Life, by definition is the the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through. There must be something more than that, there must be...
Art by Palestorm on DeviantArt
Page generated in 0.122 seconds
Total duration
851 users online
678,124 hits today, 2,139,894 yesterday
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Fanfiction
Designed and coded by knighty & Xaquseg - © 2011-2024
Support us
SubStar
Chat!
Discord
Follow us
Twitter
MLP: Friendship is Magic® - © 2024 Hasbro Inc.®
Fimfiction is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Hasbro Inc.®
isn't the sun alive by definition? and i'm pretty sure it's inorganic
I need to read this.
Damn this story made mah eyes sweating!! , the feel just too much!!!
i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/169/189/why%20cant%20i%20hold%20all%20these%20feels.png
I haz the sad nao.
Twilight isn't the only one with a high grade, good job!
1687144
Technically, no. It does not have a mind to think or even instinct at all. All it is is huge nuclear explosions happening all the time.
1687511
that's not needed to be alive, a body with brain damage is medically alive.
people used to say that very same thing about whales and plants, nowadays no one (I guess) doubt they are alive.
very nice.
it made me feel feels. and i liked the ending, though it was extremely sad.
might want to do something about those missing letters in some of the words, but other than that, i saw very little mistakes.
1687529
But you see, plants have instinct.
1687647
Instinct isn't need either as life definition, by the word how it is, a snowflake even a crystal growing in a cave is alive.
Just to rustle your jimmies I'm gonna say that the sun's own rotation is its instinct, but instinct depends on will, and plants don't have a lof of that.
I need a feels transfusion
ASAP.
Awww, man. Now I am sad
Nice lil' fiction. It was touching.
I just saw that this was added to the proofreaders group, and I'd be more than happy to take the job. Will you be wanting just a simple comb-through for spelling and grammar or a more in-depth edit and critique?
1687144 No. The sun does not have organisation, undergo homeostasis, adapt or evolve, reproduce, or move of its own accord. All those things ARE in the definition of life.
And no, snowflakes and crystals aren't alive, either.
1695028
Organisation.- depends on nuclear reactions.
Homeostasis.- well, maybe you don't consider light or temperature like "do something" in a regular basis.
Adapt.- not for our puny life span, but every star had to find balance inside the galaxy, which is moving just in case you don't know.
Evolve.- diferent kind of stars, isn't diferent than diferent kind of germs?
>Germs don't evolve.
>Germs aren't alive either, why do we need penicillin? What a scam.
Btw Evolve Isn't need to be alive either, is a consequence. I'm not gonna evolve as a pokemon in my life span but i'm alive, maybe you'll do, or did, I don't know.
>Primeval organism was ever live
>Dinosaurs were once alive.
Reproduce.- of course it does, Don't believe in the spontaneous generation, Darth Vader didn't build it up either. The matter with which a star is created is from stars that exploded before. But that's neither a life condition, virgins and sterile people is alive too, you know.
Move 'of its own accord'.- well, lets hit the black holes in the center of the galaxy and maybe we will see it running, just has those trees that didn't want to be sawed.
>trees are alive.
>they just 'like' sun, without really need of it.
And yeah, things like snowflakes, crystals, and even fire, have similar caracteristics, need temperature and pressure just as you need breath and food, pick up a dictionary and stop making up excuses.
i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag83/TrollestiaSubject/Lyra/what_are_you__a_dictionary__by_nexi.jpg
1695321
Organisation- organisation does not refer to being in an organisation. It refers to that an organism must have a specific configuration to function. As long as there is enough low atomic number nuclei in a star, it will continue to 'burn'
Homeostasis- Um...that's not even CLOSE to what homeostasis means. Homeostasis refers to bodies MAINTAINING internal conditions within a range. (Hint: A series of nuclear explosions in space DOESN'T DO THAT)
Adapt- Again, that's not what adapt means. Adaptation refers to adapting to an environment for purposes of survival. The star exists in a vacuum, and has/is not developing any way of maintaining its lifespan.
Evolve- Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME?! Do you know what 'evolve' means? 'Different kinds of suns' does not equal 'suns evolved'. Evolution (in terms of biology, ie what we are discussing) refers to the change of DNA, RNA or other genetic material over time. Unless you can show that the sun has ANY KIND of genetic material AT ALL, you should shut up, because that alone renders your argument FUCKING STUPID. Sorry, I meant idiotic. I mean, moot.
Yes they do. You really are an idiot.
