Talk:Life/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Life. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There exists different opinions

[please let me know if you would like a list of references citing these opinions, theories and documents]

and many theories "educated guesses at best" and great controversy surrounding the origin of life. To use words such as "mechanism" and "emerge" as well as natural selection introduces under the pretext of fact assumptions consistent with one theory and lends credibility to arguments and theories without citing the theory and giving time and space to counter arguments and theories. Specifically, Darwin's book, "Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection" was a theory whose propositions are controversial and has within its own body the very statement

[let me know if you need a reference to this statement]

necessary to discredit his conclusions. Given the enormous number of new discoveries

[DNA, many subcellular structures of such complexity that random process are not likely to have led to their assembly]

since its publication, Darwin's theory and its conclusions appear antiquated at best and absurd at its worst.

The word mechanism suggests that there is an inanimate, unintelligent and random process behind life itself.

The word emerge suggests the existence of life without explaining its origin.

Natural selection suggests the existence of a process whereby a wholly new species or forms of life "might" come into existence without any intelligent design.

So, I would like to suggest and request that the wording of a few area needs to be changed to reflect the facts not speculation and support of a particular theory without any attempt to give support to another point of view.

Proposed change 1

Change

animate entities to organisms

AND eliminate through natural selection

the new piece would look like this

These organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, adapt to their environment in successive generations.

Proposed change 2

Change The mechanism by which life emerged is unknown and hypotheses are being formulated

to

Explanations concerning the origins of life range from scientific hypotheses to philosophical arguments and include religious beliefs.

Proposed change 3

Change

Since then, life has evolved into a wide variety of forms, which biologists have classified into a hierarchy of taxa.

to

The wide variety of living forms have been classified by biologists into a hierarchy of taxa.

Leznukmannia (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I will address your points below:

"Specifically, Darwin's book, "Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection" was a theory whose propositions are controversial and has within its own body the very statement."

 Not done. That research deals with the origin of SPECIES (differentiation), not with the origin of life. Currently there is no scientific controversy other than the one attempted to be generated by the creationist Discovery Institute for socio-political gain (e.g. Teach the controversy). (Besides, I see a serious bias in highlighting Judeo-Christian religious beliefs over those of other religions.)

"Proposed change 1: Change animate entities to organisms.

 Done.

AND eliminate through natural selection.

 Not done. Natural selection is widely accepted by the scientific community, its acceptance/refusal by religious clubs is irrelevant in the bases of beliefs have a negligible threshold for factual evidence.

Proposed change 2: Change "The mechanism by which life emerged is unknown and hypotheses are being formulated."

to:

Explanations concerning the origins of life range from scientific hypotheses to philosophical arguments and include religious beliefs.

 Not done. Although that sentence can be verbalized better, using the word "explanations" in order to sneak religious faith next to science, is unaceptable. A scientific study undergoes a very rigouros methodology, which counts with the unique feature of self-correction based on evidence and within the laws of physics, not based on wishfull thinking with a low or no threshold for acceptability. There is no value in the supernatural as an "explanation" because it is nothing but a placeholder: Religious faiths are mostly myths recounting paranormal activity by fantastic magical beings. Please note that the general religious stance is already mentioned in the introdction in a particlular neutral context:

The meaning of life—its significance, purpose, and ultimate fate—is a central concept and question in philosophy and religion. Both philosophy and religion have offered interpretations as to how life relates to existence and consciousness, and on related issues such as life stance, purpose, conception of a god or gods, a soul or an afterlife. Different cultures throughout history have had widely varying approaches to these issues.

However, I agree to include the word "origin" to that sentence and in that neutral context.

Proposed change 3: Change:

Since then, life has evolved into a wide variety of forms, which biologists have classified into a hierarchy of taxa.

to:

The wide variety of living forms have been classified by biologists into a hierarchy of taxa.

 Not done. The word "evolution" will not be deleted, as the scientific consensus -based on evidence- is that evolution is real and is ongoing.

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If one is aware of processes such as confabulation, then that (a natural, oft-described process) is simply enormously more likely than any supernatural explanation. Especially because nothing supernatural that was falsifiable and could be investigated stood up to the tests so far. The best the supernatural can do, is not be explainable by natural means yet and thus always remains based on ignorance, on gaps in knowledge. Until that ignorance is lifted with the ACTUAL answer, of course. Then, the supernatural retreats just a little bit further. -Flo. 184.157.223.79 (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I added the "MRS GREN" section to the Life article because a new user had created a new article of that title with no sources at all, and with the simple definition. Rather than leave such a poor article in place, I created a section at the Life article for this new article to redirect to. Based on the number of hits the phrase receives on Google, it seems a likely search term, especially for younger Wikipedia readers. The sources I gave are reliable in that they show that the term is a commonly used acronym used in elementary pedagogy, which was the point of the references. I would hardly go to those sources to learn meaningful science, but sources that might otherwise be considered unreliable can be considered reliable in the right context. Would you prefer the information sourced from the BBC? Or from an Australian climate change website? Or from TES, a British teachers' network? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTHOWTO and while you're at it WP:BRD. We don't need a section entitled "MRS GREN" which is just a mnemonic or memorizing device. WP is not about helping schoolkids memorize stuff ... that's the teacher's job. Vsmith (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you're right, it's not about helping schoolkids memorize stuff, or being a "how to" guide. But it is about being a reference source. The point is that the "MRS GREN" mnemonic is widespread throughout elementary education. If someone comes to Wikipedia searching for the term, they should find a result, because it is a notable term. If the result they should find is not this Life article, where should such a search lead them? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems if it is notable, it would be in biology education or some such education article. Perhaps you could write one, as that redirects to the science education article - which does need some help. There are all sorts of mnemonics used by elementary/secondary science teachers, so maybe a section there on mnemonics which could list 'em - with adequate referencing of course. Vsmith (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. I've added it to List of mnemonics#Biology instead (with the BBC citation -- the most WP:RS I could find). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I be... that list has been around since 04 and I don't think I've ever noticed it (or forgot if I did) - better target. Vsmith (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend changing the line

 "The mechanism by which life emerged is unknown and hypotheses are being formulated."

to

 "The mechanism by which life emerged is unknown although many hypotheses have been formulated."

and then perhaps provide a link to the page on abiogenesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.82.26 (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this article was meant to be purely scientific, although I can't find where the religious and philosophical definitions of life are supposed to go. Should we make a section on that here? Or is there a separate article on the religious and philosophical definitions of life?

In my opinion, philosophy gives us the scientific method of thinking. Is the western science uses another fundamental method?

129.67.127.65 (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Might Try The Following Wikilink => Pu THIS WEBSITE IS BADrpose of Life - Also, If Interested, My UserBox on "The Purpose of All Life" May Be Somewhat Related - My Published Comment in The New York Times May Be of Interest As Well - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

User 129.67.127.65, please see: Meaning of life, Creation myth, Mysticism. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there should be some reference to philosophical and religious definitions/explanations of life (which is NOT the same as purpose or meaning of life). Otherwise, the article remains exclusively scientific and does not acknowledge that anyone looking up "life" in an encyclopedia may be looking for a philosophical conception. There should be reference to non-scientific explanations of life an its origins, even if just through a link to the Creation myth article (and, perhaps, Philosophy of life). Gabsvillalobos (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand your request. However, the issue is not straight forward, as any philosophical definition of life seems to be a personal/individual assessment. Which one would you chose and why? Same for a religious definition; would you pick a specific Judeo-Christian religion? Why the bias? We can't include every single religion's doctrine/definition either. I am not aware of any widely-accepted philosophical definition of life, although they are trying,[1] and I am certain that there is none even within specific sects of the same religion. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that this is not straight forward (although I doubt any philosopher would agree that philosophical views are individual; there certainly are schools of philosophical thought just as much as there are religious traditions. Moreover, major religious conceptions of life have been prevalent for far longer and shared by more people than any Western, modern scientific theory; so if anything, they are surely not individual). In any case, I am not proposing that every non-scientific conception of life is mentioned, much less that a particular one is chosen over others. I am simply requesting a section in this article, however modest, that explains that appart from the current scientific model for the origin of life that is accepted within Western, modern scientific scholarship, human beings throughout history have elaborated other explanations for the definition and origins of life, which take philosophical and religious approaches and many of which are still held to be valid. A couple of links to the aforementioned articles, and we're done. Gabsvillalobos (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There is already a section titled "Early theories" that includes Materialism, Hylomorphism and Vitalism. But if what you want to include is/are current philosofical definitions, then why don't you create it and paste it in this talk page so we can dscuss it. The same regarding a religious definition, if you think there is in fact a broad religious definition of life. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Do Prokarya rate a mention in the domains and kingdoms tree? Such as this: {{[[Template:automatic taxobox |automatic taxobox ]]}} If not, I hope a domain expert will be kind enough to explain why not, given the article states:

