the end, there are critical flaws as I have briefly outlined. His definition isn't scale dependent for one. Eg. he considers fire as unable to pass on characteristics to the next offspring fire, which is incorrect if you consider the impact the orginal fire has on the environment which allows it to pass on characteristics. He did not mention crystals, and I don't see how he can justify their exclusion.