
as big as life
[Middle English, from Old English līf.]
| lieutenant, lien, lie | |
| life cycle, lifelong, livelong, lifestyle |
| LiNQ, Lewis Lett, Letters to Live Poets | |
| Lilley's Magazine, Literary Awards, Literary Criterion |
For more information on life, visit Britannica.com.
noun
Idioms beginning with life:
life is too short
life of the party
See also bet one's ass (life); big as life; breathe new life into; bring to life; change of life; charmed life; come alive (to life); dog's life; facts of life; for dear life; for the life of; get a life; good life; late in life; lay down (one's life); lead a double life; matter of life and death; new lease on life; not on your life; of one's life; once in a lifetime; prime of life; risk life and limb; run for it (one's life); staff of life; story of my life; take someone's life; to save one's life; to the life; true to (life); variety is the spice of life; walk of life; while there's life there's hope; you bet (your life).
Definition: animation
Antonyms: death, inanimacy, inanimate object, nonexistence
1. A cellular-automata game invented by John Horton Conway and first introduced publicly by Martin Gardner (Scientific American, October 1970); the game's popularity had to wait a few years for computers on which it could reasonably be played, as it's no fun to simulate the cells by hand. Many hackers pass through a stage of fascination with it, and hackers at various places contributed heavily to the mathematical analysis of this game (most notably Bill Gosper at MIT, who even implemented life in TECO!). When a hacker mentions ‘life’, he is much more likely to mean this game than the magazine, the breakfast cereal, or the human state of existence. Many web resources are available starting from the Open Directory page of Life. The Life Lexicon is a good indicator of what makes the game so fascinating.
In biblical thought the Commandments of God to man form a "tree of life" (Prov. 3:18) and through loving God and heeding His commandments the Jew "shall have life and shall long endure" (Deut. 30:20). God also presents the human being with the choice between life and good on the one hand and death and evil on the other, and enjoins him to "choose life that you and your seed shall live" (Deut. 30:15-19).
The words in Leviticus 18:5 "to live by them [i.e., the commandments]" are interpreted in rabbinic teaching to mean that God's commandments are to be a means of life, not destruction, for His children. Therefore, with the exception of three prohibitions (idolatry, bloodshed, and sexual license), all commandments of the law may be violated if life is endangered.
While one is alive, every effort must be made to enhance life, both in its physical and spiritual dimension. The destruction of a single life (Sanh. 4:5) is considered tantamount to the destruction of the whole world, just as the saving of a life is the saving of an entire world. Although the Bible defines the desecration of the Sabbath as a capital crime, Pikku'Aḥ Nefesh (the saving of a life) supersedes the Sabbath commandments. In the same spirit, insuring the health of the mother and infant during childbirth or feeding a sick person on the Day of Atonement is more important than the observance of any of the commandments. These acts are not merely desirable, they are required by Jewish law.
Thanksgiving for the beauty and sanctity of life is expressed in Benedictions to be recited on various occasions. Rav's comment on the last verse of Psalms, "Let everything that breathes praise the Lord," is that "we must thank God for every fragrant breath that we breathe."
See also Death; Resurrection; Soul, Immortality of.
The Bible's central concern and main issue is the paramount importance of life, and how to maintain and sanctify it.
The underlying concept for the biblical view of life is the creation of man in God's image (Gen 1:26). God breathed into the nostrils of the man the breath of life and man thereby became a living being (Gen 2:7). By this divine act man was set apart from all other creatures, to stand only a step lower than the angels (Ps 8:5). The divine likeness serves man, not to achieve immortality, but to attain sanctity; nevertheless, having been created in the divine image, one of man's prime tasks is the preservation of life. Since life is a divine gift, no one has the right to take either his own life or that of others (Ex 20:13; Deut 5:17).
