Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 166 of 185 (420927)
09-10-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by riVeRraT
09-10-2007 10:28 AM


quote:
Tell me, what are the odds that this universe exists, our planet formed, and we came about, and then became intelligent enough to understand what we are made of? Don't you find that a little against the odds? Your the math person. What are the real odds that we are even having this conversation?
The odds of any one particular thing happening are astronomical.
For example, the odds of you, specifically, being born to your parents is astronomical.
The odds of something happening are very good.
For example, the odds of any child being born to your parents are much better.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by riVeRraT, posted 09-10-2007 10:28 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 167 of 185 (421331)
09-12-2007 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by riVeRraT
09-10-2007 10:20 AM


Re: You beat me to it!
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
I thought the whole purpose of AL, was to show that life can happen on it's own?
Of course. That's why you're getting such a bizarre response: You have said that until we can clap our hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear, it isn't "life" but instead is a "biological machine."
What we're trying to tell you is that it doesn't matter how. Whether it's god zap-poofing it into existence or humans using test tubes, it's still "life." If the end products are identical, then they are the same thing.
quote:
If we are not replicating just how that can happen on it's own, then we aren't proving that much.
But we are replicating. The problem is that you are claiming that the process by which the end product is made has some sort of effect upon what the end product is. This is why I keep asking you if the vending machine cares if your quarter comes from the Denver mint as opposed to the Philadelphia mint.
If not, then it doesn't matter how it's made: They're both "quarters."
And thus, it doesn't matter how it's made: They're both "life."
quote:
If anything, it only proves even more that it takes ID to make life.
Incorrect. Are you saying that humans are physically altering the intermolecular bonds with tiny electromagnetic calipers to individually place atoms?
Suppose I take two moles of hydrogen gas and one mole of oxygen gas, mix them at STP, and spark the mixture. What, specifically, makes the hydrogen and oxygen molecules split apart and rebond as water? It certainly isn't humans doing it since the entire process of the chemical reaction is happening inside a container in which there are no humans.
So if it isn't humans, how is it happening? Are you saying that god comes down and personally, deliberately, and consciously rearranges the atoms?
Or does it happen on its own?
This is the question that never gets answered:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
If the reaction does happen on its own, then it isn't "intelligent design." No, the fact that humans brought the chemicals together is irrelevant. The reaction takes place because of a physical condition, not because of mere will. We do not "will" the molecules to react. They do so on their own.
Therefore, because humans don't actually rearrange individual intermolecular forces, any life that humans create is not "intelligently designed." It is, however, chemically created.
And it is "life," just as if god had zap-poofed it into existence for life does not care where the chemicals come from. There is no "Lovingly Made by God in Heaven" stamp on the back. There is no "Genuine Life" hologram stuck to it.
quote:
quote:
But you reject the truth when it conflicts with your faith. Why?
I haven't rejected anything said here.
You have said that you will not be satisfied unless and until humans can clap their hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear. Thus, you reject the scientific conclusion that life is independent of origin.
Question: How are viruses made? One way that we knew how they were made for a long time is that they hijack the replication process of a cell to replicate themselves.
But then we figured out how to make them without the need for a cell. Phage will self-assemble. All you have to do is put the right chemicals together and stir.
Is the phage that we create chemically not really phage since it wasn't created inside of a cell? You have said that life created chemically isn't really "life" but instead is a "biological machine."
What's the difference? Why does the process affect what the product IS? Nothing in science indicates this and, in fact, science comes to the exact opposite conclusion: The end product is not dependent upon the way in which it comes into being. A water molecule is a water molecule is a water molecule.
Are you saying that a water molecule exhaled from your lungs is different from a water molecule created in the Orion nebula?
quote:
quote:
You don't accept observable events?
You can accept the fact that you witnessed an event, but just exactly how or why, remains to be seen.
But we've observed the how and why. Ergo, why do you not accept them?
quote:
Plus many people see things that are either not there, or really didn't happen the way they thought it did.
That's what peer review is for. It's why cold fusion has never been accepted: Nobody else has ever been able to replicate the results.
You have taken the methodical skepticism that is the heart of the process of science to philosophical ridiculousness. Instead of treating observations as being made with integrity, even if they might be incomplete and misinterpreted, you are implying that they are made with malice aforethought, as if those who report them are deliberately making false statements or at the very least are incompetent fools.
quote:
Magic is a good example.
And that's why you run experiments to control for outside forces. Why do you think Randi so often rails against those who attempt to test for psychic powers without consulting with professional magicians who will be able to assist them in detecting fraud? And why is it, do you think, that when those who claim magical powers never seem to be able to perform under rigorously controlled circumstances?
Go ahead and claim that it's magic. Just don't be upset when we demand that you put the magical force into the box to be poked and prodded. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, and especially if we are able to achieve the outcome without resorting to "and then a miracle occurs," then why should we accept "magic" as a necessary ingredient?
But in the end, here's the most important part:
If you don't think the explanation that we have is accurate, you have to show why. And if you are going to claim that it's really this other explanation, you really have to show why. It is not sufficient to cross your arms in a huff and say, "Well, you can't observe everything, so you don't really KNOW that that's the way it happens," and pretend that you've actually said something profound.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by riVeRraT, posted 09-10-2007 10:20 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2007 7:39 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 168 of 185 (421332)
09-12-2007 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by riVeRraT
09-10-2007 10:21 AM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
You keep asking me, and Catholic scientist, what the difference is between the two, yet you keep stating the difference.
But that isn't a difference. You seem to be saying that the process by which something comes into being has an effect on what it is. The two have the exact same properties in every way no matter how you would examine it, but because the process by which one came into being is different from the other, that means they aren't the same thing.
So once again, I ask you directly and I really wish you would give a simple, one-word answer:
Yes or no: Does a vending machine care if the quarter you put in it was made at the Denver mint as opposed to the Philadelphia mint?
Because if it's no, then that means that the process by which something comes into existence has no effect upon what it is. They are both the same thing. And your claim that somehow what humans make chemically and what god zap-poofs into existence are different is belied.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by riVeRraT, posted 09-10-2007 10:21 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2007 7:43 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 169 of 185 (421333)
09-12-2007 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by riVeRraT
09-10-2007 10:28 AM


riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:
If I take water, lemons, and sugar, and blend them together in the right amounts, I can "create" lemonade. Big deal
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? How is that not a big deal? Before, there wasn't any lemonade. Now there is. How does his lemonade differ from lemonade created any other way? Why does the process by which something comes into existence affect what it is?
quote:
the chemicals already existed for that to happen.
So? It is irrelevant where the chemicals came from.
quote:
Did I really "create it"?
Of course. There wasn't any lemonade before. There is lemonade now. Thus, it was created by you.
quote:
Tell me, what are the odds that this universe exists, our planet formed, and we came about, and then became intelligent enough to understand what we are made of?
Exactly 1. We're here, aren't we?
You aren't about to try and pull the "It's so statistically impossible that it couldn't ever have happened on its own!" piece of crap, are you? We've been through this mulitple times, riVeRraT. Why do you keep forgetting? Here are the various things you are pretending you've never encountered.
1) Suppose I have a standard deck of 52 cards. I draw a card.
What is the probability of me having drawn the Ace of Spades?
What is the probability of me having drawn an Ace?
What is the probability of me having drawn a Spade?
What is the probability of me having drawn a black card?
What is the probability of me having drawn a card?
Until you define your parameters, there is no way to calculate the probability.
2) Suppose I have a dartboard. I have n darts. The probability of me hitting the bullseye with any given dart is 1/n.
What is the probability of me hitting the bullseye as the number of darts goes to infinity and thus the probability of hitting on any given dart goes to zero?
3) Back to the cards. Suppose I have a standard deck of 52 cards and I draw one.
What is the probability of me having drawn the Ace of Spades?
What if we know that I've drawn a black card?
What if we know that I've drawn a Spade?
What if we know that I've drawn an Ace?
What if we know that I've drawn a black Ace?
quote:
Don't you find that a little against the odds? Your the math person. What are the real odds that we are even having this conversation?
No, I don't find it against the odds at all. It is not surprising that live in a universe that can support the current moment exactly as it is in all detail because where else could it possibly take place? Again, we've been through this. The argument from the Anthropic Principle has long since been rejected as nothing more than sophistry.
A boy asks his father, "Daddy, why is the sky blue."
The father responds, "Because if it were green, we would ask, 'Why is the sky green?'"
Now surely you aren't saying that the universe was specifically and deliberately created with the Ideal Gas Law in order to have a planet with an atmosphere that scatters light in a particular pattern so that a specific set of organisms can exist that speak a particular language where the phonetic string /hwai Iz skai grin/ can be used as an interrogative concerning the peculiarities as to the coloration of the visual heavens in daylight, are you?
Because if the universe was "designed" so that humans could exist, then it was "designed" specifically so that people would speak English.
quote:
I am not saying that this whole concept of making artificial life doesn't amaze me, because it does. Let's wait and see how far it goes, and what we can benefit from it.
But you're the one claiming that it isn't life. So if it isn't "life," what is it? And how could you possibly tell that it is if all you have is an example of it?
Why does the process by which something comes into being have any effect on what it is?
Edited by Rrhain, : Fixed my IPA

