Lance_Granger

As far as an organism HAS to leaves its source and HAS to reproduce, I addressed this earlier in the thread; if you look up 0G phase of cells you will see that the product of reproduction does NOT have to leave its source or reproduce, but it is an organism non the less. Your right, we can not define living or non living, but we can observe and compare the patterns of life. In general,Science is the study of patterns; those patterns are observed, hypothesized, tested and retested by others to see if all results are the same. So if the patterns of an organism and the patterns of the spheres of the Earth are parallel, then categorizing Earth as an organism starts to become plausible. I have read back through the thread and reproduction seems to be the only characteristic of life anyone is arguing. So that leads me to believe that all of the other characteristics I have compared must be plausible. Now, to touch on reproduction one more time... I was asked to provide an example of a product of reproduction that 1) Does not leave its source and 2) does not reproduce. I immediately gave that example with 0g phase of cells, yet no one even acknowledged this. It was some how just skipped over like it was a non issue even though it was the example everyone was asking for. Reproduction, in its simplest explanation, is an organism making copies of its self. So why isn't "new" Earth from tectonics considered reproduction. The new Earth is 100% comprised of the material of Earth reassemble in the inner core and then brought back out to the surface. This PATTERN resembles the PATTERN of organisms reproduction. Organism reproduction is an organism making a copy of its self from other RECYCLED materiel just like Earth does with new Earth. These PATTERS are fundamentally similar so the idea of Earth being a living organism is plausible. Great points Deta1212! thank you for posting!

Posted Today, 12:12 PM Lance_Granger, on 20 Oct 2014 - 09:26 AM, said: Just plain wrong. It may be in some cases- like bacteria But it isn't in all cases- like any multi cellular organism- for example- us. . So is it just plain wrong or wrong in some cases. Can't be both. I'm not asking you to back MY claim about the Earth. I'm ask you to backup YOUR claim that all products of reproduction HAVE to leave their source and HAVE to then reproduce. I have the burden of proof for MY claims, YOU have the burden of poor for YOURS. So is this just your opinion or can you factually back up YOUR claim?

If the cell reproduces, that is an example of a WHOLE organism reproducing because a cell IS an organism. Liver was just a quick example. Any reproduced cell can go into g0 phase. No im not claiming that, that's pretty obvious. lmao Answer this, do you think a cell is an organism? Can you back this claim up that the product of reproduction have to go off and reproduce or is that just your opinion?

If the tissue in a liver produces a cell that then goes into g0 phase that that cell doesn't "leave" its source nor divide and reproduce.

The link does have to do with it. Read it again. The product of reproduction does not have to leave the host or reproduce to be an organism. The link talks about that fact.

You not knowing the definitions of words is different then me redefining them. Read this. Many life forms consist of a single cell. As well as simple bacteria, there are more complex organisms, known as protoctists. Unlike bacteria, they have complex internal structures, such as nuclei containing organized strands of genetic material called chromosomes. Most are single-celled, but some form colonies, with each cell usually remaining self-sufficient. AMOEBAE An amoeba is a predatory single cell that does not have a fixed shape. It can project parts of its cell to create jellylike tentacles called pseudopodia. The amoeba uses these to move, touch, and grab prey. Amoebae live in water, where they creep along rotting vegetation. They hunt smaller single cells, such as bacteria. SLIME MOULD Slime moulds start out as amoebalike cells hunting for food in damp habitats. Later, the cells join together to build spore-producing structures. ALGAE Algae are now classed as protoctists, although scientists used to include them in the plant kingdom. Algae can make food by photosynthesis, as they contain green chloroplasts. Euglena algae live in ponds. They lose their chloroplasts in the dark and then feed like animals. Seaweeds are the best-known algae. They are made up of huge communities of algae cells. MALARIA PARASITE Some protoctists obtain food by invading other organisms and living as parasites. The malaria parasite first enters its human host through the bite of the Anopheles mosquito. Once inside, it multiplies inside the blood and may infect the liver. The parasite causes malaria fever, a disease that may be fatal. BIOGRAPHY: ANTONI VAN LEEUWENHOEK Dutch, 1632-1725 Lens-maker Antoni van Leeuwenhoek made the first practical microscope in 1671. With it, he observed bacteria and protoctists, which he called “animalcules”. Van Leeuwenhoek went on to study yeasts, plant structure, insect mouthparts, and the structure of red blood cells. Read more: SINGLE-CELLED ORGANISMS | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/dk/science/encyclopedia/single-celled-organisms.html#ixzz3GXlSKsvW The human body temperature regulation is just one part of it's fight for homeostasis. You realize homeostasis to comprised of the balancing of multiple systems right?

you know a cell is an organism right? Posted Today, 04:35 PM Lance_Granger, on 18 Oct 2014 - 3:21 PM, said: Quite. A constant state of change. Therefore NOT homeostasis. (Perhaps you should look up the definitions of the words you are using, instead of making up your own.) That's why I always say "The fight for homeostasis" Human's fight for homeostasis too, but never quite achieve it. The body still fights to achieve it though.

