https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/worlds-first-synthetic-cell- complete-life-cycle-could-revolutionize-biological
WorldrCOs first synthetic cell with a complete life
cycle could revolutionize biological engineering
July 1, 2026
While many of the mysteries of life remain unsolved,
every biologist can describe the basic processes
performed by a living organism, which include energy
use, reproduction, growth and development. While
these characteristics can be replicated in isolation
in a lab, the idea of a completely synthetic
biological organism has long been relegated to
science fiction.
bwahaha
Henry Frankenstein in the 1931 movie: "Now I know what
it feels like to be God!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEB6s8wH1D8
https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/worlds-first-synthetic-cell- complete-life-cycle-could-revolutionize-biological
WorldrCOs first synthetic cell with a complete life
cycle could revolutionize biological engineering
July 1, 2026
While many of the mysteries of life remain unsolved,
every biologist can describe the basic processes
performed by a living organism, which include energy
use, reproduction, growth and development. While
these characteristics can be replicated in isolation
in a lab, the idea of a completely synthetic
biological organism has long been relegated to
science fiction.
Associate Professors Kate Adamala and Aaron Engelhart
and their teams at the College of Biological Sciences
have developed the worldrCOs first synthetic cell with
a complete life cycle, built entirely from non-living
chemical components, and described it in a new paper.
The project, called SpudCell, marks a major
breakthrough in biological engineering. In time, it
may provide solutions to some of our most challenging
problems in medicine and engineering.
...
Paper is here
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.01.735724v1.full.pdf
A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable Of Growth
And Replication
Abstract
Cells are the fundamental unit of life. Yet there is
no natural cell for which all its life-essential
functions are understood. Here we demonstrate a
complete cell cycle for a synthetic cell undergoing
selection, with genome replication, growth, resource
acquisition via feeding, and genetically encoded
division. The cell is encoded via a 90kb genome that
includes functions needed for resource uptake,
transcription, translation, growth, genome replication,
and division. The resulting synthetic cell is
sufficiently encouraging to support routinization of
synthetic cell engineering workflows, and will
ultimately underlie diverse applications across all
of biotechnology.
bwahaha
Henry Frankenstein in the 1931 movie: "Now I know what
it feels like to be God!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEB6s8wH1D8
https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/worlds-first-synthetic-cell-complete-life-cycle-could-revolutionize-biological
WorldrCOs first synthetic cell with a complete life
cycle could revolutionize biological engineering
July 1, 2026
While many of the mysteries of life remain unsolved,
every biologist can describe the basic processes
performed by a living organism, which include energy
use, reproduction, growth and development. While
these characteristics can be replicated in isolation
in a lab, the idea of a completely synthetic
biological organism has long been relegated to
science fiction.
Associate Professors Kate Adamala and Aaron Engelhart
and their teams at the College of Biological Sciences
have developed the worldrCOs first synthetic cell with
a complete life cycle, built entirely from non-living
chemical components, and described it in a new paper.
The project, called SpudCell, marks a major
breakthrough in biological engineering. In time, it
may provide solutions to some of our most challenging
problems in medicine and engineering.
...
Paper is here
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.01.735724v1.full.pdf
A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable Of Growth
And Replication
Abstract
Cells are the fundamental unit of life. Yet there is
no natural cell for which all its life-essential
functions are understood. Here we demonstrate a
complete cell cycle for a synthetic cell undergoing
selection, with genome replication, growth, resource
acquisition via feeding, and genetically encoded
division. The cell is encoded via a 90kb genome that
includes functions needed for resource uptake,
transcription, translation, growth, genome replication,
and division. The resulting synthetic cell is
sufficiently encouraging to support routinization of
synthetic cell engineering workflows, and will
ultimately underlie diverse applications across all
of biotechnology.
On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:48:45 -0600, Pro Plyd <invalide@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
bwahaha
Henry Frankenstein in the 1931 movie: "Now I know what
it feels like to be God!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEB6s8wH1D8
WorldAs first synthetic cell with a complete lifehttps://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/worlds-first-synthetic-cell-complete-life-cycle-could-revolutionize-biological
cycle could revolutionize biological engineering
July 1, 2026
While many of the mysteries of life remain unsolved,
every biologist can describe the basic processes
performed by a living organism, which include energy
use, reproduction, growth and development. While
these characteristics can be replicated in isolation
in a lab, the idea of a completely synthetic
biological organism has long been relegated to
science fiction.
Associate Professors Kate Adamala and Aaron Engelhart
and their teams at the College of Biological Sciences
have developed the worldAs first synthetic cell with
a complete life cycle, built entirely from non-living
chemical components, and described it in a new paper.
New Scientist magazine has a somewhat toned-down take on this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2532689-what-is-spudcell-arguably-the-greatest-bioengineering-feat-yet/
Non paywlled: https://archive.is/zzAge
<quote>
SO, IS IT A LIFE FORM?
No. It can do some of the things that living cells do, such as
replicating its genes and dividing, but it doesn't do them well and it
needs a lot of outside help just to do them badly. For instance, the >researchers have demonstrated evolution in the sense that when they >introduced a beneficial mutation, those cells did better. But the
mutation had to be introduced deliberately rather than occurring >spontaneously. "I think I would be satisfied with calling it living if
it's replicating indefinitely and if it's capable of Darwinian
evolution," says Adamala.
CAN WE REALLY CALL IT A SYNTHETIC CELL, THEN?
That depends on how you define things. It is a synthetic cell in the
sense that it has been put together in a lab and does some of the
things a cell does. But it's been made using parts of existing cells -
mainly those 36 genes - rather than being created entirely from
scratch. It could be thought of as an extremely stripped-down E. coli
with a few additions from other viruses, bacteria and jellyfish
</quote>
The project, called SpudCell, marks a major
breakthrough in biological engineering. In time, it
may provide solutions to some of our most challenging
problems in medicine and engineering.
...
Paper is here
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.01.735724v1.full.pdf
A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable Of Growth
And Replication
Abstract
Cells are the fundamental unit of life. Yet there is
no natural cell for which all its life-essential
functions are understood. Here we demonstrate a
complete cell cycle for a synthetic cell undergoing
selection, with genome replication, growth, resource
acquisition via feeding, and genetically encoded
division. The cell is encoded via a 90kb genome that
includes functions needed for resource uptake,
transcription, translation, growth, genome replication,
and division. The resulting synthetic cell is
sufficiently encouraging to support routinization of
synthetic cell engineering workflows, and will
ultimately underlie diverse applications across all
of biotechnology.
On Tue, 07 Jul 2026 11:09:42 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:48:45 -0600, Pro Plyd <invalide@invalid.invalid> >>wrote:
bwahaha
Henry Frankenstein in the 1931 movie: "Now I know what
it feels like to be God!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEB6s8wH1D8
WorldrCOs first synthetic cell with a complete lifehttps://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/worlds-first-synthetic-cell-complete-life-cycle-could-revolutionize-biological
cycle could revolutionize biological engineering
July 1, 2026
While many of the mysteries of life remain unsolved,
every biologist can describe the basic processes
performed by a living organism, which include energy
use, reproduction, growth and development. While
these characteristics can be replicated in isolation
in a lab, the idea of a completely synthetic
biological organism has long been relegated to
science fiction.
Associate Professors Kate Adamala and Aaron Engelhart
and their teams at the College of Biological Sciences
have developed the worldrCOs first synthetic cell with
a complete life cycle, built entirely from non-living
chemical components, and described it in a new paper.
New Scientist magazine has a somewhat toned-down take on this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2532689-what-is-spudcell-arguably-the-greatest-bioengineering-feat-yet/
Non paywlled: https://archive.is/zzAge
<quote>
SO, IS IT A LIFE FORM?
No. It can do some of the things that living cells do, such as
replicating its genes and dividing, but it doesn't do them well and it >>needs a lot of outside help just to do them badly. For instance, the >>researchers have demonstrated evolution in the sense that when they >>introduced a beneficial mutation, those cells did better. But the
mutation had to be introduced deliberately rather than occurring >>spontaneously. "I think I would be satisfied with calling it living if
it's replicating indefinitely and if it's capable of Darwinian
evolution," says Adamala.
CAN WE REALLY CALL IT A SYNTHETIC CELL, THEN?
That depends on how you define things. It is a synthetic cell in the
sense that it has been put together in a lab and does some of the
things a cell does. But it's been made using parts of existing cells - >>mainly those 36 genes - rather than being created entirely from
scratch. It could be thought of as an extremely stripped-down E. coli
with a few additions from other viruses, bacteria and jellyfish
</quote>
Are you trying to inject vitalism into the discussion?
The project, called SpudCell, marks a major
breakthrough in biological engineering. In time, it
may provide solutions to some of our most challenging
problems in medicine and engineering.
...
Paper is here
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.01.735724v1.full.pdf
A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable Of Growth
And Replication
Abstract
Cells are the fundamental unit of life. Yet there is
no natural cell for which all its life-essential
functions are understood. Here we demonstrate a
complete cell cycle for a synthetic cell undergoing
selection, with genome replication, growth, resource
acquisition via feeding, and genetically encoded
division. The cell is encoded via a 90kb genome that
includes functions needed for resource uptake,
transcription, translation, growth, genome replication,
and division. The resulting synthetic cell is
sufficiently encouraging to support routinization of
synthetic cell engineering workflows, and will
ultimately underlie diverse applications across all
of biotechnology.
On Tue, 07 Jul 2026 10:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2026 11:09:42 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:48:45 -0600, Pro Plyd <invalide@invalid.invalid> >>>wrote:
bwahaha
Henry Frankenstein in the 1931 movie: "Now I know what
it feels like to be God!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEB6s8wH1D8
WorldAs first synthetic cell with a complete lifehttps://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/worlds-first-synthetic-cell-complete-life-cycle-could-revolutionize-biological
cycle could revolutionize biological engineering
July 1, 2026
While many of the mysteries of life remain unsolved,
every biologist can describe the basic processes
performed by a living organism, which include energy
use, reproduction, growth and development. While
these characteristics can be replicated in isolation
in a lab, the idea of a completely synthetic
biological organism has long been relegated to
science fiction.
Associate Professors Kate Adamala and Aaron Engelhart
and their teams at the College of Biological Sciences
have developed the worldAs first synthetic cell with
a complete life cycle, built entirely from non-living
chemical components, and described it in a new paper.
New Scientist magazine has a somewhat toned-down take on this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2532689-what-is-spudcell-arguably-the-greatest-bioengineering-feat-yet/
Non paywlled: https://archive.is/zzAge
<quote>
SO, IS IT A LIFE FORM?
No. It can do some of the things that living cells do, such as >>>replicating its genes and dividing, but it doesn't do them well and it >>>needs a lot of outside help just to do them badly. For instance, the >>>researchers have demonstrated evolution in the sense that when they >>>introduced a beneficial mutation, those cells did better. But the >>>mutation had to be introduced deliberately rather than occurring >>>spontaneously. "I think I would be satisfied with calling it living if >>>it's replicating indefinitely and if it's capable of Darwinian >>>evolution," says Adamala.
CAN WE REALLY CALL IT A SYNTHETIC CELL, THEN?
That depends on how you define things. It is a synthetic cell in the >>>sense that it has been put together in a lab and does some of the
things a cell does. But it's been made using parts of existing cells - >>>mainly those 36 genes - rather than being created entirely from
scratch. It could be thought of as an extremely stripped-down E. coli >>>with a few additions from other viruses, bacteria and jellyfish
</quote>
Are you trying to inject vitalism into the discussion?
No, I wasn't.
I see nothing in that New Scientist article that relates
to vitalism; why did you think I might be trying to inject it into the >discussion?
The project, called SpudCell, marks a major
breakthrough in biological engineering. In time, it
may provide solutions to some of our most challenging
problems in medicine and engineering.
...
Paper is here
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.01.735724v1.full.pdf
A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable Of Growth
And Replication
Abstract
Cells are the fundamental unit of life. Yet there is
no natural cell for which all its life-essential
functions are understood. Here we demonstrate a
complete cell cycle for a synthetic cell undergoing
selection, with genome replication, growth, resource
acquisition via feeding, and genetically encoded
division. The cell is encoded via a 90kb genome that
includes functions needed for resource uptake,
transcription, translation, growth, genome replication,
and division. The resulting synthetic cell is
sufficiently encouraging to support routinization of
synthetic cell engineering workflows, and will
ultimately underlie diverse applications across all
of biotechnology.
