Living vs. Non-living and the use of energy by living systems.?
351846
Living things use, store, and emit energies and other chemical compounds; non-living things don't.  Living organsims burn off 90% of all the energy that it intakes and only 10% turns into other muscle tissue or is stored for further usage.  So if a bird eats ten fish then only abou 1 of those fish's nutrients will make up the bird's mass and be stored the other 9 fish's nutrients will be burned in daily activities.  At least I'm pretty sure that's how it is.
903593
Crystal Energy et Active H\n\nSouriez à la vie et la vie vous sourira. ^---^
729900
1. plants can make their own food while animals depend on the othe living things.\n\n2. plants needed carbon dioxide to live while animals need oxygen.\n\n3. plants and animals have cells in them while nonliving things have atoms in them.\n\n4. living things undergo stages of development while nonliving things do not.\n\n5. living things multiply while nonliving things do not.\n\n6. living things contains DNA(deoxyribonucleic acid).\n\n7. living things have lives.
192285
If you want me to use those specific terms it sounds like you're going to just copy what I write for your assignment.  I'd be happy to explain the process to you, by I'm not going to write your homework paper.\n\nThe idea is that plants produce food using energy from the sun, and all other life either directly eats plants or eats things that eat plants.  So all life (except some protists, that, like plants, can make their own food) lives on energy that the plants have harvested from the sun.\n\nI hope you already know what the laws of thermodynamics, photosynthesis, and respiration are.  If not, pay more attention in class or look them up on Wikipedia.  You should be able to figure out how to phrase the explaination in a way that uses those terms on your own.
802733
Plants DO breathe oxygen, the same way we do. Respiration is the most effective energy producing process there is.\nPlants, however, can perform another process (photosynthesis) in which they take up CO2 and use the energy of sunlight to build up sugars and starches from this CO2. THEN they can use these starches in the process of respiration, the same way we do (we take sugars and "use" oxygen to take out the energy contained in them)\nSo the only difference betwen us and plants is that they make their own fuel out of CO2 , but we must eat it. But we both breathe oxygen in order to get the energy out of it.\nAs to why the don't breathe hydrogen... you'd have to ask god.... but normally when hydrogen combines with things it requires energy instead of giving rise to it, so it wouldn't be too advantageous\nSo it's not that we produce the CO2 so plants can live. Plants could live without animals, we're the parasites here hehehehe
51227
a heterotroph obtains energy from food it consumes. This is opposed to an autotroph which obtains energy directly (such as a plant absorbing light energy).
659409
viruses are considered non-living because they do not meet all the criteria of the generally accepted definition of life.\n\nalso, viruses are not typically considered to be organisms because they are not capable of independent reproduction or metabolism. this controversy is problematic, though, since some parasites and endosymbionts are incapable of independent life either. \n\nhowever, according to the united states code, viruses are considered to be microorganisms in the sense of biological weaponry and malicious use.\n\nso, in essence... \n\nif you follow the united states code that considers viruses as microorganisms, then the viruses which has rna as their genetic material are the only organisms with rna genome.
1105028
read this\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
24105
The sun provides energy to living organisms of the Earth.  There are autrophs and heterotrophs.  Autotrophs (like plants) use sunlight to turn CO2 and Water, which cannot be further oxidized as fuel into GLucose, which can be burned by a cell as a source of fuel.  Low rung food chain heterotrophs eat autotrophs (these are herbivores) and get their calories (food is a source of chemical potential energy) from the glucose (and some other chemicals) made by autotrophs.  \n\nHigher level heterotrophs eat the lower level heterotrophs, getting their calories from proteins and fats of the herbivores they are eating.  The calories contained in the proteins and fats of the herbivores is derived from the calories of the autotrophs.  In essence, the calories from food on this planet are derived from energy from sunlight that plants have converted to chemical form.
619522
Lower level that is energy of producers. We get 100% energy from lower level but as level goes up energy level decreases due consumption of energy.
