if we discovered a single-cell organism on another planet, would we conclude that there is life on another planet?

utah, get me two said:

---

Yes

---

Harry Stone said:

---

if we discovered a single-cell organism on another planet, would we conclude that there is life on another planet?

---

This has already happened, so, yes.

Absolutely, because it would be a biological fact.

There are few things in the scientific realm more clearly and well defined than what constitutes a living organism.

Hunter will consult them too.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Absolutely, because it would be a biological fact.

There are few things in the scientific realm more clearly and well defined than what constitutes a living organism.

---

You're a doctor, not a biologist!

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Absolutely, because it would be a biological fact.

There are few things in the scientific realm more clearly and well defined than what constitutes a living organism.

---

Sponges and other colonial organisms would like a word (I like the siphonophores personally). So would viruses, according to some.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Absolutely, because it would be a biological fact.

There are few things in the scientific realm more clearly and well defined than what constitutes a living organism.

---

so youre saying that an organism doesnt need to have a heartbeat to constitute it being considered alive.

Dilettante said:

---

Sponges and other colonial organisms would like a word.

---

Sponges are the most distant branch from the common ancestor of all life, but they absolutely meet all criteria for a living organism.

Quote:

---

So would viruses, according to some.

---

Viruses are not capable of independent replication, among other shortcomings in terms of trying to label them as alive. The only way to define a virus as alive is to change the standard definition of life, and any definition that renders viruses alive also by necessity would render individual DNA and RNA strands alive as well.

Crossed that bridge years ago, but yes, absolutely.

You can be pro-life or pro-choice, I don't really care. But this is a really dumb analogy because I can go outside and pick a flower and not get charged with murder. It has nothing to do with the definition of "life".

Mr President Elect said:

---

You can be pro-life or pro-choice, I don't really care. But this is a really dumb analogy because I can go outside and pick a flower and not get charged with murder. It has nothing to do with the definition of "life".

---

It's kinda relevant, because many want to argue over when life begins.

Life begins at conception, that's just a fact. There's no way around it. Now we can absolutely debate at what point that life is worth preserving or when when grant it human rights, but to dispute that it is a life is just incorrect.

Mr President Elect said:

---

You can be pro-life or pro-choice, I don't really care. But this is a really dumb analogy because I can go outside and pick a flower and not get charged with murder. It has nothing to do with the definition of "life".

---

Then what is it about?

Mr President Elect said:

---

You can be pro-life or pro-choice, I don't really care. But this is a really dumb analogy because I can go outside and pick a flower and not get charged with murder. It has nothing to do with the definition of "life".

---

Mortally wound a zygote as a result of your negligence and let us know what you get charged with.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Mr President Elect said:

---

You can be pro-life or pro-choice, I don't really care. But this is a really dumb analogy because I can go outside and pick a flower and not get charged with murder. It has nothing to do with the definition of "life".

---

Then what is it about?

---

Your ideology of life vs sentient life and if they should be distinguished or all treated the same. Also people get taken off life support all the time, and most are okay with that. Not saying I'm pro-choice over pro-life, just calling out what I consider to be missing the point of the debate.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Well my degree from A&M says I'm a biologist, so checkmate.

---

Sweet, been hoping to come across one so I could run this by them. Is this a woman?

No

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

Sponges and other colonial organisms would like a word.

---

Sponges are the most distant branch from the common ancestor of all life, but they absolutely meet all criteria for a living organism.

Quote:

---

So would viruses, according to some.

---

Viruses are not capable of independent replication, among other shortcomings in terms of trying to label them as alive. The only way to define a virus as alive is to change the standard definition of life, and any definition that renders viruses alive also by necessity would render individual DNA and RNA strands alive as well.

---

Just to add:
If a virus was found on another planet, it could only exist if life was or had existed on that planet.

Mr President Elect said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Mr President Elect said:

---

You can be pro-life or pro-choice, I don't really care. But this is a really dumb analogy because I can go outside and pick a flower and not get charged with murder. It has nothing to do with the definition of "life".

---

Then what is it about?

---

Your ideology of life vs sentient life and if they should be distinguished or all treated the same. Also people get taken off life support all the time, and most are okay with that. Not saying I'm pro-choice over pro-life, just calling out what I consider to be missing the point of the debate.

