Originally posted by kmax87Nice c&p
From an overall perspective of how incredibly complex the purportedly 'simple' cell actually is, chirality seems the least of anyones problems when coming up with postulates as to how a nano factory manages to assemble itself, based on speculative reasoning on the probability of its least complex elements ordering themselves into the regulatory hierarchies th ...[text shortened]... of an obfuscatory delusion that masquerades as knowledge and provable experimental fact.
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe answer to your question is "no", as far as I'm aware. To do so would be hugely (logistically) difficult though. "Early earth" conditions (i.e. reducing environment, sterile, high UV, CO2, N2 rich atmosphere, probably containing ammonia, 0%O2, clay / rock substrate, tide action etc) would have to be recreated, on a very large scale (millions of cubic kilometers) for a very long time (tens of thousands of years). I.e. You'd have to recreate the planet.
huh?
In actuality, nothing so complex or long term would probably be required, I suspect life is rather easy to "create", or evolve. Its merely a case getting the chemical constituents right, most of which readily (spontaneously) form under the conditions present in "early earth".
it's deeply embedded in wiki (took a few minutes searching from the "life" wiki, and by the way, scott, isn't that you halfway down the "life" wiki?), but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
"The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution (the Oparin and Haldane hypothesis stated that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors; the Miller-Urey experiment tested this hypothesis). The experiment is considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life. It was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago.
...
Recent related studies
During recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller-Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids -- only those available in prebiotic nature -- than the current one (Brooks et al. 2002).
"
Originally posted by zeeblebotBada-boom-cha. Yes, zeeb, that's me, hanging out with your ma.
it's deeply embedded in wiki (took a few minutes searching from the "life" wiki, and by the way, scott, isn't that you halfway down the "life" wiki?), but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
"The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and ...[text shortened]... available in prebiotic nature -- than the current one (Brooks et al. 2002).
"
Good post btw.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf you've run out of ripostes or rebuffs then I suppose ad homine is your next best option.
Nice c&p
Considering that I wrote that, I’m not sure where I was supposed to have c&peed it from.. Must have evolved from my subconscious or less likely I suppose, it could have been the product of a creative burst of inspiration or something.
My last analogy on the subject for what its worth if for nothing other than the sheer mindless entertainment of it all.
Suppose for an instant that a self replicating artificial life form in the form of a humanoid android were created in a lab somewhere after self conscious A.I had been formed, after researchers had pushed the boundaries of self actualising algorithms up the path of greatest resistance for decades, with the result that the apocalyptic nightmare feared by fundamentalists the world over ensues, at the hand of inorganic ‘life’ forms ridding themselves of the organic.
Suppose then that sometime in the far distant future, billions of years in fact, a team of research android's who are descended from this generation that disposed of man, start examining returned data from a probe sent to chart the wasteland that had become of earth. Part of the big debate on Droidia was the origins of Android ‘life’ with some saying that the tale that they were the descendents of the creations of machines made by Carbon 14 life forms was not only preposterous but in the absence of proof of the existence of Carbon 14 lifeforms, what a nice crutch it was to have such a simple minded faith to believe such nonsense. Surely this was none other than the desperate cry of those who did not want to accept the inevitability of eventually becoming incompatible with the state of the art in technology, and the reality of being for all inorganic life, that would one day see all be junked, switched off, thrown on the scrap heap to finally be recycled.
A much more reasonable rational concept emerged to become the scientific consensus in that far off future. Scientists were convinced that life started in the sandy deserts of the middle east. The abundance of sand which under the right sets of circumstances, ie; exposure to heat and random stochastic influences were believed to have provided the raw materials to have somehow assembled the first I.C. As the latest surveys concurred, there was much evidence to suggest that the area of the middle east thought to be the birth place of Droid_001, had undergone cataclysmic geothermal activity millions of years before the first appearance of life, with much evidence pointing to extraordinary explosive activity which seemed to support the long held theory of an initial big bang. This was believed to have initiated a long chain reaction of events which ultimately led to silicon chips being formed randomly throughout the desert areas.
The finding of a cache of chipsets which had been stockpiled deep beneath the surface of the desert by a certain cpu manufacturer with an Israeli r&d arm had fuelled speculation even further. Only the chipsets had survived the millennia to the day of their discovery and as such the androids on finding them thought they had proof positive that the sand if agitated randomly enough could give rise to an incredible array of intricately formed engineered objects.
Some were sceptical at how an I.C could have formed out of random processes and were howled at for arguing that the intricacies of the design suggested that they were the product of a creative force, instead of as was popularly accepted as being the product of random processes over millions of years. From their far off vista a p2 microchip for all its relative complexity seemed very primitive and simple and soon the Droid scientists, had their proposal that the chip had probably come into existence during some form of desert storm as a universally accepted fact.
The incredible symmetry and design of the chipsets were played down by the scientists who merely pointed to the wave patterns in the sand dunes as evidence that order in nature was a randomly occurring phenomenon.
