AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

Will it be life? That remains to be seen.
Will it be able to replicate itself?
Will it get sick?
Will it evolve?

---

But we can do that already. We've been over this before, riVeRraT. We can create self-replicating, homochiral, autocatalysing molecules that evolve. Why doesn't that fit your definition?BBC News | Sci/Tech | Lab molecules mimic life
Squirm3
How life got the upper hand ($)
Biochemistry: Single-handed cooperation
NAI News Article: One-Handed Life
Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers
NAI Lead Team: Scripps Research Institute

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

God made everything from nothing

---

That's not what the Bible says. Adam, specifically, was made from the dust of the ground. Eve was made from Adam's rib.In fact, all life as described in Genesis 1 was created from constituents present on earth. The oceans and the land brought forth life.Therefore, what's the problem with humans doing the same thing?I get the feeling you won't be satisfied unless and until humans can clap their hands, declaim "Presto!" and zap-poof a kitten into being on command.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's not what the Bible says. Adam, specifically, was made from the dust of the ground. Eve was made from Adam's rib.

---

​

Yes, I am well aware of that. Where did the dust come from?

---

Doesn't matter. Abiogenesis is about creating life from non-biotic reagents, not creating those non-biotic reagents in the first place.When you need a quarter for the vending machine, does it matter if it came from the Denver mint as opposed to the Philadelphia mint? Does it matter if it was last used for a video game as opposed to a washing machine?You're asking biochemistry to answer a question that it isn't prepared to answer nor does it even try. I can give you the references for planetary accretion, but you'll just push the goalposts back even further and ask where the solar nebula came from.Your question is for physics, not biochemistry.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Therefore, what's the problem with humans doing the same thing?

---

​

Nothing.

---

There must be or you wouldn't be trying to redefine life that humans make as "biological machines."A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I get the feeling you won't be satisfied unless and until humans can clap their hands, declaim "Presto!" and zap-poof a kitten into being on command.

---

​

Thats right.

---

So, pretty much, there is no way to satisfy you. We can swirl all the ingredients together and have a living, breathing human being walk out of the test tube, but so long as we're doing it organically rather than magically, it isn't really "life." It's just a "biological machine."

quote:

---

All this "life" in a lab points towards intelligent design (not that I subscribe to it).

---

No, it doesn't, because it wasn't designed. It happened chemically, all on its own. It's not like the scientists personally, deliberately, and consciously hand-bonded the individual atoms together. We can't do that. All we can do is put appropriate reagents together and let chemistry take over so that it happens all on it's own.This goes back to the question that I continually ask and has never, ever been answered:Is there anything that happens on its own?

quote:

---

Tell me, is there anything wrong with the idea of being designed to evolve?

---

That's a bit like asking, "Is there anything wrong with the idea of being designed to be affected by gravity?" It isn't something that one has a choice in. It is a necessary consequence of the system. It happens all on its own.D'oh! There's that nasty question again:Is there anything that happens on its own?

quote:

---

What is the force behind evolution?

---

Chemistry, in general. Biochemistry in particular. Plus, a bit of physics and mathematics thrown in to make it interesting.

quote:

---

Plus it doesn't stop the voices in my head.

---

Are you trying to get me banned? That's way too good of a setup.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT responds to Parasomnium:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You, riVeRraT, are a biological machine, and you are also alive.

---

​

That doesn't mean they are the same.

---

If you get the arrow of implication pointing in the same direction, they are.Or, if it turns out that there is no difference between a "biological machine" and "life," then they are.So far, the only difference you have managed to come up with is that "biological machines" arise organically while "life" arises with a little bit of pixie dust.

quote:

---

Whats the difference between a car, and a tree?

---

Well, a car doesn't reproduce, for one thing.

quote:

---

Why can't my car be life?

---

Because it fails to meet the criteria for life. Now, I will admit that the definition of "life" is very difficult to pin down, but that is usually for corner cases such as trying to decide if viruses are alive. If they are, then we managed to synthesize life decades ago.Your car does not reproduce, for example. No, let's not be disingenuous and claim that it is just a mutant or "sterile."

quote:

---

Is the only requirement for being life, is to be biological?

---

You've got the arrow of implication backwards. Biology studies life.Since biology doesn't apply to your car, then your car isn't life. You need to seek out a mechanical engineer.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

In other words, they "created" nothing.

