"one set of creatures" = life on earth

 

"another set of creatures" = extra-terrestrial life that we know nothing about

 

All you have done is (again) described criteria for life on earth. Every single organism you mentioned exists on this planet. Transformers aren't terrestrial life forms and therefore aren't applicable.

Yes, it is applicable. Life on Earth does not just mean creatures. It means everything—all living things on the planet. Creatures refers only to fauna; to animals, not plants, not fungi, not microbes, only animals.

You're evading the point. I also used the word "organism"; you can use that term if you prefer.

Secondly, Those same set of criteria was used to determine if fossils found on Mars was life—extraterrestrial life. The seven criteria for life is not just for life as we know it. It is for life of any form. There is a difference.

That makes no sense. You can't use those criteria to analyze fossils (and it is highly unlikely that they are fossils in the first place). Astrobiologists look for biosignatures to determine whether or not a given stone might contain an imprint of a fossil. I would like to see you cite your reference for that claim.

You need to have a single set of universal criteria to determine of something is a life form or not. The set of seven criteria listed is that set. Without such criteria, we could say that anything is a life form, or that nothing is. There would be no agreement over what is or is not life. The seven criteria for life is applicable to all living things regardless of their composition, shape, or form.

And our only frame of reference by which these rules were determined is life on earth. We don't have any standard other than what we know. We have no way of knowing, and we don't know. We might assume that life on other planets would be similar to life on earth, but we could be completely wrong. Which we would only find out if we actually encountered any extra-terrestrial life. Until then, our definitions are limited to terrestrial life.

Hey Tramp.

Transformers have been said to be alive due to them having Sparks...their souls, if you which to call it that. This is why they are considered alive since Beast Wars/Beast Machines. I don't see why you'd need to think past this into the ability to reproduce. We are told they have Sparks and they are alive. What more do you need? We know they are alive because of Sparks and we've seen them brought to life via Vector Sigma and the Matrix. We've been told and have seen them being built on assembly lines, in workshops, and by characters like Wheeljack and Ratchet (in the G1 cartoon). They are built like robots, cause they are. They are alive cause they have Sparks, the life force of Cybertronians. So do we really need to think more about whether they are alive or not because they can or can not reproduce through sex? We are told they are alive, we've seen them be built like a regular robot. Do we need more?

Yes, we do. We have also been told that they have other methods of creating new life besides building protoforms. Secondly, building new transformers is nor reproduction, and if that were their only form of bringing forth new "life" then they would not be true life forms, which, according to canon, they are. There is more to it than just their sparks. Their sparks is only part of it.

So they don't fit in what we call life forms. Okay. This doesn't mean they aren't living in the sense of having a "soul", thinking for themselves, and having full sentience. It just means they don't fit the word life form sicne they don't meet that one criteria.

 

But have you ever sat back and thought maybe the writers could only think up a word to use to get across the fact they are alien robots who think and feel so they just pulled out "life forms", and didn't give it a second thought afterwords? Cause it is a kids' property overall. I think that word choice was just easy to use and easy to get across whether it was scientifically accurate or not. Either way - the Transformers are sentient beings beyond our basic comprehension. Plus I doubt Megatron and his Decepticons really give a damn if we think they fit our scientific term "life form" when they are blowing us up.

Having a "soul" does not constitute being a life form. Plants don't have souls. Microbes don't have souls. Souls are not scientifically provable to begin with, which is why they aren't part of the criteria. You don't need a soul to be a life form. You do need to be capable of reproduction—of procreation—to be a life form

 

"one set of creatures" = life on earth

 

"another set of creatures" = extra-terrestrial life that we know nothing about

 

All you have done is (again) described criteria for life on earth. Every single organism you mentioned exists on this planet. Transformers aren't terrestrial life forms and therefore aren't applicable.

Yes, it is applicable. Life on Earth does not just mean creatures. It means everything—all living things on the planet. Creatures refers only to fauna; to animals, not plants, not fungi, not microbes, only animals.

You're evading the point. I also used the word "organism"; you can use that term if you prefer.