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by riVeRraT, posted 09-10-2007 10:28 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2007 8:04 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 170 of 185 (423202)
09-20-2007 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Rrhain
09-12-2007 3:38 AM


Re: You beat me to it!
All good points rrhain. I get it, really I do. But I am not as educated on it as you.
So when you ask, does anything really happen on it's own, aren't you asking a bigger question?
Don't we have to wonder why, any of this can happen, and does?
It sure makes me believe that there will be life elsewhere in the universe, but it doesn't dampen my belief in God, since I don't really take Genesis so literal.
I still find it so amazing that life can arise, and evolve, then study itself, and wonder where it came from.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2007 3:38 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 171 of 185 (423204)
09-20-2007 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Rrhain
09-12-2007 3:46 AM


But that isn't a difference. You seem to be saying that the process by which something comes into being has an effect on what it is.
Well it does, in a matter of speaking.
But more specifically, I am saying it matters, because forcibly putting together the elements of life, does not prove that life happens on its own. Everything has to be there first, in order for it to happen.
When we clone things, it appears to be the same, but then it's not.
BTW, water is not life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2007 3:46 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by molbiogirl, posted 09-20-2007 11:36 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 172 of 185 (423205)
09-20-2007 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Rrhain
09-12-2007 4:15 AM


(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? How is that not a big deal? Before, there wasn't any lemonade. Now there is. How does his lemonade differ from lemonade created any other way? Why does the process by which something comes into existence affect what it is?
Lemonade is not life, your confusing to different thoughts again.
So? It is irrelevant where the chemicals came from.
No, thats my point. You seem to think that it is.
I could take pipe made in America, and put together a boiler, or I could take pipe made in China, and put together a boiler. There the same right? No they are not. The pipe made in China will not last as long, and sometimes, it even has holes in it from the start.
It matters where everything comes from. If it didn't then you wouldn't mind buying a car made in China, or having me put in cheap Chinese pipe in your basement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2007 4:15 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by molbiogirl, posted 09-20-2007 11:29 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 09-20-2007 11:33 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 176 by Rob, posted 09-24-2007 12:47 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 09-24-2007 6:00 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 173 of 185 (423222)
09-20-2007 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by riVeRraT
09-20-2007 8:04 AM


