Talk:Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Life was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Life:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Priority 1 (top)

Definition in the opening sentence[edit]

I do not want to get involved in an edit war but the current opening sentence is poor. The previous version was much better. I have given my reasons for reversion in my edit summaries but another editor – who can not be bothered to provide a summary despite requests on their Talk Page - continues to revert my edits and gives a strong impression of ownership. No amount of work on an article overrides the opinion of other established editors. No reliable source provides a universally accepted definition of life, so we cannot; this would contravene our policies. The current definition does not take into account numerous contradictions and paradoxes. In my last edit summary, I raised the problem of seeds in this context, which would not be considered to be alive based on this definition. To say life is a "condition" is not helpful, either philosophically or scientifically. A condition is a transient state and cannot be used to define anything. Life unfortunately is a concept that should not be equated with consciousness. Greater minds than mine have, over centuries, attempted to find or define this "vital spark" but all have failed. There is no definition of life, all we have is a set of criteria and even these are not fully accepted. Please do not revert again without consensus. See here. Graham Beards (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The current sentence is much better. The other one leaves out a lot of details and is self-contradictory and misleading. KSFTC 02:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree. As in the article abiogenesis, the lead sentence has been carefully crafted over several years and many creationists have attempted to modify it with wording that opens a loophole for their faith. Eventually, someone placed this note on the top: <!--Please do not change the lead sentence without first discussing on the talk page.--> It has helped somewhat, so I placed it here too. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I also agree. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, Life is one of the hardest things to describe. The best I can do, is:

Life is raw energy and power over reality, a gift shared in differing amounts between all living things. To live is to have the raw, uncrystallized power to affect how reality unfolds and project one’s will, applicable in all directions; to die is to lose that ability. 31.149.95.200 (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That's Vitalism, long discredited. Graham Beards (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Biota (taxonomy)[edit]

The other article is a stub and it seems like they are about the same thing. MartinZ02 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Biota (taxonomy) is a classification system of life. This article should discuss the common characteristics of life, not it's taxonomy. Biota (taxonomy) should receive separate discussion. Spacetransient (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, biota is the animal and plant life of a particular region, habitat, or geological period. My suggestion is to delete Biota (taxonomy) and leave Biota (ecology). BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You are right, there is no reason to keep Biota (taxanony). I'm going to be bold, that is if I can figure out how to merge. 22mikpau (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I did it 22mikpau (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Cladistics[edit]

Please explain more about cladistics in the Life#Classification. It is worth more than a sentence. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Why not just follow the link? Graham Beards (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017[edit]

However, one simple definition of life is, “To actively and independently maintain a defined gradient with the external environment”. Sophomoric life (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I request the addition of the following sentence to be included below the line, "These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life". I am currently defending my PhD at the University of Minnesota. I have ran this definition of life passed professors in many different fields of Biology. I have received no negative feedback of this not being a suitable definition of life. I am requesting its inclusion on Wiki with the hopes that it will be debated by a wider audience.

Thanks.

I am sorry but this cannot be added without reference to a reliable published source. Graham Beards (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2017[edit]

See Also:

Irrefutable Truths of Life Javier Moreno18 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: The article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. DRAGON BOOSTER 16:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2017[edit]

Please change this line "This is partially because life is a process, not a substance." to "The existence of organism is called life." because life is not a process. suppose, you say to your friend that you have average 20 years of life left. Here, life doesn't mean a process it means that you have 20 years left to exist as an organism.Another example "my childhood life is good." here this line means that my existence as a child is really good.So , life is not process.The existence of your's as a living organism is what we called a life.Death means that you don't exist while life means your existence. M.crysnob (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The question here is: do the references support the text? Further : what references do you have to support your proposed changes? Vsmith (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Biota[edit]

I consulted four dictionaries, and all four agree and define "biota; the plants and animals living in a region". (emphasis mine) This article is certainly about the whole Earth and not about a region. Therefore I have removed "biota" from the infobox. Nick Beeson (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Websters New International Dictionary, C & G Merriam Co. Springfield, 1934
  • Cambridge Dictionary of Science and Technology, Peter Walker ed., Cambridge University Press, New York, 1988
  • Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Stuart Flexner ed., 2nd edition, Random House, New York, 1998
  • Webster's Online Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Co., http://www.m-w.com

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

DNA to living organism[edit]

The Human Genome Project's human genome is the "standard" human DNA sequence. To test out gene therapies, it would make sense to test out these therapies on this "standardized" human DNA sequence (rather than say on the DNA of some volunteers -as these volunteers all have slight differences in their DNA-). Testing it out on volunteers (which have different DNA's) is problematic, as there is always the chance on interactions with genes which some people (test subjects) may have, but most other people don't. Comparing the different gene therapies (to determine which one is best) will also be erratic.

So hypothetically speaking, a test subject that has a "standard" human DNA sequence (Human Genome Project DNA) would be preferable . However, could we actually create a human with a complete, known, string of DNA (i.e. in the form of a vial of blood) ? This is all but a thought experiment obviously since it would be unethical to use humans as test subjects. However, we might be able to make a Laboratory mouse from DNA, which could serve the same purpose (standardised mouse made from blood vial). KVDP (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT. We are an encyclopaedia, not a forum. Graham Beards (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)