Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin- would he have changed his theory?
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 195 (152332)
10-23-2004 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 4:29 PM


That's obviously a lot of info, as my genetics can build me and science can't build anything even approaching my level of complexity........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:36 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 195 (152334)
10-23-2004 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 4:29 PM


What? No, it's been decoded for, I dunno, 50 years or more. Here it is:
Ok, so why can't we build a simple single-celled life form? Has anyone ever tried?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:39 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 195 (152337)
10-23-2004 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 4:30 PM


What information?
Snowflakes self-assemble; crystals self-assemble into very complex structures. Neither one of them requires any "information" to do so. We're just talking about chemical reactions, here - chemicals don't need "information", whatever that is, to react.
But snow flakes don't perform functions........living things do. Obviously, first life would have to know how to distinguish between what was food and what was non-food, correct? That's information.
Has anyone ever even built a computer program which simulated first life? Set a timer which deleted the program if it didn't find the right "food" (lines of code)........I'd have to imagine that someone at some point in time has tried this. And if computer programmers can't figure out how to do it, that speaks to the level of information that first life would need just to feed itself, wouldn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:44 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 195 (152340)
10-23-2004 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 4:39 PM


We don't know what proteins we need, because we don't know how to predict, yet, what the function of a protein will be from it's genetic representation.
It's called the "folding problem." Proteins do what they do because they take a certain shape. We have a very limited ability to predict how a protein will fold because it's a very, very complicated interaction of literally thouands of atoms.
Soooooo, that means we HAVEN'T decoded the code of life, or whatever you wanna call it........because we don't know what the function of each protein is, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:55 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 195 (152342)
10-23-2004 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 4:44 PM


No, that's behavior. And it's something that could arise by trial and error; in other words, by selection.
It couldn't have been the result of natural selection, because first life would need to know how to find food.......that's part of the definition of life. It must be able to metabolize, reproduce annnnnd a third one I forget now.
But yes, computer programs have been written to simulate simple living things. Most famous is Conway's "Game of Life." I suggest you google for it; you can download it and run it on your computer.
Were there a lot of lines of code required to program it? Because that's how much info (whether you want to refer to it as info or not) would have to be present in first life........so, first life occuring would be the equivilant of all those lines of code writing themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:02 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 195 (152348)
10-23-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 4:55 PM


What we can't do, but we're working on, is designing our own proteins from scratch, or predicting the function of a given amino sequence. But that's proteinomics. You were talking about genomics. At this point, we're way past discussions of "information", because the genome doesn't encode for function, it encodes for proteins.
Gotcha......so, we haven't really decoded the code of life, whatever that may be called.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 4:55 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:05 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied
 Message 145 by Coragyps, posted 10-23-2004 5:06 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 195 (152355)
10-23-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 5:02 PM


The first life would have been surrounded by "food": precursor molecules it would have used to replicate.
But first life would need to do more than just replicate, as it would have to metabloize in order to be defined as life.......
From these three rules, a vast variety of complex behaviors can evolve.
Oh yeah, I recognize that now..........but the organisms in that game aren't a serious attempt at making virtual first life......or, if they are, then it just goes to show how complex first life would need to be, as the function of the organisms isn't nearly as complex as the functions of first life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:13 PM SirPimpsalot has replied
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:14 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 195 (152357)
10-23-2004 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:09 PM


Ok, ok, enough of this technical talk.........if I could "decode" French, that means I could manipulate French in order to write a book in French........if we had the "code of life" decoded (and I don't care whether it's genes or proteins or what), we should be able to manipulate it into creating life.
The fact that we obviously don't have it figured out shows how complex the code it.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:09 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:17 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:18 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 195 (152359)
10-23-2004 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:13 PM


And don't tell me it's not a code, Crash, because do you have any idea how many lines of code are present in my computer, which is far less complex than ME.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:13 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:21 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 195 (152364)
10-23-2004 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 5:14 PM


Well, when we're talking about the first living thing, we're at some pretty blurred boundaries for what is alive and what is not.
No, I'm pretty sure the scientific definition for life is that it must metabolize, reproduce and something else........that's why viruses aren't considered life, they don't metabolize.
At any rate, these precursor molecules would have been both the source of the energy for replication and the material used to replicate. That's replication and metabolic activity in one single step.
And the cell would need to search out these precursor molecules and have an internal "digestion" system in order to turn them into energy, right?
Conway's game is just the first attempt, I believe, from the 70's. There's a considerable body of work in computer modelling artifical life. I suggest you look some up; it's an afternoon's worth of fun.
And I bet those others both require many lines of code and aren't as complex as first life.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:29 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 195 (152367)
10-23-2004 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 5:18 PM


It's not because life is complex, or has a code; it's because any time you have that many atoms, it's a complex situation.
So, life isn't complex.......but anything with as many atoms as life is complex..........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:30 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 195 (152374)
10-23-2004 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 5:29 PM


It wouldn't need to seek them out; they're all around. And it doesn't need a digestion system for them, it uses them as they are.
How can you convert a protein molecule into energy without changing it?
Maybe we're talking about two different things. I'm interested in the first molecular arrangement that evolution would act upon. The stuff you're talking about isn't necessary until much, much later
No, any living thing needs energy, or it wouldn't be alive, right? Therefore, it would need to metabolize. Obviously, it would also need to reproduce.
You bet? Why don't you find out. Try to show me any artifical life simulation that has more lines of code than windows. I don't put much stock in your "bets."
Just because it isn't as complex as a million lines of code doesn't mean it's not complex......also, do any of them claim to be a realistic bit of artificial life? I'd have to imagine not, and so it wouldn't be as complex as first life anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:39 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied
 Message 160 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:41 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 195 (152379)
10-23-2004 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 5:30 PM


Anyway, in conclusion, in order for first life to occur naturalistically, it would not only have to be a piece of good consisting of just the right amino acids and just the right proteins.......but it would also have to just coincidentally arranged in a pattern that's so atomically complex that we don't even currently have computers powerful enough to calculate them.......
Do you really not see how people have problems seeing this occuring just by itself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:44 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:46 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 195 (152380)
10-23-2004 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:42 PM


Admin says, "Oh no! Lively discussion! I must kill this abomination!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:42 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Coragyps, posted 10-23-2004 5:50 PM SirPimpsalot has replied
 Message 167 by AdminNosy, posted 10-23-2004 5:56 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 195 (152385)
10-23-2004 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 5:46 PM


I think you misunderstood my point - all arrangements of that number of atoms are too complicated to model in computers.
And obviously life requires a very specific atomic combination, or we could just throw protein molecules together left and right and make life.......
I already told you - there's no innate complexity to living things that you wouldn't already find in a sample of atoms - any sample of any atoms - of that size.
Oh, I'm payin' attention........I'm just disagreeing, as any person who has the ability to logically deduce would......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:59 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024