"There are two primary types of cells. Prokaryotes lack a nucleus and other membrane-bound organelles, although they have circular DNA and ribosomes. Bacteria and Archaea are two domains of prokaryotes. The other primary type of cells are the eukaryotes,..."

Thanks, Ubuntu2 (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done - BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

According to the article on Archaea, they form a third class, seperate from Bacteria and Eukaryota, so the tree is incorrect. References in the Archaea article. PizzaMan (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

My research tells me that this would be an improvement to the existing diagram and does put Prokaryotes correctly in the hierarchy. It is confusing leaving the word out of the diagram. I will contact an expert - http://link.springer.com/search?facet-author=%22Dr.+Derek+Lovley%22 and let you know what he advises. Hey BatteryIncluded. How's things? BSmith821 (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No matter what apocalyptic disaster comes our way, we can be sure about one thing: All of our current methods of storing important data are going to be useless. After all, electronically-stored data is susceptible to electromagnetic pulses (EMPs), flooding, fire, power outages, and the age-old “having a building collapse on top of the server.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.162.20 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Western Australia is a proper noun. Please correct the reference contained in the introduction to Western Australia with appropriate capitalisation. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmicik (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The Life entry is need of a lot of work. It has a lot of unnecessary statements or at a minimum statements which don't read well in their current placement / context. Here are a few small examples.

This should be at the top of the article. It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[25][26][27] This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance.[28][29] Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and must be sufficiently general to include life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth.[30][31][32]

This doesn't read well, and feels like it was tossed in. Life can survive and thrive in a wide range of conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClearConcise (talk • contribs) 18:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Your request is not clear to me. You want to place that statement at the top, yet you claim "This doesn't read well and was tossed in". --BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the word organic as indicated in the following sentence, the first in the article: "Life is a characteristic distinguishing organic physical entities"

Paradigmatic Autodidact (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC) The reason for my request should be self-evident.

It's not self-evident to me. It just so happens that all life we know about is organic, but I've never heard it suggested that being carbon-based is a fundamental requirement for life. Life that is not carbon based has been widely speculated about (see Hypothetical types of biochemistry#Non-carbon-based biochemistries). The cited sources also say nothing about being organic as a requirement. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph, the last sentence currently reads, "Biology is science concerned with the study of life."

I think this should be changed to read, "Biology is the science concerned with the study of life."

It would just be the addition of "the" in between the words "is" and "science".

JSimar (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)JSimar

 Done, Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear editors of Wikipedia, after working more than 20 years now on this subject I like to point at an aspect of the Wikipedia definition of life which may well require your attention. It concerns a circularity in the separate definitions of what is life (In Wikipedia: "Any contiguous living system is called an organism") and what is an organism (In Wikipedia: "an organism is any contiguous living system"). From a philosophical point of view, circularity is considered as to be highly undesirable when constructing definitions. As an example of how a definition can be anchored and the circular reasonign may be solved, I invite you to find inspiration on the following page of my website: http://the-operator-theory.wikispaces.com/Definition+of+life%2C+the+organism%2C+and+death

One of the interesting aspects of a definition of life is that organisms are only living beings when they show physical activity, but not when they are for example Jager008 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)frozen. When they are frozen they are still organisms, but no longer living beings (because they have stopped living). Accordingly, it is necessary to first define organisms, then te define living being (an active organism) and finally to define life as an abstract group-property of organisms.

Contrary to opinions which are broadly held by the public, the following properties do not define life, as can be demonstrated by means of simple test cases:

1. An organism can show the property of life even when it does NOT show reproduction (there exist many organisms which are alive but fail to reproduce)

2. An organism can show the property of life even when it does NOT show metabolism (frozen and dried organisms are still organisms when they are frozen or dried). A frozen organism does not show the property of 'living' though.

3. An organism can show the property of life even when it does NOT show signalling functions or mobility or the like (frozen organisms don't show dynamic aspects at all). Signalling and other dynamic functions are indications of the concept of 'living', which differs from the concept of 'life'.

I think it would be a challanging undertaking if Wikipedia would test its own definition agains such litmus test examples.

As a definition which has no problems with a broad range of test cases, I can suggest the following (page 94 of The Pursuit of Complexity):

'All 'operators' at least as complex as the cell are organisms' (this preparatory sentence is required to define the concept of organism, all the different operators are: the quark, the hadron, the atom, the molecule, the cell, the endosymbiont cell, the cellular and endosymbiont multicellular, and the organism with neural network).

Now we can define life as:

'Life is a general term for the presence of the typical closures found in organisms' (the typical closures are e.g. a memebrane and an autocatalytic set in the cell).

With the above I hope to have supported your valuable work.

Kind regards, dr. mult. Gerard Jagers op Akkerhuis 14:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Jager008 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Crafting a definition to incorporate frozen organisms seems too much. Frozen organisms, although non-metabolizing, have the potential to be viable if thawed. Any way, if your living system definition ("Life is a general term for the presence of the typical closures (e.g. a memebrane and an autocatalytic set in the cell) found in organisms".)) was published in a peer-reviewed journal I think we could include it. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear editors at Wikipedia, upon visiting this talk page again after quite a while, I appreciate that you ask for references that can support my above suggestion for a definition of life. In this respect, I can contribute in the following way. A first reference is my book "The pursuit of complexity" (reviewed by 20 colleques, KNNV Publishing, Zeist, The Netherlands, 2012) where I discuss the definition of life in three steps, on pages 27-29, pages 87-88 and pages 94-96. If I restate the definition on page 94 the abstract concept of life can be defined in two sentences as follows: First on has to define what is an 'organism'. This is possible by invoking the complexity ladder of the operator theory, and defining an organism as "any system with an organisation that complies with an operator type that is at least as complex as the cell (as an operator type)". As part of the operator hierarchy, every type of operator is defined by type-specific closures. Now that we have defined the organism, we can say that "life is a general term for the presence of the closure found in organisms". If the closure is lost a system is neiter an operator anymore, nor an organism. An organism is living, if it is dynamically activy. If it is not active, it can still represent life (not 'be' life!) as long as its closures are intact. This approach to defining life has also been published in the following studies:

1. Towards a hierarchical definition of life, the organism, and death. Jagers op Akkerhuis G.A.J.M. (2010). Foundations of Science 15: 245-262.

2. Explaining the origin of life is not enough for a definition of life. Jagers op Akkerhuis G.A.J.M. (2010). Foundations of Science 16: 327-329.

3. The Role of Logic and Insight in the Search for a Definition of Life. Jagers op Akkerhuis G.A.J.M. (2012). J. Biomol Struct Dyn 29(4), 619-620 (2012).

4. Contributions of the Operator Hierarchy to the field of biologically driven mathematics and computation. Jagers op Akkerhuis G.A.J.M. (2012). In: Integral Biomathics: Tracing the Road to Reality.