Secondly, Those same set of criteria was used to determine if fossils found on Mars was life—extraterrestrial life. The seven criteria for life is not just for life as we know it. It is for life of any form. There is a difference.

That makes no sense. You can't use those criteria to analyze fossils (and it is highly unlikely that they are fossils in the first place). Astrobiologists look for biosignatures to determine whether or not a given stone might contain an imprint of a fossil. I would like to see you cite your reference for that claim.

You need to have a single set of universal criteria to determine of something is a life form or not. The set of seven criteria listed is that set. Without such criteria, we could say that anything is a life form, or that nothing is. There would be no agreement over what is or is not life. The seven criteria for life is applicable to all living things regardless of their composition, shape, or form.

And our only frame of reference by which these rules were determined is life on earth. We don't have any standard other than what we know. We have no way of knowing, and we don't know. We might assume that life on other planets would be similar to life on earth, but we could be completely wrong. Which we would only find out if we actually encountered any extra-terrestrial life. Until then, our definitions are limited to terrestrial life.

 

All life as we know it is carbon based organic life that requires water to survive. However, those two criteria are not necessary for classification of life. They are simply indicitive of life as we know it here on Earth. The seven criteria is for all life. We have to have a single accepted set of criteria. The set of seven criteria listed near the beginning of this thread is accepted by the scientific community as necessary for something to be classified as a life form. It is our only criteria.

 

These seven criteria are not just for a single life form to survive, but for the species as a whole and the continuation of life as a whole. Life needs to perpetuate from one life to the next; from one generation to the next. It has to pass on and continue from parent(s) to offspring. That is why reproduction is necessary for something to be classified as life. If Cybertronians are completely incapable of procreation and must build new members to create new Cybertronians, then they aren't life forms. That is because you aren't passing life on from one generation to the next, you are simply building machines. If we accept that Transformers are indeed life forms, then we must accept that they are capable of natural reproduction, and if they are capable of natural reproduction, then the fact that they are male and female—that they have genders—and the fact that there is evidence of gender pairings, courtship and family units consisting of mothers, fathers and children, we have to conclude that they are capable of some form of sexual repoduction. Just because they are mechanical in origin, does not discount these simple truths.

As far as the Martian fossils go, they are fossils according to this article

here.

Spark = life... but then again its cartoon logic isnt it?

 

Transformers are not life forms. They are children's toys, drawings and CGI models. i hate to be the one to break this but, Santa aint real either... What you're doing Tramp, is debating something with as much meaning as "Does Santa Claus have a magic bag or does he freeze time?"

Hey Tramp.

Transformers have been said to be alive due to them having Sparks...their souls, if you which to call it that. This is why they are considered alive since Beast Wars/Beast Machines. I don't see why you'd need to think past this into the ability to reproduce. We are told they have Sparks and they are alive. What more do you need? We know they are alive because of Sparks and we've seen them brought to life via Vector Sigma and the Matrix. We've been told and have seen them being built on assembly lines, in workshops, and by characters like Wheeljack and Ratchet (in the G1 cartoon). They are built like robots, cause they are. They are alive cause they have Sparks, the life force of Cybertronians. So do we really need to think more about whether they are alive or not because they can or can not reproduce through sex? We are told they are alive, we've seen them be built like a regular robot. Do we need more?

Yes, we do. We have also been told that they have other methods of creating new life besides building protoforms. Secondly, building new transformers is nor reproduction, and if that were their only form of bringing forth new "life" then they would not be true life forms, which, according to canon, they are. There is more to it than just their sparks. Their sparks is only part of it.

So they don't fit in what we call life forms. Okay. This doesn't mean they aren't living in the sense of having a "soul", thinking for themselves, and having full sentience. It just means they don't fit the word life form sicne they don't meet that one criteria.

 

But have you ever sat back and thought maybe the writers could only think up a word to use to get across the fact they are alien robots who think and feel so they just pulled out "life forms", and didn't give it a second thought afterwords? Cause it is a kids' property overall. I think that word choice was just easy to use and easy to get across whether it was scientifically accurate or not. Either way - the Transformers are sentient beings beyond our basic comprehension. Plus I doubt Megatron and his Decepticons really give a damn if we think they fit our scientific term "life form" when they are blowing us up.