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 12:15:38 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2026 10:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2026 11:09:42 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:48:45 -0600, Pro Plyd <invalide@invalid.invalid> >>>>wrote:
bwahaha
Henry Frankenstein in the 1931 movie: "Now I know what
it feels like to be God!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEB6s8wH1D8
World's first synthetic cell with a complete lifehttps://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/worlds-first-synthetic-cell-complete-life-cycle-could-revolutionize-biological
cycle could revolutionize biological engineering
July 1, 2026
While many of the mysteries of life remain unsolved,
every biologist can describe the basic processes
performed by a living organism, which include energy
use, reproduction, growth and development. While
these characteristics can be replicated in isolation
in a lab, the idea of a completely synthetic
biological organism has long been relegated to
science fiction.
Associate Professors Kate Adamala and Aaron Engelhart
and their teams at the College of Biological Sciences
have developed the world's first synthetic cell with
a complete life cycle, built entirely from non-living
chemical components, and described it in a new paper.
New Scientist magazine has a somewhat toned-down take on this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2532689-what-is-spudcell-arguably-the-greatest-bioengineering-feat-yet/
Non paywlled: https://archive.is/zzAge
<quote>
SO, IS IT A LIFE FORM?
No. It can do some of the things that living cells do, such as >>>>replicating its genes and dividing, but it doesn't do them well and it >>>>needs a lot of outside help just to do them badly. For instance, the >>>>researchers have demonstrated evolution in the sense that when they >>>>introduced a beneficial mutation, those cells did better. But the >>>>mutation had to be introduced deliberately rather than occurring >>>>spontaneously. "I think I would be satisfied with calling it living if >>>>it's replicating indefinitely and if it's capable of Darwinian >>>>evolution," says Adamala.
CAN WE REALLY CALL IT A SYNTHETIC CELL, THEN?
That depends on how you define things. It is a synthetic cell in the >>>>sense that it has been put together in a lab and does some of the >>>>things a cell does. But it's been made using parts of existing cells - >>>>mainly those 36 genes - rather than being created entirely from >>>>scratch. It could be thought of as an extremely stripped-down E. coli >>>>with a few additions from other viruses, bacteria and jellyfish
</quote>
Are you trying to inject vitalism into the discussion?
No, I wasn't.
That's good.
I see nothing in that New Scientist article that relates
to vitalism; why did you think I might be trying to inject it into the >>discussion?
Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a
Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the
least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but
you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when
creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just
pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry
on!
The project, called SpudCell, marks a major
breakthrough in biological engineering. In time, it
may provide solutions to some of our most challenging
problems in medicine and engineering.
...
Paper is here
And Replicationhttps://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.01.735724v1.full.pdf >>>>>A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable Of Growth
Abstract
Cells are the fundamental unit of life. Yet there is
no natural cell for which all its life-essential
functions are understood. Here we demonstrate a
complete cell cycle for a synthetic cell undergoing
selection, with genome replication, growth, resource
acquisition via feeding, and genetically encoded
division. The cell is encoded via a 90kb genome that
includes functions needed for resource uptake,
transcription, translation, growth, genome replication,
and division. The resulting synthetic cell is
sufficiently encouraging to support routinization of
synthetic cell engineering workflows, and will
ultimately underlie diverse applications across all
of biotechnology.
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 08:02:27 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 12:15:38 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2026 10:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2026 11:09:42 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:48:45 -0600, Pro Plyd <invalide@invalid.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
bwahaha
Henry Frankenstein in the 1931 movie: "Now I know what
it feels like to be God!" >>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEB6s8wH1D8
World's first synthetic cell with a complete lifehttps://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/worlds-first-synthetic-cell-complete-life-cycle-could-revolutionize-biological
cycle could revolutionize biological engineering
July 1, 2026
While many of the mysteries of life remain unsolved,
every biologist can describe the basic processes
performed by a living organism, which include energy
use, reproduction, growth and development. While
these characteristics can be replicated in isolation
in a lab, the idea of a completely synthetic
biological organism has long been relegated to
science fiction.
Associate Professors Kate Adamala and Aaron Engelhart
and their teams at the College of Biological Sciences
have developed the world's first synthetic cell with
a complete life cycle, built entirely from non-living
chemical components, and described it in a new paper.
New Scientist magazine has a somewhat toned-down take on this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2532689-what-is-spudcell-arguably-the-greatest-bioengineering-feat-yet/
Non paywlled: https://archive.is/zzAge
<quote>
SO, IS IT A LIFE FORM?
No. It can do some of the things that living cells do, such as >>>>>replicating its genes and dividing, but it doesn't do them well and it >>>>>needs a lot of outside help just to do them badly. For instance, the >>>>>researchers have demonstrated evolution in the sense that when they >>>>>introduced a beneficial mutation, those cells did better. But the >>>>>mutation had to be introduced deliberately rather than occurring >>>>>spontaneously. "I think I would be satisfied with calling it living if >>>>>it's replicating indefinitely and if it's capable of Darwinian >>>>>evolution," says Adamala.
CAN WE REALLY CALL IT A SYNTHETIC CELL, THEN?
That depends on how you define things. It is a synthetic cell in the >>>>>sense that it has been put together in a lab and does some of the >>>>>things a cell does. But it's been made using parts of existing cells - >>>>>mainly those 36 genes - rather than being created entirely from >>>>>scratch. It could be thought of as an extremely stripped-down E. coli >>>>>with a few additions from other viruses, bacteria and jellyfish
</quote>
Are you trying to inject vitalism into the discussion?
No, I wasn't.
That's good.
I see nothing in that New Scientist article that relates
to vitalism; why did you think I might be trying to inject it into the >>>discussion?
Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a
Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the >>least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but
you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have
had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my >beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those
beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when
creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just
pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry
on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been
many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific
discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in
this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely
from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch.
The project, called SpudCell, marks a major
breakthrough in biological engineering. In time, it
may provide solutions to some of our most challenging
problems in medicine and engineering.
...
Paper is here
And Replicationhttps://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.01.735724v1.full.pdf >>>>>>A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable Of Growth
Abstract
Cells are the fundamental unit of life. Yet there is
no natural cell for which all its life-essential
functions are understood. Here we demonstrate a
complete cell cycle for a synthetic cell undergoing
selection, with genome replication, growth, resource
acquisition via feeding, and genetically encoded
division. The cell is encoded via a 90kb genome that
includes functions needed for resource uptake,
transcription, translation, growth, genome replication,
and division. The resulting synthetic cell is
sufficiently encouraging to support routinization of
synthetic cell engineering workflows, and will
ultimately underlie diverse applications across all
of biotechnology.
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 08:02:27 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 12:15:38 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2026 10:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2026 11:09:42 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:48:45 -0600, Pro Plyd <invalide@invalid.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
bwahaha
Henry Frankenstein in the 1931 movie: "Now I know what
it feels like to be God!" >>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEB6s8wH1D8
World's first synthetic cell with a complete lifehttps://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/worlds-first-synthetic-cell-complete-life-cycle-could-revolutionize-biological
cycle could revolutionize biological engineering
July 1, 2026
While many of the mysteries of life remain unsolved,
every biologist can describe the basic processes
performed by a living organism, which include energy
use, reproduction, growth and development. While
these characteristics can be replicated in isolation
in a lab, the idea of a completely synthetic
biological organism has long been relegated to
science fiction.
Associate Professors Kate Adamala and Aaron Engelhart
and their teams at the College of Biological Sciences
have developed the world's first synthetic cell with
a complete life cycle, built entirely from non-living
chemical components, and described it in a new paper.
New Scientist magazine has a somewhat toned-down take on this:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2532689-what-is-spudcell-arguably-the-greatest-bioengineering-feat-yet/
Non paywlled: https://archive.is/zzAge
<quote>
SO, IS IT A LIFE FORM?
No. It can do some of the things that living cells do, such as >>>>>>replicating its genes and dividing, but it doesn't do them well and it >>>>>>needs a lot of outside help just to do them badly. For instance, the >>>>>>researchers have demonstrated evolution in the sense that when they >>>>>>introduced a beneficial mutation, those cells did better. But the >>>>>>mutation had to be introduced deliberately rather than occurring >>>>>>spontaneously. "I think I would be satisfied with calling it living if >>>>>>it's replicating indefinitely and if it's capable of Darwinian >>>>>>evolution," says Adamala.
CAN WE REALLY CALL IT A SYNTHETIC CELL, THEN?
That depends on how you define things. It is a synthetic cell in the >>>>>>sense that it has been put together in a lab and does some of the >>>>>>things a cell does. But it's been made using parts of existing cells - >>>>>>mainly those 36 genes - rather than being created entirely from >>>>>>scratch. It could be thought of as an extremely stripped-down E. coli >>>>>>with a few additions from other viruses, bacteria and jellyfish
</quote>
Are you trying to inject vitalism into the discussion?
No, I wasn't.
That's good.
I see nothing in that New Scientist article that relates
to vitalism; why did you think I might be trying to inject it into the >>>>discussion?
Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a
Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the >>>least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but
you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have
had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my >>beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those >>beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when
creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just
pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry
on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been
many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific
discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in
this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely
from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch.
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves
alive?
The project, called SpudCell, marks a major
breakthrough in biological engineering. In time, it
may provide solutions to some of our most challenging
problems in medicine and engineering.
...
Paper is here
And Replicationhttps://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.07.01.735724v1.full.pdf >>>>>>>A Chemically Defined Synthetic Cell Capable Of Growth
Abstract
Cells are the fundamental unit of life. Yet there is
no natural cell for which all its life-essential
functions are understood. Here we demonstrate a
complete cell cycle for a synthetic cell undergoing
selection, with genome replication, growth, resource
acquisition via feeding, and genetically encoded
division. The cell is encoded via a 90kb genome that
includes functions needed for resource uptake,
transcription, translation, growth, genome replication,
and division. The resulting synthetic cell is
sufficiently encouraging to support routinization of
synthetic cell engineering workflows, and will
ultimately underlie diverse applications across all
of biotechnology.
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the >>>>least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but >>>>you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have
had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my >>>beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those >>>beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when
creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just
pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry >>>>on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been
many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific
discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in
this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely >>>from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch.
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves
alive?
Defdine "alive".
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the >>>>>least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but >>>>>you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have >>>>had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my >>>>beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those >>>>beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry >>>>>on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been
many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific
discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in >>>>this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely >>>>from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch.
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves
alive?
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called
cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism,
cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They
just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>>Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the >>>>>>least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but >>>>>>you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have >>>>>had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my >>>>>beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those >>>>>beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>>creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>>pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry >>>>>>on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been >>>>>many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific >>>>>discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in >>>>>this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely >>>>>from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch.
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves >>>>alive?
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called
cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism,
cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient
times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia.
Who'da thunk it!
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They
just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
At what point does a cell become alive.?
For example, is a zygote
alive?
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>>>Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the >>>>>>>least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but >>>>>>>you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have >>>>>>had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my >>>>>>beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those >>>>>>beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>>>creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>>>pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry >>>>>>>on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been >>>>>>many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific >>>>>>discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in >>>>>>this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely >>>>>>from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch.
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves >>>>>alive?
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient
times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia.
Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if
you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >transformation, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They
just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
At what point does a cell become alive.?
When it meets all the criteria listed above.
For example, is a zygote
alive?
Yes,
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:<snip>
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves >>>>>>alive?Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>>>>Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the >>>>>>>>least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but >>>>>>>>you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have >>>>>>>had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my >>>>>>>beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those >>>>>>>beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>>>>creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>>>>pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry >>>>>>>>on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been >>>>>>>many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific >>>>>>>discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in >>>>>>>this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely >>>>>>>from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch. >>>>>>
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient
times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if
you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
I have no issue with Wikipedia as long as you don't give it an >authoritativeness that it doesn't merit.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >>transformation, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
At what point does a cell become alive.?
When it meets all the criteria listed above.
For example, is a zygote
alive?
Yes,
The anti-abortionists will love you for that, the pro-abortionists not
so much.
But let's not get into that wearisome debate,
let's move
back a step and look at the components that made that zygote. Was the >unfertilised ovum alive?
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you
dismiss so readily.
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves >>>>>> alive?Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>>>> Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the >>>>>>>> least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but >>>>>>>> you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have >>>>>>> had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my >>>>>>> beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those >>>>>>> beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>>>> creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>>>> pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry >>>>>>>> on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been >>>>>>> many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific
discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in >>>>>>> this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely >>>>>> >from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch. >>>>>>
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called
cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism,
cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient
times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia.
Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if
you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
I have no issue with Wikipedia as long as you don't give it an authoritativeness that it doesn't merit.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy
transformation, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They
just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
At what point does a cell become alive.?
When it meets all the criteria listed above.
For example, is a zygote
alive?
Yes,
The anti-abortionists will love you for that, the pro-abortionists not
so much. But let's not get into that wearisome debate, let's move
back a step and look at the components that made that zygote. Was the unfertilised ovum alive? Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you
dismiss so readily.
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you
dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and
eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a
plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
On 7/10/26 6:26 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you
dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and
eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a
plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
It's not life that makes killing and eating people wrong. It's that the >people are part of (what's supposed to be) a cohesive society.
Yes, this is a huge and probably unwanted digression from the original
point that you and Martin are discussing, but I think it is more
important.
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of
life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of getting
along with other people.
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/10/26 6:26 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you
dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and
eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a
plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
It's not life that makes killing and eating people wrong. It's that the
people are part of (what's supposed to be) a cohesive society.
Is it wrong to kill living human beings if it doesn't affect the
cohesiveness of society?
--Yes, this is a huge and probably unwanted digression from the original
point that you and Martin are discussing, but I think it is more
important.
I don't believe human life is something to be worshipped. If you kill
a zygote or whatever, that's no biggie. Just don't unnecessarily take
life away from those who want it.
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of
life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of getting
along with other people.
That's true.
On 7/12/26 11:47 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/10/26 6:26 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you
dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>> eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a
plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
It's not life that makes killing and eating people wrong. It's that the
people are part of (what's supposed to be) a cohesive society.
Is it wrong to kill living human beings if it doesn't affect the
cohesiveness of society?
People who support the death penalty don't think it's wrong.
Note, though, that killing people can be wrong for other reasons, too. Most >notably, it corrupts the rule of law if anybody can declare themself an >ultimate arbiter of justice.
The importance of society rather than life shows itself most plainly, I >think, in laws and/or social taboos against mistreating corpses and >gravesites, and against killing pets.
Yes, this is a huge and probably unwanted digression from the original
point that you and Martin are discussing, but I think it is more
important.
I don't believe human life is something to be worshipped. If you kill
a zygote or whatever, that's no biggie. Just don't unnecessarily take
life away from those who want it.
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of
life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of getting
along with other people.
That's true.
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:<snip>
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves >>>>>>>alive?Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>>>>>Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the >>>>>>>>>least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but >>>>>>>>>you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have >>>>>>>>had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my >>>>>>>>beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those >>>>>>>>beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>>>>>creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>>>>>pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry >>>>>>>>>on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been >>>>>>>>many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific >>>>>>>>discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in >>>>>>>>this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely >>>>>>>>from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch. >>>>>>>
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>>cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>>cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient >>>>times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>>Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if >>>you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
I have no issue with Wikipedia as long as you don't give it an >>authoritativeness that it doesn't merit.
Well, maybe some day you'll "get" the Wikipedia phenomenon.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >>>transformation, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>>just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
At what point does a cell become alive.?
When it meets all the criteria listed above.
For example, is a zygote
alive?
Yes,
The anti-abortionists will love you for that, the pro-abortionists not
so much.
As a "pro-abortionist," I see no problem with what I said.
But let's not get into that wearisome debate,
It *is* a really huge rabbit hole, yeah.
let's move
back a step and look at the components that made that zygote. Was the >>unfertilised ovum alive?
Yes.
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you
dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and
eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a
plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of
life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of getting
along with other people.
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:26:23 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:<snip>
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves >>>>>>>>alive?Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>>>>>>Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the >>>>>>>>>>least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but >>>>>>>>>>you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have >>>>>>>>>had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my >>>>>>>>>beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those >>>>>>>>>beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>>>>>>creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>>>>>>pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry >>>>>>>>>>on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been >>>>>>>>>many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific >>>>>>>>>discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in >>>>>>>>>this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely >>>>>>>>>from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch. >>>>>>>>
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>>>cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>>>cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient >>>>>times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>>>Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if >>>>you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
I have no issue with Wikipedia as long as you don't give it an >>>authoritativeness that it doesn't merit.
Well, maybe some day you'll "get" the Wikipedia phenomenon.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >>>>transformation, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>>>just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
At what point does a cell become alive.?
When it meets all the criteria listed above.
For example, is a zygote
alive?
Yes,
The anti-abortionists will love you for that, the pro-abortionists not
so much.
As a "pro-abortionist," I see no problem with what I said.
But let's not get into that wearisome debate,
It *is* a really huge rabbit hole, yeah.
let's move
back a step and look at the components that made that zygote. Was the >>>unfertilised ovum alive?
Yes.
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called
cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism,
cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They
just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you >>>dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and
eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a
plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:13:45 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called
cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism,
cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They
just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
Right, sperm are alive, while unfertilized ova are not.
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I >>>>thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you >>>>dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a
plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Because it's hard-wired into our brains to want it that way. We
evolved to spread our genes, not those of our prey.
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient
times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia.
Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if
you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >transformation, and reproduction."
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 13:21:03 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:13:45 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[a]
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They
just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
Right, sperm are alive, while unfertilized ova are not.
Seems like you are starting to recognise that determining 'alive' is
not as simple as you thought it was, certainly not as simple as
checking Wiki or a dictionary definition.
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
So how may of the things that you listed can a sperm do?
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I >>>>>thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you >>>>>dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>>eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a >>>>plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Because it's hard-wired into our brains to want it that way. We
evolved to spread our genes, not those of our prey.
"Hard-wired " and "we evolved" never seem to me much better as an
explanation than "Goddidit" from the fundies.
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient
times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if
you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >>transformation, and reproduction."
I meant to respond to this earlier. I don't have any problem with
Wikipedia - it's an excellent starting point as long as its
limitations are recognised. When I was supervising Masters students, I
always warned them that any direct citations from Wikipedia in their >dissertation would be rejected but the references in it could provide >pointers to good sources for further research.
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:16:51 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient >>>>times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>>Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if >>>you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >>>transformation, and reproduction."
I meant to respond to this earlier. I don't have any problem with
Wikipedia - it's an excellent starting point as long as its
limitations are recognised. When I was supervising Masters students, I >>always warned them that any direct citations from Wikipedia in their >>dissertation would be rejected but the references in it could provide >>pointers to good sources for further research.
You realize no encyclopedia is perfect, right?
And are there other
sources you "reject" out-of-hand like Wikipedia?
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:10:55 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 13:21:03 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:13:45 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
Right, sperm are alive, while unfertilized ova are not.
Seems like you are starting to recognise that determining 'alive' is
not as simple as you thought it was, certainly not as simple as
checking Wiki or a dictionary definition.
So you, without a concise definition of life, approach the discussion
about life as "some kind weird thing that I feel so vague about that
we can never understand it"?
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
So how may of the things that you listed can a sperm do?
All of them. Sperm are definitely alive.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I >>>>>>thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you >>>>>>dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>>>eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a >>>>>plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Because it's hard-wired into our brains to want it that way. We
evolved to spread our genes, not those of our prey.
"Hard-wired " and "we evolved" never seem to me much better as an >>explanation than "Goddidit" from the fundies.
So you don't believe in evolutionary psychology, and you don't believe
in "Goddidit". What do you believe?
Do you believe our animal past
influences us today at all?
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:33:26 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:10:55 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 13:21:03 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:13:45 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[a]
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>>cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>>cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>>just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
Right, sperm are alive, while unfertilized ova are not.
Seems like you are starting to recognise that determining 'alive' is
not as simple as you thought it was, certainly not as simple as
checking Wiki or a dictionary definition.
So you, without a concise definition of life, approach the discussion
about life as "some kind weird thing that I feel so vague about that
we can never understand it"?
Nope, that is not at all what I am saying. We can identify obvious
cases like me being alive but the squashed squirrel lying on the road
outside being dead but there are always edge cases where there is no >clear-cut answer. The ongoing debate about whether viruses are alive
or not is just one example that comes to mind.
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
So how may of the things that you listed can a sperm do?
All of them. Sperm are definitely alive.
You might want to check the list again - reproduction would be a good >starting point.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I >>>>>>>thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you >>>>>>>dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>>>>eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a >>>>>>plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Because it's hard-wired into our brains to want it that way. We
evolved to spread our genes, not those of our prey.
"Hard-wired " and "we evolved" never seem to me much better as an >>>explanation than "Goddidit" from the fundies.
So you don't believe in evolutionary psychology, and you don't believe
in "Goddidit". What do you believe?
I accept natural explanations where there is an evidence-based
explanation. "Hard wired" or "evolved" are not explanations. Can you
tell me in what part of the brain (or other body part) that moral
values are hard-wired? Can you identify the genes that control our
moral values?
Do you believe our animal past
influences us today at all?
Of course it influences us but our sense of moral values is clearly
very different from other animals, past or present.
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:18:06 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:16:51 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient >>>>>times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>>>Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if >>>>you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >>>>transformation, and reproduction."
I meant to respond to this earlier. I don't have any problem with >>>Wikipedia - it's an excellent starting point as long as its
limitations are recognised. When I was supervising Masters students, I >>>always warned them that any direct citations from Wikipedia in their >>>dissertation would be rejected but the references in it could provide >>>pointers to good sources for further research.
You realize no encyclopedia is perfect, right?
Of course I do but *you* are the one who tried to use Wiki and a
dictionary as definitive sources so maybe you don't realise it..
And are there other
sources you "reject" out-of-hand like Wikipedia?
I don't reject *anything* out of hand - I look at the source and judge
how reliable it is.
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:47:10 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:18:06 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:16:51 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient >>>>>>times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>>>>Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if >>>>>you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain >>>>>attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >>>>>transformation, and reproduction."
I meant to respond to this earlier. I don't have any problem with >>>>Wikipedia - it's an excellent starting point as long as its
limitations are recognised. When I was supervising Masters students, I >>>>always warned them that any direct citations from Wikipedia in their >>>>dissertation would be rejected but the references in it could provide >>>>pointers to good sources for further research.
You realize no encyclopedia is perfect, right?
Of course I do but *you* are the one who tried to use Wiki and a
dictionary as definitive sources so maybe you don't realise it..
So do you accept nothing other than peer-reviewed scientific journal
articles even in informal settings?
And are there other
sources you "reject" out-of-hand like Wikipedia?
I don't reject *anything* out of hand - I look at the source and judge
how reliable it is.
Any specific examples?
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:42:30 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:47:10 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:18:06 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:16:51 +0100, Martin Harran
y respected researchers like Drake and Stillman
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:03:05 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:33:26 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:10:55 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 13:21:03 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:13:45 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[rCa]
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>>>cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>>>cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>>>just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
Right, sperm are alive, while unfertilized ova are not.
Seems like you are starting to recognise that determining 'alive' is >>>>not as simple as you thought it was, certainly not as simple as >>>>checking Wiki or a dictionary definition.
So you, without a concise definition of life, approach the discussion >>>about life as "some kind weird thing that I feel so vague about that
we can never understand it"?
Nope, that is not at all what I am saying. We can identify obvious
cases like me being alive but the squashed squirrel lying on the road >>outside being dead but there are always edge cases where there is no >>clear-cut answer. The ongoing debate about whether viruses are alive
or not is just one example that comes to mind.
There is debate only for those who insist it's one or the other.
Viruses are clearly only partly alive.
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
So how may of the things that you listed can a sperm do?
All of them. Sperm are definitely alive.
You might want to check the list again - reproduction would be a good >>starting point.
They reproduce after fertilization, which you didn't specify that they >couldn't be.
So sperm are alive, but not *independently* alive.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I >>>>>>>>thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you >>>>>>>>dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>>>>>eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a >>>>>>>plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Because it's hard-wired into our brains to want it that way. We >>>>>evolved to spread our genes, not those of our prey.
"Hard-wired " and "we evolved" never seem to me much better as an >>>>explanation than "Goddidit" from the fundies.
So you don't believe in evolutionary psychology, and you don't believe
in "Goddidit". What do you believe?
I accept natural explanations where there is an evidence-based
explanation. "Hard wired" or "evolved" are not explanations. Can you
tell me in what part of the brain (or other body part) that moral
values are hard-wired? Can you identify the genes that control our
moral values?
