Darwin- would he have changed his theory?

What I keep telling you, and what you keep ignoring, is that there's no "code" other than what I've shown you.There's just chemicals obeying the laws of physics. The only information or encoding in living things is DNA, which stores the sequence of proteins. What the proteins do after that is up to the laws of physics.There's no "code of life"; life isn't any more complex than the laws of physics. The reason we can't generate proteins to spec is because we don't have the computer power to model, accurately, the interactions of that many atoms.That's not unique to living things. We just can't yet model interactions of atoms on that scale. 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.

Let's see, I think Windows is something like a million lines of code?Of course, humans design things a lot less efficiently than evolution does. If your computer had evolved, I would guess that it would be the size of an apple and the OS would be less than a thousand lines of code.There's over a million lines of code to make your computer work. Your body requires less than 20,000 genes to function. You tell me who designs better - evolution, or intelligent programmers. (If they can be called "intelligent" over at Microsoft...)

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. 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? And I bet those others both require many lines of code and aren't as complex as first life.......

So, life isn't complex.......but anything with as many atoms as life is complex..........

Well, these criteria are arbitrary, and not agreed with by all scientists. For instance, many scientists consider viruses as living things. They certainly are acted upon by evolution.But the protoorganism we're talking about does both those things. It replicates and uses energy. It's a situation of active chemistry. That's a metabolism. 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. You're proposing way more complexity for the first living thing than it really needs. Of course, neither one of us know anything about the first living thing; no one does.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. 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."I'm sure that many of them have more rules than Conway's game. But all of them give rise to behaviors and situations far, far more complex than their ruleset.

I'd say that's a fair assessment. There's no innate complexity to life; it's just some complicated chemistry. There's plenty of non-living, complicated chemistry, too. (Like chemical occilators.)

How can you convert a protein molecule into energy without changing it? 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. 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.

???Proteins are't converted into "energy."Do you have any idea what metabolisis really is? I suspect we've hit the limit of your comprehension of what's going on here. Some biochemistry classes would be in order for you. That's a disputed point. I say that a thing is alive if it can mutate and be selected for or against - in other words, if evolution is causing changes in the population, that population is alive. What do you mean by "realistic"? Can any model be "realistic" if it doesn't model behavior at the atomic level?

Crash since both you and Sir are talking about abiogenisis and not Darwin's work you are very off topic.If you don't return to topic the thread will be closed as hopelessly wrecked.

How do you define "complexity"? Most information theorists define "complexity" in terms of how much data is required to describe the state.So, in fact, a million more lines of code does mean that it is more complex.

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?

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

I think you misunderstood my point - all arrangements of that number of atoms are too complicated to model in computers.Why do I get the feeling you're not playing attention to me? 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. Well, hell, when they misstate things as badly as you keep doing, and completely ignore patient explanations of how they're wrong, it's a wonder that people like you can even turn their computers on.

Nosy likes a lively discussion as much as the next old guy. He's merely trying to enforce the rules.

And obviously life requires a very specific atomic combination, or we could just throw protein molecules together left and right and make life....... Oh, I'm payin' attention........I'm just disagreeing, as any person who has the ability to logically deduce would......