Uh, germs are very much alive, and their living/non-living status has no bearing on the benefits of penicillin. If penicillin treats the disease, it treats it. I would suggest that perhaps you meant 'viruses', since viruses aren't considered totally alive, but that would only make your 'don't evolve' comment even stupider, if such a thing were possible.
Nice to know that not only am I dealing with an idiot, I'm also dealing with a 'Big Pharma!' conspiracist.
Well, what do you know, you said something that was correct. You know, in the absolute literal sense that what you said is right, but still *insert your own synonym for stupid here because I'm running out*.
Evolution is not needed to be alive, it is an inevitability of life. There are simply too many things that affect DNA and RNA for it to go unchanged. Throw natural selection into the mix, and suddenly evolution looks pretty sweet to anything living that wants to stay that way.
You're not going to evolve as a Pokemon? You don't say? Would that have something to do with the fact that what Pokemon undergo is NOT evolution, but metamorphosis? Perhaps if you got you're understanding of biology from somewhere other a 'mon JRPG, you'd be better off.
I don't even know what you're going on about here.
Again, not what reproduce means, nor how cosmology works. Why would reproduction, spontaneous generation or Darth Vader be the only options? And no, the matter from which stars form isn't from other stars- the matter from dead stars is TOO HEAVY to make a proper star (that's why the stars that released them DIED) The matter which forms stars most likely comes directly from the Big Bang.
(PS. Don't go taking that 'dead/died' thing as an admission that stars are alive. 'Die' is terminology to say that they no longer function, like a battery....Unless you're planning on saying that batteries are alive, in which case, I give up)
And as a matter of fact, that is a life condition. Life would die without reproduction, and I'm so glad you brought up sterility. You see, while your 'virgin' comment is totally inane- even virgins produce gametes, whether or not they're used- you probably feel that you have a good case with your 'sterility' line. Well, simply put- you don't, and you should feel bad about yourself. You see, sterile people do in fact reproduce- every day, in almost every way as everyone else. The DNA in their cells is still replicating, forming new nuclei and cells, even if they don't produce gametes. THAT is reproduction, and I'd challenge you to find the suns cells, let alone show that they replicate.
Trees do move of their own accord- the fact that they don't get up and run is irrelevant. Ever noticed that leaves change direction according to the sun? Did you know roots move according to internal chemicals of the tree's structure. The fact that movement is slow is irrelevant, it's the self-propulsion that does it.
And no, trees don't just 'like' the sun. They need sunlight to produce energy to not die. I'd love to see you on 'Are you smarter than a 5th grader'.
Oh, what do you know, another thing that's literally correct and still mind-warpingly ignorant. Yes, there are physical phenomena that only occur under certain conditions. That is irrelevant to whether or not they are ALIVE.
Also- slightly hilarious that you tell me to get a dictionary since you're the one who's used a bunch of scientific terms incorrectly. But I'll make you a deal. I'll spend sometime in a dictionary, and you spend some time with...an encyclopedia. Or four.
1699284
Ok, you win, your contradictions every two sentences beat me.
Organisation:
“organisation does not refer to being in an organisation.”
Maybe you understood something different from what I tried to said.
To answer your argument I'm would like to quote a contexted part of your answer:
“It refers to that an organism must have a specific configuration to function. As long as there is enough low atomic number nuclei in a star, it will continue to 'burn'”
I meant before that nuclear explosions need an specific order of conditions to happen. Obviously they are easily meet in the sun, but you surely will agree that an atomic reaction isn't something you just happens randomly in other places. It needs chemical elements and specific conditions in vacuum to be generated, as cells need proteins, mitochondrias, and certain temperature and pressure to live, or animals need heart or lungs to randomly breath or oxygenate their bodies.
Homeostasis: Again maybe you understood something different from when I said "regular basis".
"Homeostasis refers to bodies MAINTAINING internal conditions within a range. (Hint: A series of nuclear explosions in space DOESN'T DO THAT)"
Now, I agree that "a series of nuclear explosions (anywhere I would like to add) DOESN'T DO THAT". But the sun, as an integral living being as we are discussing it here, keep temperature always under a range, in fact the sun has different activity seasons determined by predictable stages of time.
Besides, there's not days particularly cold or hot thanks to the sun, we could discuss seasonal changes, pollution, clouds and all that, but here I want to to introduce you at the idea of Earth as a parasite living being of the sun. In fact, if the sun had not kept regular conditions, life in earth would be questionable.