Try these:
https://psyforu.com/nature-vs-nurture-what-shapes-our-moral-compass/
https://scienceinsights.org/what-makes-us-moral-brain-genes-and-evolution/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/202111/is-morality-genetic?msockid=1c52d4e7186d69ba006ac548197168b9
Do you believe our animal past
influences us today at all?
Of course it influences us but our sense of moral values is clearly
very different from other animals, past or present.
So it wasn't God that created them (right?) and evolutionary
psychology is wrong (right?), so what was it, according to you? Just
no clue, on your part? Or you *do* have an opinion, and it was forest >leprechauns, perhaps?
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:41:56 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:03:05 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:33:26 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:10:55 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 13:21:03 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:13:45 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[a]
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>>>>cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>>>>cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>>>>just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
Right, sperm are alive, while unfertilized ova are not.
Seems like you are starting to recognise that determining 'alive' is >>>>>not as simple as you thought it was, certainly not as simple as >>>>>checking Wiki or a dictionary definition.
So you, without a concise definition of life, approach the discussion >>>>about life as "some kind weird thing that I feel so vague about that
we can never understand it"?
Nope, that is not at all what I am saying. We can identify obvious
cases like me being alive but the squashed squirrel lying on the road >>>outside being dead but there are always edge cases where there is no >>>clear-cut answer. The ongoing debate about whether viruses are alive
or not is just one example that comes to mind.
There is debate only for those who insist it's one or the other.
Viruses are clearly only partly alive.
That sounds a bit like the lady who reckoned she was only a bit
pregnant.
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
So how may of the things that you listed can a sperm do?
All of them. Sperm are definitely alive.
You might want to check the list again - reproduction would be a good >>>starting point.
They reproduce after fertilization, which you didn't specify that they >>couldn't be.
That is a feeble attempt at a swerve when it was clear I was asking
you about a sperm before fertilisation.
So sperm are alive, but not *independently* alive.
So we now have "alive", "partly alive", and "independently alive".
Hopefully the penny has now dropped with you that determining whether >something is "alive" is far from as simple as you seemed to think at
the start of this discussion.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I >>>>>>>>>thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you >>>>>>>>>dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>>>>>>eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a >>>>>>>>plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Because it's hard-wired into our brains to want it that way. We >>>>>>evolved to spread our genes, not those of our prey.
"Hard-wired " and "we evolved" never seem to me much better as an >>>>>explanation than "Goddidit" from the fundies.
So you don't believe in evolutionary psychology, and you don't believe >>>>in "Goddidit". What do you believe?
I accept natural explanations where there is an evidence-based >>>explanation. "Hard wired" or "evolved" are not explanations. Can you
tell me in what part of the brain (or other body part) that moral
values are hard-wired? Can you identify the genes that control our
moral values?
Try these:
https://psyforu.com/nature-vs-nurture-what-shapes-our-moral-compass/
https://scienceinsights.org/what-makes-us-moral-brain-genes-and-evolution/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/202111/is-morality-genetic?msockid=1c52d4e7186d69ba006ac548197168b9
You and I have very different moral views on, for example, abortion.
Which of our genes has led to that difference?
Do you believe our animal past
influences us today at all?
Of course it influences us but our sense of moral values is clearly
very different from other animals, past or present.
So it wasn't God that created them (right?) and evolutionary
psychology is wrong (right?), so what was it, according to you? Just
no clue, on your part? Or you *do* have an opinion, and it was forest >>leprechauns, perhaps?
And there we go again with the insults.
Bye.
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:42:30 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:47:10 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:18:06 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 16:16:51 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient >>>>>>>times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>>>>>Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if >>>>>>you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain >>>>>>attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >>>>>>transformation, and reproduction."
I meant to respond to this earlier. I don't have any problem with >>>>>Wikipedia - it's an excellent starting point as long as its >>>>>limitations are recognised. When I was supervising Masters students, I >>>>>always warned them that any direct citations from Wikipedia in their >>>>>dissertation would be rejected but the references in it could provide >>>>>pointers to good sources for further research.
You realize no encyclopedia is perfect, right?
Of course I do but *you* are the one who tried to use Wiki and a >>>dictionary as definitive sources so maybe you don't realise it..
So do you accept nothing other than peer-reviewed scientific journal >>articles even in informal settings?
Exaggeration does nothing to strengthen your argument.
And are there other
sources you "reject" out-of-hand like Wikipedia?
I don't reject *anything* out of hand - I look at the source and judge >>>how reliable it is.
Any specific examples?
In my ongoing arguments with RonO about Galileo, I regard as reliable
the information given by respected researchers like Drake and Stillman
but I reject as unreliable the stuff he put up from an antonymous
blogger promoting geocentrism.
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip for focus]
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of
life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of getting
along with other people.
You are certainly not afraid to step on slippery slopes such as this
one which could easily lead to defending the slaughter of children in
Gaza as acceptable to defend the Israeli people from Hamas.
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:26:23 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves >>>>>>>> alive?Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>>>>>> Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the
least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but >>>>>>>>>> you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have >>>>>>>>> had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my
beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those >>>>>>>>> beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>>>>>> creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>>>>>> pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry
on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been >>>>>>>>> many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific >>>>>>>>> discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in >>>>>>>>> this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely >>>>>>>> >from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch. >>>>>>>>
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>>> cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>>> cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient
times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>>> Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if >>>> you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
I have no issue with Wikipedia as long as you don't give it an
authoritativeness that it doesn't merit.
Well, maybe some day you'll "get" the Wikipedia phenomenon.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy
transformation, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>>> just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
At what point does a cell become alive.?
When it meets all the criteria listed above.
For example, is a zygote
alive?
Yes,
The anti-abortionists will love you for that, the pro-abortionists not
so much.
As a "pro-abortionist," I see no problem with what I said.
But let's not get into that wearisome debate,
It *is* a really huge rabbit hole, yeah.
let's move
back a step and look at the components that made that zygote. Was the
unfertilised ovum alive?
Yes.
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called
cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism,
cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They
just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you
dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and
eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a
plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
On 7/14/26 7:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:26:23 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves >>>>>>>>> alive?Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>>>>>>> Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the
least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but
you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have >>>>>>>>>> had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my
beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those
beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>>>>>>> creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>>>>>>> pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry
on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been >>>>>>>>>> many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific >>>>>>>>>> discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in >>>>>>>>>> this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely
from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch. >>>>>>>>>
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>>>> cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>>>> cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
WOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient >>>>>> times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>>>> Who'da thunk it!
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if >>>>> you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
I have no issue with Wikipedia as long as you don't give it an
authoritativeness that it doesn't merit.
Well, maybe some day you'll "get" the Wikipedia phenomenon.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy
transformation, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>>>> just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
At what point does a cell become alive.?
When it meets all the criteria listed above.
For example, is a zygote
alive?
Yes,
The anti-abortionists will love you for that, the pro-abortionists not >>>> so much.
As a "pro-abortionist," I see no problem with what I said.
But let's not get into that wearisome debate,
It *is* a really huge rabbit hole, yeah.
let's move
back a step and look at the components that made that zygote. Was the
unfertilised ovum alive?
Yes.
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called
cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism,
cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They
just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you
dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and
eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a
plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Plants don't participate in deciding what's wrong for people to do.
On 7/14/26 7:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip for focus]
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of
life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of getting
along with other people.
You are certainly not afraid to step on slippery slopes such as this
one which could easily lead to defending the slaughter of children in
Gaza as acceptable to defend the Israeli people from Hamas.
???!
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 08:13:10 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/12/26 11:47 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/10/26 6:26 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you >>>>>> dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>>> eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a
plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
It's not life that makes killing and eating people wrong. It's that the >>>> people are part of (what's supposed to be) a cohesive society.
Is it wrong to kill living human beings if it doesn't affect the
cohesiveness of society?
People who support the death penalty don't think it's wrong.
So you think it's wrong to kill someone in revenge for something?
Note, though, that killing people can be wrong for other reasons, too. Most >> notably, it corrupts the rule of law if anybody can declare themself an
ultimate arbiter of justice.
Are you relying on the idea of "if everyone did that, society would
fall apart"?
The importance of society rather than life shows itself most plainly, I
think, in laws and/or social taboos against mistreating corpses and
gravesites, and against killing pets.
I'm not sure they should be illegal. Certainly if your pet is
terminally ill it would be okay to kill them. But to kill your dog in
a fit of anger probably shouldn't be.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:53:56 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip for focus]
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of
life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of getting
along with other people.
You are certainly not afraid to step on slippery slopes such as this
one which could easily lead to defending the slaughter of children in
Gaza as acceptable to defend the Israeli people from Hamas.
???!
A lot of Israeli people think that the sanctity of the life of
children in Gaza is less important than the Israelis being able to get
on with their lives. Not that far removed from what you have said
above about to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of life at the
expense of the importance of the very concept of getting along with
other people.
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:57:41 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:26:23 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin HarranWOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient >>>>>>> times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>>>>> Who'da thunk it!
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves >>>>>>>>>> alive?Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>>>>>>>> Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the
least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but
you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have
had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my
beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those
beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>>>>>>>> creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>>>>>>>> pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry
on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been >>>>>>>>>>> many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific >>>>>>>>>>> discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in
this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely
from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch. >>>>>>>>>>
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>>>>> cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>>>>> cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction." >>>>>>>
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if >>>>>> you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
I have no issue with Wikipedia as long as you don't give it an
authoritativeness that it doesn't merit.
Well, maybe some day you'll "get" the Wikipedia phenomenon.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >>>>>> transformation, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>>>>> just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
At what point does a cell become alive.?
When it meets all the criteria listed above.
For example, is a zygote
alive?
Yes,
The anti-abortionists will love you for that, the pro-abortionists not >>>>> so much.
As a "pro-abortionist," I see no problem with what I said.
But let's not get into that wearisome debate,
It *is* a really huge rabbit hole, yeah.
let's move
back a step and look at the components that made that zygote. Was the >>>>> unfertilised ovum alive?
Yes.
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called
cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism,
cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They
just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you
dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>> eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a
plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Plants don't participate in deciding what's wrong for people to do.
Is it ok to kill somebody who has mental issues which prevent them
from being able to participate in deciding what's wrong for people to
do?
On 7/13/26 2:28 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2026 08:13:10 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/12/26 11:47 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/10/26 6:26 AM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I >>>>>>> thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you >>>>>>> dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>>>> eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a >>>>>> plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
It's not life that makes killing and eating people wrong. It's that the >>>>> people are part of (what's supposed to be) a cohesive society.
Is it wrong to kill living human beings if it doesn't affect the
cohesiveness of society?
People who support the death penalty don't think it's wrong.
So you think it's wrong to kill someone in revenge for something?
Usually. I might allow exceptions where the original crime was heinous
and deliberately publicized.
Note, though, that killing people can be wrong for other reasons, too. Most >>> notably, it corrupts the rule of law if anybody can declare themself an
ultimate arbiter of justice.
Are you relying on the idea of "if everyone did that, society would
fall apart"?
Not relying on it, no.
The importance of society rather than life shows itself most plainly, I
think, in laws and/or social taboos against mistreating corpses and
gravesites, and against killing pets.
I'm not sure they should be illegal. Certainly if your pet is
terminally ill it would be okay to kill them. But to kill your dog in
a fit of anger probably shouldn't be.
What about a stranger killing your pet? Do you consider that a
different order of crime from, say, a stranger vandalizing (and
destroying) your mailbox? I do.
On 7/19/26 2:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:53:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip for focus]
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of
life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of getting >>>>> along with other people.
You are certainly not afraid to step on slippery slopes such as this
one which could easily lead to defending the slaughter of children in
Gaza as acceptable to defend the Israeli people from Hamas.
???!
A lot of Israeli people think that the sanctity of the life of
children in Gaza is less important than the Israelis being able to get
on with their lives. Not that far removed from what you have said
above about to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of life at the
expense of the importance of the very concept of getting along with
other people.
I have seen extremely little evidence of Israelis trying to get along
with the people of Gaza.
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:57:41 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:26:23 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin HarranWOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient >>>>>>>> times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>>>>>> Who'da thunk it!
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves >>>>>>>>>>> alive?Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>>>>>>>>> Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at the
least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but
you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects.
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive
You have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have
had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my
beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those
beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>>>>>>>>> creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry
on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been >>>>>>>>>>>> many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific >>>>>>>>>>>> discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in
this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely
from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch. >>>>>>>>>>>
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>>>>>> cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>>>>>> cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction." >>>>>>>>
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if >>>>>>> you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
I have no issue with Wikipedia as long as you don't give it an
authoritativeness that it doesn't merit.