Additional information can be found at: http://the-operator-theory.wikispaces.com/Definition+of+life%2C+the+organism%2C+and+death

By the way, in so far as life is an abstract concept, it can only refer to a state of matter, no 'be' a state of matter ;-) Meanwhile, the operator based definition indicates WHAT states of matter comply with the abstraction of life: namely the states which comply with the organisation of the different operator types, from the cell and up.

I hope to have contributed to your noble work. Regards, Gerard Jagers op Akkerhuis Jager008 (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

G. Jagers, I included the two key sentences you indicate and the references you supplied. Please review it for accuracy. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded,

Dear Batteryincluded, I have much appreciated your actions. The present text can be a start of a fundamental contribution to the definition of life topic on Wikipedia (including the definition of what is an organism). Although the present text gives an impression, I would like to suggest to you the following lines as a slightly more inclusive and precise phrasing:

The present alinea reads: "Another systemic definition, called the Operator theory, proposes that 'life is a general term for the presence of the typical closures found in organisms; the typical closures are a membrane and an autocatalytic set in the cell',[76] and also proposes that an organism is 'any system with an organisation that complies with an operator type that is at least as complex as the cell.[77][78][79][80] Life can also be modeled as a network of inferior negative feedbacks of regulatory mechanisms subordinated to a superior positive feedback formed by the potential of expansion and reproduction.[81]"

My suggestion for a slightly altered text would be: "Another definition of life is based on a novel axiomatic systems theory called the Operator Theory. This definition of life is based on a ranking of object types from fundamental particles to organisms with brains. Real world objects corresponding with these types are called ‘operators’. Every next operator type is based on the combination of a new kind of structural and functional closure, which together are named the ‘typical closure’. For example, the typical closure of a bacterium combines the membrane (structural) and the autocatalytic set (functional) [76]. And the typical closure of a multicellular organism combines the cell membrane that is not shared by adjoining cells (structural) and plasma strands between cells (functional)[76]. 'Life’ can now be described as ‘a general term for the presence of the typical closures found in organisms’. The question of what is an organism can be answered by stating that an organism is 'a system with an organisation that complies with an operator type that is at least as complex as the cell’.[77][78][79][80] If an organism loses its typical closure, it is no longer on organism, it is no longer an operator, and it no longer represents life: it has ‘died’.

(the following sentence does not link to the operator theory based approach, so I suggest that it is kept separate). Life can also be modeled as a network of inferior negative feedbacks of regulatory mechanisms subordinated to a superior positive feedback formed by the potential of expansion and reproduction.[81]

If you think that some discussion is required of the above, please feel free to contact me outside this forum (gerard.jagers ad wur.nl) Do you think it may be insightfull to offer the readers of Wikipedia some basic information about the operator theory?

Kind regards, 137.224.252.10 (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Gerard Jagers

On the phys.org site is an article claiming problems with the earliest evidence from the Archean (3.5 bya) and concludes that it is abiogenic. It also references a 2004 article from Science (magazine) in which these are argued to be "Earth's oldest trace fossil". (which is prior to the two studies given in wikipedia, but never-the-less should have some bearing on the acceptance of these studies.) So, I am wondering how well accepted are the claims made in this article that graphite and microbial mat evidence indicate life existed at 3.48 - 3.7 bya? Specifically the author of the critical study states:"..the oldest bona fide candidate trace fossil comes from 1.7 billion year old rocks in China.." The difference between 1.7 and 3.7 billion years before present seems too enormous to ignore. My best guess to reconcile the Wikipedia view with this author's EXPERT statement is that the graphite & mat evidence is NOT generally accepted. This is in stark contrast to the absolute statement of fact that "The earliest life on Earth existed at least 3.5 billion years ago..." [Which seems to me such a religious and unscientific a statement as to invalidate its inclusion in a scientific discussion. NO qualifications? For Shame! That is NOT EVER what Science claims! (Science ALWAYS bases her claims ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!! (not some absolute concept of "truth")] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.189.77.209 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I sugggest removing this stupid reference to Sharovs non-peer reviewd and peer rejected papers, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abiogenesis#Primitive_extraterrestrial_life For the reasons whyBicelPhD (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Life is a State of Matter", Sekhar, DMR., Life as a State of Matter, In the proceedings of, 1st International Conference “Life Energy, Syntropy and Resonance”, World Institute of Scientific Exploration – Viterbo, Italy, August 1- 4, 2013, http://www.academia.edu/4134317/Life_as_a_State_of_Matter

DMR Sekhar (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - Hello Sekhar. I looked at your paper but stopped short at the intro. How do you know an amoeba or a tomato has "consciousness"? Can't use that as a factor to define life or determine if an object is alive. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I just saw your comment here. Sir, kindly read fully and then reject. Please see these two blogs too. http://dmrsekhar.wordpress.com/article/the-paradox-of-life-3ecxygf1lxcn2-35/ and http://dmrsekhar.wordpress.com/article/reality-of-the-self-3ecxygf1lxcn2-81/ DMR Sekhar (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I read it fully and still reject it. First: It is an original idea (WP:OR) that has not been peer-reviewed by any scientific journal. Second: it is deeply flawed because your model hinges on the fringe unscientific assumption that a single DNA molecule has "consciousness". Your assay may not be circular reasoning, but is a downward spiral because it is self limited with anthropocentrism. A DNA molecule is a chemical code or blueprint, not an entity with consciousness! A code ≠ consciousness, whether chemical, written or digital. Yes DNA interacts with many other molecules but it is not because it has consciousness, or because it has the "will and purpose" to do it, but because of the natural intermolecular forces such as electrostatic, hydrogen bonding, ionic bonding, covalent bonds, van der Waals force, etc. The current scientific understanding of life is descriptive; life is a process, not a substance. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well BatteryIncluded, I said that life is a state of matter and not life is a substance. If life is a process then there should be a potential that drives the process. Is it not? request to see this link: http://dmrsekhar.wordpress.com/article/life-consciousness-and-evolution/ Thanks, DMR Sekhar DMR Sekhar (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

' Life is meant to be enjoyed and not wasted. If you only care about how much money you are making they you're not living, you are only existing. To exist is never enough because it just means you have life but you do not live it. People pay way to much attention to the little things, like Eric B & Rakim said Don't Sweat The Technique. People need to stop letting other people run their lives for them. Do whatever makes you happy and also whatever you want (as long as it's legal) then go for it. Staying in the herd of society is not a good way to say that you live. Stand out, stand up, and dont be afraid to be an individual in the sea of exsisters. 173.0.244.47 (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: you have not made clear whether this is something you want added to the article or something else. Please restate the request in terms of "change X to Y" or "add X" and reset the request template. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Living system is ambiguous. Defining something in terms of something not well defined in science is philosophy not empiricism, especially as no citation is given. Organisms can be well defined with respect to cell theory: they are the units of life and can be either single-celled or multi-cellular. Mrdthree (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The word "contiguous" is horrible here. First, it's most common meaning is 'touching' or 'adjacent to'. Second, it has zero pedagogical value: unless you already know what is meant, it conveys nothing.Abitslow (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a number of problems with the lede. "Life is a characteristic..." OK, I don't know a better way to put it; EXCEPT that it fails to convey the 'truth' that the given definition is one of many possible (and possibly contradictory) ones. That is, it implies a clarity and certainty that isn't actually present in the science. A simple statement that there is no one definition that all (relevant) scientists accept should be included, imho. "The smallest contiguous unit..." what garbage! On the table to the right both viruses and viroids are listed, neither of which are cellular!! It IS important that some experts do NOT consider them to be 'life' while others do, and it should be in the lede! "...respond to stimuli.." is MORE garbage! A rock reponds to stimuli, air responds to stimuli; this is completely devoid of any clear meaning. "...and, through evolution, adapt..." So suddenly we are talking about species rather than individual 'organisms'??? If I build an organism which self-replicates exactly (doesn't evolve), is it or isn't it 'life'? How about me? I neither evolve nor do I self-replicate (and my homeostasis is questionable). What rubbish. Look, you have to decide whether in any given paragraph you are talking about species (across multiple generations) or individuals. You have to keep the difference in defining characteristics clear or you'll spout nonsense like the above. "A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere of Earth, and the properties common to these organisms..." What hot air! What bloviation! WHO needs to be told that life on Earth is 'diverse'? (And if they exist, how does this sentence help them? - WTF is a 'diverse array'???) I want to strongly object to "the properties common to these...carbon and water based, cellular, complex organization, heritable genetics." What does carbon and water based mean? a slurry of diamonds? Again, someone has confused structural basis (organic carbon) with the necessary environment (availability of liquid water). Life exists IN THE PRESENCE of water, life IS organic carbon based. Second, wtf does 'complex organization' mean? (for instance, does the Sun have a 'complex organization'? How about a computer? Or the internet? How about a transistor? a snowflake? rubbish.) Third, these are NOT "the properties"; these are SOME of 'the' properties! Other problems: No mention is made of the possibility that life began and became extinct multiple times during the Late Heavy Bombardment. I think this is important enough a point to include, since it has implications for ideas of continuity, progress, evolution, and our own existential fragility. Finally, get rid of the silly bloviation on 'the meaning of life'. It belongs soley in the 'see also' section. What a waste of space! "The meaning of life" is almost invariably about consciousness and mortality, not about life as a process.Abitslow (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The introduction currently states:

Life is a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having biological processes (such as signaling and self-sustaining processes) from those that do not

I looked up Biological process and read that these are chenical processes carried out by living things, so is not this a circular definition as chemical processes are ubiquitous. The definition seems to say only that life is that which living things possess.

The examples of processes given in parenthesis seem of a far higher order of complexity than the definition implies would be a base case, like citing an entrepreneur. Signalling is a highly complex set of processes does it apply to single cell organisms for instance? Does self-sustaining process refer to reproduction or to far simpler processes of repeating cycling chemical reactions? What is the difference between a computer using organic components and one that does not?

I'm wandering! The definition says that living entities are those that use chemial reactions that are biological and they are biological if they are being used by living entities. There are more common definitions of life avalable that seem far superior to this particular attempt at reduction e.g

that which is manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, 
and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within 
the organism.
(from: thefreedictionary.com)

LookingGlass (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Definitions of life are in the section entitled "Definitions". BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

If organisms (smallest unit of life) are defined by growth, metabolism, reproduction, &etc then mules are not organisms as they are incapable of breeding. Correct? 126.236.93.174 (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. Read the Biology definition section: "Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits"

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081001082730/http://www2.una.edu:80/pdavis/BI%20101/Overview%20Fall%202004.htm to http://www2.una.edu/pdavis/BI%20101/Overview%20Fall%202004.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130406043511/https://www.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/~db45/Studiendekanat/Lehre/Master/Module/Botanik_1/M1401/Evolution_Zellbiologie/Lintilhac%202003.pdf to https://www.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/~db45/Studiendekanat/Lehre/Master/Module/Botanik_1/M1401/Evolution_Zellbiologie/Lintilhac%202003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added the section "History of Life".

If you wish to delete it, go ahead. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 15:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

"There are seven periods in the Paleozoic eras: the Cambrian, the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, the Carboniferous and the Permian" 1. How many Paleozoic eras are there? I have been convinced there is only one Paleozoic era. 2. Can't I count till seven? The Cambrian, the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, the Carboniferous and the Permian make SIX periods altogether. So, why are seven periods mentioned in the article?

31.11.242.188 (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The given definition ("something that exhibits all or most of the following traits") is commonly treated as “popular” and it is not found strict enough to be useful in any applications. The list of the traits is easy to be challenged. Besides, how many traits must be present to acknowledge the given structure is alive (see the correct example of the mule!)? Six? Five? Or just four? Which four? And if the four traits are enough, what are the other traits for? These are questions asked not only by me but also by many authors of serious publications.

I would strongly suggest to expand this section so that it would contain other (and better) definitions of life as well. For example, adding information on the definition by Tibor Gánti ("Az élet principiuma", Gondolat, Budapeszt, 1971; second edition: 1978) would be advantageous (especially that the information given on the Wikipedia article on Gánti is incorrect).

Gánti has given 5 necessary traits of life (each single trait must be present to recognize the system as alive - so not "most" of them!)

1. Isolation from the outside world. 2. Metabolism. 3. Homeostasis. 4. Presence of a subsystem of storage and processing information which is useful for the rest of the system. 5. Regulation of processes which take place inside the system.

and 3 additional (facultative) traits:

1. Ability to grow and reproduce. 2. Variations occur during the replication (which is the condition necessary for evolution). 3. Ability to die.

(see PL Wikipedia: [2]).

Notice that Gánti's definition solves the problem with mules (as well as with worker ants and plenty of other organisms which do not reproduce).

31.11.242.188 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Panspermia is a fun hypothesis, but does it really belong in this article? If there's a place for it, wouldn't it make sense in the "Origin" section? --GoldCoastPrior (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes. Panspermia advocates, please direct your comments here. --GoldCoastPrior (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a superfluous period (full stop) in the 7th item of the definition after the phrase "two parent organisms", and it should be replaced by a comma. The preceding "or" should probably be removed as well, since there is one after the bad period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.193.98 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You have spelt Diplodocus as Diplodicus.

194.159.178.180 (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

---

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2nd paragraph reads: "Throughout history there has been many theories". 'has' should be 'have' 72.75.214.185 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Life/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 19:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Judging by the multiple citation needed tags, I'd say this article is no where near GA quality (I don't even think it's B-class quality). Also, the Phanerozoic Eon section is in serious need of a rewrite (might as well delete it). I'll give you a week to fix the citation needed tags.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No one seems to be interested in rewriting it so we should just delete it. MartinZ02 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Then delete it or rewrite it yourself   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done

• Seeing as your username doesn't show up very often on the article's Version History, you might want to ping a more frequent editor for help if you're really serious about this.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• The lead does not need refs (only for controversial or relatively new information that might be deleted); don't delete the refs, just move them to other sections. Keep the refs for the quote, and the Late Bombardment theory; for the last paragraph, have at most 1 ref after each sentence (and a minimum of none).
• In every section, instead of wikilinking the word the section's named after, add {{Main|}} to the top. For example, for the Hylomorphism section, add the template {{Main|Hylomorphism}} to the very top of the section (just under the ===Hylomorphism===) instead of wikilinking it in the section itself.

 Done

• Add a section about Spontaneous generation (even though it was disproved)

 Done

• Good job with the new section, but the first paragraph is unreferenced. Also, add {{Main|Spontaneous generation}} to the top of the section

 Done

• If you've done a task, please add template {{done}} or simply say "done" below the task.

 Done

• In the lead, change "Nonetheless, more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to be extinct" to "Nonetheless, it is estimated that 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are extinct"
• In the Materialism section, change "...argued that every thing..." to "...argued that everything..."
• Wikilink words when they first show up in the article. For example, teology shows up first in the quote in the Materialism section, but is wikilinked in the Hylomorphism section

 Done

• Do not italicize things for effect (like with "purpose" in the Hylomorphism section)
• In the Vitalism section, give the first and last names (like instead of saying "Nietzsche" say "Friedrich Nietzsche")

 Done

• Only use bulleted list for, say, five points and up. In the Origin section, change the bulleted list to "There is no current scientific consensus as to how life originated. However, most accepted scientific models build on the Miller–Urey experiment, and the work of Sidney Fox, which shows that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesize amino acids and other organic compounds from inorganic precursors, and Phospholipids spontaneously forming a lipid bilayer, the basic structure of a cell membrane."

 Done

• The See also section is for other articles relevant to this one that are not already wikilinked in the article itself. Take out Abiogenesis, Astrobiology, Evolutionary history of life, Biological organisation, and Non-cellular life.