Quote Except they don't. It was life on Earth that produced the toxic (at the time) oxygen atmosphere. It is life that is causing global warming and hugely disturbing the status quo. I'm not sure what your experiences is in meteorology, but if you study it you learn that the atmosphere and climate are in a constant state of change. The green house gas's are just a product of those changes to create and new balance. Hence atmospheric homeostasis. So if toxic gas is causing issues in the atmosphere, this will cause climate change which will make life in the biosphere migrate, adapt and change in ways to will help the atmosphere find its balance with those gas's and create a new climate balance. This is a on going process that never stops which helps support the idea that the spheres of Earth are apart of a greater organism fighting for homeostasis. Lance_Granger, on 18 Oct 2014 - 2:57 PM, said: I'm sure this has been answered. Can you think of an example of reproduction in the animal or plant kingdom, where the offspring just remains as a minute pimple on the surface of the adult and never have offspring of their own? This is one: The G0 phase (referred to the G zero phase) or resting phase is a period in the cell cycle in which cells exist in a quiescent state. G0 phase is viewed as either an extended G1 phase, where the cell is neither dividing nor preparing to divide, or a distinct quiescent stage that occurs outside of the cell cycle.[1] Some types of cells, such as nerve and heart muscle cells, become quiescent when they reach maturity (i.e., when they are terminally differentiated) but continue to perform their main functions for the rest of the organism's life. Multinucleated muscle cells that do not undergo cytokinesis are also often considered to be in the G0 stage.[1] On occasion, a distinction in terms is made between a G0 cell and a 'quiescent' cell (e.g., heart muscle cells and neurons), which will never enter the G1 phase, whereas other G0 cells may. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G0_phase

That leads me to the question that I have asked a few time. Does the product of reproduction have to "leave" its source to be considered living? I'm not avoiding anything I just hadn't made it all the way through the other posts yet.

I don't see these as external factors. They are the atmosphere and the other spheres working together for homeostasis. It is a very long process and it might not have been suitable for all of the life in the biosphere at that time, but this was the Earths systems bringing balance to the Earth organism. It is the unsuitability of the Earths systems that force migration, adaption and natural selection which are the building blocks evolution. Great points Sun!!!! It is the composition of all of these things that creates a living organism, which it the very basis of my idea, It is the composition of all of the Earth systems working symbiotically, that creates the Earth organism. Quote But the Earth was still the Earth when there was no life. It just wasn't the Earth that we're able to adapt to. It was still the Earth when oxygen began to saturate our atmosphere, and a lot of the life around at the time died off. I think it's pretty premature to think the Earth has been preparing for human life. We're not nearly as stable and successful as some of the dinosaurs, and we certainly aren't as successful as many present lifeforms. We're just the only ones currently able to discuss it over the internet. Then it was a dead Earth or Dead planet.

. The reason I haven't mentioned the moon yet is because that isn't a prove event. Earth recycling it's self is. You can see it every time a volcano erupts. Let me clarify about the mountains. Mountains are a product of tectonics, the "Earth" the mountain is comprised of is recycle (reborn) Earth and the Mountain is just one phase of the life cycle of that particular recycled Earth. I hope that clears up that confusion. Humans fight for homeostasis is through all the systems of the body carrying out their own fight for their own homeostasis and as a result, the bigger system (the human body) sustains its homeostasis. The Earth is the same way. The symbiotic relationship all of the spheres of Earth working for their own homeostasis is what gives Earth its homeostasis. Honestly I haven't had the time to reflect. I will though, all science is ever changing and my idea can change as well. Please keep in mind that this is just an idea, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything nor do I want to rewrite science. I will reflect on all points brought up both for and against the idea and modify my ideas accordingly. Sorry for the Ahab jab early, sometimes my scientific passion supersedes of common sense. It was bad form on my part. Great point John ty

I totally agree, kudos to you!

Great info Molecule, ty

I agree with you David so I am sorry for getting emotional about it. I feel like I've had to be on the defense since I posted this thread, but I still need to keep a level head. Ty for speaking up.

And accusing me of standing on a soapbox isn't snarky? Just say'n Whats good for the goose is good for the gander so I can throw stones if they are throw at me. But, like I said my ego needs to stay out of it too. So ill take my own advice and keep my emotions in check as well.

I have supported all of my comments. You Capt Ahab seem to just not like anything I say. That's your issue not mine. I can't be held responsible for you not like anything I'm saying or any of the proof I give. How that's a soapbox is beyond me. I'm sorry your so emotionally involved in this thread, all we are all doing is chatting about one of my ideas. No ego needed just to chat. +

If you removed all of the life on Earth, "Earth" the planet would still be here, but it would be a dead planet. The living components of Earth give it its life. Just like the living components of humans give them life.

This makes total sense. You asked if I got this idea from some person or website and I said no......... I got this idea from studying and observing, "all on my own even" and trough this studying and observing I came to these conclusions. Thank you for dropping this in David! ninja! ty endy

Nope, contrary to most I actually do read and study quite often. I'm not into regurgitation of information, not my thing. Not trying to offend, I'm just trying to help you understand were I'm coming from so you don't have to keep asking the same questions and I thought pictures would help because my word being repeated over and over again aren't helping.

