Are Sperm a Living Creature?

[Dr. Michael T. MacDonell]

In <Pine.SOL.3.91.961229132501.24495A-100000 at mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) writes: 
>
>
>
>On 29 Dec 1996, Dr. Michael T. MacDonell wrote:
>
>> In <Pine.SOL.3.91.961229114117.16136B-100000 at mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>
>> berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) writes: 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Sid Lipkin wrote:
>> >
>> >> Always wondered this...Is human sperm classed as a living
creature?
>> >
>> >It depends on your definition of life. Some say
>> >that computer viruses are also living beings.
>> >And so are the cars: they do multiply 
>> >(on car factories) using the environment (assembly
>> >workers) for their reproduction and their is
>> >Dawrinian competition for survival between 
>> >variuous breeds of cars.
>
>
>> 
>> Some say that the earth rides through the universe on the back of a
>> giant turtle!
>> 
>
>I suggest that you read "Physics of Immortality" by
>Frank Tipler (Doubleday, 1994). There is also a 
>growing follow up literature to this problem (that is
>the definition of life). Then you see that your
>joke on turtle misses the point.
>Alex Berezin

No, Alex, it is you who misses the point.  Reading Frank Tipler, or
anyone else, really adds nothing to the debate other than to add
another opinion.  The problem is that "life" is a definition.  If you
were to allow that the definition of "life" is anything blue in color,
then, by definition, everything colored blue would be living.  I use an
outlandish example, admittedly, but it makes the point.

If life were an entity you could measure, quantify, weigh, etc., then
it would not evoke a flurry of opinions.  The same problem, by the way,
is experienced in the field of microbial taxonomy.  How do you decide
that bacterium "A" is a different species than bacterium "B"?  If you
use the standard definition of a species, then you should determine
whether they can produce viable offspring.  Doesn't work does it.  In
fact, it doesn't come close.  So what happens is that some folks
propose that bacterial species are defined by DNA:DNA hybridization
similarities, or 5S rRNA sequence differences, or 16S rRNA differences,
or even gross differences in enzymatic pathways.  In the end, the folks
who make the best case (possibly argue the loudest), win and get to
define "bacterial species".

In the end, some group will make the "best case" for the definition of
"life" and we will either live with it or get very high blood pressure,
but it WILL BE the definition.  Life is not a measurable entity.

Now, whether I agree or not with Tipler's opinions as to what comprises
"life" is as irrelevant as Tipler's opinion of my definition of "life".

Am I making contact?

Best Regards!
Mike

P.S. Please do not email me a copy of your response, since I lurk this
newsgroup several times a day.

P.P.S. No more maize, please.


-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------+
|"A common mistake that people make when trying to design |
| something completely foolproof, is to underestimate the |
| ingenuity of complete fools."            -Douglas Adams |
+---------------------------------------------------------+