567479
Problem is that energy is needed to fight entropy. These atomic particles you refer to are indivisible (under ordinary conditions) but the complex molecules that they are a part of come apart if there is no energy put into the system to keep them together. \n\nAn organism is a really, really complicated system for keeping a certain level of organization. When the organism dies, it can't put energy in anymore and it starts to unravel.
137892
In a sense, the biosphere (the "layer" of the planet that includes all living beings) is a living creature. It's a complex biological system and it has homeostatic (balance-keeping) mechanisms that maintain life as we know it, while it continues to evolve.\nJames Lovelock, an environmentalist and researcher, is the author of the "Gaia Theory". In the 1970s he proposed the hypothesis that the Earth behaves as if it were a superorganism, made up from all the living things and their non-living environment. He argued that many global phenomena are controlled by the interaction of biological, chemical and physical processes. \nIn this sense, the Earth (Gaia, the name of the Greek goddess of the Earth) is alive. Lovelock's ideas have contributed a new view to the study of biosphere complexity. Read "The ages of Gaia" if you can, it's an enjoyable book! \nEven if you don't agree with this idea, I think it's beautiful, and could help people to realize the importance of taking care of our planet.
990256
Non-living. It cannot reproduce by itself, cannot regulate homeostasis, depends/hijacks other hosts for reproduction. It's mostly leftover/waste DNA of some bacteria/protist that ejects their DNA into the air with a protein capsule to reproduce, although this didn't work.
347168
Energy that enters the system from the surroundings.
198232
Respiration, Reproduction, Locomotion and Consumption
713725
Well, that's very interesting cuz if u think about it, if it's NOT alive but creates life (plants) than how could something dead create life???  How long could earth possibly live/survive without that glorious light?  Is the earth alive? Hmmmmmmmmmmm\n\nVery thought provoking, I'll have to put this question on my watch list!  It is an eternal source of power tho (like God).  So my answer must be yes than:o]
658556
The accepted fact of energy conservation. Energy cannot be born or destroyed just reshaped. Everything has mass, mass is made of matter, matter is made of energy. And since energy cannot be destroyed or created in the first place there has to be a source of energy how else could energy come to exist. That energy is the building blocks of the cosmos. now how could energy become energy out of nothing if there was no source to create it? \n\nAlso one is the chances of creation coming to existence in the beggining there is absolutely nothing. Then more or less the chances of creation coming into existence would be one one hundrenth over infinity (since nothing existed) yet how come the universe existed if there was no powerful intelligent force to back it up?\n\nAnd about life. could life suddenly materialize out of non-life? as some evolutionists (Evolution dying science)propose so? If so how could non-life turn into life if there was no intelligent desing behind it?\n\n\nThe Theory of evolution is a lie. Creationism defeats evolution. Let me explain: Science has proven that DNA is the building blocks of life, and all scientists agree that DNA is material that stores information on the creation of an entity. micro-Evolution has been proven, but macro as in: "Massive modifications on a large scale?". Evolutionists argue that since everything evovled from bacteria you have to consider this fact. DNA is programmed to produce the same amount and quality of DNA they are born with. Then Why does the genetic code of the bacteria has significantly less genetic input as compared to that of the human's this proves the falcity of genetic evolution from bacteria to current day human. In all experiments with evolution. it is obeserved that creatures mutate only by shuffling or rearanging their genetic structure. think of it as Hyper Active Malnurished Albino chiwawa has a genetic structure of A-G-H-I then the mutation occurs and her oofsrping is a Hyper Active Malnurished Dehydrated Chiwawa, it has a genetic structure of A-G-H-I they are both the same creatures but only the latter "evolved" but never was it observed the a mutation had produced extra genetic code. so if a bacteria has only 10000 units in its genetic materia how come somthing as simple as a plant has x 10 more genetic materia if no intelligent being had put the extra materia there in the first place. since DNA is so complex even one modification to a molecule can tottally change the product ie: instead of a butterfly it's now a moth how could we have so much diverse and stalble life forms if everything evovled from an ameoba?  Religion was right, GOD does exist, science is only publicizing this now.