Jump to content

Life

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 219.238.212.126 (talk) at 08:52, 7 December 2010 (→Death). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For other uses, see Life (disambiguation).
Life (Biota)
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domains and Kingdoms

Life on Earth:

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3]

In biology, the science of living organisms, life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.[4] Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.[1][5] A diverse array of living organisms (life forms) can be found in the biosphere on Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.

In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies. Both offer interpretations as to how life relates to existence and consciousness, and both touch on many related issues, including life stance, purpose, conception of a god or gods, a soul or an afterlife.

Early theories about life

Materialism

Template:Fix bunching

Plant life

Template:Fix bunching

Herds of zebra and impala gathering on the Masai Mara plain

Template:Fix bunching

An aerial photo of microbial mats around the Grand Prismatic Spring of Yellowstone National Park.

Template:Fix bunching Some of the earliest theories of life were materialist, holding that all that exists is matter, and that all life is merely a complex form or arrangement of matter. Empedocles (430 BC) argued that every thing in the universe is made up of a combination of four eternal "elements" or "roots of all": earth, water, air, and fire. All change is explained by the arrangement and rearrangement of these four elements. The various forms of life are caused by an appropriate mixture of elements. For example, growth in plants is explained by the natural downward movement of earth and the natural upward movement of fire.[6]

Democritus (460 BC), the disciple of Leucippus, thought that the essential characteristic of life is having a soul (psyche). In common with other ancient writers, he used the term to mean the principle of living things that causes them to function as a living thing. He thought the soul was composed of fire atoms, because of the apparent connection between life and heat, and because fire moves.[7] He also suggested that humans originally lived like animals, gradually developing communities to help one another, originating language, and developing crafts and agriculture.[8]

In the scientific revolution of the 17th century, mechanistic ideas were revived by philosophers like Descartes.

Hylomorphism

Hylomorphism is the theory (originating with Aristotle (322 BC)) that all things are a combination of matter and form. Aristotle was one of the first ancient writers to approach the subject of life in a scientific way. Biology was one of his main interests, and there is extensive biological material in his extant writings. According to him, all things in the material universe have both matter and form. The form of a living thing is its soul (Greek psyche, Latin anima). There are three kinds of souls: the "vegetative soul" of plants, which causes them to grow and decay and nourish themselves, but does not cause motion and sensation; the "animal soul" which causes animals to move and feel; and the rational soul which is the source of consciousness and reasoning which (Aristotle believed) is found only in man.[9] Each higher soul has all the attributes of the lower one. Aristotle believed that while matter can exist without form, form cannot exist without matter, and therefore the soul cannot exist without the body.[10]

Consistent with this account is a teleological explanation of life. A teleological explanation accounts for phenomena in terms of their purpose or goal-directedness. Thus, the whiteness of the polar bear's coat is explained by its purpose of camouflage. The direction of causality is the other way round from materialistic science, which explains the consequence in terms of a prior cause. Modern biologists now reject this functional view in terms of a material and causal one: biological features are to be explained not by looking forward to future optimal results, but by looking backwards to the past evolutionary history of a species, which led to the natural selection of the features in question.

Vitalism

Vitalism is the belief that the life-principle is essentially immaterial. This originated with Stahl (17th century), and held sway until the middle of the 19th century. It appealed to philosophers such as Henri Bergson, Nietzsche, Wilhelm Dilthey, anatomists like Bichat, and chemists like Liebig.

Vitalism underpinned the idea of a fundamental separation of organic and inorganic material, and the belief that organic material can only be derived from living things. This was disproved in 1828 when Friedrich Wöhler prepared urea from inorganic materials. This so-called Wöhler synthesis is considered the starting point of modern organic chemistry. It is of great historical significance because for the first time an organic compound was produced from inorganic reactants.

Later, Helmholtz, anticipated by Mayer, demonstrated that no energy is lost in muscle movement, suggesting that there were no vital forces necessary to move a muscle. These empirical results led to the abandonment of scientific interest in vitalistic theories, although the belief lingered on in non-scientific theories such as homeopathy, which interprets diseases and sickness as caused by disturbances in a hypothetical vital force or life force.