---

Sure they did. They created a self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecule that evolves. At the beginning, there wasn't such a molecule present. At the end, there was. Ergo, "creation."You're not going to say that "creation" requires magic, are you?You're not going to say that "creation" requires starting from nothingness, are you?When you need a quarter for the vending machine, does it matter if it comes from the Denver mint as opposed to the Philadelphia mint? Does it matter if it was last used in a video game as opposed to a washing machine?I am not asking these questions for my health. I really want an answer from you.

quote:

---

But it still does not answer the question, where did all of this come from.

---

But it doesn't try to answer that. You're trying to make biochemistry answer a question of cosmology. No wonder you're frustrated. You're using the wrong tool for the job.

quote:

---

I don't really care if we evolved or not, it doesn't affect my faith.

---

Nobody said it should.But one has to wonder...why are you so dead-set against the idea? For someone who claims you don't really care, you sure seem to be having difficulty accepting what the observations tell us.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

When you need a quarter for the vending machine, does it matter if it came from the Denver mint as opposed to the Philadelphia mint? Does it matter if it was last used for a video game as opposed to a washing machine?

---

​

Well yea. It sure does matter.

---

Oh? Why? Does the vending machine behave differently to Denver quarters as opposed to Philly quarters? If not, then how can you say that it matters?

quote:

---

These are not separate subjects IMO.

---

I think they're connected, too. That's why I asked. The point I am making is that if the vending machine doesn't care what mint the quarter came from, then it is invalid to say that there is a difference between the two.

quote:

---

IF life can be created from what is already existing, then we need to understand why. Not just say that it can.

---

But the point you're missing is that you're moved beyond what you originally set out to do. The vending machine doesn't care where the quarters come from. In order to be considered a valid coin, the only things that matter are things like weight, size, magnetic properties, etc.That doesn't mean there's nothing to be gained by tracing the coins back to their origins, but it does mean that their origins make no difference to their usage.You're trying to make biology answer a question of physics. Do you not see why that's a silly thing to do? When was the last time you used a wooden paintbrush as a magnet? They have their uses, but the former simply cannot function as the latter and it is ridiculous to demand that it must.

quote:

---

God took "unlife" and made it into life. So really what question are we answering?

---

Can it be done through physical processes? That's it. That's all the tools we are using can answer for us. If you want to answer another question, you'll need to switch to a different toolset.Biology is not physics and you cannot use biology to answer a question of physics.

quote:

---

Did God create everything so that it can happen this way?

---

That's a question for philosophy, not science.

quote:

---

Or did it just come from nowhere.

---

Is there anything that can happen on its own?

quote:

---

rrhain, the more we learn, the less we know. You, or no other person living is EVER going to find out all the answers to where we came from. Only develop more questions.

---

Ah, yes, one of the last refuges of those with no argument: Claim that because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, it doesn't, because it wasn't designed. It happened chemically, all on its own.

---

​

No, not all on its own.

---

What else other than chemistry was going on in the test tube? No humans were in there, so we know that humans had nothing to do with it. Was it god? When reagents react, do the chemical bonds rearrange themselves because a conscious, personal, deliberate entity grabs hold of the electrons and moves them? Or does it happen on its own?Is there anything that happens on its own?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is there anything that happens on its own?

---

​

Nothing happens without gravity.

---

Non sequitur. Let's try again:Is there anything that happens on its own? For example, does gravity happen on its own?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

I don't need rrhain pretending to know where life came from

---

I never said I did and I demand that you show me the exact quote where I even hinted that I did.It really is that important, riVeRraT.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT responds to jar:

quote:

---

What makes your idea of God, so much mightier than mine?

---

Probably the same attitude that makes you think that your idea of god is so much mightier than everybody else's. If you want, I can drag up your quotes regarding Judaism.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you get the arrow of implication pointing in the same direction, they are.

---

​

Implication is not solid enough for it to be 100% the same. You are taking a leap.

---

You don't know what "implication" means, do you?Hint: I'm a mathematician. What do you think I mean when I use the word "implication"? Especially if I use it in the phrase, "arrow of implication"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So far, the only difference you have managed to come up with is that "biological machines" arise organically while "life" arises with a little bit of pixie dust.

---

​

I have said no such thing, I have only implied that I do not know.

---

Incorrect. You have directly said that humans will never be able to create "life." Do you not recall this exchange: It would seem that you know quite well.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, a car doesn't reproduce, for one thing.

