AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it

I agree with you. rRhain acts if as though we can see everything down to the smallest level of existence, and be able to determine if they are indeed the same.Let's clone rRhain, and then ask him if his clone is EXACTLY the same thing.

For all practical purposes, this artificial life is indeed life and there is no reason to distinguish it as a "biological machine". They created life from non-life. What are the ramifications of this, in your opinion?

Based on my ignorance of just what they did, and how it works, combined with my ignorance on just how God did things. I would say nothing for me.It's all those ID'rs and Creationists that are going to have to do side steps, and start explaining the bible again.Not only that, all this hasn't really happened yet, so it all remains to be seen.

In case you're interested, Rob chose to start a thread using this very same article http://EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy -->EvC Forum: Converting raw energy into biological energy.I've posted a lot of info over there, but just for you, rat ...Here are a few of the papers ...Unrau, P. J. & Bartel, D. P. RNA-catalysed nucleotide synthesis. Nature 395, 260-263 (1998).
Johnston, W. K., Unrau, P. J., Lawrence, M. S., Glasner, M. E. & Bartel, D. P. RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization: accurate and general RNA-templated primer extension. Science 292, 1319-1325 (2001).
Zhang, B. & Cech, T. R. Peptide bond formation by in vitro selected ribozymes. Nature 390, 96-100 (1997).
von Kiedrowski, G. A self-replicating hexadeoxynucleotide. Angew. Chem. 25, 932-935 (1986).
Gilbert, W. The RNA world. Nature 319, 618 (1986).
Joyce, G. F. RNA evolution and the origins of life. Nature 338, 217-224 (1989).
Ferris, J. P., Sanchez, R. A. & Orgel, L. E. Studies in prebiotic synthesis III. Synthesis of pyrimidines from cyanoacetylene and cyanate. J. Mol. Biol. 33, 693-704
Robertson, M. P. & Miller, S. L. An efficient prebiotic synthesis of cytosine and uracil. Nature 375, 772-774 (1995).There are 95 others (and the above is from a 2004 review ... were I to hunt for a 2007 review, I would find at least another 100).Here is the process we are trying to replicate:simple chemicals --> basic building blocks --> catalytic polymers + abiotic metabolism pre-RNA world --> RNA world --> DNA/protein worldAnd these are the steps toward RNA world that have been completed:Limited polymerization
RNA ligases
RNA capping
RNA phosphorylation
RNA cleavage
Peptide bond formation
Amide bond formationAs I mentioned on the other thread, the race to create AL is analogous to the 10 year effort to sequence the human genome. From the website of one of the participants: It's a matter of time, really. More a technical problem at this point than anything else.

And you say life isn't designed

If you'd care to join us over at the other thread I mentioned, you will see that "design" has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

riVeRraT responds to molbiogirl:

quote:

---

What's the difference between RNA/DNA assembling life, and us? It's all natural, since that's how it started.

---

Are you saying that RNA/DNA has existed forever? There has never been a moment of time when there wasn't RNA/DNA?That'll come as a shock to the cosmologists since they're of the opinion that there was a time when there weren't even atoms.Question: Why do you think life requires RNA/DNA?

---

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.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

There really is no benefit to introducing the ”biological machine” concept. Both the natural and artificial are life.

---

But that's my point: Since there is no difference, why does riVeRraT insist that there is something different between life created by magic and life created chemically?He won't be satisifed until humans can clap their hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear.

quote:

---

In general, I’m not so sure I agree with this. I mean, what if just we cannot tell the difference, like, we are unable to detect the difference that does exist?

---

But if you look at riVeRraT's position, it isn't a question of difference in outcome. Instead, it's a difference of process. Somehow, even if the result is exactly the same, the fact that the process by which the end results happen makes it different.By his logic, a water molecule created by taking hydrogen and oxygen gas and sparking them is fundamentally different from a water molecule created by oxidizing a hydrocarbon. Because the process by which the molecule was created is not the same, then that means that one is a "water molecule" while the other is a "chemical machine."He will not be satisfied until we can clap our hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear.What he doesn't understand is that definitions actually have a meaning. If something satisfies all of the conditions of the definition, then it is necessarily an example of the definition. It might be more than that (a square is a rectangle, after all), but it is still an example of the definition.In essence, riVeRraT wants to define "life" to include a "Made Lovingly by God in Heaven" tag. If it doesn't have the special hologram, then it isn't "Genuine Life."

---

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:

---

Since nothing is ever proven, how do I know those corrections, are correct?

---

You don't. That's the beauty behind a self-correcting system. While you cannot know for sure, you can know that if you keep working at it, you are certain to get closer and closer to the correct answer.

quote:

---

You've pointed them out yourself, need I go back in time and post it?

---

You're missing the point: The NIV didn't actually correct anything.

quote:

---

Are you saying it is proven that it never happened?