---

A person on life support has already made end of life decisions as an adult, or appointed someone to decide for them. You don't understand the difference? Why does the law protect the unborn in the case of accidents, but allows the mother to end it without repercussions? Our own government straddles the fence.

Are you ready to lead the charge that all unborn babies have no rights, so if I accidentally kill one we just shrug our shoulders and tell the mom tough *****

Mr President Elect said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Mr President Elect said:

---

You can be pro-life or pro-choice, I don't really care. But this is a really dumb analogy because I can go outside and pick a flower and not get charged with murder. It has nothing to do with the definition of "life".

---

Then what is it about?

---

Your ideology of life vs sentient life and if they should be distinguished or all treated the same. Also people get taken off life support all the time, and most are okay with that. Not saying I'm pro-choice over pro-life, just calling out what I consider to be missing the point of the debate.

---

People taken off life support are at the end of life and suffering from a terminal ailment. Moreover, such people often have advanced directives that tell others they would want to be taken off life support.

It's completely unrelated to abortion. Nobody argues against abortion solely on the basis that a fetus is alive. They just point out that it is in fact alive, because people on the opposite side of the debate often try to argue it isn't.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Mr President Elect said:

---

You can be pro-life or pro-choice, I don't really care. But this is a really dumb analogy because I can go outside and pick a flower and not get charged with murder. It has nothing to do with the definition of "life".

---

It's kinda relevant, because many want to argue over when life begins.

Life begins at conception, that's just a fact. There's no way around it. Now we can absolutely debate at what point that life is worth preserving or when when grant it human rights, but to dispute that it is a life is just incorrect.

---

Sorry, but no, we can not have such a debate. A HUMAN life, which the constitution protects, is not subject to such a debate. That life is not "kinda relevant" to the life of a plant because what life we're referring to here is a constitutional issue. The constitution doesn't protect plant life. With respect to the definition of life itself, biology might come into play and you're right on when life begins, something that never should have been debated ever. That is getting into the weeds of "it depends on what the definition of "is" is." Let's not over think this.

Now, if you want to get into a discussion of due process of law (e.g. with respect to capital punishment and other deprivation of life issues) fine. But please don't bring up the tired and worthless idea that the framer's thoughts on life depended on race. Whether true or not, that's been settled -- both by war and constitutional amendments.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Mr President Elect said:

---

You can be pro-life or pro-choice, I don't really care. But this is a really dumb analogy because I can go outside and pick a flower and not get charged with murder. It has nothing to do with the definition of "life".

---

It's kinda relevant, because many want to argue over when life begins.

Life begins at conception, that's just a fact. There's no way around it. Now we can absolutely debate at what point that life is worth preserving or when when grant it human rights, but to dispute that it is a life is just incorrect.

---

Sorry, but no, we can not have such a debate

---

I mean we can, because we do. Again, just a fact.

Quote:

---

A HUMAN life, which the constitution protects, is not subject to such a debate.

---

The founding fathers didn't believe life began until "the quickening" as they called it, which was when the mother could feel the baby in her womb. So it's a bit silly to cite constitutional protections on life given those who wrote it didn't know what life was or when it began.

Quote:

---

That life is not "kinda relevant" to the life of a plant because what life we're referring to here is a constitutional issue. The constitution doesn't protect plant life. With respect to the definition of life itself, biology might come into play and you're right on when life begins, something that never should have been debated ever. That is getting into the weeds of "it depends on what the definition of "is" is." Let's not over think this.

---

I'm not sure who you're arguing with, I agree that abortion for convenience should not be legal. I'm just saying it's silly to say it's not a topic for debate because that's just demonstrably false.

Quote:

---

Now, if you want to get into a discussion of due process of law (e.g. with respect to capital punishment and other deprivation of life issues) fine. But please don't bring up the tired and worthless idea that the framer's thoughts on life depended on race. Whether true or not, that's been settled -- both by war and constitutional amendments.

---

Not one single founding father, or any other human who lived in the 18th century, could have correctly defined life. So again it's just a bit silly to argue from that standpoint.

BigRobSA said:

---

Harry Stone said:

---

if we discovered a single-cell organism on another planet, would we conclude that there is life on another planet?

---

This has already happened, so, yes.

---

If you mean finding life on another planet, no it hasn't.