Lemonade is not life, your confusing to different thoughts again.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
I could take pipe made in America, and put together a boiler, or I could take pipe made in China, and put together a boiler. There the same right? No they are not.
Molecules are structurally, functionally, chemically the same, whether "natural" or "manufactured".
Please offer evidence to the contrary, should you have any.
I would prefer cites from scientific literature.
You can search here or here to find the relevant literature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2007 8:04 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 174 of 185 (423223)
09-20-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by riVeRraT
09-20-2007 8:04 AM


riVeRraT writes:
It matters where everything comes from.
Not at the molecular level it doesn't. A water molecule made in China is exactly the same as a water molecule made in America.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2007 8:04 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 175 of 185 (423224)
09-20-2007 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by riVeRraT
09-20-2007 7:43 AM


...because forcibly putting together the elements of life,
We do not "forcibly" put anything together.
We re create the conditions of a prebiotic Earth and sit back and watch. Should you have any further questions about "forcibly" concocting prebiotic structures, I suggest you take a look at the Murchison Meteor Questions.
RAZD is wrestling Rob over adenine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2007 7:43 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 176 of 185 (423721)
09-24-2007 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by riVeRraT
09-20-2007 8:04 AM


a molecule is not always a molecule...
riVeRraT writes:
It matters where everything comes from.
Definetely!
Check out the issue of chiralty. Manufactured (non-biological) amino acids exhibit what is called racemic mixtures. Biological amino acids are chiral.
There is a difference. Your inner voice serves you better than you serve him. Follow the white rabbit and find out how deep the rabbit hole goes... The reality is disturbing. Your opponents here likely understand that about the molecules in question. To understand their sanctioned tactics, you must read elsewhere ( Read post 31 in it's entirety: http://EvC Forum: AdminNosy banned? -->EvC Forum: AdminNosy banned? ).
They're going for your jugular. And appearently, any mistake will be turned into a political advantage.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by riVeRraT, posted 09-20-2007 8:04 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Wounded King, posted 09-24-2007 2:13 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 09-24-2007 10:09 AM Rob has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 177 of 185 (423726)
09-24-2007 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Rob
09-24-2007 12:47 AM


Re: a molecule is not always a molecule...
They're going for your jugular. And appearently, any mistake will be turned into a political advantage.
I find that being wrong is quite a real disadvantage in any debate, not merely a political disadvantage.
chiralty
Oh and while you're about it learn to spell this bloody word! Its Chirality.
Is there any point pointing out that there have been plenty of chiral asymmetry breaking possibilities suggested on multiple threads on this forum? Because you still seem to be moaning on about it despite being given several plausible pathways.
If you prefer the voices in your hea telling you you are right rather than actually being right then you might fell righteous and self satisfied, but you are never going to convince anyone else you have a clue what you are talking about.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Rob, posted 09-24-2007 12:47 AM Rob has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 178 of 185 (423782)
09-24-2007 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Rob
09-24-2007 12:47 AM


Re: a molecule is not always a molecule...
Thanks Rob, Wounded King just proves your point.
I guess most people here then, wouldn't mind if I put Chinese pipe fittings in there $7000 boiler. I am in over my head on this subject, but there are some common sense questions that can be asked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Rob, posted 09-24-2007 12:47 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by molbiogirl, posted 09-24-2007 10:15 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 180 by Wounded King, posted 09-24-2007 10:16 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 182 by Rob, posted 09-24-2007 8:40 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 179 of 185 (423784)
09-24-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by riVeRraT
09-24-2007 10:09 AM


Rob, take your chirality questions to the appropriate thread.
RR, can you support your contention that a water molecule created in the lab is chemically, structurally, or functionally different from one that is natural?
Or are you just going to continue with your bare assertions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 09-24-2007 10:09 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by riVeRraT, posted 09-27-2007 11:42 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 180 of 185 (423785)
09-24-2007 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by riVeRraT
09-24-2007 10:09 AM


The Willowtree gambit
I'm interested to note all of the creationists are now disappearing up their own orifices with the Ray Martinez like logic that anyone disagreeing with them just automatically proves them right.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by riVeRraT, posted 09-24-2007 10:09 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024