Adaptation: Quoting "Adaptation refers to adapting to an environment for purposes of survival. The star exists in a vacuum"
Why can't be vacuum an environment? 0 is a number, in fact you're showing how closed minded you're, we aren't talking about alternate dimensions or antimatter here, simply vacuum.
If any living being could live in somewhere, like a fish and an eagle, in the same place, that's what I consider "Not a environment". Please do read that again to don't fall in confusions, I didn't say that's an enviroment, I'm saying "that's not an environment (fish an eagle together)" Vacuum, as any other existential condition in nature, seems to qualify as enviroment for me, unless you want to discuss its definition too.
Adaptation depends of evolution, and the theory of evolution does say something like “organism adapt to the environment”. A star is plenty adapted to a vacuum environment. (Spiderman's 2 little sun must have burnt all the hydrogen in earth without a vacuum container, but oh well, it's a movie.) The sun is not crashing randomly against other objects, it keeps a fluid movement in spiral between other stars inside this galaxy. Very early in it a lot of random stars where clashing one against another, that can be considered as adaptivity of the finest, or descendant from these crashed starts
>they dropped matter
>The sun was created from that matter.
It can be considered mere luck too , but evolution is about luck, animals didn't selected the features that made them the finest, it was the other way around. Neither does people choose when they are born with genetic deficiencies, that was just bad luck in the genetic lottery, pretty much the finest had good luck.
“has/is not developing any way of maintaining its lifespan”
Again burn is its way to live, it is and has, but animals don't “develop” a “way of maintain its lifespans”. Death is pretty much beyond most of them. (Let's please don't start with biological immortality here.)
Evolve:
“Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME?!”
Well, I'm not, intentionally, but if you feel that I'm, what I can do?
This ">" is read as "implying that" by the way, most of these sentences were meant to be satirical. But I'm sure you'll say that you already knew, because people that feel fucked usually thinks that they know everything.
Continuing:
“Change of DNA, RNA or other genetic material over time”
-DNA and/or RNA as you like, are proteins,
-proteins are vitamins chains,
-vitamins are organic compound required by an organism as a vital nutrient in limited amounts,
-an organic compound is made of inorganic chemical elements.
That chains applied to the sun breaks when you say organic, I'm not saying that it's a complicated living being. Simple living beings are usually considered meaningless, and inorganic life, being the ancestor of organic beings, is much more simpler than organic life. But going forward it's something like:
-chemical elements.
-vital nutrient in limited amounts: hydrogen, helium or whatever that fuels a different star could be that.
-Chains of the same elemental compounds, in similar composition but with slight changes, are used for the next star.
implying they are born from the rests of late ones.
You surely have heard that the matter is not created or destroyed. Then matter creating different kinds of stars, if the conditions are adequate, adapting to different conditions, changing over generations, as stars do, is something logical for a kind of living beings.
“Evolution is not needed to be alive, it is an inevitability of life”
Dinosaurs did not evolve, but they were once alive. Human hasn't evolved in like a lot, and it-s alive, sorry maybe all this is just semantics, maybe you're talking about species here, not life. I'm holding the concept of a brain damaged body in a hospital here. medically and semantically alive.
“the matter from dead stars is TOO HEAVY to make a proper star (that's why the stars that released them DIED) The matter which forms stars most likely comes directly from the Big Bang.”
Stars release a lot of its mass before shrink. and not all stars were created in the big bang, that just released matter, a couple of black holes dancing in the center of every galaxy is what made stars condensate in, again, galaxies, in fact our sun is a pretty young star, and there are galaxies younger than ours.
“you're planning on saying that batteries are alive, in which case, I give up.” I think batteries are alive as much as a cut x-mas tree, but since they man made and don't replicate by its own, then they can't be really alive.
“your 'virgin' comment is totally inane” Thanks for cuestion other people virginity, that's totally relevant to this matter and a proof of how mature you are.
“sterile people do in fact reproduce -,- even if they don't produce gametes”
Ok, you're touching two things here in your confusing rambling. both of them caused by being alive. the sun can be considered more like an unicellular being, but let's give context:
Cellular replication: well, you need fuel for that, without fuel you die, die for real, not as a battery. You could say that the fuel in the sun is the energy, and its explosions are its living components, so explosions are like living `cells` keeping it alive, or more like the organs of a cell in this case.
Reproductive cells: The sun reproduces asexually by releasing matter, matter that could be wasted as raw elements, but that surely a new forming sun will need.
