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,
> Matt
Hi Matt,
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