 Done

• ref no. 53 (Paul G. "How to Define Life") is probably not very reliable. Delete (you don't have to replace it because there's a much more verifiable ref right before it)
• For lists, put the ref in front of the colon, then start the list; the refs just go in front of the colon, nowhere else in the list

 Done

• ref no. 115 has an external link in the work parameter (meaning it says |work=work); there should not be any external links in the any parameter (except for the url parameter of course)

 Done

• Make sure, at the very least, each paragraph has a ref at the very end. In other, words the last period in every paragraph should have a ref directly after it. There are two that don't (I see one in the first paragraph of the Spontaneous generation section)
• Use this converter to convert ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 as per WP:ISBN

• I think the death section needs to say that after being brain-dead, parts of the organism still function (to exemplify the blurriness in the limit b/w life and death). Nergaal (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

MartinZ02, Dunkleosteus77, where does this review stand now? There haven't been any posts here since February, though there has been editing to the article since then. Can we get this moving again? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset it's clear you've put a lot of effort into this vital article, and it reflects generally in the high overall quality of this article. I am happy to continue and finish this review if there's no response from the other editors (I originally followed this review to see if they would comment on one or two things.) I have experience reviewing (and writing) some large, broad and complex articles and am happy to discuss the below with you.

Because Life is such a vital and broad topic, I hope you don't mind my comments even at this late time.

In terms of the GA criteria, I think some issues need addressing in terms of the six criteria (WP:GA?)

1. The lead sentence ("lead")
   • I think the lead sentence is essential to an article like this, which is probably viewed by readers from kindergarten up to biology students or academics. This article would benefit from a shorter, simpler lead sentence:
     1. I suggest move examples and what life is not into a separate sentence ("Life is a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased, or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate)
     2. I suggest rewording this so that the definition is not tautological ("Life is a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having biological processes" ). To me, this states life is defined by creatures with biological processes, which are processes present in living things
     3. I suggest look up some online definitions in dictionaries to see how this could be refined and simplified for the benefit of readers

1. Religion. This falls under "Broadness". This should definitely be mentioned in "Theories of life"
2. Section titles - relating to "Well written"

I suggest the following structure for clarity. It's currently a little hard to follow the flow of the article, and headings don't always match the content of sections:

• Definitions
• Origin (subsection "Environmental requirements")
• Types (subsection "Cells", "Classification", "Viruses")
• Location (subsection "Extraterrestrial life")
• Research (subsection "Artificial life")
• History

I suggest split up and rename the following sections

• Move "Viruses" from "Definition" to the new subsection "Types"
• Rename "Form and function" to "Types" and move most of the content to a subsection "Cells"
• Make "Classification" a subsection of "Types"
• Move most of the content in "Definition#Ecology and living systems theory" to a new section "Research"
• Remove the subsection titles in "Biology" and "Alternatives" (they are very small subsections), or rename "Alternatives" to "Alternative definitions"
• "Early theories" - move to "History" or subsections in "Origin"
• "Environmental conditions" - rename to "Location" and move the part about cells and what they need to "Origin#Environmental requirements"
• "Extraterrestrial life" - move to "Location" as a subsection
• "Artificial life" - move to "Research" as a subsection

If there are no updates from the reviewers, or they are happy for me to take over this review, I will summarise where we are up to according to the good article criteria and complete the review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Tom (LT), while I think other viewpoints are always useful, especially on such a broad topic/article such as this one, I'm just a bystander. MartinZ02 is the nominator, while Dunkleosteus77 is the reviewer. I noticed that the review was eight weeks old—the fourth oldest extant GA review—and also that it seemed to be inactive with no posts at all for the second half of that time period, thus the query. I'll let them chime in on where they stand at present. Thank you for your thoughts and your willingness to take over, should it be necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Having had a couple of days to look over this article, I do not think this article is ready for GA status, mainly based on the "broadness" of the article. There are a number of areas that should be addressed. Some areas that in my opinion are lacking:

• Increased coverage of the definitions of life, including religious and philosophical views
• Coverage of the parts of life, including ageing, disease, reproduction, and activities.
• Greater coverage of the diversity of multicellular organisms, including animals and plants and humans
• Coverage of ecosystems and how life interacts
• Coverage of the metabolic and environmental processes essential to most life on the planet, including photosynthesis, carbon, nitrogen, and water cycles, homeostasis and any other important biological concepts

This is not to take anything away from the authors of the article, who have clearly put a lot of work into it... but that said, Rome wasn't built in a day, and I don't think the article is ready at the moment. I think after failing the review, some concrete actions would be:

• starting a peer review (WP:PR) with requests placed for attention at (at the least) wikiproject biology, wikiproject medicine, wikiproject philosophy
• looking at some similar articles, such as encyclopedia britannica, world book and alternative language wikipedias (the spanish one is quite good IMO, and there are at least two other GA/FAs in other languages)

Kindly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful here; the article is already longish as is. There's still room for some growth, but all of the topics listed above already have some purchase in the article, and to expand on each to a significant degree would definitely run up against WP:Summary style in a hurry. I'm particularly cautious about expanding too far into religious definitions, which are a massive topic in themselves. Certainly there should be some reference to non-biological concepts, but at present the article seems to be primarily discussing "life" in the scientific sense, regarding organisms as understood by empirical observation. Now, there's no reason it necessarily "should" be that way, but at some point we are going to have to decide to scale back certain elements to accommodate others, and it might be worth making tactical decisions about that now, rather than later.

For example, I wonder if we need such extensive summaries in the "History" section for four different articles pertaining to ancient/antiquated concepts about the origin of life. These are less about the concept of life as the physical process as we understand it today and more about history and philosophical contemplations about reality, primitive concepts of abiogenesis, and folk cosmogony. The fact that some of these notions persisted right up until about the modern era not withstanding, I think maybe two to four paraphs with appropriate internal links would suffice to describe these concepts in a manner consistent with summary style, rather than the massive sprawl we have right now. In other words, I don't necessarily disagree with your recommendation to expand the scope of the article, but I think it needs to be done in a restrained manner. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Snow Rise.

Life is just such a broad topic I think an article on it will necessarily be quite large, as there are many areas to cover. In terms of this specific review I do not think the article is "broad" enough to pass.

As you state, and I think the view that underlies what you write, is that this article doesn't necessary need just length along, but it does need the attention of other editors to make sure that all areas are covered in sufficient (but not excessive) depth.

That said, I've seen much longer articles, and would expect such a broad topic to have an article that's fairly long, and I see no reason why this article couldn't expand somewhat to cope with some extra content rather than to have new additions be matched by deletions for the sake of length alone - although there are other reasons content could be moved, as you outline above.

