Reply to thread

I did not see that in the article.  I maintain that you got it backwards. The virus example was given by the authors to show how narrower or broader definitions may include or exclude different life forms.


Wiki quote: "...viruses and aberrant prion proteins are often considered replicators rather than forms of life..."



I'm sorry, but the article was intended to specifically address every single potential species, NOT every single organism.  Chip was using the Wikipedia criteria to ask "is it alive" presumably to argue that killing a zygote is unethical.


The article was asking the question of whether some specific species or replicating entity is a form of life.

Wiki quote: "It is important to note that life is a definition that applies primarily at the level of species..."


That is very clearly stated. You are misinterpreting "species" to apply to a specific exemplar of development, e.g. a zygote.


Please be aware that I am not arguing an ethical issue, I am arguing a scientific issue -- an errant interpretation.


Back
Top