---

​

Don't let the machines in the factory hear you, you might hurt their feelings.

---

Um, you do understand that the robots in the auto factory aren't actually cars, yes? The cars aren't reproducing. It isn't like a car buds off another one or two BMWs come together, one squirts some lubricating fluid into the other, and some time later you get a Mini.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Your car does not reproduce, for example. No, let's not be disingenuous and claim that it is just a mutant or "sterile."

---

​

Why not? Is a Tiger Muskie life?

---

And thus, you do exactly what I asked you not to do.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Since biology doesn't apply to your car, then your car isn't life. You need to seek out a mechanical engineer.

---

​

I have a joke for you.

​

There is a Amish horse and buggy on the side of the road, and a guy has his hand up the horses ass. What do you call that guy?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A mechanic.

---

No, you call him a "vet."You do understand the difference between a veterinarian and a mechanic, between biology and engineering, yes?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

I would like science to answer the question, why can't matter be created or destroyed.

---

What does that have to do with biology? That's a question for physics.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But it doesn't try to answer that. You're trying to make biochemistry answer a question of cosmology.

---

​

Biology came from cosmology, why aren't the two linked?

---

For the same reason that evolution isn't linked to the origin of life.For the same reason that the vending machine doesn't care if the quarter came from the Denver mint or the Philly mint.You do agree that the vending machine doesn't care, yes?Hint: If A and B both lead to C, then C doesn't care if it's A or B and thus is not dependent upon either.

quote:

---

Is it too inconvenient?

---

No, it's too illogical. Biology is not cosmology and thus cannot answer questions of cosmology.

quote:

---

I will say it again, I was believing in evolution for 38 years, then I felt God. What am I supposed to think?

---

That your feelings don't change reality. When we shifted from Aristotelian to Newtonian to Einsteinian physics, apples didn't suddenly stop falling from trees. Our observations haven't changed just because you found god.

quote:

---

I didn't all of sudden disregard all scientific data, or did I magically become a fundie.

---

And yet, you suddenly started rejecting the findings of science just because you found god. Nothing in the science changed, so why does it matter what you feel? You're not saying that science is dependent upon feelings, are you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

My problem is with the word create, which in this thread has two different meanings.

---

If you mean "ex nihilo," then you should say, "ex nihilo."That said, the Bible doesn't say life came into being ex nihilo. Instead, it came into being from the dust of the earth.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT responds to nator:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Excuse me, but science has an excellent track record of becoming righter and righter and righter about the nature of, well, nature.

---

​

Only after being wrong so many times.

---

Of course. But look who figured out where the errors were and proposed a method to fix them? That's right, scientists!Science, by its very nature, is a self-correcting system. It sometimes takes a while, but science is always willing to reject everything that it thinks it understands about everything when the evidence indicates that it is wrong.When was the last time the Bible was re-written to accomodate new evidence that showed that it was wrong?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

Listen, it doesn't matter when we are discussing about individual events

---

But everything is an individual event. If the process works in one case, why wouldn't it work in the same case a second time? If 1 + 1 = 2, why can't 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 10?

quote:

---

You cat as if I have a problem with what science is doing, I do not, and I accept it.

---

Incorrect. I have not said a single word about what you think science is "doing." I have taken issue with your denials of science's conclusions.

quote:

---

I will not accept that it is proof that God does not exist

---

Nowhere can I find a single reference anywhere in the literature that begins, "Because god does not exist," or concludes, "Thus, god does not exist." If you could please indicate where, I would be most grateful.

quote:

---

Plus if we can take what is already available, and create life from it, then so can God.

---

Nobody said otherwise. The problem is, there are some people who claim that only god can create life. Some of them use tortured and twisted definitions of life such that it would be impossible for a human to do it. Sometimes, that definition is so vapid as to simply come up with a term, oh, say, "biological machine," that is applied to anything a human does and "life" to anything god does.

quote:

---

WE didn't start with creating a human, and maybe God didn't either.

---

I never said otherwise. I simply pointed out that it appears that if we "could" (and you do know what that word means) create a human being in a test tube, you wouldn't be satisfied.

quote:

---

I feel as though it is most of you, who are using what biology teaches to answer questions beyond what it teaches.

---

Could you be specific? I have yet to find anything in the literature that starts with biology and makes a conclusion about, say, the cosmic background radiation.And we've already established that all of science, and thus biology, says nothing about god, thus biology says nothing about god.Just what is it you think that the science of biology has overreached on?

quote:

---

So do we have a right to say we created life?

