Write4U
Valued Senior Member
One that will get its own food would be great.
How about one who could cook delicious recipes and bring you your food?
One that will get its own food would be great.
Since the human mind is the push that is leading to self replicating machines with all the criteria of life, it follows the human mind defines a new path of evolution that allows departure from biological evolution. Instead of life leading to consciousness, it is consciousness leading to life. This transition is describe in the bible as the creation of the universe; tipping point. This is where mind over matter starts to lead.
are you referring to my statement "machines will never come alive"?I love when people say some technology or another will never come to be, it reminds me of all those times people said things like "Man will never fly" or "They will never replace the horse", etc.
Once we recognize that living organisms are no more alive than machines are, that line of reasoning takes a turn and leaves Creationism in the dust. Let me refine that: cells are a very special class of machines. They just seem to be operating at over-unity which gives creationists the need to invent souls to explain all of that order, complexity and missing energy they can't account for. Of course the real reason for their accounting shortfall is that they are deliberately ignoring all of the science that explains what's going on in the world around them.are you referring to my statement "machines will never come alive"?
they might come alive with intelligent intervention, never on their own accord.
Creationists make God forbid certain reactions that would randomly occur. They make God sneak back into the schoolhouse and erase select permutations from the chalkboard, as if every day the class begins with a selective memory that God reprograms in our sleep. All of this is their defense mechanism, born out of intense fear that everything they've invested in their beliefs is proving to have been a waste of their time.yes, i can easily see the "mechanics" of cell construction.
the question is what would be a good definition of life, one that applies to all life and nothing else.
for example, one definition would allow us to include fire as life.
fire isn't "alive"
It was more than enough - the rest is details. All of the Creation Science they invent will never face the reality of those details. It's one thing to build a house of cards, and then quite another to try to prove it isn't made of cellulose coated in polymers.-But the belief that sludge can not synthesize certain molecules needed to create cells where non existed before is way way too strict a limit.
miller-urey disproved this long ago, they didn't get all they needed for life though.
Amino acids must precede self replicating molecules, which precede synthesis of the cell membrane. Even if all that produces is self-replicating RNA inside of a protective shell, it's enough to meet the Creationist demand for life from life. The Miller-Urey experiment isn't that big a deal to science one way or the other, but it brought Creationism to its knees. It proved once and for all that their childish oversimplifications can always be answered with methodical testing - that the truth is stranger than fiction. Of course it made for some really great sci-fi movies, too.miller-urey probably sent biology down the wrong road anyway.
maybe we didn't start with amino acids.
Spontaneously!question is, "how"?
If you mean accidents aren't accidental then there would be no need for insurance companies. Monte Carlo and Las Vegas would be ghost towns.-the family of eight on their way to the church picnic.
yes, and this accident had a cause
If not for my interest in science I would not even know what a probability density function is. These humps in the illustration Lewin used - those are Gaussian densities. This may be another reason folks assume you are religious. Creationists (esp. fundies) are heavily invested in a formulaic world in which God outlaws random processes, but only when the Creationists are looking. Shot noise, come to think of it, would be an interesting thing for them to explain. Cells are not only not immune from stochastic events, they rely on them. Nothing would circulate inside the cell if not for Brownian motion. It's facts like these that distinguish science from Creationism. Creationists are too accustomed to patterning the world to their personal expectations, as opposed to the automaton we call expectation. Creationism is all about sweeping science under the rug and pretending the house is immaculate.-is also the same as acknowledging that a lot of stuff about life is uncaused - . . .
oh my, this doesn't sound very scientific of you aqueous.
Right now we have the illustration Lewin used which is good enough for me. Obviously they never found any issues with Darwin other than tempo. 99% of the issues that came up in this thread so far are depicted in that illustration.i so wish i had a transcript of this conference.
are you referring to my statement "machines will never come alive"?
they might come alive with intelligent intervention, never on their own accord.
are you referring to my statement "machines will never come alive"?
they might come alive with intelligent intervention, never on their own accord.
This has been posted before, but here is the link:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
What is interesting about knowledge about evolution is that it is predictive (whereas 'creationism' is not). For example, in the above we can see that Human Chromosome 2 is the result of the fusion of two chromosomes into a single chromosome, leaving one of the centrioles inactive as a 'remnant' of the fusion. With this knowledge, one might wonder whether any of the other chromosomes can be the result of fusion of two chromosomes. If so, we might see an inactive centriole remnant from that fusion. Thus, we might search the other chromsomes to see whether such remnant exists, and ascertain which chromosomes fused in the even more distant past than the fusion resulting in Chromosome 2 (which is not yet well-dated, other than generally occurring sometime between about 6 million ya and 200,000 ya).
machines aren't alive.Once we recognize that living organisms are no more alive than machines are, that line of reasoning takes a turn and leaves Creationism in the dust.
it wasn't enough to produce life and it appears it wasn't enough to even begin to.It was more than enough - the rest is details.
it depends on what you call "life".Even if all that produces is self-replicating RNA inside of a protective shell, it's enough to meet the Creationist demand for life from life.
every lab test i am aware of has failed to prove what you just said.Spontaneously!
most "accidents" are directly caused by negligence by one of the drivers involved.If you mean accidents aren't accidental then there would be no need for insurance companies. Monte Carlo and Las Vegas would be ghost towns.
Since all living things originate from their common ancestors, even though primates may be mankind's common ancestor, this does not stop Mankind" becoming/being a class of its own.Perhaps leopold was suffering from some kind of observer bias with "humans aren't animals".
