"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote:

| That's a good question. I tnd to tink of anything which
replicates
| itself as being in some sense alive, but that may well be
wrong.

Prions.

You have just given the second example which proves me wrong.

Ever since that troublemaker synthesised urea, the boundary between
life and non-life has got more confused.

In my newfound ignorance, I am now also not quite certain as to where
viruses stand in the live/dead stakes.

Franz


You define what 'life' means, then you know whether it meets that criteria*.
100 years ago people thought there was a 'vital essence' or 'spark' that
constituted 'life', but now we know thats not the case (well, most of us
maybe?). Now its a matter of definition only.

--
Tumbleweed

*Not easy, since coming up with a *complete* definition is difficult if not
impossible:-)

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com