Your misconstruing the context of what was being talked about at the time I asked that. Of course Earth isn't throwing mountains into space. That was a question I asked someone that I was hoping would lead into something else. The other bailed out before we could finish the conversation. Hope that settles any more confusion. My answer was not poor. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it was poor. How else can I explain a concept that is fairly simple. Do you need a picture book maybe? lmao Nobody likes to have to answer the same question over and over again. Pretty counter productive don't you think there, " Chief Executive Offworlder"? So i'll ask all of you...IN YOUR OPINION, Does a reproduction (copy) of a living organism need to "leave" its source in order to be considered living?

LMAO ok that was an off handed comment from way earlier in the thread. it was not meant to be taken serious. Yes, and your baby Earths would be geologic features. I actually have answered this question, I just don't think people like the answer, but that is the answer. So we shouldn't need to keep asking the same question over and over again in different ways..

I never said anything like that

Quote That was a few questions ago. I wanted to know if you thought all planets were living organisms. Water wasn't part of the parameters of that question. I think I have my answer though. It looks like you think Earth is a living organism because of all the life on it, which seems to you to behave like our own internal systems. Is this right? That is just one part of it. Its not just the organisms living on Earth, Its the whole biosphere, atmosphere and the the other sphere's together that make up the Earth organism. Quote Evolution is a process, with many mechanisms. It's the change in allele frequency within a population over time. There is no "natural selection evolution". There is no "social evolution". There are no "forms of evolution". Not being nitpicky saying this either. I'm attempting to correct a misunderstanding that may be keeping you from fully understanding what it is. Sorry but this is just plain not true and I wouldn't even know where to begin to educate you on it. Quote Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that our tools and technology, products of our high intelligence, opposable thumbs, communication skills and cooperative nature, are unnatural. They're what we've developed to allow our adaptive capabilities to flourish. But I agree, that's a topic for a different thread. I'll be happy to discuss why everything humans do is just as natural as what every other animal does. In a different thread Ok we can move on from this too. Quote Science doesn't try to "prove" anything (proof is for maths), and I'm not even trying to say your "thoughts are completely wrong". Again, that's a strawman of my position, I've been very specific about where your idea falls down and needs some support. At this point, I'm just trying to show where you've misunderstood some science. lmao again your saying your don't like the way I use curtain words. Got it! Ok I obviously missed something. Please just one more time, ask me plainly what it is you would like me to clarify. Please not word usage put spacific sujectrs and where you would like me to clarify. Quote You're a bit defensive, and I guess that's understandable since you've obviously thought about this a lot. But make no mistake, parts of what you've said ARE a right or wrong situation. You're wrong about the science I've specifically mentioned, or at the very least you're disagreeing with mainstream science. You can't rewrite evolutionary theory without some extraordinary evidence to support you. I'm willing to drop the anthropomorphism angle since you seem to take such exception to it. I'll ignore the dictionary definition in this regard and just agree that what you meant is not what I read. I haven't been defensive at all, most of this makes me laugh and I'm truly enjoying the conversation.. well the parts that actually have been a conversation. I'm not trying to rewrite anything. You over estimate my scientific entrepreneurial ambitions. lmao Never met a Rajnish Kaushik before so not sure what your talking about. Everything else is off subject and I have been warned not to go off subject so I can't help you there.

No, that is ego talking. Opinions are just expressions of thoughts from experiences. They are neither right nor wrong. They can be moral or immoral but not wrong. But then again morality can be different depending on point of view and point of view influences opinion. oooo Paradox*****

I'm not comparing human characteristics, I'm comparing a "living organisms characteristics" as in "any living organisms" characteristics, but I'm referencing the" living organism" known as "human". Huge difference from anthropomorphism, so we can move passed this. You said, "Many planets don't have any, but still are planets." The question you had asked me was do I think other planets are "living" not do I think other planets are planets. *Just odd* Here again your being picky, you go on about humans not being the most evolved species but your only talking about natural section evolution, (Shark's and Croc's). I'm talk about all forms of evolution to include social which humans are at the top. And here again you are picky, you going on about how humans can "develop" ways to survive in water, non of which are natural. So this whole point of yours is mute and border line "off topic". It is insinuated in my quote that I'm talking about humans "natural" ability to not survive in water. *Strange* Yes you are being very picky; you are trying to prove why my thoughts are completely wrong but all your really doing is telling me you don't like the way a use curtain words. I'm not worried at all about "being right". This isn't a right or wrong situation it is a, "I think this" or "I think that" situation. I'm not out to gain money or fame, I'm just stating what I think and then backing it up. It is those that come on here and Say " YOUR WRONG" OR "THAT'S IS ALL WRONG", they are the ones that are more concerned about being right or wrong. My only exception to this is the whole anthropomorphism thing which you were wrong with your usage, but your idea wasn't wrong, I just don't agree with it.