As you also state, and I agree, the way forward for a big article like this are lots of smaller sections written in summary style with hatnotes to point to main articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're on the same page here, my initial comments not withstanding. I should probably clarify that I think they article could easily be 1.5x its current length without running up against summary style, precisely because, as you say, the topic is so broad. But at the same time, that extra 50% of space could be filled in a blink, owing to the same fact of the breadth of topics needing coverage here. For example, there's no section on genetics as yet,and that topic ultimately deserves a chunk of real estate here. In general, I think the prose just needs to be tightened up for a lot fo sections. There's some redundancy in place and also too much focus on the historical development of the sciences and schools of thought involved in the examination of life (and I speak not just of the history section here, but others as well). That's all valuable information, of course, but some of it is more appropriate to articles about those fields and their development than an article about life itself. For example, the "Classification" section is pretty clunky, and heavy with the history of different trends and thinkers in that concept from the ancients to just into the modern era, but there's only superficial detail about actual phylogenetics or taxonomy. That feels like misplaced emphasis to me. It's also lead to a fair deal of clutter and ungainly layout that will frustrate any effort at getting the article judged GA. If I can find some time in the next couple of days, I will sandbox drafts of new versions of some of these sections (starting with classification) and submit them for consideration on the talk page. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will boldly mark this review as not passed and will help you and the nominator MartinZ02, who has thus far put a stellar job into improving the article, to improve the article further. Let's continue the discussion on the article's talk page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

MartinZ02, you've put a stellar job into this article. Well done for your current efforts - the article is well sourced and well written, but may need to be expanded a little before it's suitable for GA. As stated this is a very broad article that is very difficult for a single editor to get to GA by virtue of being a long and complex topic. Hopefully we can provide some extra hands to lift it up to GA in the future. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The section entitled "Phanerozoic Eon" has more to do with geology and tectonic movements than life. Yes, the new environments promoted adaptations in living organisms, but there are better articles to discuss Earth's past geology, climate change, and the evolutionary history of life. Although it is well written, it is tangential to the topic so I propose to delete that [long] section. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Battery, instead of deletion, maybe substantial reduction/summarization? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, one or two paragraphs should do. I'll wait for a week or two to get more feedback from other editors. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

"with an error rate below the sustainability threshold." What does this sentence mean? Duivelwaan (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what that was supposed to mean. It also was in quotation marks, but it wasn't cited, so I removed it. KSFT^C 01:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been making several minor improvements to this article, mostly addressing the problems with the lead from the previous GA review, and I think, if no one objects, that I'll submit this article for another review soon. KSFT^C 01:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't submit it. There are a lot of issues from the last review that hasn't been addresed yet. MartinZ02 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

What issues were mentioned other than those those with the lead? KSFT^C 17:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

There are some issues here. MartinZ02 (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice the second GA nomination. I'll definitely wait a while before nominating again. KSFT^C 13:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

A draft article I have been working on has been finished and can be found here. If no one objects, I'm going to boldly implement the draft article. MartinZ02 (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It is very difficult to compare both versions and their differences. Any significant changes should be evident and probably discussed if controversial. How about a stepwise approach; edit one section at the time so it will be easier to visualize the differences. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

This article makes reference to the gaia hypothesis as if it was established science. This is far from the case. Esteemed scientists in the fields of evolutionary biology and geosciences such as John Maynard Smith, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, Paul Ehrlich, Massimo Pigliucci and Robert May have all harshly criticized the idea with arguments ranging from it's contradiction to current evolutionary thinking to it's unfalsifiability and as such it's inability to be a real scientific hypothesis. See for example Pigluicci ^[1] and Dawkins.^[2]

The article should at the very least be updated to include this criticism that has been levelled against the idea since its first publication 1979. AlwaysUnite (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. The hypothesis was hijacked by the New Age movement and those non-scientists are the ones that took it to the BS level. The scientific Gaia hypothesis is, in fact, the basis of Earth system science and it been openly recognized as such. Look it up. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In chemical elements subsection of enviromental conditions section, make CHNOPS link to its wikipedia page.

5.66.193.183 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.66.193.183 (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

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. KSFT^C 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)

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)

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)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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., 2^nd edition, Random House, New York, 1998
• Webster's Online Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Co., http://www.m-w.com

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160602235333/http://veilnebula.jorgejohnson.me/uploads/3/5/8/7/3587678/lammer_et_al_2009_astron_astro_rev-4.pdf to http://veilnebula.jorgejohnson.me/uploads/3/5/8/7/3587678/lammer_et_al_2009_astron_astro_rev-4.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/when-did-life-on-earth-begin-ask-a-rock
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/Main/Classification/1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=1&src=0

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220145116/https://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/7.html to https://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/7.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://rationalphilosophy.net/index.php/the-book

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

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

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)

At the time of this post, the first sentence of the article reads,

 "Life is a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not"...

Proposal:

  "Life is the Phenomenon that certain characteristics distinguish physical entities having biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not"...

I think the above proposal ^ would be more clear, and still be agreeable with the varying definitions of life.

-Popcrate (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, your suggestion is not grammatically correct and does not make sense. Graham Beards (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

To editor Graham Beards: (et al.) perhaps the following would be clearer and stronger:

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that do have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, ...

This strengthens "distinguishing", a weak -ing verb form, to the stronger "distinguishes". Also the "having" in the first part is less synchronous with the "those that do not" (have biological processes). If we edit that to entities "that do have" biological processes, it will go better with "those that do not."

I did start to just change the lead sentence as usual, but then I saw the invisible comment about discussing it first. Here we are, happy and healthy I hope!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think you suggestion is an improvement, thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! We can wait a bit to see if anyone else would like to give an opinion. Thanks again!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks OK, but must change the link from Signalling theory to Cell signaling. --Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Done and thank you all very much!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The section on death says (unsourced): "However, determining when death has occurred requires drawing precise conceptual boundaries between life and death." Isn't the problem, particularly in case of more complex life forms, that vital functions mentioned in the first sentence breaks down at different rates in different organ systems and regions of the organisms body? I suggest the last section should read (change emphasized):

 One of the challenges in defining death is in distinguishing it from life. Death would seem to refer to either the moment life ends, or when the state that follows life begins.[204] However, determining when death has occurred is difficult, as cessation of life functions is often not simultaneous across organ systems, requiring drawing conceptual lines between life and death. This is problematic, however, because there is little consensus over how to define life. The nature of death has for millennia been a central concern of the world's religious traditions and of philosophical inquiry. Many religions maintain faith in either a kind of afterlife or reincarnation for the soul, or resurrection of the body at a later date.

Here's a National Geographic article that is relevant as a source not only to my point, but to this section as a whole: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/04/dying-death-brain-dead-body-consciousness-science/

Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

That issue was visited in court because of its implications on life-support, life insurance, and execution of wills. I think that is when it was decided that -in humans- they check for brain activity (brain death). But I don't think we should go into that in this article. I see your suggestion above as an improvement while keeping it brief. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem of identifying life vs death is not restricted to humans. There's processes like anabiosis for instance, muddling the water. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that improvement along these lines is needed; however, I see confusion as a result of separating "determining when death has occurred" from "requires drawing precise". The complete thought is better left alone unless the long sentence is shortened and clarified by a second sentence as follows:

One of the challenges in defining death is in distinguishing it from life. Death would seem to refer to either the moment life ends, or when the state that follows life begins.[204] However, determining when death has occurred requires drawing precise conceptual boundaries is difficult, as cessation of life functions is often not simultaneous across organ systems. Such determination therefore requires drawing conceptual lines between life and death. This is problematic, however, because there is little consensus over how to define life. The nature of death has for millennia been a central concern of the world's religious traditions and of philosophical inquiry. Many religions maintain faith in either a kind of afterlife or reincarnation for the soul, or resurrection of the body at a later date.

That might help to dispel the confusion.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That's much better! The National Geographic article is a decent source for the asymmetrical rate of death across sytems. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Petter Bøckman, and since there were no objections, I went ahead and made the change using the Nat Geo reference source. Has the "Death" article been checked to see if a similar change is needed?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point Paine, the Death article has thesame wording (and problem) in chapter 4.3, second section and could probably benefit from the same ammendment. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we'll see how the other involved editors take to the alteration in that article. Be well, Petter Bøckman.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  10:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

70.31.124.209 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Use Grammarly for most of your articles. Some of your articles have 20 grammar mistakes that you should fix.

