|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: AL (Artificial Life) and the people who love it | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Noodling around http://www.sciencebogs.com, I ran across this thanks to PZ Myers.
Seems the wetlab boys are giddy; they think creating life from scratch is within reach. 3-10 years! PZ notes:
It's just a particularly complicated kind of chemistry, and it's more of a deep technical problem than anything else. And the creos are already up in arms. PZ is already getting hate mail:
Every day millions of children are aborted and disposed of, their tiny neurological and immune systems forever lost to the universe. Man preoccupies himself with tinker-tots while daily disposing of healthy, fully developed systems. Life-from-scratch is going to pose an ... interesting ... dilemma for creos. Not the least of which is "creating life from a buncha chemicals". I'm curious.What arguments might a creo offer as explanation for the inevitable evolution-in-a-petri-dish. Because believe you me, them wetlab boys aren't going to stop with a buncha oil-munching microbes. Who knows what they're gonna cook up? Oh. btw. Should you take the opportunity to peruse PZ's site, there's a cartoon on that page that I wish I had the wherewithall to post here. I've followed the "posting images" instructions, and I can't get the dadgum thing to post. Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(Artificial Life)" part to the topic title.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What arguments might a creo offer as explanation for the inevitable evolution-in-a-petri-dish. People are different because they have souls that are from God. "Evolution-in-a-petri-dish" doesn't hurt my faith, but then, evolution itself doesn't either so maybe I don't fit your qualifications for being a "creo".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
What arguments might a creo offer as explanation for the inevitable evolution-in-a-petri-dish. "See? It takes an intelligent agent to make life!" I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
"See? It takes an intelligent agent to make life!" Ah, yes. But! Won't AI undermine the abiogenesis critics?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It really is just a matter of time. And the day is getting closer and closer.
Life-from-scratch is going to pose an ... interesting ... dilemma for creos. Not the least of which is "creating life from a buncha chemicals". Only some creos. There are many of us who would simply say, "Oh, that's one way God might have done it. Let's see what other ways he might have done it? Then let's see if any of those actually seem to be what did happen?" The issue of creating living things is only a problem for those who worship small, picayune goddlets. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
molbiogirl writes: Won't AI undermine the abiogenesis critics? Not at all. Any man-made living material still needs God to breathe life into it, or some such nonsense. Until that happens - which it won't of course - they can happily maintain that the stuff is not really alive. By the way, shouldn't you be talking about "AL", instead of "AI"?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Bless you, Pars!
I wanted so badly to upload WTC pics last night! Edited by molbiogirl, : poor grammar
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Scientists have been observing precells formed on their own inside petri dishes for decades, and yet creationism are still as popular as ever. What makes you think this will be any different?
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Oh Taz.
I haven't any doubt that the creos will continue on, rabid as ever. I'm just curious ... what specifically will they find bothersome about AL? It kicks the stuffing out of their contention that "Life couldn't come outta a buncha chemicals! Why that's absurd!" (Tip o' the hat to Pars for the new acronym!)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3627 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Chiroptera: "See? It takes an intelligent agent to make life!" Which is why scientists are doing it instead of creos. Archer All species are transitional.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Before the urey miller experiment, they said that organic material in general couldn't form on their own. After the experiment, they pointed out that these organic materials couldn't combine on their own to form any kind of structure that remotely resemble a cell. Precells were discovered to form naturally under certain situation. But you see, they pointed out, these weren't actual "cells" since they don't reproduce.
My prediction: After cells are proven to be able to form on their own in certain condition, the creationists will point out that single cell organisms aren't really life and that only multicellular life will impress them. They will continue to move the goal post until it is required for a primate to give birth to a fully grown christian white male before they will budge. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 445 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I saw this article the other day, this should be a great discussion here.
What arguments might a creo offer as explanation for the inevitable evolution-in-a-petri-dish. Because believe you me, them wetlab boys aren't going to stop with a buncha oil-munching microbes. Who knows what they're gonna cook up? First off, they aren't the only ones who are in a race to be the first to "create"(make) life in a petri dish. I want to say, that they aren't making life from scratch, like God did. They are only combining existing compounds, and making a biological machine. Will it be life? That remains to be seen.Will it be able to replicate itself? Will it get sick? Will it evolve? For me, it means nothing until it happens. The only thing I am worried about is if their so called "life" is successful, will it run amok? They are saying it won't, but why should I believe them?They are talking about designing biological machines to help cure diseases, sounds dangerous to me. Even if I didn't believe in God (which I didn't for most of my life) I don't feel as though we have a right to be playing games with life. That does not mean, I am against curing peoples diseases. Here is the cartoon:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
riVeRraT writes: I want to say, that they aren't making life from scratch, like God did. Look at them goalposts run. Do scientists have to make their own atoms before their homemade life counts? That's like saying your supper isn't really supper unless you grew all the food yourself. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
riverrat writes:
But these same compounds have been created countless times before in various apparatuses (apparati?). I want to say, that they aren't making life from scratch, like God did. They are only combining existing compounds, and making a biological machine. The point of the experiment isn't to disprove god the creator, riverrat. The point is to take one step at a time to see if life can come about through natural processes. We've been able to create the organic compounds. We've seen them come together to form primitive bio machines (precells). Now, we're trying to see if a cell is a step away or not.
Even if I didn't believe in God (which I didn't for most of my life) I don't feel as though we have a right to be playing games with life. That does not mean, I am against curing peoples diseases.
I am always amused by people's nature to insert random commas in random places... Anyway, I'm just curious. Are you against genetic engineering of any kind? Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Silly Ringo, scientists will have to create their own protons, electrons, neutrons, etc. until they'd have to create their own energy strings.
Molbigirl, if you're reading this, go back to your original post and press edit. Then replace "AI" with "AL" before I go crazy over it. Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024