yes, I was really just confirming it. This topic is done.
1 Like
Cold blooded Animals still regulate their own internal pH and oxygen levels among other things, so they check that off no problem. It only needs to regulate some internal conditions to some extent, not all possible conditions to every extent, that’s obviously impossible.
It’s still ultra required in my book though so yeah it def belongs on the top of the list.
1 Like
Which is perfectly valid - and something I agree with - as long as you are aware that your definition is your definition, and may be subject to imperfection.
Are Red Blood Cells alive, for example? “Cells” have been defined as the smallest unit that meets all of these criteria, your own included, but RBCs do not - are they actually cells? Or is that just what they’re called, like how an antlion isn’t actually an ant?
2 Likes
Since when is that my definition of Cells? As said before, while Cells often happen to fit the definition of life, It’s not necessary for them to do so. In most sources I can find it’s only stated that they often qualify as an organism themselves. They are merely subunits of the thing that is the actual organism.
But yeah if you go with your definition then you have to disqualify Red Blood Cells as cells as a consequence. If you don’t like that you have to reconsider.
Fact of the matter is that my set of definitions is entirely internally consistent, and it doesn’t let the RBC problem arise that you are currently struggling with. Your disagreement doesn’t change that.
Okay that came across a bit more agressive than it’s meant. The joy of scientific debate—
1 Like
Every resource I’ve ever encountered before has defined cells as the smallest unit of life - going by the common definition, at least.
This is not true, because the majority of known organisms are unicellular.
Except that it does. Your definition is consistent only because you disqualify my disagreement - my disagreement is not disqualified based on your definition.
Wait a second, if viruses aren’t alive, than how can they die?
1 Like
Define “die”.
That’s fair. But in that case it just so happens that the one unit is the whole organism. Doesn’t mean that it can’t be a cell when it isn’t.
Interesting way to paraphrase it. Yeah, that’s what internally consistent means. It works, and solves the problem without contradictions, even if there are alternate systems that are incompatible.
Or do you mean I’m contradicting myself?
1 Like
to stop living.
Yep. Viruses… break, I guess
Now all the disinfectant producers have to change the label from “kills off 99.99% Of all Bacteria and Viruses” to “gets rid of” because three people on the Internet said so 
4 Likes
Oh shoot for some reason I skipped over the “internally”. My bad.
Technically - and I’m not a virologist - I don’t think viruses “die”. They are either broken down, usually by the defense systems of the organism they are infecting, or decompose.
Yeah, you have a point.
No prob. And of course I’d rather have something that connects the dots between your view and mine.
Actually I just looked at some disinfectant and it actually says “gets rid of” lol
1 Like
The solution is that while I still define cells as being the smallest unit of life, I don’t consider RBCs to be cells.
The disagreement over the aforementioned whether or not cells are the smallest unit of life is just that - a direct disagreement over a single point. Kinda irreconcilable but at least the practical facts are consistent across definitions.
I’m gonna have class in a couple hours and there’s disinfectant sprays on the tables. I’ll be sure to do reconnaissance for the cause.
The law of conservation of matter states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only changing form… yada yada yada you get the point.
1 Like
The matter isn’t destroyed - the virus is, by being broken down into its constituent molecules. I’m not an expert on this but I’d assume it’d do that by use of enzymes that are somewhat digestive in nature, like a lysosome or white blood cell.
1 Like
THE VIRUS MOLECULES ARE STILL THERE SO IT’S FALSE ADVERTIZING!
2 Likes
tf did I just come back to 
A potential political discussion that we killed immediately.
Why can’t there ever be simple solutions for example: if it does something to survive its alive.
Its always something so complex its super hard to define. At some point its no longer a scientific discussion but a philosophical one
3 Likes