|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
rat, I am going to repeat what Rrhain said:
We've been over this before, riVeRraT. We can create self-replicating, homochiral, autocatalysing molecules that evolve. Why doesn't that fit your definition? Answer his question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
They are not creating anything, as I have pointed out several times.
When I first heard of creating molecules, giving them the benifit of the doubt, and not saying they are creating something from nothing, they aren't even combining atoms to make molecules, they are only combining other molecules. Big deal. It helps science, and for us to understand what was already created, but it does not explain where we came from at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
rat writes: When I first heard of creating molecules, giving them the benifit of the doubt, and not saying they are creating something from nothing, they aren't even combining atoms to make molecules, they are only combining other molecules. Message 12
Taz writes: The point is to take one step at a time to see if life can come about through natural processes. Natural processes, rat. Natural. Message 25
rat writes: They are only combining existing compounds, and making a biological machine. molbiogirl writes: No. We start from elements. You know. The periodic chart? For the last time, rat. Not molecules not molecules not molecules. Message 25
molbiogirl writes: 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. Message 32
rat writes: Now if it does do all that, then that is evidence that we were designed, lol. molbiogirl writes: No. That will be evidence that, given the periodic chart, random chance alone will produce life. It was inevitable. Given the initial conditions. Message 35
rat writes: Look, they are designing life, they are not randomly putting together life. No. The molecules form randomly. All we do is put them in a petri dish and let em rip. Message 36
Dr. Frank Schmidt writes: 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. rat. Read what Dr. Schmidt has to say. Message 39
rat writes: There is a big difference between a biological machine, and life. molbiogirl writes: What might that difference be? rat, answer the question. I asked you two days ago and you have yet to answer. And don't keep repeating the same questions over and over again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
RR, you have been more thoughtful than a large number of the creocrowd (of one form or another) we have here.
Give a thought to this: I have wondered if the question of abiogenesis would have any progress made on it in my life time. I thought it would be a very difficult question to begin to touch. What was actually the case was me being ignorant of the work already done. I now have some hope that interesting, deep answers will be obtained in a decade or two. But this means that you shouldn't paint yourself or your faith into this corner. The virulently anti knowledge crowd have started to focus more on abiogenesis and cosmology beyond the big bang in recent years. This is because the evidence in other areas has closed the gaps they used to fight in. They lost the age of the earth and evolution questions (though it will take a couple of decades or more before this sinks in and they become laughable fringes in the US just as they are in other contries). It now appears that the abiogenesis gap may be starting to close just a little bit. You might want to think about what it means to have it closed. The gap that you have left to head for is back there before the big bang. That one may well stay open for the life times of all of us on this site. Once we have the enormous, dense energy of the big bang then we do, now, have a pretty good idea of "where we came from". The steps from there to us have gaps but the gaps are not so great and keep shrinking rapidly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:quote: Doesn't matter. Abiogenesis is about creating life from non-biotic reagents, not creating those non-biotic reagents in the first place. When you need a quarter for the vending machine, does it matter if it came from the Denver mint as opposed to the Philadelphia mint? Does it matter if it was last used for a video game as opposed to a washing machine? You're asking biochemistry to answer a question that it isn't prepared to answer nor does it even try. I can give you the references for planetary accretion, but you'll just push the goalposts back even further and ask where the solar nebula came from. Your question is for physics, not biochemistry.
quote:quote: There must be or you wouldn't be trying to redefine life that humans make as "biological machines." A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
quote:quote: So, pretty much, there is no way to satisfy you. We can swirl all the ingredients together and have a living, breathing human being walk out of the test tube, but so long as we're doing it organically rather than magically, it isn't really "life." It's just a "biological machine."
quote: No, it doesn't, because it wasn't designed. It happened chemically, all on its own. It's not like the scientists personally, deliberately, and consciously hand-bonded the individual atoms together. We can't do that. All we can do is put appropriate reagents together and let chemistry take over so that it happens all on it's own. This goes back to the question that I continually ask and has never, ever been answered: Is there anything that happens on its own?
quote: That's a bit like asking, "Is there anything wrong with the idea of being designed to be affected by gravity?" It isn't something that one has a choice in. It is a necessary consequence of the system. It happens all on its own. D'oh! There's that nasty question again: Is there anything that happens on its own?
quote: Chemistry, in general. Biochemistry in particular. Plus, a bit of physics and mathematics thrown in to make it interesting.
quote: Are you trying to get me banned? That's way too good of a setup. 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 responds to Parasomnium:
quote:quote: If you get the arrow of implication pointing in the same direction, they are. Or, if it turns out that there is no difference between a "biological machine" and "life," then they are. So far, the only difference you have managed to come up with is that "biological machines" arise organically while "life" arises with a little bit of pixie dust.
quote: Well, a car doesn't reproduce, for one thing.
quote: Because it fails to meet the criteria for life. Now, I will admit that the definition of "life" is very difficult to pin down, but that is usually for corner cases such as trying to decide if viruses are alive. If they are, then we managed to synthesize life decades ago. Your car does not reproduce, for example. No, let's not be disingenuous and claim that it is just a mutant or "sterile."