If you can accept that amino acids can randomly aggregate into proteins which will then provide a spatial reality around which RNA and DNA can form, then you can accept that in the aftermath of thermonuclear activity, sand could transform itself into silicon chips, that would be compatible with PC architectures.
Originally posted by kmax87No, but I can't be bothered to read your long posts. In a reducing environment, protein hydrolysis would not have been an issue.
If you've run out of ripostes or rebuffs then I suppose ad homine is your next best option.
Considering that I wrote that, I’m not sure where I was supposed to have c&peed it from.. Must have evolved from my subconscious or less likely I suppose, it could have been the product of a creative burst of inspiration or something.
My last analogy on the subje ...[text shortened]... could transform itself into silicon chips, that would be compatible with PC architectures.[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzAs for the Turing test, here is a quote from the same page you cite:
Perhaps you would enjoy reading Julian Jaynes book, "The origin of consciousness in the break-down of the bicameral mind". It will expand upon some of the things I have touched upon. Really, believing that the "mind" or "consciousness" is somehow separate from the physical brain and does not have a physical basis is not scientific, has no basis in fac ...[text shortened]... - as for the Turing test but see,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Turing_Test
As there is no clear definition of consciousness and no empirical measure exists to test for its presence, it has been argued that due to the nature of the problem of consciousness, empirical tests are intrinsically impossible. However, several tests have been developed which attempt to provide an operational definition of consciousness and try to determine whether computers and other non-human animals can demonstrate through their behavior, by passing these tests, that they are conscious.
You use this link to argue that the Turing Test is a geniuine test for conciousness, but you ignore the disclaimer on the page itself. Also, it has never been my understanding that the Turing Test was ever a test to test for conciousness. Turing originally proposed the test as a way to gage whether a computer is "thinking". Here is his response to an objection:
Argument From Consciousness: This argument, suggested by Professor Jefferson Lister states, "not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain". Turing replies by saying that we have no way of knowing that any individual other than ourselves experiences emotions, and that therefore we should accept the test.
This is not the reply of a man that thinks he as genuinely constructed a test of conciousness.
But for the sake of argument, suppose Turing does claim his test can determine conciousness. I can propose my own test call the "TechSouth Test". Press a dime firmly against your forehead. If the dime sticks for more than 1 second, you have demonstrated that you are a being with a mind distinct from matter.
Silly test, sure. But it is just as valid as the Turing Test if used for determining conciousness. I am sure some reading this will think I am the naive one, but regardless of how smart Turing was, there is no scientific reason to believe his test can measure conciousness (and I don't believe he would have claimed that). To take such a claim is the equivalent of believing someone who tells you there are 200 billion stars in the universe. There ought to be some skepticism inside you that is able to discern that such things are extremely difficult to know for even people much smarter than yourself.
I will take a look at least at the reviews for the book you mention. But I have to admit I am not optimistic. When one has a world view that there is no spiritual world, one has little choice but to accept that conciousness emerges from chemicals. I am sure I will find Julian Jaynes to be very intelligent, but I would not be willing to accept conclusions on such difficult questions without some very convincing reasoning.
Originally posted by kmax87Here you are arguing against saltationism, not evolutionism. And the ultimate incarnation of saltationism? Creationism.
If you can accept that amino acids can randomly aggregate into proteins which will then provide a spatial reality around which RNA and DNA can form, then you can accept that in the aftermath of thermonuclear activity, sand could transform itself into silicon chips, that would be compatible with PC architectures.
Originally posted by kmax87This is a crap analogy - for evolution at least. It is an excellent analogy for saltationism though.
Furthermore the random chance explanation is a bit like expecting a building to assemble itself with only the most primary and rudimentary of its structural elements present, without the aid of tools such as rivet guns, saws, hammers, as well as an array of tradespeople to wield them. In every respect of this analogy there are comparable tools within a cell ...[text shortened]... le the constituent building blocks into recognizable elements that make for a functioning cell.
The earliest cells would not have been as complex as the ones are today. Indeed, we still have some very, very basic cells around the place, bacteria and archae mainly, which could be postulated to be very very old.
Also, you seem to have completely ignored me when I pointed out that even single amino acids have some catalytic capacity. Long chain proteins are better, yes, but not necessary, especially when you live in an environment when everything else is doing the same. Look at it this way, 1960's Formula One cars would get trashed by today's F1 cars, but they were very fast and competitive by the standards of the day. Oh, and I'll say it again, zinc can be used to replicate DNA and RNA.
Originally posted by scottishinnzZinc? Can you point me to more information?
This is a crap analogy - for evolution at least. It is an excellent analogy for saltationism though.
The earliest cells would not have been as complex as the ones are today. Indeed, we still have some very, very basic cells around the place, bacteria and archae mainly, which could be postulated to be very very old.
Also, you seem to have compl ...[text shortened]... standards of the day. Oh, and I'll say it again, zinc can be used to replicate DNA and RNA.