Having a "soul" does not constitute being a life form. Plants don't have souls. Microbes don't have souls. Souls are not scientifically provable to begin with, which is why they aren't part of the criteria. You don't need a soul to be a life form. You do need to be capable of reproduction—of procreation—to be a life form

You didn't even acknowledge what I said at all. You just restated the same thing you've been saying for the whole thread. I wasn't arguing over them being alive in the definition of "life forms", but being alive in the sense they are sentient and having what is effectively a soul. I'm saying - put life form as a term aside and look at it. They still view themselves as alive and damn sure seem to be so.

All life as we know it is carbon based organic life that requires water to survive. However, those two criteria are not necessary for classification of life. They are simply indicitive of life as we know it here on Earth. The seven criteria is for all life. We have to have a single accepted set of criteria. The set of seven criteria listed near the beginning of this thread is accepted by the scientific community as necessary for something to be classified as a life form. It is our only criteria.

Just because that's all we have to go on doesn't give it a free pass or make it a universally applicable standard. ("universal" referring to "the universe") My entire point is that that's all we have to go on. And how did we determine these seven criteria you mention so often? Through observing life on earth.

These seven criteria are not just for a single life form to survive, but for the species as a whole and the continuation of life as a whole. Life needs to perpetuate from one life to the next; from one generation to the next. It has to pass on and continue from parent(s) to offspring. That is why reproduction is necessary for something to be classified as life. If Cybertronians are completely incapable of procreation and must build new members to create new Cybertronians, then they aren't life forms. That is because you aren't passing life on from one generation to the next, you are simply building machines. If we accept that Transformers are indeed life forms, then we must accept that they are capable of natural reproduction, and if they are capable of natural reproduction, then the fact that they are male and female—that they have genders—and the fact that there is evidence of gender pairings, courtship and family units consisting of mothers, fathers and children, we have to conclude that they are capable of some form of sexual repoduction. Just because they are mechanical in origin, does not discount these simple truths.

These "simple truths" were not arrived at by observing mechanical life, because we have never encountered it before. You are assuming the conclusion. You already believe that Transformers can reproduce sexually. That is bad science. Good science starts with no foregone conclusions and lets the evidence dictate the direction. You are starting with a flawed premise that only makes sense if you accept your conclusion to start with! That's the worst kind of logic. All you are ever going to be able to do is state and restate the same arguments, because you have nothing else besides your own bias. This is a joke.

As far as the Martian fossils go, they are fossils according to this article

here.

That article is a bit out of date, FYI

 

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/oppor...res_040211.html

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/17/creature.features/

As far as the Martian fossils go, they are fossils according to this article

here.

That article is a bit out of date, FYI

 

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/oppor...res_040211.html

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/17/creature.features/

 

Wow, Pete just put someone in his place using SCIENCE :tflaugh

Full circle.

As far as the Martian fossils go, they are fossils according to this article

here.

That article is a bit out of date, FYI

 

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/oppor...res_040211.html

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/17/creature.features/

 

Wow, Pete just put someone in his place using SCIENCE :tflaugh

Full circle.

*uses the INTERNET!!!1!!*

It's very clear where agreement parts ways.

1. Reproduction. Tramp asserts this is a universal prerequisite for meeting the definition of "life". Others do not.
   
2. Gender and sex. Tramp holds they are the same; that the sole purpose of it is for procreation, and is thus so with TFs. It seems most of the rest of us think otherwise.
   

I don't see the point of further debate over details that deviate further from the topic.

 

So, Tramp. Let's assume your explanation of TF reproduction is correct. How exactly does this work? A mommy TF and a daddy TF "interface" and produce some self-spawning nanite?

Yes, please include detailed dioramas... for scientific purposes of course... *ahem*

I prefer the non-sexual reproduction route, with Transformers using budding or apomixis as method of reproduction.