Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 181 of 185 (423874)
09-24-2007 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by riVeRraT
09-20-2007 8:04 AM


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.
No, it doesn't. The Chinese stuff is inferior because it's made from inferior steel with inferior manufacturing techniques, not because stuff from China is automatically fundamentally different.
If you took the part you were talking about, and made it the same way with the same materials as its American counterpart, then it would be the same. It doesn't matter where things are from; iron atoms are identical across the universe. "A pint's a pound the world around", as they say. Chinese stuff is only inferior because of inferior metallurgy and manufacturing techniques, not because iron atoms mined in China are fundamentally different than atoms from Minnesota's Iron Range.
Of course, your problem is that if an evolutionist is telling you something, you believe that the opposite is probably true. Your immediate presumption of bad faith on the part of all your opponents is the reason you hold so many ridiculously wrong ideas.

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 184 by riVeRraT, posted 09-27-2007 11:45 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 182 of 185 (423930)
09-24-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by riVeRraT
09-24-2007 10:09 AM


Re: a molecule is not always a molecule...
Your welcome riverRrat...
Just don't use it to say that water molecules are not water molecules. It doesn't apply to everything.
Pick your battles...

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

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


Message 183 of 185 (424540)
09-27-2007 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by molbiogirl
09-24-2007 10:15 AM


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?
It could be more pure than water. Show me one place on earth that has water as pure as that which is created in a lab.
I don't know if this relevant:
Danger? Nano-Infested Waters Created in the Lab - Scientific American
Can you prove that there is absolutely no difference between the two, especially since we do not fully understand things down to levels smaller than the molecular level?
I am open to the idea that it is the same, but also realize that it may not be the same.
Plus I wouldn't use this example to show that all things assembled at the molecular level are then stable. We have already tried making new elements, and they are not stable, and do not stay together. (at least that is what I remember from HS).
We may be able to combine oxygen and hydrogen and make water, but that does not mean we can do things more complicated than that. Using that example in this debate is an untruth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by molbiogirl, posted 09-24-2007 10:15 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by molbiogirl, posted 09-27-2007 7:25 PM riVeRraT has not replied

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


Message 184 of 185 (424541)
09-27-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by crashfrog
09-24-2007 6:00 PM


No, it doesn't. The Chinese stuff is inferior because it's made from inferior steel with inferior manufacturing techniques, not because stuff from China is automatically fundamentally different.
In other words, it matters in which the way you put things together, thank you for agreeing with me. That was my point, in other words.
Chinese stuff is only inferior because of inferior metallurgy and manufacturing techniques, not because iron atoms mined in China are fundamentally different than atoms from Minnesota's Iron Range.
Right, so it matters. Atoms are not life.
Of course, your problem is that if an evolutionist is telling you something, you believe that the opposite is probably true.
I won't argue, but that is untrue. I take to heart everything that is said to me here. Evolutionists are not evil people, they are evol people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 09-24-2007 6:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 185 of 185 (424629)
09-27-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by riVeRraT
09-27-2007 11:42 AM


It could be more pure than water. Show me one place on earth that has water as pure as that which is created in a lab.
Water is one H and 2 O. That's true of the water you drink and the water created in the lab.
It's that simple, rat.
Can you prove that there is absolutely no difference between the two, especially since we do not fully understand things down to levels smaller than the molecular level?
We understand the atomic level quite well, thank you very much.
One hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms.
One hydrogen atom has one proton and one electron.
One oxygen atom has eight protons, eight electrons and eight neutrons.
Plus I wouldn't use this example to show that all things assembled at the molecular level are then stable.
If things assembled at the molecular level weren't stable, you wouldn't exist.
Earth wouldn't exist.
We may be able to combine oxygen and hydrogen and make water, but that does not mean we can do things more complicated than that.
You really don't know much about chemistry, do you?
We can assemble an artificial genome, fer chrissake. Venter just applied for a patent!
J. Craig Venter and the Institute that bears his name are again moving into new territory in the field of genetics. Genetic patents, that is. They are seeking a broad patent that would give them ownership of a 'free living organism that can grow and replicate' constructed entirely from synthetic DNA. The ETC Group is challenging the claim. 'Scientists at the institute designed the bacterium to have a "minimal genome"--the smallest set of genes any organism can live on. The project, which began in the early 2000s, was partly a philosophical exercise: to help define life itself better by identifying its bare-bones requirements. But it was also fraught with commercial possibilities: if one could reliably recreate a standardized, minimal life form, other useful genes could be added in as needed for various purposes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by riVeRraT, posted 09-27-2007 11:42 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