Life in the biblical sense means to live according to God's way (imitatio Dei) which can be summarized in the command "You shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy" (Lev 19:2). In the Psalms and Proverbs, life is clearly connected with the observing of the commandments of God's laws: "keep my commands and live" (Prov 4:4; 7:2). To prolong one's life, it is required to fear the Lord (Prov 10:27). Prolongation of days is granted to all those who keep God's statutes and commandments (Deut 6:2). The Torah itself is seen as "a tree of life to those who take hold of her: and happy are all who retain her" (Prov 3:18).
Trust in God who sustains the world is likewise a basic theme in the NT: "Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing ?" (Matt 6:25; cf Luke 12:22-23). In the NT, as in contemporary rabbinic literature, life is seen in the double dimension: in this world and in the world to come (Matt 16:25; Mark 8:35; John 6:26-58; 8:12).
For the Gospel According to John, more abundant life for the believer is the whole goal of the coming of Jesus (John 10:10). It is the greatest existential theme of the entire gospel (John 20:31). Resurrection, eternal life and faith in Christ are closely related (John 11:25-26). According to Paul, Gentiles can fill their lives with the hope of salvation, which consists of being raised together with Christ (I Cor 15:23-28; I Thes 5:15-17, 23). While Christians await God's son (I Thes 1:10), they have the Holy Spirit manifest in spiritual gifts (Gal 5:22-26). Paul urges the Christians to remain pure and blameless until the Day of the Lord (I Cor 6:11). The messianic aspect of waiting actively by living according to God's will is common to both Jewish and Christian traditions.
Life, American weekly illustrated magazine, launched by Henry Luce (1898-1967) on 23 November 1936, with a cover picture of the Fort Peck Dam in Montana by Margaret Bourke-White. Luce had already founded Time (1923) and Fortune (1930), and created Sports Illustrated in 1954. After heavy initial losses Life began to make a profit in 1939, when its circulation was c.2 million; by 1960 it was 6 million. In December 1972 publication was suspended, although Life appeared as an annual until 1978, then monthly 1978-2000, finally expiring in May 2000.
Life was the 20th century's most famous magazine, and a model for countless others. It developed the photo-essay to a fine art and published work by many of the world's finest photojournalists. Its ‘concept’ was a mixture of entertainment and improvement, informed by belief in a society based on optimism, patriotism, cooperation, and enterprise. Luce's confidence that this ‘middle-American’ model could be extended worldwide was expressed in his essay ‘The American Century’ in Life on 17 February 1941. Significantly, many Life photographers were represented in Steichen's Family of Man exhibition in 1955.
As Erika Doss has argued, it is probably too simple to blame Life's decline simply on the rise of television, although the diversion of advertising revenue to TV weakened its finances. There was also competition from a new generation of niche magazines, and friction within the organization: many photographers, including Robert Capa and W. Eugene Smith, resented the often high-handed editorial treatment of their work, and the management's support for Richard Nixon in 1972 enraged employees. Most fundamental, however, was perhaps the fact that Luce's original vision of an integrated liberal society did not, or had ceased to, correspond to reality.
— Amanda Hopkinson/Robin Lenman
Bibliography
|
|
|
| Joe Cocker |
| Library of Congress | |
| Lipton tea |
From our Archives: Today's Highlights, May 20, 2009
Characteristics of Life
Organization is found in the basic living unit, the cell, and in the organized groupings of cells into organs and organisms. Metabolism includes the conversion of nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and the decomposition of organic matter (catalysis), producing energy. Growth in living matter is an increase in size of all parts, as distinguished from simple addition of material; it results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. Irritability, or response to stimuli, takes many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals; in plants response is usually much different than in animals but is nonetheless present. Adaptation, the accommodation of a living organism to its present or to a new environment, is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity. The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction; usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
The Basis of Life
Much of the history of biology and of philosophy as related to biology has been marked by a division of thought between vitalistic (or animistic) and mechanistic (or materialistic) concepts. In the most antithetic interpretations of these concepts, the vitalistic school maintains that there is a vital force that distinguishes the living from the nonliving and the mechanistic school holds that there is no essential difference between the animate and inanimate and that all life can be explained by physical and chemical laws. Such diametrically opposed views have actually seldom been held by investigators of either school; elements of both are usually involved. The animistic school, largely predicated on the inexplicability of the basic phenomena of life, has been greatly overshadowed by the accumulating weight of scientific data. As more and more is learned of the minute details of the structure and composition of the substances that make up the cell (to the extent that some have been synthesized chemically), it has become increasingly apparent that living matter is made up of the same (and only those) elements found in inorganic material, except that they are differently organized.