Well, maybe some day you'll "get" the Wikipedia phenomenon.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >>>>>>> transformation, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>>>>>> just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
At what point does a cell become alive.?
When it meets all the criteria listed above.
For example, is a zygote
alive?
Yes,
The anti-abortionists will love you for that, the pro-abortionists not >>>>>> so much.
As a "pro-abortionist," I see no problem with what I said.
But let's not get into that wearisome debate,
It *is* a really huge rabbit hole, yeah.
let's move
back a step and look at the components that made that zygote. Was the >>>>>> unfertilised ovum alive?
Yes.
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called
cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism,
cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They
just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Of course; all it takes is getting fertilized.
Do you think ova just pop out of nowhere?
You'll need to get rid of that word "itself" you added, though. Almost >nothing lives by itself, at least not for long.
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I
thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you >>>>>> dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>>> eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a
plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Plants don't participate in deciding what's wrong for people to do.
Is it ok to kill somebody who has mental issues which prevent them
from being able to participate in deciding what's wrong for people to
do?
If they are not, never have been, and show no promise of ever being part
of human society, then yes.
I have no problems with allowing the
killing of people who do not exist
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:57:41 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>>>> eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a >>>>>> plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Plants don't participate in deciding what's wrong for people to do.
Is it ok to kill somebody who has mental issues which prevent them
from being able to participate in deciding what's wrong for people to
do?
If they are not, never have been, and show no promise of ever being part
of human society, then yes.
So you would have no problem in killing a child born, for example,
with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder?
I have no problems with allowing the
killing of people who do not exist
???
if you can figure out how to do it.
On 7/21/2026 10:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:57:41 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
---snip---
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>>>>> eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a >>>>>>> plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Plants don't participate in deciding what's wrong for people to do.
Is it ok to kill somebody who has mental issues which prevent them
from being able to participate in deciding what's wrong for people to
do?
If they are not, never have been, and show no promise of ever being part >>> of human society, then yes.
So you would have no problem in killing a child born, for example,
with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder?
I have no problems with allowing the
killing of people who do not exist
???
if you can figure out how to do it.
<https://i.postimg.cc/QxMzwTbf/Evolved.png>
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak ><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:57:41 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:26:23 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin HarranWOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient >>>>>>>>> times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>>>>>>> Who'da thunk it!
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at theYou have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have
least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but
you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive >>>>>>>>>>>>>
had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my
beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those
beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry
on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been
many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific >>>>>>>>>>>>> discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in
this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely
from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch.
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves >>>>>>>>>>>> alive?
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>>>>>>> cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism,
cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction." >>>>>>>>>
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if >>>>>>>> you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
I have no issue with Wikipedia as long as you don't give it an
authoritativeness that it doesn't merit.
Well, maybe some day you'll "get" the Wikipedia phenomenon.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >>>>>>>> transformation, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>>>>>>> just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
At what point does a cell become alive.?
When it meets all the criteria listed above.
For example, is a zygote
alive?
Yes,
The anti-abortionists will love you for that, the pro-abortionists not >>>>>>> so much.
As a "pro-abortionist," I see no problem with what I said.
But let's not get into that wearisome debate,
It *is* a really huge rabbit hole, yeah.
let's move
back a step and look at the components that made that zygote. Was the >>>>>>> unfertilised ovum alive?
Yes.
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called
cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>> cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>> just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Of course; all it takes is getting fertilized.
A rather feeble attempt at a swerve when I already called Vincent out
for the exact same thing.
Do you think ova just pop out of nowhere?
You'll need to get rid of that word "itself" you added, though. Almost >>nothing lives by itself, at least not for long.
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I >>>>>>> thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you >>>>>>> dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>>>> eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a >>>>>> plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Plants don't participate in deciding what's wrong for people to do.
Is it ok to kill somebody who has mental issues which prevent them
from being able to participate in deciding what's wrong for people to
do?
If they are not, never have been, and show no promise of ever being part >>of human society, then yes.
So you would have no problem in killing a child born, for example,
with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder?
I have no problems with allowing the
killing of people who do not exist
???
if you can figure out how to do it.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:45:24 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak >><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Of course; all it takes is getting fertilized.
A rather feeble attempt at a swerve when I already called Vincent out
for the exact same thing.
Nope. Never happened.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:39:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:45:24 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak >>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[a]
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Of course; all it takes is getting fertilized.
A rather feeble attempt at a swerve when I already called Vincent out
for the exact same thing.
Nope. Never happened.
Yes it did. I challenged you about whether a sperm can reproduce and
you tried to change to post-fertilisation when I was clearly talking
about before fertilisation.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:26:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:39:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:45:24 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak >>>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Of course; all it takes is getting fertilized.
A rather feeble attempt at a swerve when I already called Vincent out >>>>for the exact same thing.
Nope. Never happened.
Yes it did. I challenged you about whether a sperm can reproduce and
you tried to change to post-fertilisation when I was clearly talking
about before fertilisation.
Then you should have said "pre-fertilization sperm."
The important
thing, though, is to understand that sperm are alive but don't
comprise truly independent organisms, because they can only reproduce
after they've become part of a zygote.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 18:15:27 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:26:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:39:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:45:24 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Of course; all it takes is getting fertilized.
A rather feeble attempt at a swerve when I already called Vincent out >>>>> for the exact same thing.
Nope. Never happened.
Yes it did. I challenged you about whether a sperm can reproduce and
you tried to change to post-fertilisation when I was clearly talking
about before fertilisation.
Then you should have said "pre-fertilization sperm."
I asked you "Was the unfertilised ovum alive? Was the sperm that
fertilised it alive." I'm not quite sure how I could have made it
clearer for you.
The important
thing, though, is to understand that sperm are alive but don't
comprise truly independent organisms, because they can only reproduce
after they've become part of a zygote.
At which stage they no longer exist as *sperm*. Thank you for
reinforcing how feeble was your attempt at a swerve.
On 2026-07-22 7:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 18:15:27 -0400, Vincent MaycockI think what this thread shows is that no matter what you use as a definition for 'life' or 'alive' there are going to be ambiguities and
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:26:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:39:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:45:24 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Of course; all it takes is getting fertilized.
A rather feeble attempt at a swerve when I already called Vincent out >>>>>> for the exact same thing.
Nope.-a Never happened.
Yes it did. I challenged you about whether a sperm can reproduce and
you tried to change to post-fertilisation when I was clearly talking
about before fertilisation.
Then you should have said "pre-fertilization sperm."
I asked you "Was the unfertilised ovum alive? Was the sperm that
fertilised it alive."-a I'm not quite sure how I could have made it
clearer for you.
The important
thing, though, is to understand that sperm are alive but don't
comprise truly independent organisms, because they can only reproduce
after they've become part of a zygote.
At which stage they no longer exist as *sperm*. Thank you for
reinforcing how feeble was your attempt at a swerve.
edge cases.
Are parasites alive? Are some alive and some not? Does the same
reasoning apply to all 'living' entities?
It seems to me that life is not so much a condition as a process. ova
and sperm are part of that process for sexually reproducing entities.
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 18:15:27 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:26:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:39:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:45:24 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak >>>>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[a]
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Of course; all it takes is getting fertilized.
A rather feeble attempt at a swerve when I already called Vincent out >>>>>for the exact same thing.
Nope. Never happened.
Yes it did. I challenged you about whether a sperm can reproduce and
you tried to change to post-fertilisation when I was clearly talking >>>about before fertilisation.
Then you should have said "pre-fertilization sperm."
I asked you "Was the unfertilised ovum alive? Was the sperm that
fertilised it alive." I'm not quite sure how I could have made it
clearer for you.
The important
thing, though, is to understand that sperm are alive but don't
comprise truly independent organisms, because they can only reproduce
after they've become part of a zygote.
At which stage they no longer exist as *sperm*.
Thank you for reinforcing how feeble was your attempt at a swerve.
DB Cates wrote:
On 2026-07-22 7:13 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:Also, it begs the questions regarding DNA:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 18:15:27 -0400, Vincent MaycockI think what this thread shows is that no matter what you use as a
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:26:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:39:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:45:24 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Of course; all it takes is getting fertilized.
A rather feeble attempt at a swerve when I already called Vincent >>>>>>> out
for the exact same thing.
Nope.-a Never happened.
Yes it did. I challenged you about whether a sperm can reproduce and >>>>> you tried to change to post-fertilisation when I was clearly talking >>>>> about before fertilisation.
Then you should have said "pre-fertilization sperm."
I asked you "Was the unfertilised ovum alive? Was the sperm that
fertilised it alive."-a I'm not quite sure how I could have made it
clearer for you.
The important
thing, though, is to understand that sperm are alive but don't
comprise truly independent organisms, because they can only reproduce
after they've become part of a zygote.
At which stage they no longer exist as *sperm*. Thank you for
reinforcing how feeble was your attempt at a swerve.
definition for 'life' or 'alive' there are going to be ambiguities and
edge cases.
Are parasites alive? Are some alive and some not? Does the same
reasoning apply to all 'living' entities?
It seems to me that life is not so much a condition as a process. ova
and sperm are part of that process for sexually reproducing entities.
Is it true that sperm only carry one half of the DNA helix?
Is it true that eggs only carry one half of the DNA helix?
Or, alternatively, do both carry full double helix DNA that just splits
off or something?
I think what this thread shows is that no matter what you use as a >definition for 'life' or 'alive' there are going to be ambiguities and
edge cases.
from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch.Vincent asked me "Are you suggesting that components of living things
Are parasites alive? Are some alive and some not? Does the same
reasoning apply to all 'living' entities?
It seems to me that life is not so much a condition as a process.
ova and sperm are part of that process for sexually reproducing entities.
--
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 08:39:53 -0500, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[a]
I think what this thread shows is that no matter what you use as a >>definition for 'life' or 'alive' there are going to be ambiguities and >>edge cases.
I totally agree. This part of the discussion began when I suggested
that describing combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely
from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch.Vincent asked me "Are you suggesting that components of living things
are themselves
alive?" That seemed to suggest he expected a simple yes/no answer but
there is no simple binary answer.
Are parasites alive? Are some alive and some not? Does the same
reasoning apply to all 'living' entities?
It seems to me that life is not so much a condition as a process.
That's a better description of what is going on but not a complete
definition or explanatiom. All of life is made up of a collection of
chemical elements but you can't put those chemical elements together
in a lab and get even the simplest lifeform.
In that context, science
simply has no answer as to what is the missing 'force', for lack of a
better word,
that gives life to that collection of chemicals.
Notwithstanding some of the work going on like that described in the
paper that started off this thread, I don't think there is any sign
that science will ever be able to figure it out, so we are stuck with >philosophical, arguments about materialism and dualism :).
ova and sperm are part of that process for sexually reproducing entities.
--
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:18:35 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:53:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip for focus]
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of
life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of getting >>>>>> along with other people.
You are certainly not afraid to step on slippery slopes such as this >>>>> one which could easily lead to defending the slaughter of children in >>>>> Gaza as acceptable to defend the Israeli people from Hamas.
???!
A lot of Israeli people think that the sanctity of the life of
children in Gaza is less important than the Israelis being able to get
on with their lives. Not that far removed from what you have said
above about to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of life at the
expense of the importance of the very concept of getting along with
other people.
I have seen extremely little evidence of Israelis trying to get along
with the people of Gaza.
Another poor attempt at a swerve.
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:57:41 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 09:26:23 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:02:09 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:03:52 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:00:04 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 14:33:29 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 18:35:37 +0100, Martin HarranWOW, scientists and philosophers have been struggling from ancient >>>>>>>>> times to figure out what life is and ther's the answer in Wikipedia. >>>>>>>>> Who'da thunk it!
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:04:19 -0400, Vincent Maycock<snip>
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2026 13:29:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't you believe in souls and other immaterial entities, as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Catholic? I mean these synthetic cells are clearly half-alive at theYou have a rather suspicious mind. After all the discussions we have
least, bridging the gap between viruses and truly living things, but
you chose to emphasize their "non-living" aspects. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I was just wondering if you had some ulterior motive >>>>>>>>>>>>>
had here, I would have liked to think that however much you dismiss my
beliefs, that you would have recognised that I am upfront about those
beiefs, I don't try to sneak the in some back door.
