Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
Also...cells require physical matter. The only physical matter in the air is all of the gases and pollutions and various atomic materials that get
blown around every day.
The wind consists of precisely this: shifting temperatures. If that is all that's required to consider something a living creature, then the science
books need to be rewritten pronto. What make it feel solid is the shifting temperatures, much like a current in a stream, will create a ripple in the
air that affect the myriad of atomic particles from various sources, resulting in a "wave", or wind.
None of those materials will combine to create a cell capable of a metabolic process. If such could happen, strange creatures would form from thin air
all the time.
As I said, interesting question...but there are no experiments needed to prove anything here. Simple science and established fact will state, with
very clear evidence, that wind is not alive in the biological sense. Metaphors are a different matter entirely.
Thanks for the discussion.
ok. i see you point.
it is this:
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biochemistry) the sum total of the chemical processes that occur in living organisms, resulting in growth,
production of energy, elimination of waste material, etc
metabolism, or life requires a living organism. if you define organism as cells, then yes, you need cells.
However the definition of organism is not very clear:
In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all organisms are
capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homoeostasis as a stable whole.
I would add wind to above list
In biology life can be unicellular or mulitcellular.
1. How do you know wind isn't some freak (according to us) organism?
2. Since we study air movements, not wind, maybe we are looking in the wrong place.
3. Has anyone actually gone out, cuagth the wind, and examined it in laboratory circumstances? i don't think so, it not like you can catch the wind.
It is very elusive you know.
OK that was the part funny part.
Now for the science.
Is a virues cellular?
I don't think so.
Is it dead or alive?
Yeah, just what I though.
We don't know a lot, including wether the wind is alive or nor.
So it is unclear from our understanding if life requires just metabolism or metabolism and cells.
Propably the first is more accurate, think extremephiles (not saying they don't have cells!)
however, if you just look at the metabolic function, it could be theorized that the wind has a complex and yet unknown metabolic system. allowing for
this, it could in turn me theorized, that it does indeed have cells, or some structures hitherto unknown.
also you are forgetting that Prokaryote are one celled mainly, or is the one cell just an illusion?
How would we even find an uncelled life form, with our current knowledge?
impossible, at this moment, but we are getting closer and closer to getting there.
its a game in creative thinking. thats what this question is.
if you get bogged down, by stuff, that doesn't even support your argument to well (linking metabolism with cells off course does, but even then not
well), then you are just objecting, not letting your fantasy run wild.
i don't think there is proof that the wind is alive, but i don't think observations of how it behaves are proof that it is not.
we will just have to wait and see.
Until then, 1 word, for NONcellular life: VIRUS.
edit on 21-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)