|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwin- would he have changed his theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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..........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
Admin says, "Oh no! Lively discussion! I must kill this abomination!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SirPimpsalot  Inactive Member |
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......
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024