Talk:Biological immortality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article originally created by RJII (DEC 1 2004)
Contents |
[edit] Marketing sites
The link to neo-tech.com does not seem to be a scientific document. It is more a religious/philsophical document. It may be written by a scientist but how does that relate to the strict scientific definition that this page is run through? Ansell 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's just an external link. What's the big deal? It's about the philosophical and business side of biological immortality. I see no reason to remove it. RJII 18:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The point was that the article reads as a scientific article. And that wikipedia is not an advertising site for companies, especially when there products are so unrelated to the site. There is no need to have their special philsophical POV to be able to discuss the scientific ramifications of biological immortality. As there is no need to have their business advertised in the links. Ansell 22:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Invincibility and Immortality
The point of the comments restricting the meaning of immortality is to make it clear that the "immortality" is being used by biologists in a narrow sense. --Ben Best 22:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- The comment made for the reverted change by User:66.191.144.82 [1] was "Immortality should not be confused with Invincibility, being immortal does not make one invincible",yet the phrases deleted from the article were phrases that emphasized this very point. --Ben Best 22:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- The typical dictionary definition of immortality (such as Wiktionary:Immortality) is quite terse, such as "The condition of not being susceptible to death". As this does not indicate any particular causes of death to which the described is not susceptible, it could be assumed, under a strict reading, that an immortal being could not be killed through any means. However, as definitions of immortality are frequently vague, and more explicit terms such as "invincible" and "invulnerable" exist, which state that the described cannot be destroyed, wounded, or injured, the term "immortal" is most commonly understood to mean that the described will not die of natural causes. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a word in the English language that is frequently defined "cannot be killed by any means". In any case, while "immortal" could be considered to be so defined, it is generally not. Thus, the sentence 'Any "immortal" cell or organism can be killed by physical destruction.' seems redundant. On first reading it, I thought, as I'm sure our anonymous contributor 66.191.144.82 also did, "Of course it could still be killed, it's only immortal, not invincible!". -- Rablari Dash 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, "biological immortality" is a technical term referring to cell biology and the phenomenon of escaping cellular senescence (often by telomerase). It is a poorly designed piece of jargon, and leads to lots of misunderstanding, including in this Wikipedia article. This point was made slightly more clear when I did a re-write of the article in October 2005, but I could have done a better job then, and the point is now lost. Suggestions? Should I try another re-write? --Ben Best 03:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- The typical dictionary definition of immortality (such as Wiktionary:Immortality) is quite terse, such as "The condition of not being susceptible to death". As this does not indicate any particular causes of death to which the described is not susceptible, it could be assumed, under a strict reading, that an immortal being could not be killed through any means. However, as definitions of immortality are frequently vague, and more explicit terms such as "invincible" and "invulnerable" exist, which state that the described cannot be destroyed, wounded, or injured, the term "immortal" is most commonly understood to mean that the described will not die of natural causes. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a word in the English language that is frequently defined "cannot be killed by any means". In any case, while "immortal" could be considered to be so defined, it is generally not. Thus, the sentence 'Any "immortal" cell or organism can be killed by physical destruction.' seems redundant. On first reading it, I thought, as I'm sure our anonymous contributor 66.191.144.82 also did, "Of course it could still be killed, it's only immortal, not invincible!". -- Rablari Dash 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cancer Cells Immortal?
Aren't cancer cells immortal? I remember this from biology class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.154.61 (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, like other cells they either die in the traditional way or divide into two new cells (which some people consider an immortality of sorts.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.119.187 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First "Citation Needed" comment on page
Why is a citation required for the statement that any cell or organism is capable of being destroyed physically? This is very obviously true. To take an example, any physical object with substructure may be destroyed by excessive heat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
