On 16 Apr 1997, 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."
Life is rather a process. While there are key some materials of life, life
is not identical to any of its essential chemical components alone. (If it
sounds obscure consider: the food and eating makes the breakfast together,
the presence of cereal alone will not kill your hunger unless you eat it.)
I rather prefer T. Ganti's definition of live as a system that satisfies a
certain set of differential equations ("chemoton" model).
Miklos Cserzo University of Birmingham
MRC - Bioinformatics Project
Tel: +44-121-414-4090 Schools of Biochemistry, Biology and Medicine
Fax: +44-121-414-3982 Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT
E-mail: miklos at pugh.bip.bham.ac.uk United Kingdom