The Origin of Life
Fundamental religious concepts center around special creation and belief in the infusion of life into inanimate substance by God or another superhuman entity. On the other hand, many scientists have hypothesized that during an early geological period there gradually formed in the atmosphere increasingly complex organic substances composed of available inorganic compounds and water, utilizing ultraviolet rays and electrical discharges as energy sources. At a certain stage they formed a diffuse solution of "nutrient broth." Then in some way they were drawn together and developed the capacity for self-renewal and self-reproduction. In 1953, S. L. Miller synthesized several of the most basic amino acids in a glass flask by introducing an electrical discharge into an atmosphere of water vapor and some simple compounds thought to have been present naturally at the time when life first developed on earth. A more recent theory now widely held is that life originated in a volcanic setting more than 3.5 billion years ago, perhaps in hot deep-sea vents, utilizing a biochemistry based largely on sulfur and iron. The theory that life on earth came in a simple form from another planet has had small currency, although the discovery by Melvin Calvin of molecules resembling genetic material in meteors has given it some force.
Bibliography
See M. Calvin, Chemical Evolution (1969); E. Borek, The Sculpture of Life (1973); N. D. Newell, Creation and Evolution (1985); S. W. Fox and K. Dose, Molecular Evolution and the Origins of Life (3d ed. 1990); R. Fortey, Life (1998).
n.
A spiritual pickle preserving the body from decay. We live in daily apprehension of its loss; yet when lost it is not missed. The question, "Is life worth living?" has been much discussed; particularly by those who think it is not, many of whom have written at great length in support of their view and by careful observance of the laws of health enjoyed for long terms of years the honors of successful controversy.
"Life's not worth living, and that's the truth,"
Carelessly caroled the golden youth.
In manhood still he maintained that view
And held it more strongly the older he grew.
When kicked by a jackass at eighty-three,
"Go fetch me a surgeon at once!" cried he.
Han Soper

| Life (Biota / Vitae / Eobionti) | |
|---|---|
| Plants in the Rwenzori Mountains, Uganda | |
| Scientific classification |
|
| Domains and kingdoms | |
|
Life on Earth: |
Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) 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][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.
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.
|
Contents
|
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 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 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.[11] This so-called Wöhler synthesis is considered the starting point of modern organic chemistry. It is of 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.
It is still a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[12][13][14] Defining life is difficult—in part—because life is a process, not a pure substance.[15] 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 life on Earth.[16]
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:[15][17]
To reflect the minimum phenomena required, some have proposed other biological definitions of life:[18]
Viruses are most often considered replicators rather than forms of life. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life,"[28] since they possess genes, evolve by natural selection,[29] 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.[30][31]
Biophysicists have also commented on the nature and qualities of life forms—notably that they function on negative entropy.[32][33] 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).[34][35][36]
Some scientists have proposed in the last few decades that a general living systems theory is required to explain the nature of life.[37] 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.[38]
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.[39] The Gaia hypothesis, originally proposed in the 1960s by scientist James Lovelock,[40][41] explores the idea that the life on Earth functions as a single organism which defines and maintains environmental conditions necessary for its survival.[42]
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."[43]
A systems view of life treats environmental fluxes and biological fluxes together as a "reciprocity of influence",[44] 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.[45] 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.[46]
Evidence suggests that life on Earth has existed for about 3.7 billion years,[47] with the oldest traces of life found in fossils dating back 3.4 billion years.[48] 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.[49]
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 and then proteins.[50] Another possibility is that proteins came first and then genes.[51] 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.[52] Therefore, many scientists consider the possibility, apparently first suggested by Francis Crick,[53] that the first life was based on the DNA-protein intermediary: RNA.[52] 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[54] even before the catalytic properties of RNA had been demonstrated by Thomas Cech.[55]
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.[56] This study makes the RNA-first hypothesis more plausible to many scientists.[57]
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.[58] 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."[59] Such experiments make the possibility of a primordial RNA World even more attractive to many scientists.
