Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
110 online now:
Tangle (1 member, 109 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,275 Year: 6,387/6,534 Month: 580/650 Week: 118/232 Day: 3/54 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin- would he have changed his theory?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 787 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 151 of 195 (152360)
10-23-2004 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:13 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:13 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:26 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 787 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 152 of 195 (152363)
10-23-2004 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:17 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.

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...)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:17 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended 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 Suspended 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 787 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 155 of 195 (152370)
10-23-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:23 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:23 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:36 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 159 by AdminNosy, posted 10-23-2004 5:40 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 787 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 156 of 195 (152371)
10-23-2004 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:26 PM


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.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:26 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:42 PM crashfrog has replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 787 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 158 of 195 (152376)
10-23-2004 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:36 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:36 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 159 of 195 (152377)
10-23-2004 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by crashfrog
10-23-2004 5:29 PM


Topics!!
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2004 5:29 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 787 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 160 of 195 (152378)
10-23-2004 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:36 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:36 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended 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 Suspended 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 787 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 163 of 195 (152381)
10-23-2004 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:42 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:42 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:53 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 164 of 195 (152384)
10-23-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:44 PM


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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:44 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:55 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
SirPimpsalot 
Inactive Suspended 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 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022