So the DNA is matter needed for a new being if enough energy. But DNA is matter and everything is matter, so we all are the same thing, please don't jump from your window, organization is what makes us different.
Well, that's pretty much what you have to say, the rest are insult to me, basically you defend your point calling everyone ignorant to get people mad and win after being left alone. and since I'm leaving you alone until you have something interesting to say, and don't argue about the same points again, then you have win, congrats, you made the effort and you achieved, I'm proud of you, you're going to be so happy in life that I'm jealous.
i1300.photobucket.com/albums/ag83/TrollestiaSubject/Pinkie_Pie27s_lips_are_limbered_up_-1.png
P.S. Sorry for my orthography, it is just a comment, I don't care.
1701989
Really starting to think you might just be living up to your screen name, because this is just getting more and more inane and asinine as we go on.
Show me a contradiction.
I already addressed this point in my last post, so here's the quote:
Diamonds also form only under certain conditions, but you wouldn't say that they are alive.
Also, actually all nuclear fusion needs is high temperatures (or another large source of energy) and and the presence of matter. As long as the matter is comprised of elements lighter than lead (primarily Hydrogen, aka the most common element in the universe), nuclear fusion is inevitable and self-sustaining. And it need not be in a vacuum, either. Nuclear bombs work using this. While it is a complicated process, it's nowhere near as exact as a cell.
Referring to the sun as 'an integral living being' is begging the question. Same as trying to call the Earth a parasite. You don't get to define your argument into being correct.
The reason there are 'not days particularly cold or hot' is NOT thanks to the sun, and life on Earth would not be as questionable as you seem to think. You see, life adapts to the environment. If the sun was the sole cause of temperature, and it DID fluctuate wildly, then life would have evolved to accommodate that.
I don't think you know what 'close minded' means.
I really would like to discuss the definition of 'environment', because I have no idea what you're going on about.
And antimatter is a fact- it has been observed.
Saying a star is adapted to a vacuum environment is like saying that a rock is adapted to lying on the ground. It hasn't adapted, it just exists in that state. The fact that the sun isn't crashing into things is because of physics, not any internal forces on its own part.
No, random stars did not clash into each other. I really don't know how to address that, because it's just...false. No. Didn't happen.
Incidentally, even if it had, that wouldn't be proof of life- the fact that some stars are destroyed does not constitute evolution or natural selection. This is all a big argument from analogy. They are not 'descendants' in a biological sense because they are not offspring that share DNA/RNA or another genetic material.
And evolution is not 'luck'. While mutations are random, the overall process is not due to natural selection.
Again, this is all a big argument from analogy and begging the question. You cannot just say that burning is how it lives to define it as alive when it displays none of the characteristics that define life.
Yeah, not really seeing the satire. What are you supposed to be satirising, exactly? Also,
Yeah, I'm just gonna leave this here.
i.ytimg.com/vi/VGbVsQ8a5so/0.jpg
This fallacy here is called 'undistributed middle'. That is, two things share some characteristic (in this case- made of matter, and not identical) therefore, they are comparable. Let's try an analogy, shall we?
-The colour red is caused by electromagnetic waves.
-Electromagnets work by creating an electromagnetic field with electricity and metal coils in order to act as a magnet.
-Since both these principles run on the principle of electromagnetism, red things are magnetic.
See why you can't do that?
Um...dinosaurs DID evolve. They evolved from sea creatures, and they evolved into birds. And if you think humans haven't evolved in a long time, you really don't understand how evolution works. Evolution is perpetual and generally slow in stable environments, so any noticeable changes in human genetics aren't going to take over the population in first world countries because natural selection doesn't affect as much due to our technology. There are still some mutations that have created stronger humans.
" For example, kinfolk in the village of Limone Sul Garda in northern Italy have a mutation which gives them better tolerance of HDL serum cholesterol. Consequently this family has no history of heart attacks despite their high-risk dietary habits. This mutation was traced to a single common ancestor living in the 1700's, but has now spread to dozens of descendants. Genetic samples from this family are now being tested for potential treatment of patients of heart disease...Another example of that is the CCR5-delta 32 mutation. About 10% of whites of European origin now carry it. But the incidence is only 2% in central Asia, and is completely absent among East Asians, Africans, and tribal Americans. It appears to have suddenly become relatively common among white Europeans about 700 years ago, evidently as a result of the Black Plague, indicating another example of natural selection allowing one gene dominance in a changing environment. It is harmless or neutral in every respect other than its one clearly beneficial feature. According to Science-Frontiers.com, if one inherits this gene from both parents, they will be especially resistant, if not immune to AIDS." (Transcript of the Eighth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism, by Aronra)
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TU-7d06HJSs]
While you may not consider these to be 'recent', 300 and 700 years are the blink of an eye from an evolutionary perspective. Evolution and natural selection are also the reason sickle cell anemia rates are so high in Africa- despite providing a disadvantage in that it means your blood will carry less oxygen, it also causes a resistance to malaria. If you need an example from your own body, ask yourself why wisdom teeth can hurt so much coming out- it's because the human mouth has shrunk over the years.