(like some
immaterial life force that needs to be taken into account when >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creating a living cell) for that. If you didn't, and were just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pushing back against the hype about these synthetic cells, then carry
on!
Yes, it's the hype that I was pushing back against. Ther have been
many discussions here about the media over-hyping scientific >>>>>>>>>>>>> discovery. Not taking away from the achievement of the scientists in
this case, but combining parts from existing cells as "built entirely
from non-living chemical components" seems something of a stretch.
Are you suggesting that components of living things are themselves >>>>>>>>>>>> alive?
Defdine "alive".
From:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called >>>>>>>>>> cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism,
cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction." >>>>>>>>>
It's not that difficult a concept. Here's Encyclopedia Britannica, if >>>>>>>> you for some reason don't like Wikipedia:
I have no issue with Wikipedia as long as you don't give it an
authoritativeness that it doesn't merit.
Well, maybe some day you'll "get" the Wikipedia phenomenon.
https://www.britannica.com/science/life
"Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain
attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy >>>>>>>> transformation, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>>>>>>> just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
At what point does a cell become alive.?
When it meets all the criteria listed above.
For example, is a zygote
alive?
Yes,
The anti-abortionists will love you for that, the pro-abortionists not >>>>>>> so much.
As a "pro-abortionist," I see no problem with what I said.
But let's not get into that wearisome debate,
It *is* a really huge rabbit hole, yeah.
let's move
back a step and look at the components that made that zygote. Was the >>>>>>> unfertilised ovum alive?
Yes.
You said earlier:
<quote>
"Life is the capacity in matter, formed of one or more units called
cells, for processes such as cell signaling, homeostasis, metabolism, >>>>> cell growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction."
The components of the synthetic cells do none of these things. They >>>>> just sit there until they get put together in a cell.
</quote>
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Of course; all it takes is getting fertilized.
A rather feeble attempt at a swerve when I already called Vincent out
for the exact same thing.
Do you think ova just pop out of nowhere?
You'll need to get rid of that word "itself" you added, though. Almost
nothing lives by itself, at least not for long.
Was the sperm that fertilised it alive?
Yes, of course.
but let's not confuse human life with life per se.
You reckon human life is different from other lifeforms? Funny, I >>>>>>> thought that idea was the preserve of the religious belief that you >>>>>>> dismiss so readily.
Human life is a type of life. So it's wrong, for example, to kill and >>>>>> eat a human being, but not wrong to kill and eat a steer or even a >>>>>> plant ( all of which are alive, of course).
Why is ok to kill one but not the other?
Plants don't participate in deciding what's wrong for people to do.
Is it ok to kill somebody who has mental issues which prevent them
from being able to participate in deciding what's wrong for people to
do?
If they are not, never have been, and show no promise of ever being part
of human society, then yes.
So you would have no problem in killing a child born, for example,
with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder?
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 18:15:27 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:26:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:39:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:45:24 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Of course; all it takes is getting fertilized.
A rather feeble attempt at a swerve when I already called Vincent out >>>>> for the exact same thing.
Nope. Never happened.
Yes it did. I challenged you about whether a sperm can reproduce and
you tried to change to post-fertilisation when I was clearly talking
about before fertilisation.
Then you should have said "pre-fertilization sperm."
I asked you "Was the unfertilised ovum alive? Was the sperm that
fertilised it alive." I'm not quite sure how I could have made it
clearer for you.
The important
thing, though, is to understand that sperm are alive but don't
comprise truly independent organisms, because they can only reproduce
after they've become part of a zygote.
At which stage they no longer exist as *sperm*. Thank you for
reinforcing how feeble was your attempt at a swerve.
On 7/22/26 5:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 18:15:27 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 22:26:30 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:39:04 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:45:24 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:34:02 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:38 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
How many of those things can an unfertilised ovum do?
All of them.
An unfertilised ovum can reproduce itself?
Of course; all it takes is getting fertilized.
A rather feeble attempt at a swerve when I already called Vincent out >>>>>> for the exact same thing.
Nope.-a Never happened.
Yes it did. I challenged you about whether a sperm can reproduce and
you tried to change to post-fertilisation when I was clearly talking
about before fertilisation.
Then you should have said "pre-fertilization sperm."
I asked you "Was the unfertilised ovum alive? Was the sperm that
fertilised it alive."-a I'm not quite sure how I could have made it
clearer for you.
The important
thing, though, is to understand that sperm are alive but don't
comprise truly independent organisms, because they can only reproduce
after they've become part of a zygote.
At which stage they no longer exist as *sperm*. Thank you for
reinforcing how feeble was your attempt at a swerve.
Do you have an actual point, or do you just like to play with the
meanings of individual words?
Sperm cells are alive.-a Unfertilized ova are alive.-a The cells they came from were alive; the cells they might grow into are alive; and the
organisms that those cells comprise are alive.-a Life does not begin at conception; it began a billion years or so before that.
Or perhaps you prefer a different definition of life.-a Okay.-a Life does not begin at conception; it begins at around the age of 18-22 (usually)
when one moves out of one's childhood home.
On 7/21/26 8:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:18:35 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:53:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip for focus]
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of
life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of getting >>>>>>> along with other people.
You are certainly not afraid to step on slippery slopes such as this >>>>>> one which could easily lead to defending the slaughter of children in >>>>>> Gaza as acceptable to defend the Israeli people from Hamas.
???!
A lot of Israeli people think that the sanctity of the life of
children in Gaza is less important than the Israelis being able to get >>>> on with their lives. Not that far removed from what you have said
above about to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of life at the
expense of the importance of the very concept of getting along with
other people.
I have seen extremely little evidence of Israelis trying to get along
with the people of Gaza.
Another poor attempt at a swerve.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with my position.-a Nothing.-a You
are talking to yourself about your own ideas.-a Stop pretending that I
have anything to do with what you are writing.
On 7/21/26 8:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:18:35 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:53:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip for focus]
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of
life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of getting >>>>>>> along with other people.
You are certainly not afraid to step on slippery slopes such as this >>>>>> one which could easily lead to defending the slaughter of children in >>>>>> Gaza as acceptable to defend the Israeli people from Hamas.
???!
A lot of Israeli people think that the sanctity of the life of
children in Gaza is less important than the Israelis being able to get >>>> on with their lives. Not that far removed from what you have said
above about to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of life at the
expense of the importance of the very concept of getting along with
other people.
I have seen extremely little evidence of Israelis trying to get along
with the people of Gaza.
Another poor attempt at a swerve.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with my position. Nothing. You
are talking to yourself about your own ideas. Stop pretending that I
have anything to do with what you are writing.
On 7/21/26 8:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
Is it ok to kill somebody who has mental issues which prevent them
from being able to participate in deciding what's wrong for people to
do?
If they are not, never have been, and show no promise of ever being part >>> of human society, then yes.
So you would have no problem in killing a child born, for example,
with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder?
First, I am disgusted by your attitude that it might be my decision,
or the decision of anyone besides the parents.
second, I don't know a lot
about Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder,
but in general, disorders do not
preclude a person from being part of society, and again, the implication >that they might is disturbing to say the least.
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include
some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:54:35 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/21/26 8:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:18:35 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:53:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip for focus]
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of
life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of getting >>>>>>>> along with other people.
You are certainly not afraid to step on slippery slopes such as this >>>>>>> one which could easily lead to defending the slaughter of children in >>>>>>> Gaza as acceptable to defend the Israeli people from Hamas.
???!
A lot of Israeli people think that the sanctity of the life of
children in Gaza is less important than the Israelis being able to get >>>>> on with their lives. Not that far removed from what you have said
above about to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of life at the
expense of the importance of the very concept of getting along with
other people.
I have seen extremely little evidence of Israelis trying to get along
with the people of Gaza.
Another poor attempt at a swerve.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with my position. Nothing. You
are talking to yourself about your own ideas. Stop pretending that I
have anything to do with what you are writing.
Perhaps you should think a bit more about the implications before
making a sweeping statement like "There has been way to much emphasis
on so-called sanctity of life at the expense of the importance of the
very concept of getting along with other people."
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include
some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of
living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus
is "partly alive"?
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include
some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of
living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus
is "partly alive"?
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus
is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway,
maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include
some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of
living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus
is "partly alive"?
When does a virus respond to stimuli? I am talking about biological
viruses. Perhaps computer virus is a misnomer because organic viruses do
not respond to stimuli.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 07:17:48 -0600, Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>> some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of
living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus
is "partly alive"?
When does a virus respond to stimuli? I am talking about biological
viruses. Perhaps computer virus is a misnomer because organic viruses do
not respond to stimuli.
Congratulations. Your attempt to divert attention away from my awkward question entitles you to full membership of TOSC (Talk Origins Swerve
Club).
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 07:17:48 -0600, Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com>Let me put it for you simply:
wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>>> some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of
living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>> is "partly alive"?
When does a virus respond to stimuli? I am talking about biological
viruses. Perhaps computer virus is a misnomer because organic viruses do >>> not respond to stimuli.
Congratulations. Your attempt to divert attention away from my awkward
question entitles you to full membership of TOSC (Talk Origins Swerve
Club).
Virus is a misnomer for the "computer virus".
Any life you ascribe to
biological viruses is misapplied. Irrelevant. Confounded. Don't lean on
the definition of viruses as alive in your search to make out computer >viruses as living. It is inapplicable and irrelevant. Perfectly laughable.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>>some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus
is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway,
maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that
you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >conclusive as you thought it was.
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>>> some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of
living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>> is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway,
maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that
you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as
conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus
is not partly alive.
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin HarranThis is an understandable restriction, based on the fictional novel
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>>>> some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems. >>>>>A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>> living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>>> is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway,
maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that
you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as
conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus
is not partly alive.
Project Hail Mary no doubt. Oh my God. Science based on fiction is the best.
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>>>some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>>is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway,
maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that
you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >>conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus
is not partly alive.
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>>>>some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems. >>>>>A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>>living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it >>>>>responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>>>is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway, >>>>maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that >>>you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >>>conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus
is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common
I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts
again.
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:05:35 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>>>>>some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems. >>>>>>A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>>>living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it >>>>>>responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>>>>is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway, >>>>>maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that >>>>you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >>>>conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus
is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common
I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts
again.
No, if such life forms are found, I might be more open to the idea
that computer viruses are partly alive.
However, you seem to have
included a list of life-like properties of computer viruses that may
not be completely valid. Could you elaborate on that for us?
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 09:28:40 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:05:35 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>>>>>>some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems. >>>>>>>A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>>>>living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it >>>>>>>responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>>>>>is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway, >>>>>>maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that >>>>>you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >>>>>conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus
is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common
I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts >>>again.
No, if such life forms are found, I might be more open to the idea
that computer viruses are partly alive.
Do I really have to remind you that you said earlier
<quote> Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and >include some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into >problems."</quote>
Now you have added the need for carbon to the list and you think you
might have to change your mind again if non-carbon lifeforms are ever
found.
Seems like "just use" and "shouldn't run into problems" were
something of an overstatement.
However, you seem to have
included a list of life-like properties of computer viruses that may
not be completely valid. Could you elaborate on that for us?
Signals, grows, responds to stimuli and reproduces; which of those do
you struggle with?
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:32:24 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 09:28:40 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:05:35 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and includeA computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>>>>> living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it >>>>>>>> responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>>>>>> is "partly alive"?
some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems. >>>>>>>>
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway, >>>>>>> maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that >>>>>> you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >>>>>> conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus >>>>> is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common >>>>
I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts
again.
No, if such life forms are found, I might be more open to the idea
that computer viruses are partly alive.
Do I really have to remind you that you said earlier
<quote> Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and
include some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into
problems."</quote>
Now you have added the need for carbon to the list and you think you
might have to change your mind again if non-carbon lifeforms are ever
found.
*If* they are ever found. We don't even know if non-carbon based life
forms can exist, so its exclusion from my definition is not
necessarily a drawback.
Seems like "just use" and "shouldn't run into problems" were
something of an overstatement.
With a proper checklist, my statements remain valid.
However, you seem to have
included a list of life-like properties of computer viruses that may
not be completely valid. Could you elaborate on that for us?
Signals, grows, responds to stimuli and reproduces; which of those do
you struggle with?
Just elaborate on how computer viruses signal, grow, and respond to
stimuli.