Too vague to action. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322185054/http://www.etsu.edu/physics/lutter/courses/astr1020/a1020chap12.pdf to http://www.etsu.edu/physics/lutter/courses/astr1020/a1020chap12.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322185041/http://www.etsu.edu/physics/lutter/courses/phys2028/p2028exobnotes.pdf to http://www.etsu.edu/physics/lutter/courses/phys2028/p2028exobnotes.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161116021041/http://www.dictionary.com/browse/artificial--life to http://www.dictionary.com/browse/artificial--life

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Life is the ability of a biological system to acquire, convert, allocate, distribute, and utilize energy with positive efficiency. Inkidsterms (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 06:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Why is there a random reference to a Martina McBride song entitled "Life #9" on top of the article for such a fundamental concept as "life"? Why should there be a redirect anyway? Is this a particularly relevant redirect notice out of the-- probably several-- articles that redirect to life? This smudges an important concept with irrelevant reference to a random artist. 68.192.120.87 (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Without that notice, someone looking for an article on that song might be unable to find it at all. Due to issues with the MediaWiki software, a search for "Life #9" (the correct name for the song) sends you to this article, rather than to the correct one. There's no technical way to fix that, so the notice is placed at the top of the page to point people to the article they were looking for. I agree it feels a bit out of place, but it's a necessary evil here. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to piggyback on that, it's not so much an issue with the software as it is an unintended consequence of a useful feature. The # character is a special character to the wiki software, and its intended purpose is to enable us to link to specific sections in an article, like Life#Biology. But that has the unintended consequence that # (and several other characters) can't be used in article titles. I have a feeling that the software developers figured that the benefit of being able to link sections in this way outweighed the nuisance of not being able to use # in an article title.

Also keep in mind that hatnotes are merely navigational aids to direct people who might have been trying in good faith to find an article on a different subject (e.g., Life (cereal)) to the article they are actually looking for. They should have no bearing on the article itself. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it's not a special character to the wiki software, it's an HTML standard anchor, browsers are supposed to link to a section with the ID of the # anchor. While there are ways to circumvent this behavior, it would be going against the accepted standards and will probably break on older browsers. byteflush _Talk 01:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could you rework the first sentence a little? I think it should read

"Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (they have died), or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate."

I made two changes: I removed "do" before "have" because it's wordy (the phrase makes sense without "do"), and I added "died" because the term itself ought to be mentioned when the article about life first mentions the concept; this is a very basic introduction to the concept, so terms for basic concepts ought to be used when the concepts are referred to. After all, "inanimate" is used; if neither "death" nor "died" belongs in this sentence, it could end with "or because they never had such functions." 208.95.51.38 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done - seems reasonable enough to me. I did see the note about the lead sentence, but this seemed like an uncontroversial maintenance request so I went ahead with it. If I've overstepped, feel free to adjust as needed. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, could you tweak the second paragraph? Abiogenesis is the concept of life arising from non-life; it doesn't describe such a process. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. This is my first post to a Wikipedia page. Hope I'm doing it right.

It's my impression that perhaps the article should more clearly distinguish between processes affecting individual organisms and processes affecting populations.

Within the definition of life it's stated that organisms can adapt to their environment and evolve. This statement seems at least ambiguous and perhaps incorrect. As I understand it, adaptation and evolution are processes affecting populations rather than individual organisms. When mutations occur in an individual's germline, the changes can be passed on to their descendants, but since they don't express in the affected individuals own somatic genes, individual organisms can't undergo adaptation or evolution.

Chip Langford (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Chip Langford

Certain queries such as "Life on earth" result in a peculiar title for the article, with the word "life" not being capitalized. I'm not sure how this happens, nor how to change it, but it would likely be best to fix it due to the sheer frequency of the aforementioned search query.

Console.frog (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I confirm that searching "life on Earth" on Google brings up this article with the strange capitalization. I have no idea why either. -- Luk ^talk 11:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I suggest add an external link to WP: Extraterrestrial life since the article places extreme emphasis on life as understood on this planet. 2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

In the introductory text it is stated:

Artificial life is a computer simulation or man-made reconstruction of any aspect of life...

(enphasis mine)

Could it be replaced by:

Artificial life is a computer simulation or human-made reconstruction of any aspect of life...

It is a neologism, but it would remove any shadow of gender bias in the subsconcient of the reader. Considering that artificial life is a field where gender bias can be damaging I would find it appropiate. --Feministo (talk) 07:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done, Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add:

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (they have died) or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate. Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. Biology is the science that studies life.

There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. Other definitions sometimes include non-cellular life forms such as viruses and viroids.

Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity. Life on Earth first appeared as early as 4.28 billion years ago, soon after ocean formation 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][3][4] The earliest known life forms are microfossils of bacteria.[5][6] Life on Earth is probably descended from an RNA world,[7] although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed.[8][9] The classic 1952 Miller–Urey experiment and similar research demonstrated that most amino acids, the chemical constituents of the proteins used in all living organisms, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds under conditions intended to replicate those of the early Earth. Complex organic molecules occur in the Solar System and in interstellar space, and these molecules may have provided starting material for the development of life on Earth.[10][11][12][13]

Since its primordial beginnings, life on Earth has changed its environment on a geologic time scale, but it has also adapted to survive in most ecosystems and conditions. Some microorganisms, called extremophiles, thrive in physically or geochemically extreme environments that are detrimental to most other life on Earth. The cell is considered the structural and functional unit of life.[14][15] There are two kinds of cells, prokaryotic and eukaryotic, both of which consist of cytoplasm enclosed within a membrane and contain many biomolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids. Cells reproduce through a process of cell division, in which the parent cell divides into two or more daughter cells.

In the past, there have been many attempts to define what is meant by "life" through obsolete concepts such as odic force, hylomorphism, spontaneous generation and vitalism, that have now been disproved by biological discoveries. Aristotle is considered to be the first person to classify organisms. Later, Carl Linnaeus introduced his system of binomial nomenclature for the classification of species. Eventually new groups and categories of life were discovered, such as cells and microorganisms, forcing significant revisions of the structure of relationships between living organisms. Though currently only known on Earth, life need not be restricted to it, and many scientists speculate in the existence of extraterrestrial life. Artificial life is a computer simulation or human-made reconstruction of any aspect of life, which is often used to examine systems related to natural life.

Death is the permanent termination of all biological processes which sustain an organism, and as such, is the end of its life. Extinction is the term describing the dying-out of a group or taxon, usually a species. Fossils are the preserved remains or traces of organisms

It is written here: The criteria can at times be ambiguous and may or may not define viruses, viroids, or potential synthetic life as "living".

For something to be "may" implies a may not - "may or may not" is not required as a condition. If it is "may", the opposite potential does not need to be stated.

All it should say is: ... can at time be ambiguous and may define viruses.

"Define" as in "include"? Or Define as in the criteria that defines the properties of what life is?

This can be simplified to: the criteria for what life is can be unclear, such as the question if viruses, viroids, or synthetic life can be classed as "life" or "living". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.103.154 (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The sentence caught my interest (disdain) as well. It hasn't been fixed as of Feb 2020. First of all, OF COURSE criteria "can be" ambiguous - because obviously the criteria may be created within a context which is less than universal (i.e. the criteria assume a set of "priors"). A 'good' set of criteria would NOT be "ambiguous", again obviously. Secondly, I don't agree that it is useful for the sentence to link (some of) the fringe cases to its main point. Those are separate ideas and deserve separate sentences. I think it is most important that the reader learns that there is no unambiguous set of universal criteria. The criteria can at times be ambiguous and may or may not define viruses, viroids, or potential synthetic life as "living". Some of the other problems I have are: 3. "the criteria"? no(!) "the definitions" yes. 4. "...at times..." what has time have to do with it? 5. "define"?? shouldn't that be "include"? 6. More hypothetically, future in-silico (A.I.) might be classifiable as "living", I think. 7. The whole lead fails to distinguish between known knowns and known unknowns: the phrase "life as we know it" should occur up-front, imho. We can't say much about life as we don't know it, obviously. 8.The sentence presumes the reader understands that there are different definitions (rather than different expressions of one 'standard' definition). How about this:"Attempts to formulate a clear, definite, and universal definition for life have met with greater or lesser acceptance, but none are acceptable to everyone. There is still, to this day, no agreement whether viruses are 'living'. (Some advocate that viroids are living organisms as well.) Exceptional cases such as lab-made biomolecular systems which mimic living systems (some with components not found in any living system), called synthetic life and, conceptually, electronics-based (silicon) systems that may one day exist and seem to be living organisms, generally fail to meet most proposed definitions." I am tempted to replace the offending sentence with this. And I would if it wasn't so long-winded.98.21.246.194 (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the treatment of viruses, viroids, and synthetic life is haphazard. Regarding all of your points, I would suggest editing the body of the article first, then changing the lede to reflect the sources and consensus gathered there. The edge cases of virus, viroid, and synthetic life deserve better treatment in the body of the article. For the time being, I am in favor of simplifying the treatment of these edge cases in the lead, which is already very long. Dag330 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Including is another word for such as, which makes it more like a encyclopedic definition. Should we change this to make the examples more specific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua's Number9 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not really a synonym for "such as", which means "for example". Graham Beards (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{subst:trim|1= be nice

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Biota (taxonomy) redirects here, but is not explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Life|answered=yes} Change:

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (they have died), or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate.