---

Yes. The things that must necessarily exist for it to be true don't. Ergo, it didn't happen. You see, observational inquiry can't definitively show something to be true, but it can easily show something to be false.I am sure we all understand this process: We can more easily indicate what something is not than show what it is.Note, observations don't change simply because we have a new theory to explain them. Just because we moved from Aristotelian to Newtownian to Einsteinian physics doesn't mean that apples suddenly stopped falling to the ground, hovering in midair, waiting for us to make up our minds.One example: The geography mentioned in the Exodus does not correspond to reality.Now, we might be able to resurrect the concept of the Exodus by eliminating the geographic details, but there are other problems.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So you're saying that the Bible is on the same level as the Iliad and the Odyssey?

---

​

If you only focus on what is wrong with it, you'll never understand what is right about it.

---

Until you understand what is wrong with it, you will never be able to comprehend what is right with it.That said, you didn't answer my question: Why should we treat the Bible any differently from the Iliad and the Odyssey?

---

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:

---

Yes it is all made up of the same stuff, but it isn't linked.....ok

---

No, who said anything about "linked"? Nobody is saying life isn't made of chemicals. What we're saying is that it doesn't matter where the chemicals came from or the process by which the chemicals come together. If the end products are identical, then they are the same thing.Thus, if one person claps his hand, declaims "Presto!" and a kitten appears, it is still a kitten, identical to one birthed from a cat.I'm reminded of a time when I was taking a class in stagecraft. We were working on a set and the plans called for a trapezoidal frieze to be built. The designer had listed the lengths of the top and bottom pieces and the distance beteen them but had neglected to indicate the lengths of the side pieces.How to figure it out? Well, I pointed out we could calculate it directly: Pythagorean theorem. We know the height since that's the distance between the top and bottom pieces. And since we knew their lengths, all we had to do was subtract the smaller length from the larger and divide by two. That's the base. Thus, square the base and the height, add, take the square root, and there's the length of the side pieces.The others were amazed: "You can do that?" Well, yes. How were they going to do it? Well, they were going to take the two long pieces, put them on stage the required distance apart, then lay two more boards connecting the ends of the two pieces. Just mark off where they would need to be cut, and you've got the two end pieces. You'll have to be careful to make sure the boards are straight, but it's a purely mechanical process.Now here's the thing: Given the two trapezoids, how could you possibly tell the difference? What makes one a "frieze" while the other is merely a "set piece"? Why does the process by which the item was made affect what it is?

quote:

---

No, what I said was science helps define my faith, because science studies truth, and my faith deals with truth.

---

But you reject the truth when it conflicts with your faith. Why?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I simply wish to ask why you reject directly observable events that have developed into a unified theory

---

​

I think I have been saying this for quite some time, and that is, I neither reject it, or accept it.

---

You don't accept observable events?

---

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 resopnds to me:

quote:

---

how that happened is not all that important to me.

---

Then would you claim the results of a chemical process to be a "biological machine" and not "life"? Why will you not be satisfied until we can clap our hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear? Why is a chemical process insufficient to have "life" as a result? What is it about the definition of "life" that prevents it from arising chemically?

quote:

---

I don't know how you can attempt to define the word life in the article provided in the OP, because it hasn't even happened yet.

---

Huh? How on earth will we know if we have created "life" if we don't have a definition of "life" first? When we were trying to make something that flew, we had to have a definition of "flight" first so that we could determine if the thing we made actually did "fly" as opposed to "fall."That's why I repeatedly ask you about the self-replicating, autocatalysing, homochrial molecules that evolve we have been able to create are "life"? If that isn't "life," then what is? How can you say what you've done meets your definition if you don't already have a definition?You seem to want to include the process by which an object is made in the definition of the object. What you haven't done is explain why this important. If you can't tell how it was made, why does it matter how?

quote:

---

It id goes as smooth as cloning a sheep, there will be some discrepancies.

---

Clones aren't alive?

---

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 writes:

quote:

---

rRhain acts if as though we can see everything down to the smallest level of existence

---

I never said that.But since you bring it up, are you saying that there is a special tag on life that says, "Lovingly Created in Heaven by God"? That if you don't find the "Genuine Life" hologram on the protons, it isn't a valid version?Is there something different about oxygen atoms in a biological organism compared to oxygen atoms in a water molecule?

---

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.

I thought the whole purpose of AL, was to show that life can happen on it's own? If we are not replicating just how that can happen on it's own, then we aren't proving that much. If anything, it only proves even more that it takes ID to make life. I haven't rejected anything said here. You can accept the fact that you witnessed an event, but just exactly how or why, remains to be seen. Plus many people see things that are either not there, or really didn't happen the way they thought it did.
Magic is a good example.

You keep asking me, and Catholic scientist, what the difference is between the two, yet you keep stating the difference.

If I take water, lemons, and sugar, and blend them together in the right amounts, I can "create" lemonade. Big deal, the chemicals already existed for that to happen. Did I really "create it"? What is more amazing is that we are able to figure it out. 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?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.