I’ve been a bit inspired by the following article: Can scientists define ‘life’ … using just three words?.
It talks about the ongoing argument over what the definition of life is. One man who has looked into it in depth has decided to define it as ‘self-reproduction with variations.’ Which to me sounds a bit shallow, and many others seem to agree.
Some scientists are arguing that you need to include evolutionary capacity, metabolism or a wealth of other ideas. What isn’t helping is that they are under mounting pressure. We are getting closer to creating artificial life and many scientists when they get there will want a concrete definition so that they can truly confirm their own success. To be honest I was pretty satisfied with Mrs Gren:
OK fine that definition doesn’t work for organisms like viruses. But from what I can see no single definition will ever be enough… So in the next post I’m going to give my opinion on something that, whilst not exactly the same, is very similar: the meaning of life.
It’s not going to be ’42’ but instead I’m going to cover evolution, why it’s so important and how, in my opinion, it could answer this ‘great’ philosophical question. After evolution I will probably start posting about two other topics that are very relevant to this cause: DNA and Embryology. Hope you look forward to them!
While I’m busy drafting it might be a nice idea for anyone who reads this post to give their own ‘definition of life’.