Replies

Dead biological organisms – or dead individual molecular machines (liver, heart etc.) within the dying organism – are quite distinctive from living ones. Dead cells are quite distinctive from living cells.

Is a broken computer not distinct from a working one?

Also, if “Quantizing the Continuum” precludes a clear definition of biological life then it also diminishes all abiogenesis theory – because there could not be a point at which life begins.

I expect that if we had complete and exact information about how life began, assigning the beginning point would be a matter of acrimonious debate.

Saying "I know life when I see it, and so do you" may work as a standard after a billion (or three) years of evolution, but early on, it may not have been.

Evolutionists then could neither successfully exclude abiogenesis nor defend against the assertion of the very same term to argue against abiogenesis by definition. If the term prevails in this debate with reference to biological life, I for one will advocate the argument exactly that way.

Since we have no information about how life got started, there's no point in arguing either way. The origin of bacteria is all hypothesis, while the origin of, say, birds is not.

Thank you for your reply!

Is a broken computer not distinct from a working one?

Indeed. And the distinction between a living cell and a dead cell is akin to the difference between a working computer and a broken one.

A living cell and a working computer both have information [Shannon: reduction of uncertainty in the receiver] They are successfully communicating. A dead cell and a broken computer do not have information, communications has ceased.

An important feature of information theory and molecular biology is that for every bit of information gained in the reduction of uncertainty (the measure of the information gain is the Shannon entropy after state less the before state) releases energy to the local surroundings (thermodynamic entropy, heat).

Since we have no information about how life got started, there's no point in arguing either way.

Theory is all that has been proposed for abiogenesis much like evolution. But the abiogenesis theory is now no more than idle speculation if one cannot define what distinquishes life from non-life.

The origin of bacteria is all hypothesis, while the origin of, say, birds is not.

I don't see how you can arrive at more than a speculation for either if you cannot speak to what life is or to the origin of any the molecular machines which comprise the organism. It all becomes a fuzzy, moving target.

"I know life when I see it" doesn't satisfy.