quote: You've got the arrow of implication backwards. Biology studies life. Since biology doesn't apply to your car, then your car isn't life. You need to seek out a mechanical engineer. 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 responds to me:
quote: Sure they did. They created a self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecule that evolves. At the beginning, there wasn't such a molecule present. At the end, there was. Ergo, "creation." You're not going to say that "creation" requires magic, are you? You're not going to say that "creation" requires starting from nothingness, are you? When you need a quarter for the vending machine, does it matter if it comes from the Denver mint as opposed to the Philadelphia mint? Does it matter if it was last used in a video game as opposed to a washing machine? I am not asking these questions for my health. I really want an answer from you.
quote: But it doesn't try to answer that. You're trying to make biochemistry answer a question of cosmology. No wonder you're frustrated. You're using the wrong tool for the job.
quote: Nobody said it should. But one has to wonder...why are you so dead-set against the idea? For someone who claims you don't really care, you sure seem to be having difficulty accepting what the observations tell us. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
You've combined responses from two different subjects, to misrepresent me.
One was a reply from your OP link, and the other was from rrhains links.Two different things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I understand Ned. What everyone here still doesn't seem to get is that I was an evolutionist for 38 years, then I felt God.
I didn't all of a sudden drop every scientific thing I was taught in HS. I merely came into contact with what I believe to be God. That made more questions, and has drove me on a quest to piece both sides of the fence together. Either God doesn't exist, and I am just a crazy person, or science might have some things wrong. Given the poor track record of both, I am left hanging in limbo. Probably what amazes me the most is how one sided everyone is, doesn't matter your side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
When you need a quarter for the vending machine, does it matter if it came from the Denver mint as opposed to the Philadelphia mint? Does it matter if it was last used for a video game as opposed to a washing machine? Well yea. It sure does matter. These are not separate subjects IMO. IF life can be created from what is already existing, then we need to understand why. Not just say that it can. God took "unlife" and made it into life. So really what question are we answering? Did God create everything so that it can happen this way?Or did it just come from nowhere. So, pretty much, there is no way to satisfy you. rrhain, the more we learn, the less we know. You, or no other person living is EVER going to find out all the answers to where we came from. Only develop more questions. If you think there lies answers to life the universe and everything in a test tube, I think you are sadly mistaken, and you are missing the whole point of life.
No, it doesn't, because it wasn't designed. It happened chemically, all on its own. No, not all on its own. It was put there with a purpose, from reverse engineering what already was.
Is there anything that happens on its own? Nothing happens without gravity. God=gravity? But gravity only affects what ever IS.
Are you trying to get me banned? That's way too good of a setup. That was a sarcastic remark, with a bit of truth. I said it just for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
If you get the arrow of implication pointing in the same direction, they are. Implication is not solid enough for it to be 100% the same. You are taking a leap.
So far, the only difference you have managed to come up with is that "biological machines" arise organically while "life" arises with a little bit of pixie dust. I have said no such thing, I have only implied that I do not know.
Well, a car doesn't reproduce, for one thing. Don't let the machines in the factory hear you, you might hurt their feelings.
Your car does not reproduce, for example. No, let's not be disingenuous and claim that it is just a mutant or "sterile." Why not? Is a Tiger Muskie life?
Since biology doesn't apply to your car, then your car isn't life. You need to seek out a mechanical engineer. I have a joke for you. There is a Amish horse and buggy on the side of the road, and a guy has his hand up the horses ass. What do you call that guy?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A mechanic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
You're not going to say that "creation" requires magic, are you? You're not going to say that "creation" requires starting from nothingness, are you? I would like science to answer the question, why can't matter be created or destroyed.
But it doesn't try to answer that. You're trying to make biochemistry answer a question of cosmology. Biology came from cosmology, why aren't the two linked? Is it too inconvenient?
But one has to wonder...why are you so dead-set against the idea? For someone who claims you don't really care, you sure seem to be having difficulty accepting what the observations tell us. I will say it again, I was believing in evolution for 38 years, then I felt God. What am I supposed to think? I didn't all of sudden disregard all scientific data, or did I magically become a fundie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I would like science to answer the question, why can't matter be created or destroyed. Biology came from cosmology, why aren't the two linked? Of all the nerve. Would you stay on topic please? This is the second time I've had to remind you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Since, RR, you can't tell me why matter can't be created or destroyed it is obvious that you have no clue how a motor or air conditioning unit works. They involve moving matter around and deal with energy don't they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Either God doesn't exist, and I am just a crazy person, or science might have some things wrong. That's a false dichotomy. Of course, science might have some things wrong, that with the whole tenativity thing, but God could exist and science could be right all while you're not crazy, well I guess that depends on what god said.
Given the poor track record of both, I am left hanging in limbo.
This line made me reply. Poor track record for science, my ass! How can you say that? What makes you think science has a poor track record (as we communicate over the internet)?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024