Definitions

It is still a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[11][12][13] Defining life is difficult—in part—because life is a process, not a pure substance.[14] Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and it should be sufficiently general that, with it, scientists would not miss life that may be fundamentally different from earthly life.[15]

Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive, where life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena:[14][16]

  1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
  2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
  3. Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
  4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
  5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
  6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
  7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Proposed

To reflect the minimum phenomena required, some have proposed other biological definitions of life:

  • Living things are systems that tend to respond to changes in their environment, and inside themselves, in such a way as to promote their own continuation.[citation needed]
  • A network of inferior negative feedbacks (regulatory mechanisms) subordinated to a superior positive feedback (potential of expansion, reproduction).[17]
  • A systemic definition of life is that living things are self-organizing and autopoietic (self-producing). Variations of this definition include Stuart Kauffman's definition as an autonomous agent or a multi-agent system capable of reproducing itself or themselves, and of completing at least one thermodynamic work cycle.[18]
  • Life is a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.[19]
  • Things with the capacity for metabolism and motion.[14]

Viruses

Viruses are most often considered replicators rather than forms of life. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life,"[20] since they possess genes, evolve by natural selection,[21] and replicate by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. However, viruses do not metabolize and require a host cell to make new products. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it may support the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.[22][23]

Biophysics

Biophysicists have also commented on the nature and qualities of life forms—notably that they function on negative entropy.[24][25] In more detail, according to physicists such as John Bernal, Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner, and John Avery, life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form (see: entropy and life).[26][27][28]

Living systems theories

Some scientists have proposed in the last few decades that a general living systems theory is required to explain the nature of life.[29] Such a general theory, arising out of the ecological and biological sciences, attempts to map general principles for how all living systems work. Instead of examining phenomena by attempting to break things down into component parts, a general living systems theory explores phenomena in terms of dynamic patterns of the relationships of organisms with their environment.[30]

Gaia hypothesis

The idea that the Earth is alive is probably as old as humankind, but the first public expression of it as a fact of science was by a Scottish scientist, James Hutton. In 1785 he stated that the Earth was a superorganism and that its proper study should be physiology. Hutton is rightly remembered as the father of geology, but his idea of a living Earth was forgotten in the intense reductionism of the 19th century.[31] The Gaia hypothesis, originally proposed in the 1960s by scientist James Lovelock,[32][33] explores the idea that the life on Earth functions as a single organism which actually defines and maintains environmental conditions necessary for its survival.[34]

Nonfractionability

Robert Rosen (1991) built on the assumption that the explanatory powers of the mechanistic worldview cannot help understand the realm of living systems. One of several important clarifications he made was to define a system component as "a unit of organization; a part with a function, i.e., a definite relation between part and whole." From this and other starting concepts, he developed a "relational theory of systems" that attempts to explain the special properties of life. Specifically, he identified the "nonfractionability of components in an organism" as the fundamental difference between living systems and "biological machines."[35]

Life as a property of ecosystems

A systems view of life treats environmental fluxes and biological fluxes together as a "reciprocity of influence",[36] and a reciprocal relation with environment is arguably as important for understanding life as it is for understanding ecosystems. As Harold J. Morowitz (1992) explains it, life is a property of an ecological system rather than a single organism or species.[37] He argues that an ecosystemic definition of life is preferable to a strictly biochemical or physical one. Robert Ulanowicz (2009) also highlights mutualism as the key to understand the systemic, order-generating behavior of life and ecosystems.[38]

Origin

Main article: Origin of life
For religious beliefs about the creation of life, see Creation myth.

Evidence suggests that life on Earth has existed for about 3.7 billion years.[39] All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms, and based on these observations, theories on the origin of life attempt to find a mechanism explaining the formation of a primordial single cell organism from which all life originates. There are many different hypotheses regarding the path that might have been taken from simple organic molecules via pre-cellular life to protocells and metabolism. Many models fall into the "genes-first" category or the "metabolism-first" category, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that combine both categories.[40]

There is no scientific consensus as to how life originated and all proposed theories are highly speculative. However, most currently accepted scientific models build in one way or another on the following hypotheses:

Life as we know it today synthesizes proteins, which are polymers of amino acids using instructions encoded by cellular genes—which are polymers of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Protein synthesis also entails intermediary ribonucleic acid (RNA) polymers. One possibility is that genes came first[41] and then proteins. Another possibility is that proteins came first[42] and then genes. However, because genes are required to make proteins, and proteins are required to make genes, the problem of considering which came first is like that of the chicken or the egg. Most scientists have adopted the hypothesis that because DNA and proteins function together so intimately, it's unlikely that they arose independently.[43] Therefore, many scientists consider the possibility, apparently first suggested by Francis Crick,[44] that the first life was based on the DNA-protein intermediary: RNA.[43] In fact, RNA has the DNA-like properties of information storage and replication and the catalytic properties of some proteins. Crick and others actually favored the RNA-first hypothesis[45] even before the catalytic properties of RNA had been demonstrated by Thomas Cech.[46]

A significant issue with the RNA-first hypothesis is that experiments designed to synthesize RNA from simple precursors have not been nearly as successful as the Miller-Urey experiments that synthesized other organic molecules from inorganic precursors. One reason for the failure to create RNA in the laboratory is that RNA precursors are very stable and do not react with each other under ambient conditions. However, the successful synthesis of certain RNA molecules under conditions hypothesized to exist prior to life on Earth has been achieved by adding alternative precursors in a specified order with the precursor phosphate present throughout the reaction.[47] This study makes the RNA-first hypothesis more plausible to many scientists.[48]

Recent experiments have demonstrated true Darwinian evolution of unique RNA enzymes (ribozymes) made up of two separate catalytic components that replicate each other in vitro.[49] In describing this work from his laboratory, Gerald Joyce stated: "This is the first example, outside of biology, of evolutionary adaptation in a molecular genetic system."[50] Such experiments make the possibility of a primordial RNA World even more attractive to many scientists.

Conditions for life

The diversity of life on Earth today is a result of the dynamic interplay between genetic opportunity, metabolic capability, environmental challenges,[51] and symbiosis.[52][53][54] For most of its existence, Earth's habitable environment has been dominated by microorganisms and subjected to their metabolism and evolution. As a consequence of such microbial activities on a geologic time scale, the physical-chemical environment on Earth has been changing, thereby determining the path of evolution of subsequent life.[51] For example, the release of molecular oxygen by cyanobacteria as a by-product of photosynthesis induced fundamental, global changes in the Earth's environment. The altered environment, in turn, posed novel evolutionary challenges to the organisms present, which ultimately resulted in the formation of our planet's major animal and plant species. Therefore this "co-evolution" between organisms and their environment is apparently an inherent feature of living systems.[51]

Range of tolerance

The inert components of an ecosystem are the physical and chemical factors necessary for life—energy (sunlight or chemical energy), water, temperature, atmosphere, gravity, nutrients, and ultraviolet solar radiation protection.[55] In most ecosystems the conditions vary during the day and often shift from one season to the next. To live in most ecosystems, then, organisms must be able to survive a range of conditions, called "range of tolerance."[56] Outside of that are the "zones of physiological stress," where the survival and reproduction are possible but not optimal. Outside of these zones are the "zones of intolerance," where life for that organism is implausible. It has been determined that organisms that have a wide range of tolerance are more widely distributed than organisms with a narrow range of tolerance.[56]

Extremophiles

Deinococcus radiodurans can resist radiation exposure.
Main article: Extremophile

To survive, some microorganisms can assume forms that enable them to withstand freezing, complete desiccation, starvation, high-levels of radiation exposure, and other physical or chemical challenges. Furthermore, some microorganisms can survive exposure to such conditions for weeks, months, years, or even centuries.[51] Extremophiles are microbial life forms that thrive outside the ranges life is commonly found in. They also excel at exploiting uncommon sources of energy. While all organisms are composed of nearly identical molecules, evolution has enabled such microbes to cope with this wide range of physical and chemical conditions. Characterization of the structure and metabolic diversity of microbial communities in such extreme environments is ongoing. An understanding of the tenacity and versatility of life on Earth, as well as an understanding of the molecular systems that some organisms utilize to survive such extremes, will provide a critical foundation for the search for life beyond Earth.[51]

Chemical element requirements

All life forms require certain core chemical elements needed for biochemical functioning. This list of core life elements usually includes carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur—the "Big Six" elemental macronutrients for all organisms[57] —often represented by the acronym CHNOPS. Together these make up nucleic acids, proteins and lipids, the bulk of living matter.