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:32:24 +0100, Martin HarranYou are a sinner because when you look at a woman and like her looks,
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 09:28:40 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:05:35 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and includeA computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>>>>>> living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it >>>>>>>>> responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus
some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems. >>>>>>>>>
is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway, >>>>>>>> maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that >>>>>>> you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >>>>>>> conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus >>>>>> is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common >>>>>
I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts >>>>> again.
No, if such life forms are found, I might be more open to the idea
that computer viruses are partly alive.
Do I really have to remind you that you said earlier
<quote> Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and
include some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into
problems."</quote>
Now you have added the need for carbon to the list and you think you
might have to change your mind again if non-carbon lifeforms are ever
found.
*If* they are ever found. We don't even know if non-carbon based life
forms can exist, so its exclusion from my definition is not
necessarily a drawback.
Seems like "just use" and "shouldn't run into problems" were
something of an overstatement.
With a proper checklist, my statements remain valid.
However, you seem to have
included a list of life-like properties of computer viruses that may
not be completely valid. Could you elaborate on that for us?
Signals, grows, responds to stimuli and reproduces; which of those do
you struggle with?
Just elaborate on how computer viruses signal, grow, and respond to
stimuli.
you have committed adultery. You are filled with sin, sinner.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:54:35 -0700, Mark IsaakWhy is Musk going into space? Why doesn't he do something practical like eliminate bedbugs or cockroaches? That's probably what the OP was
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/21/26 8:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:18:35 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:53:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip for focus]
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of >>>>>>>>> life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of >>>>>>>>> getting
along with other people.
You are certainly not afraid to step on slippery slopes such as >>>>>>>> this
one which could easily lead to defending the slaughter of
children in
Gaza as acceptable to defend the Israeli people from Hamas.
???!
A lot of Israeli people think that the sanctity of the life of
children in Gaza is less important than the Israelis being able to >>>>>> get
on with their lives. Not that far removed from what you have said
above about to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of life at the
expense of the importance of the very concept of getting along with >>>>>> other people.
I have seen extremely little evidence of Israelis trying to get along >>>>> with the people of Gaza.
Another poor attempt at a swerve.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with my position.-a Nothing.-a You
are talking to yourself about your own ideas.-a Stop pretending that I
have anything to do with what you are writing.
Perhaps you should think a bit more about the implications before
making a sweeping statement like "There has been way to much emphasis
on so-called sanctity of life at the expense of the importance of the
very concept of getting along with other people."
talking about. These pests make life harder for the people suffering the most, why not address this instead of some lark to Mars?
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>>>> some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems. >>>>>A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>> living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>>> is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway,
maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that
you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as
conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus
is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common
I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts
again.
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:32:24 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 09:28:40 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:05:35 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>>>>>>>some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems. >>>>>>>>A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>>>>>living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it >>>>>>>>responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>>>>>>is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway, >>>>>>>maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that >>>>>>you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >>>>>>conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus >>>>>is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common
I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts >>>>again.
No, if such life forms are found, I might be more open to the idea
that computer viruses are partly alive.
Do I really have to remind you that you said earlier
<quote> Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and >>include some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into >>problems."</quote>
Now you have added the need for carbon to the list and you think you
might have to change your mind again if non-carbon lifeforms are ever >>found.
*If* they are ever found. We don't even know if non-carbon based life
forms can exist, so its exclusion from my definition is not
necessarily a drawback.
Seems like "just use" and "shouldn't run into problems" were
something of an overstatement.
With a proper checklist, my statements remain valid.
However, you seem to have
included a list of life-like properties of computer viruses that may
not be completely valid. Could you elaborate on that for us?
Signals, grows, responds to stimuli and reproduces; which of those do
you struggle with?
Just elaborate on how computer viruses signal, grow, and respond to
stimuli.
On 8/13/26 12:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>>>>> some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems. >>>>>>A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>>> living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>>>> is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway,
maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that >>>> you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as
conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus
is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common
I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts
again.
If the goal is to best describe observations, then changing definitions >according to new evidence shifts the definitions, but leaves the
goalposts exactly where they started.
And yes, anyone who has read significant amounts of science fiction
already knows that the definition of life can include robots, pure
energy beings, and who knows what else.
On 8/11/26 6:15 AM, Lane W wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:54:35 -0700, Mark IsaakWhy is Musk going into space? Why doesn't he do something practical like
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/21/26 8:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:18:35 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:53:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip for focus]
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of >>>>>>>>>> life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of >>>>>>>>>> getting
along with other people.
You are certainly not afraid to step on slippery slopes such as >>>>>>>>> this
one which could easily lead to defending the slaughter of
children in
Gaza as acceptable to defend the Israeli people from Hamas.
???!
A lot of Israeli people think that the sanctity of the life of
children in Gaza is less important than the Israelis being able to >>>>>>> get
on with their lives. Not that far removed from what you have said >>>>>>> above about to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of life at the >>>>>>> expense of the importance of the very concept of getting along with >>>>>>> other people.
I have seen extremely little evidence of Israelis trying to get along >>>>>> with the people of Gaza.
Another poor attempt at a swerve.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with my position. Nothing. You
are talking to yourself about your own ideas. Stop pretending that I
have anything to do with what you are writing.
Perhaps you should think a bit more about the implications before
making a sweeping statement like "There has been way to much emphasis
on so-called sanctity of life at the expense of the importance of the
very concept of getting along with other people."
eliminate bedbugs or cockroaches? That's probably what the OP was
talking about. These pests make life harder for the people suffering the
most, why not address this instead of some lark to Mars?
Actually, I was thinking of the abortion issue, couched in terms of
sanctity of life,
but manufactured as an issue to get White Christian
Republicans into office by generating outrage and hate against others.
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:33:44 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:32:24 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 09:28:40 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:05:35 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts >>>>>again.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and includeA computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>>>>>>living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it >>>>>>>>>responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>>>>>>>is "partly alive"?
some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems. >>>>>>>>>
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway, >>>>>>>>maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that >>>>>>>you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >>>>>>>conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus >>>>>>is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common >>>>>
No, if such life forms are found, I might be more open to the idea
that computer viruses are partly alive.
Do I really have to remind you that you said earlier
<quote> Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and >>>include some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into >>>problems."</quote>
Now you have added the need for carbon to the list and you think you >>>might have to change your mind again if non-carbon lifeforms are ever >>>found.
*If* they are ever found. We don't even know if non-carbon based life >>forms can exist, so its exclusion from my definition is not
necessarily a drawback.
Seems like "just use" and "shouldn't run into problems" were
something of an overstatement.
With a proper checklist, my statements remain valid.
Tricky wee word "proper".
However, you seem to have
included a list of life-like properties of computer viruses that may >>>>not be completely valid. Could you elaborate on that for us?
Signals, grows, responds to stimuli and reproduces; which of those do
you struggle with?
Just elaborate on how computer viruses signal, grow, and respond to >>stimuli.
Signal: tell the host operating system what to do.
Grow: arrive on the host computer as a small piece of code and grow to
take over the entire operating system.
Respond to stimuli: come into action when the computer user opens a >particular programme or the clock in the host computer reaches a
certain point in time.
Which of those do you regard as invalid?
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:04:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:33:44 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:32:24 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 09:28:40 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:05:35 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts >>>>>>again.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include
some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>>>>>>>living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it >>>>>>>>>>responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus
is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway, >>>>>>>>>maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that >>>>>>>>you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >>>>>>>>conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus >>>>>>>is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common >>>>>>
No, if such life forms are found, I might be more open to the idea >>>>>that computer viruses are partly alive.
Do I really have to remind you that you said earlier
<quote> Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and >>>>include some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into >>>>problems."</quote>
Now you have added the need for carbon to the list and you think you >>>>might have to change your mind again if non-carbon lifeforms are ever >>>>found.
*If* they are ever found. We don't even know if non-carbon based life >>>forms can exist, so its exclusion from my definition is not
necessarily a drawback.
Seems like "just use" and "shouldn't run into problems" were
something of an overstatement.
With a proper checklist, my statements remain valid.
Tricky wee word "proper".
However, you seem to have
included a list of life-like properties of computer viruses that may >>>>>not be completely valid. Could you elaborate on that for us?
Signals, grows, responds to stimuli and reproduces; which of those do >>>>you struggle with?
Just elaborate on how computer viruses signal, grow, and respond to >>>stimuli.
Signal: tell the host operating system what to do.
Grow: arrive on the host computer as a small piece of code and grow to
take over the entire operating system.
Respond to stimuli: come into action when the computer user opens a >>particular programme or the clock in the host computer reaches a
certain point in time.
Which of those do you regard as invalid?
I'm not sure that any of them are. However, since you don't agree with
my definition of life as being carbon-based, I wonder what problems
you have with claiming that computer viruses are partly alive.
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 10:23:46 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:04:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:33:44 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:32:24 +0100, Martin Harran >>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 09:28:40 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:05:35 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts >>>>>>>again.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that >>>>>>>>>you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >>>>>>>>>conclusive as you thought it was.
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include
some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of
living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it >>>>>>>>>>>responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus
is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway, >>>>>>>>>>maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon." >>>>>>>>>
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus >>>>>>>>is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common >>>>>>>
No, if such life forms are found, I might be more open to the idea >>>>>>that computer viruses are partly alive.
Do I really have to remind you that you said earlier
<quote> Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and >>>>>include some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into >>>>>problems."</quote>
Now you have added the need for carbon to the list and you think you >>>>>might have to change your mind again if non-carbon lifeforms are ever >>>>>found.
*If* they are ever found. We don't even know if non-carbon based life >>>>forms can exist, so its exclusion from my definition is not
necessarily a drawback.
Seems like "just use" and "shouldn't run into problems" were >>>>>something of an overstatement.
With a proper checklist, my statements remain valid.
Tricky wee word "proper".
However, you seem to have
included a list of life-like properties of computer viruses that may >>>>>>not be completely valid. Could you elaborate on that for us?
Signals, grows, responds to stimuli and reproduces; which of those do >>>>>you struggle with?
Just elaborate on how computer viruses signal, grow, and respond to >>>>stimuli.
Signal: tell the host operating system what to do.
Grow: arrive on the host computer as a small piece of code and grow to >>>take over the entire operating system.
Respond to stimuli: come into action when the computer user opens a >>>particular programme or the clock in the host computer reaches a
certain point in time.
Which of those do you regard as invalid?
I'm not sure that any of them are. However, since you don't agree with
my definition of life as being carbon-based, I wonder what problems
you have with claiming that computer viruses are partly alive.
I'm starting to worry about your comprehension skills - or lack of, to
be more precise. I did *not* claim that computer viruses are alive,
partially or otherwise nor do I think they are; I simply used
something that I don't think anyone would regard as alive
to show how
your original checklist approach that you so patronisingly told me
would give me all the answers I need, is not at all a definitive way
of deciding whether something qualifies as alive.
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 16:12:26 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 10:23:46 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:04:46 +0100, Martin Harran >>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:33:44 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:32:24 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 09:28:40 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:05:35 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts >>>>>>>>again.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran >>>>>>>>>>><martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>>>>>><maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include
some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of
living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it >>>>>>>>>>>>responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus
is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway, >>>>>>>>>>>maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon." >>>>>>>>>>
you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >>>>>>>>>>conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus >>>>>>>>>is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common >>>>>>>>
No, if such life forms are found, I might be more open to the idea >>>>>>>that computer viruses are partly alive.
Do I really have to remind you that you said earlier
<quote> Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and >>>>>>include some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into >>>>>>problems."</quote>
Now you have added the need for carbon to the list and you think you >>>>>>might have to change your mind again if non-carbon lifeforms are ever >>>>>>found.
*If* they are ever found. We don't even know if non-carbon based life >>>>>forms can exist, so its exclusion from my definition is not >>>>>necessarily a drawback.
Seems like "just use" and "shouldn't run into problems" were >>>>>>something of an overstatement.
With a proper checklist, my statements remain valid.
Tricky wee word "proper".
However, you seem to have
included a list of life-like properties of computer viruses that may >>>>>>>not be completely valid. Could you elaborate on that for us?
Signals, grows, responds to stimuli and reproduces; which of those do >>>>>>you struggle with?
Just elaborate on how computer viruses signal, grow, and respond to >>>>>stimuli.
Signal: tell the host operating system what to do.
Grow: arrive on the host computer as a small piece of code and grow to >>>>take over the entire operating system.
Respond to stimuli: come into action when the computer user opens a >>>>particular programme or the clock in the host computer reaches a >>>>certain point in time.
Which of those do you regard as invalid?
