|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it | |||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
The only thing I am worried about is if their so called "life" is successful, will it run amok? (7 messages later)
Tell me something, if this life made in a petri dish, never reproduces, or evolves, is it life? Which is it, rat? I don't know what it will be, I am not the one working on it. I am just asking question, to discuss. This really isn't a big deal for me. I don't have a problem with it. I also have no clue why you seem to be arguing with me over it.
AL will eat, "breathe", move, reproduce. By even the most rudimentary definition, this constitutes life. And it will evolve (insertions, deletions, point mutations, etc.). After all, nobody's perfect, not even AL. That will be interesting to see. Now if it does do all that, then that is evidence that we were designed, lol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Now if it does do all that, then that is evidence that we were designed, lol. No. That will be evidence that, given the periodic chart, random chance alone will produce life. It was inevitable. Given the initial conditions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
The Bible deosn't do such a good job at clarifying for us whether God made everything from nothing, or just the first thing from nothing. Doesn't the bible say that God spoke the world into existance?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I'm going to have to step in here.
This isn't a discussion about god. Please address the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
No. That will be evidence that, given the periodic chart, random chance alone will produce life. It was inevitable. Given the initial conditions. Look, they are designing life, they are not randomly putting together life. We already know with much authority, that the elements exist on this planet for life to exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
So.
You concede abiogenesis? And you concede ...
... they aren't making life from scratch, like God did. ... that this isn't true? btw. FYI.
The RNA World model for prebiotic evolution posits the selection of catalytic/template RNAs from random populations. The mechanisms by which these random populations could be generated de novo are unclear. Non-enzymatic and RNA-catalyzed nucleic acid polymerizations are poorly processive, which means that the resulting short-chain RNA population could contain only limited diversity. Nonreciprocal recombination of smaller RNAs provides an alternative mechanism for the assembly of larger species with concomitantly greater structural diversity; however, the frequency of any specific recombination event in a random RNA population is limited by the low probability of an encounter between any two given molecules. This low probability could be overcome if the molecules capable of productive recombination were redundant, with many nonhomologous but functionally equivalent RNAs being present in a random population. Here we report fluctuation experiments to estimate the redundancy of the set of RNAs in a population of random sequences that are capable of non-Watson-Crick interaction with another RNA. Parallel SELEX experiments showed that at least one in 106 random 20-mers binds to the P5.1 stem-loop of Bacillus subtilis RNase P RNA with affinities equal to that of its naturally occurring partner. This high frequency predicts that a single RNA in an RNA World would encounter multiple interacting RNAs within its lifetime, supporting recombination as a plausible mechanism for prebiotic RNA evolution. The large number of equivalent species implies that the selection of any single interacting species in the RNA World would be a contingent event, i.e., one resulting from historical accident. I am proud to say ... this is my mentor's work. Dr. Frank Schmidt. Frequency of RNA-RNA interaction in a model of the RNA WorldJOHN C. STRIGGLES, MATTHEW B. MARTIN and FRANCIS J. SCHMIDT Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given. Edited by molbiogirl, : typo Edited by molbiogirl, : typo again! Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Si! Correcto!
Schoolbus es mas macho que lightbulb. Gracias. And we'll be back in un momento.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
You concede abiogenesis? No, and I do not concede God. I believe in God. There is a big difference between a biological machine, and life. Sounds like they are just about to scratch the surface, we will see what comes about. Either way, they are designing it, and engineering it. God spoke the universe into existence (according to the bible), I don't think we will ever be able to do that. What God did from there, or how we came about, whether it be evolution, or from the breath of God, it really doesn't matter to me. It is interesting to discuss and study, but for me to say either one or the other, is ridiculous. Given the poor history of both science and religion to deliver answers, I rely on love. When there is no love, there is no life. BTW, Yo hablo Espanol. Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
There is a big difference between a biological machine, and life. What might that difference be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT writes:
quote: But we can do that already. We've been over this before, riVeRraT. We can create self-replicating, homochiral, autocatalysing molecules that evolve. Why doesn't that fit your definition? BBC News | Sci/Tech | Lab molecules mimic lifeSquirm3 How life got the upper hand ($) Biochemistry: Single-handed cooperation NAI News Article: One-Handed Life Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers NAI Lead Team: Scripps Research Institute 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT writes:
quote: That's not what the Bible says. Adam, specifically, was made from the dust of the ground. Eve was made from Adam's rib. In fact, all life as described in Genesis 1 was created from constituents present on earth. The oceans and the land brought forth life. Therefore, what's the problem with humans doing the same thing? I get the feeling you won't be satisfied unless and until humans can clap their hands, declaim "Presto!" and zap-poof a kitten into being on command. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
riVeRraT writes: There is a big difference between a biological machine, and life. You, riVeRraT, are a biological machine, and you are also alive.
Given the poor history of both science and religion to deliver answers, If you lump science and religion together in this, I can understand "poor history". Half of the time, no answer came forth. That was when they asked religion. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
That's not what the Bible says. Adam, specifically, was made from the dust of the ground. Eve was made from Adam's rib. Yes, I am well aware of that. Where did the dust come from?
Therefore, what's the problem with humans doing the same thing? Nothing. God is Lord of lords, and we are little gods. Jesus said we will do greater things. We are made in his image. Stands to reason, we would start doing things the way he did it. Look at a bacteria flagellum, and its amazing similarity to an electric motor. Something we designed without even knowing what a bacteria flagellum looked like.
I get the feeling you won't be satisfied unless and until humans can clap their hands, declaim "Presto!" and zap-poof a kitten into being on command. Thats right. I accept all of this, but it still doesn't answer the question, where did the universe come from. Nor does it stop people from wondering if there isn't more out there, or life after death. All this "life" in a lab points towards intelligent design (not that I subscribe to it). Tell me, is there anything wrong with the idea of being designed to evolve? What is the force behind evolution? Plus it doesn't stop the voices in my head. Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
You, riVeRraT, are a biological machine, and you are also alive. That doesn't mean they are the same. Whats the difference between a car, and a tree? Why can't my car be life?Is the only requirement for being life, is to be biological?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Some quotes from the links you provided.
"The difference is that our molecule has the type of growth that is necessary to allow artificial evolution Not Found The requested URL /~thutton/Evolution/Squirm3/ was not found on this server. third link you need a subscription Error We are sorry - there has been an error processing your request. Please return to the Nature home page.
Scientists at The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, a part of The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) in Southern California, published a paper in the February 15, 2001, issue of Nature that suggests a possible answer to how one of the early steps necessary for the origins of life arose.
Emphasis mine.
This molecule was initially formed by reacting two other molecules. In other words, they "created" nothing. Please note, I am not dismissing this stuff, I find it amazing, and helpful. But it still does not answer the question, where did all of this come from. I don't really care if we evolved or not, it doesn't affect my faith.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024