However, alternative hypothetical types of biochemistry have been proposed which eliminate one or more of these elements, swap out an element for one not on the list, or change required chiralities or other chemical properties. For example, the recently discovered GFAJ-1 bacteria in Mono Lake, California apparently is able to substitute arsenic for phosphorus, which is toxic to most forms of life.[58][59]

Classification of life

Main article: Biological classification
LifeDomainKingdomPhylumClassOrderFamilyGenusSpecies
The hierarchy of biological classification's eight major taxonomic ranks. Life is divided into domains, which are subdivided into further groups. Intermediate minor rankings are not shown.

Traditionally, people have divided organisms into the classes of plants and animals, based mainly on their ability of movement. The first known attempt to classify organisms was conducted by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BC). He classified all living organisms known at that time as either a plant or an animal. Aristotle distinguished animals with blood from animals without blood (or at least without red blood), which can be compared with the concepts of vertebrates and invertebrates respectively. He divided the blooded animals into five groups: viviparous quadrupeds (mammals), birds, oviparous quadrupeds (reptiles and amphibians), fishes and whales. The bloodless animals were also divided into five groups: cephalopods, crustaceans, insects (which also included the spiders, scorpions, and centipedes, in addition to what we now define as insects), shelled animals (such as most molluscs and echinoderms) and "zoophytes." Though Aristotle's work in zoology was not without errors, it was the grandest biological synthesis of the time and remained the ultimate authority for many centuries after his death.[60]

The exploration of the American continent revealed large numbers of new plants and animals that needed descriptions and classification. In the latter part of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th, careful study of animals commenced and was gradually extended until it formed a sufficient body of knowledge to serve as an anatomical basis for classification.

In the late 1740s, Carolus Linnaeus introduced his method, still used, to formulate the scientific name of every species.[61] Linnaeus took every effort to improve the composition and reduce the length of the many-worded names by abolishing unnecessary rhetoric, introducing new descriptive terms and defining their meaning with an unprecedented precision. By consistently using his system, Linnaeus separated nomenclature from taxonomy. This convention for naming species is referred to as binomial nomenclature.

The fungi were originally treated as plants. For a short period Linnaeus had placed them in the taxon Vermes in Animalia. He later placed them back in Plantae. Copeland classified the Fungi in his Protoctista, thus partially avoiding the problem but acknowledged their special status.[62] The problem was eventually solved by Whittaker, when he gave them their own kingdom in his five-kingdom system. As it turned out, the fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants.[63]

As new discoveries enabled us to study cells and microorganisms, new groups of life were revealed, and the fields of cell biology and microbiology were created. These new organisms were originally described separately in protozoa as animals and protophyta/thallophyta as plants, but were united by Haeckel in his kingdom protista, later the group of prokaryotes were split off in the kingdom Monera, eventually this kingdom would be divided in two separate groups, the Bacteria and the Archaea, leading to the six-kingdom system and eventually to the current three-domain system.[64] The classification of eukaryotes is still controversial, with protist taxonomy especially problematic.[65]

As microbiology, molecular biology and virology developed, non-cellular reproducing agents were discovered, such as viruses and viroids. Sometimes these entities are considered to be alive but others argue that viruses are not living organisms since they lack characteristics such as cell membrane, metabolism and do not grow or respond to their environments. Viruses can however be classed into "species" based on their biology and genetics but many aspects of such a classification remain controversial.[66]

Since the 1960s a trend called cladistics has emerged, arranging taxa in an evolutionary or phylogenetic tree. It is unclear, should this be implemented, how the different codes will coexist.[67]

Linnaeus
1735[68] 		Haeckel
1866[69] 		Chatton
1925[70] 		Copeland
1938[62] 		Whittaker
1969[71] 		Woese et al.
1990[64] 		Cavalier-Smith
1998,[72] 2015[73]
2 kingdoms 3 kingdoms 2 empires 4 kingdoms 5 kingdoms 3 domains 2 empires,
6/7 kingdoms
(not treated) Protista Prokaryota Monera Monera Bacteria Bacteria
Archaea Archaea (2015)
Eukaryota Protoctista Protista Eucarya "Protozoa"
"Chromista"
Vegetabilia Plantae Plantae Plantae Plantae
Fungi Fungi
Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia Animalia

Extraterrestrial life

Main articles: Extraterrestrial life and astrobiology
Panspermia hypothesis

Earth is the only planet in the universe known to harbor life. The Drake equation, which relates the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy with which we might come in contact, has been used to discuss the probability of life elsewhere, but scientists disagree on many of the values of variables in this equation. Depending on those values, the equation may either suggest that life arises frequently or infrequently.