---

Huh? A "right"? That's a question of philosophy, not science.

quote:

---

When all we did was take what is there, and copy what already is?

---

Are you saying that if I go into the Louvre and make a copy of the Mona Lisa, I haven't made a painting? How is my work anything less than a painting?

quote:

---

I can take a central air conditioning unit, and install it in a house, and give a house air conditioning, but I did not make the units, so what did I create?

---

If the claim is that only god can give a house air conditioning, then you've shown that no, air conditioning can be accomplished through mundane means. What you've created is the same thing god created: An air-conditioned house out of things that were not an air-conditioned house.

quote:

---

I see the usefulness in understanding how everything works, and that is important, but to say we created life, bothers me.

---

Why? Why does it matter if humans create life through chemical means?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is there anything that happens on its own? For example, does gravity happen on its own?

---

​

If I really knew the answer to that, I would be a Nobel prize winner.

---

Huh? You mean you don't know? Gravity is really tiny little angels who personally, consciously, and deliberately pull your heels down toward the ground? Gravity has consciousness?

quote:

---

you are asking me how the universe works, when we can't see the smallest things, or the largest things.

---

No, I'm asking you how your brain works and how your method of inquiry works.Science is the study of things that happen on their own. Do you allow that there are things that happen on their own? Or does everything happen at the conscious, personal, and deliberate whim of an external intelligence forcing things?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT and I have the following exchange:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't need rrhain pretending to know where life came from

---

​

I never said I did and I demand that you show me the exact quote where I even hinted that I did.

​

It really is that important, riVeRraT.

​

Rrhain writes:

​

In fact, all life as described in Genesis 1 was created from constituents present on earth. The oceans and the land brought forth life.

​

Therefore, what's the problem with humans doing the same thing?

---

I fail to see how this proves that I know where life comes from. What I did was state, accurately, that the Bible claims that life came from constituents present on the earth. Do you deny the existence of Genesis 1:11, 20, 24, 2:7, 22, and 3:19?What I then did was ask you why it would be problematic for humans to take constituents present on earth and do the same thing? There are two points here: One, according to the Bible, god did not clap his hands, delcaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear ex nihilo. Instead, it came from the earth. And yet you say that you will not be satisfied to call it "life" if a human does it unless he can clap his hands, declaim "Presto!" and have a kitten appear.Two, you seem to be putting an artificial barrier up to the definition of "life" that requires it to be made by god and that if humans create something that anybody else would declare to be "life," you would balk and call it a "biological machine."Try again. Where did I ever say that we [I][B]KNOW[/i][/b] where life came from? If I recall correctly, I have directly and specifically stated my personal feelings on the subject previously. Let me refresh your memory:I don't think we'll ever know. We may be able to come up with a process that results in life as we currently see it, but that doesn't tell us how life actually started here on this planet. In order to do that, we'll need to find evidence in the geologic record that reveals the remnants of the process. But considering that the first life was most likely on the molecular level, came into being so long ago, and did so on a geologically active planet, I seriously doubt we'll ever find the evidence.And if life came to this planet extraterrestrially, how on earth can you trace that back? Yes, there's a pun there.But that is neither here nor there. The question is not how the specific life that we see today first arose on this planet. The question is whether or not life can arise chemically and if so, how might it happen? That doesn't mean there is only one way nor does it mean that the way we find is what happened four billion years ago.So please, riVeRraT, try again. Where have I said that we [I][B]KNOW[/i][/b] where life came from?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Probably the same attitude that makes you think that your idea of god is so much mightier than everybody else's. If you want, I can drag up your quotes regarding Judaism.

---

​

I want you to know, that I do not think my idea of God is mightier than anyone else's, and that I do not have a problem with other religions, or atheists. God created it all, so there is a purpose for it.

---

I warned you, riVeRraT:riVeRraT says that Jews are fools for not following Jesus: Message 172 of "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" threadriVeRraT says that Jews refuse to accept the divinity of Jesus out of fear: Message 241 of "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" thread: Message 260 of "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" thread : In fact, when directly asked about it, you admitted it straight up: Message 264 of "Is man inherently good or inherently evil?" thread : Have you had a change of heart, riVeRraT? I've been away for a while so I don't know if you've had an epiphany and thus have renounced your previous claims.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.