Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DittoJed2
Define "living." No, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. The definition of "living" can get awfully fuzzy, as many non-living things exhibit traits of the living -- they consume, grow and reproduce, for example.
1,422 posted on 08/19/2003 1:17:40 PM PDT by Junior (Killed a six pack ... just to watch it die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1360 | View Replies ]


To: Junior
I'm really thinking personal verses impersonal. Genes contain personal information, and theorhetically, sometime a scientist could use genetics to create some sort of life. They use genetics in cloning, for example. But, they still have to have the basic data already present. Minerals, on the other hand are non-living. You aren't going to have scientists taking non-living minerals, mixing them all up in a test tube and popping out a baby or something. Even though they exist within species, and are indeed necessary for the survival of species, you have to basically have something that has the information already inherent within it to make it personal to make a person (or animal, etc.,). That's what I was hitting at.
1,423 posted on 08/19/2003 1:32:33 PM PDT by DittoJed2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1422 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson