Matthew Stanfield wrote:
>> I have, what I consider, a possible definition of life.
>> I have been reading about Artificial Life (studying for college) and have hit
> upon what I think could be a definition of life (at least on Earth). But I am
> neither arrogant enough nor stupid enough to believe that this has not been
> thought of before and there are probably good reasons why this is not a good
> definition. Please could someone explain to me why the age-old problem of
> defining life is not solved by:
>> "Life (on Earth) consists of all things built by DNA."
>> Could you copy your replies to this thread by email please.
>> Thanks and regards,
In the absence of any particular purpose or goal, I see no reason to
(re)define a term that has so many connotations and such a history of
heated debate. If you have such a _specific_ goal or purpose that you
wish to achieve by such a definition, you should share it. Absent that,
you post will have the same effect as any common troll, that is,
generate "much ado about nothing."
Michael D. Kersey
"I would gladly die for a man who was looking for the truth, but would
just as gladly kill a man who thought
he had actually found it." -- Voltaire