Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwin- would he have changed his theory?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 140 of 195 (152345)
10-23-2004 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 4:48 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 4:48 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:02 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 143 by Coragyps, posted 10-23-2004 5:03 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 141 of 195 (152347)
10-23-2004 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 4:52 PM


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:
The Rules
The Game of Life was invented by John Conway (as you might have gathered). The game is played on a field of cells, each of which has eight neighbors (adjacent cells). A cell is either occupied (by an organism) or not. The rules for deriving a generation from the previous one are these:
Death
If an occupied cell has 0, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 occupied neighbors, the organism dies (0, 1: of loneliness; 4 thru 8: of overcrowding).
Survival
If an occupied cell has two or three neighbors, the organism survives to the next generation.
Birth
If an unoccupied cell has three occupied neighbors, it becomes occupied.
From these three rules, a vast variety of complex behaviors can evolve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 4:52 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 144 of 195 (152352)
10-23-2004 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:02 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:02 PM SirPimpsalot has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 146 of 195 (152354)
10-23-2004 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Coragyps
10-23-2004 5:03 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Coragyps, posted 10-23-2004 5:03 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 149 of 195 (152358)
10-23-2004 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:09 PM


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.

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 153 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:23 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 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 1466 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 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 1466 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 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

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 169 of 195 (152390)
10-23-2004 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 5:53 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 5:53 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 6:02 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 172 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 6:04 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 174 of 195 (152396)
10-23-2004 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 6:02 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 6:02 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 6:10 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 175 of 195 (152397)
10-23-2004 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by SirPimpsalot
10-23-2004 6:04 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 6:04 PM SirPimpsalot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by SirPimpsalot, posted 10-23-2004 6:11 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024