To:

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities from physical entities that have biological processes. signaling and self-sustaining processes are examples of life, whereas the absence of these processes either because such functions have ceased (they have died) or because they never had such functions are classified as inanimate. UniversalHumanTransendence (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the suggestion does not make any sense. Graham Beards (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kabel1927: Gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. Permanent is WP:V in WP:RS given. In case you want to imply life after death, that's not a fact, but a subjective belief. Wikipedia is biased for objective fact. Life after death, it is unknowable if it exists, and therefore not a fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am a person who lost their account 5 years ago 2600:1700:4480:5680:FCEE:C905:D:8B99 (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Life has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ok make me edit, Please I have many things to add 136.158.31.158 (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. 💜  melecie  talk - 09:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph may be a little long and complex for readers. It could be better to move the biological criteria (growth, stimuli, metabolism, metabolism etc) to a separate paragraph. Would like to get y'all's opinions on this :) - azpineapple | ^T/_C 07:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that this Life arhticle is the only member of the hierarchy in this image not having the image in its infobox. It's down in the classification section, where it's less visible. Including it prominently at the top would raise its profile, allowing for some informative hyperlinking, and better educating readers visually about taxonomy. Does anyone else think it would improve the article by moving it to the top of the infobox? Apologies if this was already discussed. I didn't see any related discussions in the archives. STEMinfo (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It might be a WP:PROMINENCE issue, since life is a much bigger topic than any of the other classifications. Also, it makes sense topic-wise to have it within the "classification" section. Other than that, I don't have any major objections to putting it in a more prominent place, but I'd like to hear what others think first. The void century 23:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It really doesn't strike me as even slightly appropriate for this article; I endorse The void century's objections, but in addition, would observe that this simply isn't a taxonomy article as its topic is life in general (not necessarily even "life on Earth", though that features large given current knowledge and human earthcentredness), and even if it were so limited, its subject is not a taxon: the image is erroneous in placing an abstract quality as if it were a taxon. Further, the article is not about classification but the question of what life is: nor in truth is classification more than tangentially relevant to the article's subject. I'd say these were overwhelming objections to the use of the image here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This definition is based on ethical values and is scientific. The basis of life is the observance of ethical principles. Of particular importance is the partisan principle of love. Working together for mutual benefit is called symbiosis in biology. Symbioses are researched in science.

Definition:
"In the words of philosophy: ´Basis of life is the principle of love. Life exists where this principle rules (symbiosis).´
In the words of biology: ´Basis and indicator of life is the symbiosis.´ This is a partnership in which each partner is active for the benefit of the other partner." ^[1]

Unlike many definitions, there is a subtle transition between alive and non-living depending on the number of symbioses. “Living beings are: elementary systems - atoms - molecules - cells - organs - creatures - cultures. In simple unicellular organisms there are very large numbers of symbiotic processes, in chemical reactions few.“^[1] The transition between alive and non-living doesn't fit biology and the unity of nature.

Unlike all other definitions, life is given a value here. Life must be preserved. This definition provides a basis for legislation and medical decisions. (E.g. embryonic development, organ transplants, animal rights.)

- This is a principle-based definition. Principle-based discussions are better than ad hoc definitions.

- In this definition, a property must be checked: symbiosis? Enumerations of many properties are of little use.

Symbioses are often mentioned in the literature as the basis of life.

Wikiwau (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Not done - adding this material would be WP:UNDUE. There is certainly a philosophical element to the definition of life, but we also need to consider the prominence of the viewpoint, and whether it is considered important among reliable sources. The viewpoint you presented is a minor one (possible fringe) compared to, for example Materialism, which is a major viewpoint in philosophical definitions of life. The void century (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Materialism is the only consideration in the other definitions of life. These definitions are technical but not philosophical. The scientific-philosophical definition of life is considered important for lawyers and doctors. This definition is not materialistic but monistic. (Unity of spirit and matter in the sense of information theory.) -- Wikiwau (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

"Some scientists believe that life emerged as a symbiosis (mutualism) between independently developed mechanisms. ... (Schrödinger 1944, Eigen et. al. 1981)" (Poppa, Radu, 2004, Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life: 141; Springer Verlag)-- Wikiwau (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Go Symbiosis are accepted in science and are compatible with materialism. The ethical interpretation is important as a legal basis. Maybe that can be expressed differently with love. All great advances in evolution are based on symbioses. Chemical evolution: symbioses from cycles to hypercycles. Eukaryotes: cells within cells. (Endosymbiosis). Also in multicellular organisms and bee colonies. The supplement should be worded differently and placed on the main page. —— eve5427 80.13.23.28 (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The basis of life is the observance of ethical principles cannot be found by Google (exact search). So, no, Wikipedia won't tell that to its readers.

And Basis of life is the principle of love belongs to the academic field of literary criticism, not biology. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You write: The basis of life is the observance of ethical principles cannot be found by Google (exact search). The statement is correct. The sentence was not mentioned in the cited article. The principle of love is spoken of there. Thanks for the correction!

The term “love” sounds like Romeo and Juliet. What is meant here are the biological, sociological and philosophical aspects. According to Richard Dawkins, selfish genes, ^[1] i.e. self-love, form the basis for evolution. Through symbiosis, self-love has been transferred to the community. Love is a problematic quality because it is often accompanied by external aggression. Wikiwau (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Based on the discussion, here is a modified text. Add suggestion in the alternative definitions chapter below:

Scientific-Philosophical definition of life

The above definitions divide nature into animate and inanimate by naming properties. The following definition is a principles-based definition. According to Richard Dawkins, selfish genes, ^[2] i.e. self-love, form the basis for evolution. Through symbiosis, self-love has been transferred to the community. Working together for mutual benefit is called symbiosis in biology. Symbioses are researched in science.

Definition:

"In the words of philosophy: ´Basis of life is the principle of love. Life exists where this principle rules (symbiosis).´

In the words of biology: ´Basis and indicator of life is the symbiosis.´

This is a partnership in which each partner is active for the benefit of the other partner." ^[3]

The definition is monistic and is based on the unity of mind and matter in the sense of information theory. It is based on ethical values and is scientific. Unlike all other definitions, life is given a value here. Life must be preserved. This definition provides a basis for legislation and medical decisions. (E.g. embryonic development, organ transplants, animal rights.)

Unlike many definitions, there is a subtle transition between alive and non-living depending on the number of symbioses. “Living beings are: elementary systems - atoms - molecules - cells - organs - creatures - cultures. In simple unicellular organisms there are very large numbers of symbiotic processes, in chemical reactions few.“^[3] The transition between alive and non-living doesn't fit biology and the unity of nature.
Wikiwau (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're basically wasting time here. This page isn't a forum, and the article has good definitions already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The definitions are acceptable but do not meet essential quality criteria of definitions. Furthermore, the list is incomplete because not all schools of thought are taken into account. Wikiwau (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The goal is not completeness, which is always unattainable, but making the main points clearly and reliably, which the article does. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)