AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it

rat, I am going to repeat what Rrhain said: Answer his question.

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.

Message 12 Natural processes, rat. Natural.Message 25 For the last time, rat. Not molecules not molecules not molecules.Message 25 Message 32 Message 35 No. The molecules form randomly. All we do is put them in a petri dish and let em rip.Message 36 rat. Read what Dr. Schmidt has to say.Message 39 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.

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.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

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.

---

​

Yes, I am well aware of that. Where did the dust come from?

---

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:

---

Therefore, what's the problem with humans doing the same thing?

---

​

Nothing.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

All this "life" in a lab points towards intelligent design (not that I subscribe to it).

---

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:

---

Tell me, is there anything wrong with the idea of being designed to evolve?

---

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:

---

What is the force behind evolution?

---

Chemistry, in general. Biochemistry in particular. Plus, a bit of physics and mathematics thrown in to make it interesting.

quote:

---

Plus it doesn't stop the voices in my head.

---

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.

riVeRraT responds to Parasomnium:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You, riVeRraT, are a biological machine, and you are also alive.

---

​

That doesn't mean they are the same.

---

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:

---

Whats the difference between a car, and a tree?

---

Well, a car doesn't reproduce, for one thing.

quote:

---

Why can't my car be life?

---

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:

---

Is the only requirement for being life, is to be biological?

---

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.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

In other words, they "created" nothing.

---

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 still does not answer the question, where did all of this come from.

---

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:

---

I don't really care if we evolved or not, it doesn't affect my faith.

---

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.

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.

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.

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. 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, not all on its own. It was put there with a purpose, from reverse engineering what already was. Nothing happens without gravity.God=gravity?But gravity only affects what ever IS. That was a sarcastic remark, with a bit of truth. I said it just for you.

Implication is not solid enough for it to be 100% the same. You are taking a leap. I have said no such thing, I have only implied that I do not know. Don't let the machines in the factory hear you, you might hurt their feelings. Why not? Is a Tiger Muskie life? 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.

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?Is it too inconvenient? 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.

Of all the nerve.Would you stay on topic please?This is the second time I've had to remind you.

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?

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. 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)?