This is easy to prove wrong: humans are mammals, mammals are animals, therefore humans are animals (in fact closely related to other mammals called primates).
You mean, not artificial machines, although that distinction gets fuzzier as time goes on. Yet cells are chemical machines. They possess no magic, no soul, and no surplus energy; all they do are the kinds of reactions any chemical plant does/would/could do.machines aren't alive.
The old definition of life has given way to our understanding that there was prebiotic life.it wasn't enough to produce life and it appears it wasn't enough to even begin to.
At some point that concept becomes fairly useless. All that really matters to a Creationist is some particular kind of evidence, and when it's found they simply hire more nuts to invent new kinds of denial against it.it depends on what you call "life". so far i haven't seen any definitions for life presented.
Life is chemical; chemical reactions occur spontaneously as a consequence of something as basic as Brownian motion. Everything in labs involves something unexpected. The best you can do is calibrate for noise. But even the first lab classes in science concern basic measurements, with questions at the end asking students to explain why successive measurements are not exactly the same. Chemistry is highly probabilistic, whether you're dealing with pH, the equilibrium after a reaction, or spontaneous binding of a lipid barrier around a strand of self-replicating RNA--if that's how we choose to define "first life".every lab test i am aware of has failed to prove what you just said [Spontaneously!].
All you need is self-replicating RNA which has been done. I took that a little farther and added a cell wall to appease Creationists that this would be the minimum definition of "life from life" since there is no hard definition one way or the other.again we need a definition before we go very much further down this road.
Accident also means uncaused, at least in the statistical sense. Wherever the roulette wheel lands, in connection to where you placed your bet, is random. The same is true when we try to trace the exact source of genetic code of any person. It's a lottery.most "accidents" are directly caused by negligence by one of the drivers involved.
accident, something that cannot be prepared for.
This thread has been about Creation Science since the OP. I'm just reminded of it a lot as I read the posts.BTW, you seem to be getting "creationist fever"
Since all living things originate from their common ancestors, even though primates may be mankind's common ancestor, this does not stop Mankind" becoming/being a class of its own.
It doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to notice Humans have become, at least showing signs of beginning to be, a new class of living organism "Homo destructor" - the only living thing to destroy the planet it lives on!
We'll be breeding out of test tubes soon. Mammalian ancestry for sure but we've taken the next evolutionary step beyond that; we've now gone into the "Gods" for want of a better word.Actually yes, it does. Mankind is its own species but not its own class. Our class is mammalia.
Oh, green algae did an excellent job of destroying the reducing atmosphere of the planet a few billion years back. They've done far more than we have to change this place.
We'll be breeding out of test tubes soon.
As far as destroying our planet you can be fooled into thinking you are doing all right but it is an artificial heaven you are living in.
OK a cell is a machine nothing more. Well that is good, for life then could have started on Mercury after all. Just needs the right parts and put it together and away it will go like a well oiled machine. I think you are right about that; it is just getting through the complexity of the initial stages of raw chemicals to the budding cell and that part has not really been understood as yet. But it will come.
Thanks.
artificial machines aren't alive and neither are chemical processes.You mean, not artificial machines, although that distinction gets fuzzier as time goes on. Yet cells are chemical machines. They possess no magic, no soul, and no surplus energy; all they do are the kinds of reactions any chemical plant does/would/could do.
biogenesis, life comes from life.I think the contemporary understanding of prebiotic life is full of rich evidence that makes biogenesis more solidly founded than ever before.
who cares what matters to a creationist?At some point that concept becomes fairly useless. All that really matters to a Creationist is some particular kind of evidence, and when it's found they simply hire more nuts to invent new kinds of denial against it.
assumption pure and simple, but it does appear that life only operates inside cells.Life is chemical;
yes,spontaneously.chemical reactions occur spontaneously as a consequence of something as basic as Brownian motion.
i gave my definition of "life", maybe you can add to it.if that's how we choose to define "first life".
like i said, who cares what "appeases" creationists.All you need is self-replicating RNA which has been done. I took that a little farther and added a cell wall to appease Creationists . . .
can you give an example of an "accident without a cause", one that can be verified that is.Accident also means uncaused, at least in the statistical sense.
not from me.This thread has been about Creation Science since the OP.
You need to read the whole thread! 230 pages of it. It looks improbable when looked at it now but prior to solar flares what then?Sounds like you're hoping to trace life to Mercury. So far it seems like probiotic genesis requires an abundance of liquid water, a temperate climate, carbon and nitrogen sources, and a pumping of energy from source to sink. One thing that comes to mind about Mercury's proximity to the Sun is whether any primitive cells would even form under the higher solar radiation. Solar flares might prevent life from ever succeeding there, even if it ever had the necessary ingredients.
It does bring to mind though how Creationists like to point to Earth as specially situated for special creation, as if all logic is reversible.
artificial machines aren't alive and neither are chemical processes.
At any one time when one species emerges from its ancestral gene pool there isn't an instant cut off from one type( species) to the other. Just the same as with Homo sapiens still having neanderthal genes and probably ape-like features at times too, Homo destructor is just diverging away from Homo sapiens.?? We already are. However, tricks to increase fertility hardly change even our species, much less our class.
We've cloned sheep; does that mean that sheep are now a new class of organism?
Yes, most people nowadays do live in an 'artificial heaven.' It's better than wearing a bear.