Tuesday, May 31, 2005

A challenge question for all years!

One minute, an organism is alive. The next minute, it is dead. What is the difference? Comments please!
Posted by Brian Taylor at 10:40 AM

13 comments:

  1. AnonymousMay 31, 2005 at 12:35 PM

    I dont get the question!

    ReplyDelete
  2. AristotleMay 31, 2005 at 1:27 PM

    Well the question is about something that was living and now not living. So a comparison of the two states would seem about right. What is life.....

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousMay 31, 2005 at 1:29 PM

    Aristotle is right. What REALLY is the difference between a living and a dead organism?

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousMay 31, 2005 at 6:47 PM

    the difference between the 2 is that the dead organism does not show any of the seven living characteristics of life...........


    however this can be disputed as certain induviduals beleive that the 7 characteristics of life (MRSGREN) is no longer true, as many modern scienticts now are under the beleif that VIRUSES are living as well, and viruses do not show all the 7 characteristics. People just are not taught this because the school curriculum is very slow to catch up to real life....

    P.S.. this is REALLY true
    Check it out for yourself

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pam CarterJune 1, 2005 at 11:23 AM

    You are right. A living organism can carry out the 7 characteristics, and a dead one cannot. And yes, viruses do not fit into this pattern. But even so, there comes a point where a virus cannot infect any cells. But WHAT decides the exact point at which an organism can no carry out the 7 things? It is a deeper question than you think.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AristotleJune 1, 2005 at 11:29 AM

    just had a chat with Plato he reckons that there was in international conference in about 2003/4 that decided that the viruses are in fact living and that this is based on nucleic acid replication. Thus Mrs Gren is in fact dead RIP

    ReplyDelete
  7. Aristotle at homeJune 1, 2005 at 5:43 PM

    We kicked is idea around at the gymnasium today consensus is that we switch to the aternative question....at what point does an organism assume all 7 charactersitics.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousJune 8, 2005 at 8:19 PM

    Pah..the modern world. It brings technology and fine life, but with it, worry. 20000 years ago nobody worried whether or not to do bad in the tests. Nobody worried about whether or not they're going to starve to death. Everybody shares, everybody is happy. Life maybe uncomfortable, but still happy. Also, with the modern world, comes a new theory only to be broken into fragments not long after. I wouldn't be surprised if Light Relativity is broken in 100 years or so. example MRSGREN.

    But to get on topic, living things reproduce and dead things do not? sure, viruses divide (one may joke as they are 'divorcing') but isn't that still considered reproducing? And don't living things move whilst Dead things do not (unless artificially aided) ? Just a few thoughts..

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousJune 8, 2005 at 8:20 PM

    Oh and aristotle managed to get 80% of his theories wrong :P

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousJune 9, 2005 at 7:19 PM

    living trees doesn't move (unless artificially aided), don't they?

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousJune 9, 2005 at 9:09 PM

    they move by growing. otherwise, MRSGREN would've been dead 50 years ago. yes, it sounds strange.

    ReplyDelete
  12. AristotleJune 9, 2005 at 9:14 PM

    Aristotle at home

    What gibberishness is this at anonymous. If a theory should be shattered into a thousand pieces then should'nt we rejoice that it is so? Is that not after all what a theory is destined for? A theory is not fact but simple a high probability but certainly not P= 1.0 You adopt a common misconception about the working of science. Science tells us not what is so but what is not so...No viruses do not divide. Their nucleic acid is replicated, multiple copies of their protein shells are produced by the host but they do not divide. Viruses will never divorce as they do not associate and form relationships together for the purposes of procreation. Living things do of course move all be it in some cases very slowly or rarely. A living tree does moves(slowely) as it grows in response to external stimuli. We are encouraged in our bio class to turn questions on their head...so lets ask the question 'when does non living become living'. At what point do the inorganic molecules Carbon dioxide and water absorbed by plants and transformed into organic molecules become 'living' what is the property that these molecules assume that makes them part of a living thing? Perhaps we need to determine the fundimental unit of life to find the boundary....just a thought...revision.....

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousNovember 2, 2005 at 7:19 PM

    anonmyous and aristotle are just arguing.

    and no ones answered the question
    =-0

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)