A sterile mule or a post-reproductive organism cannot contribute to Darwinian evolution yet remains paradigmatically alive, constituting a direct counterexample to NASA's definition.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Darwinian evolution(as used in biology and philosophy of science): The scientific theory, developed by Charles Darwin, that living things change and develop over time through a process called natural selection, where organisms best suited to their environment survive and pass on their traits to offspring.
NASA's definition(as used in philosophy of biology): A formal definition of what counts as 'life' that NASA created for scientific purposes, likely emphasizing reproduction and evolution as key characteristics of living things.
Paradigmatically alive(as used in philosophy of biology): A clear, textbook example of something that is living—the kind of thing everyone would agree is definitely alive (like a person, animal, or plant).
Post-reproductive organism(as used in biology and philosophy of life): A living thing that can no longer reproduce or create offspring, such as a person or animal that is too old to have children.

Based on where you are in your exploration