|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwin- would he have changed his theory? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Soooooo, that means we HAVEN'T decoded the code of life, or whatever you wanna call it Buddy, what did you think I just showed you? That table is the genetic code. As you can see, it's pretty simple. A certain sequence of nucelotides gives you a certain sequence of amino acids, which is a protein. Couldn't be more straightforward.
because we don't know what the function of each protein is, right? I'm fairly sure we know the functions of at least most of the proteins in the human body, or in any body. 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. The "information" in the genome is simply amino acid sequences. The function of the protein is based on its shape, and the laws of physics. At that point, no information is required - just as a snowflake doesn't need information about its shape to form. It's just the laws of physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It couldn't have been the result of natural selection, because first life would need to know how to find food The first life would have been surrounded by "food": precursor molecules it would have used to replicate. It's only in our evolved world where finding food is a challenge. As finding "food" became harder, evolution stepped in to provide solutions to the problem.
Were there a lot of lines of code required to program it? It takes more lines of code to write the interface for the program than to model the game itself. The game has very simple rules and a very simple data space. All in all, one of the implementations of the game comes in at a little under 300k. The game itself has only three rules:
quote: From these three rules, a vast variety of complex behaviors can evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Gotcha......so, we haven't really decoded the code of life, whatever that may be called....... I don't seem to be getting through to you. We have decoded the "code of life." Here it is again, for your reference: The code of life is just that simple. What we haven't been able to do is predict protein function from protein sequence. But that's not a "code" of any kind; that's just the laws of physics. All the genetic code does is catalyze amino acid synthesis. That's it. What proteins wind up doing is a function of the laws of physics. No code involved. The only "code of life" is the one I've showed you, twice now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We likely know one or two sort of obvious functions for a large number of proteins in our bodies, but that is liable to be only a tiny fraction of all the various things some of them do. True enough - the function of a given protein is limited only by its shape and the laws of physics. They don't really "do" anything; it's the laws of physics that do all the "doing."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But first life would need to do more than just replicate, as it would have to metabloize in order to be defined as life....... 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. 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.
Oh yeah, I recognize that now..........but the organisms in that game aren't a serious attempt at making virtual first life 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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.
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? 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.
And I bet those others both require many lines of code and aren't as complex as first life....... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So, life isn't complex.......but anything with as many atoms as life is complex.......... 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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How can you convert a protein molecule into energy without changing it? ??? 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.
No, any living thing needs energy, or it wouldn't be alive, right? 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.
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? What do you mean by "realistic"? Can any model be "realistic" if it doesn't model behavior at the atomic level?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Just because it isn't as complex as a million lines of code doesn't mean it's not complex.... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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.
Do you really not see how people have problems seeing this occuring just by itself? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And obviously life requires a very specific atomic combination, or we could just throw protein molecules together left and right and make life....... Obviously it doesn't, or else all life would be identical. Clearly that's not the case.
I'm just disagreeing, as any person who has the ability to logically deduce would...... Ah, but deduction doesn't apply here, as the first principles of the universe are not known to us. All we have avaliable is empirical induction. I appreciate that you believe you're employing logic; what you've succeeded in is inducting from your own prejudices. Before you post again why don't you try a little education, first? Combine your rationality with some education in the biological sciences and who knows what you might accomplish? At any rate, I think we've said all that there is to say. As it is we've rapidly exceeded your level of biological education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
or else, like I said, you could just throw viable proteins together willy nilly and make life, right? What would make the proteins? Think it through, for once.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Weeeeeeelllllll, aren't we Captain Pretention? No, just someone who's recognized the utility in actually finding out about a subject before opening his mouth about it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024