Also, stars don't adapt to different conditions. They just exist. There aren't different kinds of stars, just stars at different temperatures and sizes. And unless you're going to say that MOLECULES are alive now (in which case, I think we can just end the discussion), then the 'logical for a kind of living beings' makes no sense. Have no idea what conservation of matter has to do with anything.
What? No...
Black holes in the center of the galaxy formed the galaxies, but that's not what created stars. Stars came together under the gravity of the particles that make them up. Not sure what your going on about with the age of the sun and galaxies.
Hey, hey, guess what? I'm gonna tell you a secret- you listening? Really closely? Okay...
Stars and snowflakes don't replicate on their own, either
Also, the 'man-made' thing is irrelevant.
Um, you're the one who brought up virginity. And it IS inane- what the hell does virginity have to do with a discussion on whether or not stars are alive? Virgins' cells still replicate and they produce gametes.
No, actually I'm not. Cell replication is also a form of reproduction- it's the same kind that bacteria go through, albeit more structured. Now, let's take a look at that context, shall we?
Oh, dear god...
Again, it's begging the question to say that explosions are its living components, but I'm not even particularly concerned about that. What I'm really worried about, is this:
No. So very NO.
Firstly, the parts of a cell are called organelles, not organs, but again, not what I'm worried about.
EXPLOSIONS ARE NOT LIKE LIVING CELLS.
Explosions are a chemical process, while cells are an arrangement of organelles and genetic material capable of self-replication. At best you could get away with saying that explosions are like RESPIRATION in the cell, but that would just fall to argument from analogy again.
That's not how asexual reproduction works. Guess what? Living things need minerals- those aren't alive (Unless they are, in your mind). And even if I could buy your insane idea that the sun is alive, that wouldn't be an example of reproduction. That would be like a butterfly dying, a plant absorbing the nutrients from its corpse, and then a caterpillar eating the leaves, then saying that that caterpillar is the child of the butterfly. Also:
No. See my 'Red things are magnetic comment.'
See my earlier "Projection" image.
Incidentally, here is a list of my points that you did not bother to address, which I will consider conceded unless you wish to address them in another comment.
-The sun has no genetic material
-Evolution of germs and viruses
-Metamorphosis versus evolution
-Reproduction is a condition of life
-Self automated movement
-Stars do not have cells (or any of the characteristics of a cell)
-Living things need energy to survive
-The difference between physical phenomena that only occur under certain conditions and life.
That's an awful lot of points that were apparently just insults.
Two final things.
One: I am happy to continue this. If you want to keep the discussion going, I will keep responding until someone concedes or we both just give up. That said, I WILL NOT respond to any further comments unless your ENTIRE COMMENT is prefaced with a DEFINITION OF LIFE. It doesn't need to be the official scientific definition (because you're obviously not using that), but I need to know how you're defining the difference between what is alive, and what isn't. Otherwise, this can't go anywhere, and I have no interest in trying.
Secondly, while I have not brought this up in my arguments since I don't want to get into an argument from authority, I am actually studying biochemistry at University. I am by no means a scientist, nor do I have any qualifications yet, but I do want to point out that I DO have some idea of what I'm talking about here- I'm not just pulling crap from my ass (or Wikipedia).
Happy days.
1701989>>1709207>>1687647
I appreciate the concern but.....
COULD YOU STOP WRITING BOOKS?
That is all
And btw....
Bacteria evolve, and have DNA
Animals too
Suns aren't alive
Neither are rocks....
Just a biology class standpoint.
1709207
1713384 fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/208/e/b/oh_you__by_dreatos-d41w4kl.png
Masterful trolling, there. Exactly the right amount of stupid to be believable. Consider my jimmies rustled.
:,), very well written, apart from the few grammatical errors. Thumbs up, keep writing