The region around a main sequence star that could support Earth-like life on an Earth-like planet is known as the habitable zone. The inner and outer radii of this zone vary with the luminosity of the star, as does the time interval during which the zone will survive. Stars more massive than the Sun have a larger habitable zone, but will remain on the main sequence for a shorter time interval during which life can evolve. Small red dwarf stars have the opposite problem, compounded with higher levels of magnetic activity and the effects of tidal locking from close orbits. Hence, stars in the intermediate mass range such as the Sun may possess the optimal conditions for Earth-like life to develop. The location of the star within a galaxy may also have an impact on the likelihood of life forming.

Panspermia, also called exogenesis, is a hypothesis proposing that life originated elsewhere in the universe and was subsequently transferred to Earth in the form of spores perhaps via meteorites, comets or cosmic dust. However, this hypothesis does not help explain the ultimate origin of life.

cT5D=[ is a total noob at life and he can never stop being a noob, unless he goes on a quest to find the replacement noob. This said, he is in 89RGT and will come and beg for you to take his place. STAY AWAY FROM HIMj[onifkutlyi¿'&:T{V

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Koshland Jr, Daniel E. (March 22, 2002). "The Seven Pillars of Life". Science. 295 (5563): 2215–2216. doi:10.1126/science.1068489. PMID 11910092. Retrieved 2009-05-25.
  2. ^ The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition, published by Houghton Mifflin Company, via Answers.com:
    • "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."
    • "The characteristic state or condition of a living organism."
  3. ^ Definition of inanimate. WordNet Search by Princeton University.
  4. ^ "Merriam-Webster Dictionary". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved 2009-06-21.
  5. ^ "organism". Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (online ed.). 1999.
  6. ^ SEP
  7. ^ SEP
  8. ^ Ibidem
  9. ^ Aristotle, De Anima, Book II
  10. ^ Introduction to Ancient Philosophy, Don Marietta, p. 104.
  11. ^ Defining Life : Astrobiology Magazine - earth science - evolution distribution Origin of life universe - life beyond
  12. ^ Defining Life, Explaining Emergence
  13. ^ "Can We Define Life". Colorado Arts & Sciences. 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-22.
  14. ^ a b c McKay, Chris P. (September 14, 2004). "What Is Life—and How Do We Search for It in Other Worlds?". PLoS Biol. 2 (2(9)): 302. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020302. PMC 516796. PMID 15367939. Retrieved 2010-02-02.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  15. ^ Nealson KH, Conrad PG (December 1999). "Life: past, present and future" (PDF). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 354 (1392): 1923–39. doi:10.1098/rstb.1999.0532. PMC 1692713. PMID 10670014.
  16. ^ Davison, Paul G. "How to Define Life". The University of North Alabama. Retrieved 2008-10-17.
  17. ^ Korzeniewski, Bernard (2001). "Cybernetic formulation of the definition of life". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 2001 April 7. 209 (3) pp. 275–86.
  18. ^ 2004, "Autonomous Agents", in John D. Barrow, P.C.W. Davies, and C.L. Harper Jr., eds., Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology, and Complexity, Cambridge University Press.
  19. ^ Gerald Francis Joyce, "The RNA World: Life Before DNA and Protein".
  20. ^ Rybicki, EP (1990). "The classification of organisms at the edge of life, or problems with virus systematics". S Aft J Sci. 86: 182–186.
  21. ^ Holmes EC (October 2007). "Viral evolution in the genomic age". PLoS Biol. 5 (10): e278. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050278. PMC 1994994. PMID 17914905. Retrieved 2008-09-13.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  22. ^ Koonin EV, Senkevich TG, Dolja VV (2006). "The ancient Virus World and evolution of cells". Biol. Direct. 1: 29. doi:10.1186/1745-6150-1-29. PMC 1594570. PMID 16984643. Retrieved 2008-09-14.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  23. ^ Rybicki, Ed (November 1997). "Origins of Viruses". Retrieved 2009-04-12.
  24. ^ Schrödinger, Erwin (1944). What is Life?. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-42708-8.
  25. ^ Margulis, Lynn (1995). What is Life?. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-22021-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  26. ^ Lovelock, James (2000). Gaia – a New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286218-9.