I'm not sure that any of them are. However, since you don't agree with
my definition of life as being carbon-based, I wonder what problems
you have with claiming that computer viruses are partly alive.
I'm starting to worry about your comprehension skills - or lack of, to
be more precise. I did *not* claim that computer viruses are alive,
Speaking of comprehension skills, I didn't say you did. I didn't even
say you claim they were *partially* alive.
partially or otherwise nor do I think they are; I simply used
something that I don't think anyone would regard as alive
That's my question. What prevents you from regarding them as
partially alive, other than that you "just feel as if" they shouldn't
be regarded in that way?
to show how
your original checklist approach that you so patronisingly told me
would give me all the answers I need, is not at all a definitive way
of deciding whether something qualifies as alive.
What does the definition of life have anything to do with you,
personally (e.g., feeling patronized by it, etc.)?
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 12:27:27 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 16:12:26 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 10:23:46 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:04:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:33:44 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:32:24 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 09:28:40 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:05:35 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin HarranI take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include
some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of
living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it >>>>>>>>>>>>> responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus
is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway,
maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon." >>>>>>>>>>>
you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as
conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus >>>>>>>>>> is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common
I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts >>>>>>>>> again.
No, if such life forms are found, I might be more open to the idea >>>>>>>> that computer viruses are partly alive.
Do I really have to remind you that you said earlier
<quote> Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and >>>>>>> include some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into >>>>>>> problems."</quote>
Now you have added the need for carbon to the list and you think you >>>>>>> might have to change your mind again if non-carbon lifeforms are ever >>>>>>> found.
*If* they are ever found. We don't even know if non-carbon based life >>>>>> forms can exist, so its exclusion from my definition is not
necessarily a drawback.
Seems like "just use" and "shouldn't run into problems" were
something of an overstatement.
With a proper checklist, my statements remain valid.
Tricky wee word "proper".
However, you seem to have
included a list of life-like properties of computer viruses that may >>>>>>>> not be completely valid. Could you elaborate on that for us?
Signals, grows, responds to stimuli and reproduces; which of those do >>>>>>> you struggle with?
Just elaborate on how computer viruses signal, grow, and respond to >>>>>> stimuli.
Signal: tell the host operating system what to do.
Grow: arrive on the host computer as a small piece of code and grow to >>>>> take over the entire operating system.
Respond to stimuli: come into action when the computer user opens a
particular programme or the clock in the host computer reaches a
certain point in time.
Which of those do you regard as invalid?
I'm not sure that any of them are. However, since you don't agree with >>>> my definition of life as being carbon-based, I wonder what problems
you have with claiming that computer viruses are partly alive.
I'm starting to worry about your comprehension skills - or lack of, to
be more precise. I did *not* claim that computer viruses are alive,
Speaking of comprehension skills, I didn't say you did. I didn't even
say you claim they were *partially* alive.
partially or otherwise nor do I think they are; I simply used
something that I don't think anyone would regard as alive
That's my question. What prevents you from regarding them as
partially alive, other than that you "just feel as if" they shouldn't
be regarded in that way?
to show how
your original checklist approach that you so patronisingly told me
would give me all the answers I need, is not at all a definitive way
of deciding whether something qualifies as alive.
What does the definition of life have anything to do with you,
personally (e.g., feeling patronized by it, etc.)?
Ah, fuck it, I'm outa here.
On 8/11/26 6:15 AM, Lane W wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:54:35 -0700, Mark IsaakWhy is Musk going into space? Why doesn't he do something practical
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/21/26 8:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:18:35 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:53:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip for focus]
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of >>>>>>>>>> life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of >>>>>>>>>> getting
along with other people.
You are certainly not afraid to step on slippery slopes such as >>>>>>>>> this
one which could easily lead to defending the slaughter of
children in
Gaza as acceptable to defend the Israeli people from Hamas.
???!
A lot of Israeli people think that the sanctity of the life of
children in Gaza is less important than the Israelis being able >>>>>>> to get
on with their lives. Not that far removed from what you have said >>>>>>> above about to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of life at the >>>>>>> expense of the importance of the very concept of getting along with >>>>>>> other people.
I have seen extremely little evidence of Israelis trying to get along >>>>>> with the people of Gaza.
Another poor attempt at a swerve.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with my position.-a Nothing.-a You >>>> are talking to yourself about your own ideas.-a Stop pretending that I >>>> have anything to do with what you are writing.
Perhaps you should think a bit more about the implications before
making a sweeping statement like "There has been way to much emphasis
on so-called sanctity of life at the expense of the importance of the
very concept of getting along with other people."
like eliminate bedbugs or cockroaches? That's probably what the OP was
talking about. These pests make life harder for the people suffering
the most, why not address this instead of some lark to Mars?
Actually, I was thinking of the abortion issue, couched in terms of
sanctity of life, but manufactured as an issue to get White Christian Republicans into office by generating outrage and hate against others.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/11/26 6:15 AM, Lane W wrote:Abortion is really a trump suit in terms of playing cards. The
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:54:35 -0700, Mark IsaakWhy is Musk going into space? Why doesn't he do something practical
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/21/26 8:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 15:18:35 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/19/26 2:36 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:53:56 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/14/26 7:19 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 08:23:32 -0700, Mark Isaak???!
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
[snip for focus]
There has been way to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of >>>>>>>>>>> life at the expense of the importance of the very concept of >>>>>>>>>>> getting
along with other people.
You are certainly not afraid to step on slippery slopes such as >>>>>>>>>> this
one which could easily lead to defending the slaughter of >>>>>>>>>> children in
Gaza as acceptable to defend the Israeli people from Hamas. >>>>>>>>>
A lot of Israeli people think that the sanctity of the life of >>>>>>>> children in Gaza is less important than the Israelis being able >>>>>>>> to get
on with their lives. Not that far removed from what you have said >>>>>>>> above about to much emphasis on so-called sanctity of life at the >>>>>>>> expense of the importance of the very concept of getting along with >>>>>>>> other people.
I have seen extremely little evidence of Israelis trying to get along >>>>>>> with the people of Gaza.
Another poor attempt at a swerve.
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with my position.-a Nothing.-a You >>>>> are talking to yourself about your own ideas.-a Stop pretending that I >>>>> have anything to do with what you are writing.
Perhaps you should think a bit more about the implications before
making a sweeping statement like "There has been way to much emphasis
on so-called sanctity of life at the expense of the importance of the
very concept of getting along with other people."
like eliminate bedbugs or cockroaches? That's probably what the OP was
talking about. These pests make life harder for the people suffering
the most, why not address this instead of some lark to Mars?
Actually, I was thinking of the abortion issue, couched in terms of
sanctity of life, but manufactured as an issue to get White Christian
Republicans into office by generating outrage and hate against others.
Republicans get to claim moral superiority all across the board while
the Democrats get to claim medical correctness because of all the >complications that women experience during pregnancy. The Republicans >usually come out with a profit in this exchange because most of the
moral decisions are made by men.
What I'm saying is that it is unfair and unreasonable that abortion is a >political issue at all.
Of course a Republican will deny that because
they do not want to forfeit their trump status.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 12:27:27 -0400, Vincent MaycockIt's not an easy problem, this definition of life.
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 16:12:26 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 10:23:46 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 09:04:46 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 11:33:44 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 15:32:24 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 09:28:40 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:05:35 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin HarranI take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include
some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems.
A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of
living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus
is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway,
maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon." >>>>>>>>>>>>
you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as
conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus
is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common
I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts >>>>>>>>>> again.
No, if such life forms are found, I might be more open to the idea >>>>>>>>> that computer viruses are partly alive.
Do I really have to remind you that you said earlier
<quote> Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and >>>>>>>> include some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into >>>>>>>> problems."</quote>
Now you have added the need for carbon to the list and you think you >>>>>>>> might have to change your mind again if non-carbon lifeforms are ever >>>>>>>> found.
*If* they are ever found. We don't even know if non-carbon based life >>>>>>> forms can exist, so its exclusion from my definition is not
necessarily a drawback.
Seems like "just use" and "shouldn't run into problems" were
something of an overstatement.
With a proper checklist, my statements remain valid.
Tricky wee word "proper".
However, you seem to haveSignals, grows, responds to stimuli and reproduces; which of those do >>>>>>>> you struggle with?
included a list of life-like properties of computer viruses that may >>>>>>>>> not be completely valid. Could you elaborate on that for us? >>>>>>>>
Just elaborate on how computer viruses signal, grow, and respond to >>>>>>> stimuli.
Signal: tell the host operating system what to do.
Grow: arrive on the host computer as a small piece of code and grow to >>>>>> take over the entire operating system.
Respond to stimuli: come into action when the computer user opens a >>>>>> particular programme or the clock in the host computer reaches a
certain point in time.
Which of those do you regard as invalid?
I'm not sure that any of them are. However, since you don't agree with >>>>> my definition of life as being carbon-based, I wonder what problems
you have with claiming that computer viruses are partly alive.
I'm starting to worry about your comprehension skills - or lack of, to >>>> be more precise. I did *not* claim that computer viruses are alive,
Speaking of comprehension skills, I didn't say you did. I didn't even
say you claim they were *partially* alive.
partially or otherwise nor do I think they are; I simply used
something that I don't think anyone would regard as alive
That's my question. What prevents you from regarding them as
partially alive, other than that you "just feel as if" they shouldn't
be regarded in that way?
to show how
your original checklist approach that you so patronisingly told me
would give me all the answers I need, is not at all a definitive way
of deciding whether something qualifies as alive.
What does the definition of life have anything to do with you,
personally (e.g., feeling patronized by it, etc.)?
Ah, fuck it, I'm outa here.
Bacteria are
generally labeled as alive.
I feel that interesting is an important aspect of life. Bacteria can be >interesting because humans can employ and utilize them in certain cases, >although more often they are causing problems.
I haven't heard of humans using viruses in anything and this coincides
with a general notion in the medical field that viruses are not alive. >Perhaps they look at it as "something that cannot be completely done
away with without adversely affecting our lives".
Can you disbar the notion that life should be interesting?
If you point to the fact that viruses can be used to cause damage to an >enemy, then they are really a weapon rather than a life form.
On Thu, 13 Aug 2026 22:20:14 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 8/13/26 12:05 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:14:24 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 14:01:33 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:02:38 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 09:18:12 +0100, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:58:21 -0400, Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip for focus]
Just use a check-list for the properties of living things, and include >>>>>>>> some forms being "partly alive" and you shouldn't run into problems. >>>>>>>A computer virus ticks a number of boxes in the list of properties of >>>>>>> living things that you gave earlier - it signals, it grows, it
responds to stimuli and it reproduces. Does that mean a computer virus >>>>>>> is "partly alive"?
How do you feel about silicon-based life forms in general? Anyway, >>>>>> maybe we could restrict "life" to "being made from carbon."
I take your disinclination to answer my question as an indication that >>>>> you realise somewhat belatedly that your checklist approach is not as >>>>> conclusive as you thought it was.
If we restrict life to carbon-based forms, then no, a computer virus
is not partly alive.
https://www.space.com/alien-life-not-carbon-based-autocatalysis-common
I guess if they find such lifeforms you will just move the goalposts
again.
If the goal is to best describe observations, then changing definitions
according to new evidence shifts the definitions, but leaves the
goalposts exactly where they started.
And yes, anyone who has read significant amounts of science fiction
already knows that the definition of life can include robots, pure
energy beings, and who knows what else.
I prefer to base my scientific conclusions on what actual scientists
find, not what writers of fiction come up with.
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 09:00:57 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 7/21/26 8:45 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[snip for focus]
Is it ok to kill somebody who has mental issues which prevent them
from being able to participate in deciding what's wrong for people to >>>>> do?
If they are not, never have been, and show no promise of ever being part >>>> of human society, then yes.
So you would have no problem in killing a child born, for example,
with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder?
First, I am disgusted by your attitude that it might be my decision,
I find it even more disgusting that you think it's ok to kill somebody
who has mental issues which prevent them from being able to
participate in deciding what's wrong for people to do
or the decision of anyone besides the parents.
So you think it's ok for the child's parents to kill off a child even
though the child's condition is quite likely a result of at least one
of those parents being an alcoholic
second, I don't know a lot
about Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder,
Then you should find out a bit more about it before dismissing it out
of hand just because you find the idea disturbing.
but in general, disorders do not
preclude a person from being part of society, and again, the implication
that they might is disturbing to say the least.
I wasn't asking you about the 'general', I asked you about the
abnormal.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 53:54:23 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,282 |
