From: Biochmborg@aol.com <Biochmborg@aol.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org
<email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Saturday, May 08, 1999 3:05 AM
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>In a message dated 5/7/99 7:22:26 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
>> That is precisely the point. Death is an integral part of what life is.
>> I never her the proponents of "life-in-a-test-tube" talk about it. Death
>> the cessation of life. You see, such deep issues are always circular.
>Which is exactly why biologists do not discuss it. Biology is the science
>life; hence biologists cannot study it when it no longer exists. Nor can
>they study something that cannot be measured or experimented with. Death
>part of life only in that death is what you have when life stops. As such,
>no one can say what it is, only what it is not. Like any science, biology
>can only study what is; it cannot study what is not. Death is not a
>concept like life; it is metaphysical, and science cannot study
>Besides, as you admit your argument is circular. You are saying that to
>prove protocells are alive we have to show that they can die, but before we
>can do that we must prove that they are alive in the first place. In other
>words, since death is the cessation of life, to use death to prove the
>existence of life we have to know that life exists and thus can cease.
>That's why it is better to define life by what it does, not by what you
>when it stops doing what it does. Which is exactly what Fox accomplished.
>As such, knowing that his protocells are alive, we can now also say that
>Kevin L. O'Brien