A minimal or concise set of definition of life is not useful.

Trifonov’s interesting analysis (1) appeared to have highlighted a minimal set of popular vocabulary in the literature that constitutes a “concise and inclusive definition” for life. Defined as such, “Life is self-reproduction with variations”. The linguistic and philosophical worth of the paper notwithstanding, its scientific value is, however, questionable. This minimized definition of life misses out on an important property, namely life’s capacity for integrating chemical processes that sustains the living entity’s low entropy (i.e., metabolism). Importantly, the definition has no bearings on the origin of life (2-6), and ignored the myriad of possible transitions from a collection of abiotic chemical reactions to a form that could be subjected to Darwinian selection (7, 8). Though undoubtedly “concise” enough, it is far from being “inclusive”.