Recent findings by NASA, based on studies with meteorites found on Earth, suggests DNA and RNA components (adenine, guanine and related organic molecules) may also be formed extraterrestrially in outer space.[60][61][62][63]
The diversity of life on Earth today is a result of the dynamic interplay between genetic opportunity, metabolic capability, environmental challenges,[64] and symbiosis.[65][66][67] 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.[64] 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.[64]
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.[68] 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."[69] 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.[69]
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.[64] 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.[64] In this regard, on 26 April 2012, scientists reported that lichen survived and showed remarkable results on the adaptation capacity of photosynthetic activity within the simulation time of 34 days under Martian conditions in the Mars Simulation Laboratory (MSL) maintained by the German Aerospace Center (DLR).[70][71]
All life forms require certain core chemical elements needed for biochemical functioning. These include carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur— the elemental macronutrients for all organisms[72] — often represented by the acronym CHNOPS. Together these make up nucleic acids, proteins and lipids, the bulk of living matter.
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.
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.[73]
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.[74] 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.[75] 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.[76]
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.[77] The classification of eukaryotes is still controversial, with protist taxonomy especially problematic.[78]
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.[79]
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.[80]
| Linnaeus 1735[81] 2 kingdoms |
Haeckel 1866[82] 3 kingdoms |
Chatton 1925[83][84] 2 empires |
Copeland 1938[75][85] 4 kingdoms |
Whittaker 1969[86] 5 kingdoms |
Woese et al. 1977[87][88] 6 kingdoms |
Woese et al. 1990[77] 3 domains |
Cavalier-Smith 2004[89] 6 kingdoms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (not treated) | Protista | Prokaryota | Monera | Monera | Eubacteria | Bacteria | Bacteria |
| Archaebacteria | Archaea | ||||||
| Eukaryota | Protoctista | Protista | Protista | Eukarya | Protozoa | ||
| Chromista | |||||||
| Vegetabilia | Plantae | Plantae | Plantae | Plantae | Plantae | ||
| Protoctista | Fungi | Fungi | Fungi | ||||
| Animalia | Animalia | Animalia | Animalia | Animalia | Animalia |
Earth is the only planet 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.[citation needed]
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. In October 2011, scientists found that the cosmic dust permeating the universe contains complex organic matter ("amorphous organic solids with a mixed aromatic-aliphatic structure") that could be created naturally, and rapidly, by stars.[90][91][92] As one of the scientists noted, "Coal and kerogen are products of life and it took a long time for them to form ... How do stars make such complicated organics under seemingly unfavorable conditions and [do] it so rapidly?"[90] Further, the scientist suggested that these compounds may have been related to the development of life on earth and said that, "If this is the case, life on Earth may have had an easier time getting started as these organics can serve as basic ingredients for life."[90]
Death is the permanent termination of all vital functions or life processes in an organism or cell.[93][94] After death, the remains of an organism become part of the biogeochemical cycle. Organisms may be consumed by a predator or a scavenger and leftover organic material may then be further decomposed by detritivores, organisms which recycle detritus, returning it to the environment for reuse in the food chain.
One of the challenges in defining death is in distinguishing it from life. Death would seem to refer to either the moment at which life ends, or when the state that follows life begins.[95] However, determining when death has occurred requires drawing precise conceptual boundaries between life and death. This is problematic, however, because there is little consensus over how to define life. The nature of death has for millennia been a central concern of the world's religious traditions and of philosophical inquiry. Many religions maintain faith in either some kind of afterlife or reincarnation for the soul, or resurrection of the body at a later date.