  27. ^ Avery, John (2003). Information Theory and Evolution. World Scientific. ISBN 9812383999.
  28. ^ "BIOPHYSICS: DEFINITION OF LIFE AND BRIEF EXPLANATION OF EACH TERM". Biology Cabinet. September 29, 2006. Retrieved 2009-07-22. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. ^ Woodruff, T. Sullivan (October 8, 2007). Planets and Life: The Emerging Science of Astrobiology. Cambridge University Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Cleland and Chyba wrote a chapter in Planets and Life: "In the absence of such a theory, we are in a position analogous to that of a 16th-century investigator trying to define 'water' in the absence of molecular theory." [...] "Without access to living things having a different historical origin, it is difficult and perhaps ultimately impossible to formulate an adequately general theory of the nature of living systems".
  30. ^ "Patterns, Flows, and Interrelationship". 2002. Retrieved 2009-06-27. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
  31. ^ GAIA - A new look at life on Earth. James Lovelock 1979. pp. 10. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286030-5.
  32. ^ Lovelock, J.E. (1965). "A physical basis for life detection experiments". Nature. 207 (7): 568–570. doi:10.1038/207568a0.
  33. ^ Geophysiology
  34. ^ GAIA - A new look at life on Earth. James Lovelock. 1979. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286030-5.
  35. ^ Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life. Rosen, Robert. November, 1991. ISBN 978-0-231-07565-7
  36. ^ "The Ecosystemic Life Hypothesis". Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. April 2002. Retrieved 2009-08-28. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help)
  37. ^ Morowitz, Harold J. (1992) "Beginnings of Cellular Life: Metabolism Recapitulates Biogenesis". Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-05483-1
  38. ^ A Third Window: Natural Life Beyond Newton and Darwin, Templeton Foundation Press (2009) ISBN 1-59947-154-X
  39. ^ "History of life through time". University of California Museum of Paleontology.
  40. ^ Coveney, Peter V.; Philip W. Fowler. "Modelling biological complexity: a physical scientist's perspective". Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2005. 2 (4) pp. 267–280. doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0045
  41. ^ Senapathy, Periannan, Independent Birth of Organisms, Madison, WI. Genome Press, 1994.
  42. ^ Eigen, Manfred, Steps Towards Life: A Perspective on Evolution (German edition, 1987), Oxford University Press, 1992. p 31.
  43. ^ a b Barazesh, Solmaz, How RNA Got Started: Scientists Look for the Origins of Life, Science News, May 13, 2009.
  44. ^ Watson, James D., Prologue: Early Speculations and Facts about RNA Templates, p. xv-xxiii, The RNA World, R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, Eds., Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993.
  45. ^ Gilbert, Walter, The RNA world, p 618 v 319, Nature, 1986.
  46. ^ Cech, Thomas R., A model for the RNA-catalyzed replication of RNA, p 4360-4363 v 83, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., USA, 1986.
  47. ^ Powner, Matthew W., Béatrice Gerland and John D. Sutherland, Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions, Nature 459, 239-242 (14 May 2009).
  48. ^ Szostak, Jack W., Origins of life: Systems chemistry on early Earth, Nature 459, 171-172 (14 May 2009).
  49. ^ Lincoln, Tracey A. and Gerald F. Joyce, Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme, Science 27 February 2009: Vol. 323, No. 5918, pp. 1229–1232, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856.
  50. ^ Joyce, Gerald F., Evolution in an RNA World, Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol sqb.2009.74.004; Published in Advance August 10, 2009, doi:10.1101/sqb.2009.74.004.
  51. ^ a b c d e Rothschild, Lynn (September, 2003). "Understand the evolutionary mechanisms and environmental limits of life". NASA. Retrieved 2009-07-13. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  52. ^ King, G.A.M. (April, 1977). "Symbiosis and the origin of life". Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. 8 (1): 39–53. doi:10.1007/BF00930938. Retrieved 2010-02-22. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  53. ^ Margulis, Lynn (2001). The Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution. London, England: Orion Books Ltd. ISBN 0-75380-785-8.