Extinction is the gradual process by which a group of taxa or species dies out, reducing biodiversity.[96] The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of that species. Because a species' potential range may be very large, determining this moment is difficult, and is usually done retrospectively after a period of apparent absence. Species become extinct when they are no longer able to survive in changing habitat or against superior competition. Over the history of the Earth, over 99% of all the species that have ever lived have gone extinct;[97] however, mass extinctions may have accelerated evolution by providing opportunities for new groups of organisms to diversify.[98]
Fossils are the preserved remains or traces of animals, plants, and other organisms from the remote past. The totality of fossils, both discovered and undiscovered, and their placement in fossil-containing rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata) is known as the fossil record. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than the arbitrary date of 10,000 years ago.[99] Hence, fossils range in age from the youngest at the start of the Holocene Epoch to the oldest from the Archaean Eon, up to 3.4 billion years old.[100][101]
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Tree of life |
| Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Life |
| Look up life or living in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. |
| Wikispecies has information related to: The Taxonomy of Life |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Dansk (Danish)
n. - liv, livet, levevis, livsførelse, levned, tilværelse, levnedsløb, livsløb, menneskeliv, levnedsbeskrivelse, biografi
idioms:
Nederlands (Dutch)
leven, leefwijze, (recht van) bestaan, levensduur, draaglijk leven, animus, wezen, organisme, levenskans, animerende kracht, kabaal, (auto)biografie, levenslang aanslaan (motor), plotseling beginnen te werken
Français (French)
n. - vie, durée, vivant (de qn), plein de vie/d'entrain, boute-en-train, plein d'animation
adj. - à vie, vital
idioms:
Deutsch (German)
n. - Leben, Lebensbeschreibung, Lebensdauer, (ugs.) lebenslängliche Freiheitsstrafe
adj. - lebens-
idioms:
Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - ζωή, βίος, βιογραφία, ζωντάνια, (μτφ.) ισόβια κάθειρξη
adj. - ζωής, σωσίβιος, ζωικός
idioms:
Italiano (Italian)
vita, modo di vivere, chiasso, perpetuo
idioms:
Português (Portuguese)
n. - vida (f), vivacidade (f), duração (f), vigência (f)
adj. - de vida, perpétuo, permanente
idioms:
Русский (Russian)
жизнь, живые существа, образ жизни, жизненный
idioms:
Español (Spanish)
n. - existencia, ser, vida, duración, manera de vivir, animación, vitalidad, biografía, vigencia, validez
adj. - de la vida, vitalicio, vital
idioms:
Svenska (Swedish)
n. - liv, livstid, livslängd, levnad, levnadslopp, varaktighet, bestånd, löptid, tillvaro, levnadssätt, leverne, livsföring, liv (och rörelse), (i kricket) "liv", chans, levnadsteckning, levnadsbeskrivning, biografi, (konst.) natur, verklighet, levande modell, naturlig storlek
adj. - liv-
中文(简体)(Chinese (Simplified))
生活, 人生, 生命
idioms:
中文(繁體)(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 生活, 人生, 生命
idioms:
한국어 (Korean)
n. - 생명, 수명, 생물, 생활 방식, 인생
idioms:
日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 生命, 生存, 一生, 寿命, 人生, 世間, 生物, 伝記, 生活, 実物, 実物大, 活気, 救い, 被保険者, 新鮮さ
int. - これは驚いた
idioms:
العربيه (Arabic)
(الاسم) حياة, عيشه, سيرة ترجمه حيه, عمر, معيشه رزق, كائن حي وبخاصه شخص, مبدأ أو قوة محييه, حيويه, روح, فرصه أخرى تمنح لشخص محتمل أن يخسر (صفه) ذو علاقه بكائن حي, دائم مدى الحياة, مستعمل نموذجا حيا في تعليم الرسم, متعلق بالتأمين على الحياة, نابض بالحياة, شديد الشبه بالأصل
עברית (Hebrew)
n. - חיים, נפש, חיות, מודל חי (בציור), פעילות, מאסר עולם, נוכחות או פעילות של יצורים חיים, תקופת החיים, דרך חיים
If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.