  54. ^ Douglas J. Futuyma (1992). Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology: Symbiosis in evolution. Vol. 8. London, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 347–374. ISBN 0-19-507623-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  55. ^ "Essential requirements for life". CMEX-NASA. Retrieved 2009-07-14.
  56. ^ a b Chiras, Daniel C. (2009). Environmental Science – Creating a Sustainable Future.
  57. ^ New Link in Chain of Life, Wall Street Journal, 2010-12-03, accessed 2010-12-05. "Until now, however, they were all thought to share the same biochemistry, based on the Big Six, to build proteins, fats and DNA."
  58. ^ "NASA reveals bacteria that can live on arsenic instead of phosphorus". The Guardian. 2010-12-2. Retrieved 2010-12-2. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
  59. ^ Felisa Wolfe-Simon; et al. (2010). "A bacterium that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus". Science. doi:10.1126/science.1197258. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  60. ^ "Aristotle -biography". University of California Museum of Paleontology. Retrieved 2008-10-20.
  61. ^ Knapp S, Lamas G, Lughadha EN, Novarino G (April 2004). "Stability or stasis in the names of organisms: the evolving codes of nomenclature". Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences. 359 (1444): 611–22. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1445. PMC 1693349. PMID 15253348.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  62. ^ a b Copeland, H.F. (1938). "The Kingdoms of Organisms". Quarterly Review of Biology. 13 (4): 383. doi:10.1086/394568. Cite error: The named reference "Copeland1938" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  63. ^ Whittaker RH (January 1969). "New concepts of kingdoms or organisms. Evolutionary relations are better represented by new classifications than by the traditional two kingdoms". Science. 163 (863): 150–60. doi:10.1126/science.163.3863.150. PMID 5762760.
  64. ^ a b Woese, C.; Kandler, O.; Wheelis, M. (1990). "Towards a natural system of organisms:proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 87 (12): 4576–9. Bibcode:1990PNAS...87.4576W. doi:10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576. PMC 54159. PMID 2112744.
  65. ^ Adl SM, Simpson AG, Farmer MA; et al. (2005). "The new higher level classification of eukaryotes with emphasis on the taxonomy of protists". J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 52 (5): 399–451. doi:10.1111/j.1550-7408.2005.00053.x. PMID 16248873. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  66. ^ Van Regenmortel MH (January 2007). "Virus species and virus identification: past and current controversies". Infection, genetics and evolution: journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases. 7 (1): 133–44. doi:10.1016/j.meegid.2006.04.002. PMID 16713373.
  67. ^ Pennisi E (March 2001). "Taxonomy. Linnaeus's last stand?". Science. 291 (5512). New York, N.Y.: 2304–7. doi:10.1126/science.291.5512.2304. PMID 11269295.
  68. ^ Linnaeus, C. (1735). Systemae Naturae, sive regna tria naturae, systematics proposita per classes, ordines, genera & species.
  69. ^ Haeckel, E. (1866). Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Reimer, Berlin.
  70. ^ Chatton, É. (1925). "Pansporella perplexa. Réflexions sur la biologie et la phylogénie des protozoaires". Annales des Sciences Naturelles - Zoologie et Biologie Animale. 10-VII: 1–84.
  71. ^ Whittaker, R. H. (January 1969). "New concepts of kingdoms of organisms". Science. 163 (3863): 150–60. Bibcode:1969Sci...163..150W. doi:10.1126/science.163.3863.150. PMID 5762760.
  72. ^ Cavalier-Smith, T. (1998). "A revised six-kingdom system of life". Biological Reviews. 73 (3): 203–66. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1998.tb00030.x. PMID 9809012. S2CID 6557779.
  73. ^ Ruggiero, Michael A.; Gordon, Dennis P.; Orrell, Thomas M.; Bailly, Nicolas; Bourgoin, Thierry; Brusca, Richard C.; Cavalier-Smith, Thomas; Guiry, Michael D.; Kirk, Paul M.; Thuesen, Erik V. (2015). "A higher level classification of all living organisms". PLOS ONE. 10 (4): e0119248. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1019248R. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119248. PMC 4418965. PMID 25923521.

Further reading

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Tree of life.
Wikiquote has quotations related to Life.
Look up life or living in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikispecies has information related to The Taxonomy of Life.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Life&oldid=401023337"