Synthetic life.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2013, 01:41 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2013 01:53 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(24-03-2013 01:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-03-2013 06:08 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Your argument is flawed right off the bat. The technology that is required by intelligent beings who want to create life wasn't around billions of years go, which is why there is no reason to assume that life on Earth could have originated that way unless you believe that we were created by an advanced extraterrestrial species that possessed said technology.

Contrary to the creation of synthetic life, abiogenesis works without the technology that we have today. In fact, the very goal of the Miller–Urey experiment was to simulate the conditions that were present on Earth billions of years ago.

Also you make an error here. You assume no intellect or technology existed and therefore labratory created life is not evidence that intellect could have created life on this planet. An assumption is contained in your conclusion.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 01:51 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(24-03-2013 01:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-03-2013 01:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  

Let X = life on earth was created by intelligence.
Let Y = the existence of an intellect who could create life, when life originated on this planet.

P(X) <= P(Y)

This is what you are saying. It is a valid point(as I explained to Hanof earlier in this thread). What is ironic is that in the probability thread you claimed that we would need to actually calculate these probabilities before we can make such statements. Your thinking in this thread contradicts your thinking in the other thread.


Also Miller-Urey didn't demonstrate abiogenesis....didn't even come close. Was it awesome? Sure but it no way did it even come close to demonstrating abiogenesis.
Actually, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated that Amino Acids, which can be considered the basic building blocks of basic life, could be formed naturally in a primeval earth environment. These amino acids give it a possibility of forming life without divine or intelligent intervention. Basically, the M-U experiment showed it was possible to naturally form the components of life.

It's a step in the right direction, more or less. It basically points to a possible smoking gun, we just need more study in the field.

Also, I might edit this post to further explain what we do know in terms of abiogenesis when I have my biology book in front of me.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 02:24 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(24-03-2013 01:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Let X = life on earth was created by intelligence.
Let Y = the existence of an intellect who could create life, when life originated on this planet.

P(X) <= P(Y)

This is what you are saying. It is a valid point(as I explained to Hanof earlier in this thread). What is ironic is that in the probability thread you claimed that we would need to actually calculate these probabilities before we can make such statements. Your thinking in this thread contradicts your thinking in the other thread.
Actually, this does not even remotely resemble what I've said in this thread, but congratulations on purposely constructing and attacking a straw man version of my argument. I see your dishonest tactics haven't changed one bit.

Firstly, not once did I say anything about probabilities in this entire thread whatsoever.

Secondly, I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to you until you finally grasp it, but neither P(X), nor P(Y) are events of a random and repeatable experiment.

Thirdly, I still stand by my argument that you need to calculate the probability of an event (if these were actually events) before you can make a statement like that.

Finally, there is no contradiction between my arguments in this thread and the probability thread since I never made the argument that you put in my mouth.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 02:32 PM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2013 02:36 PM by Vosur.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(24-03-2013 01:41 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Also you make an error here. You assume no intellect or technology existed and therefore labratory created life is not evidence that intellect could have created life on this planet. An assumption is contained in your conclusion.
I suggest you to re-read my response to Ghost and the post you're replying to, because neither did I make these assumptions, nor does my argument rely on them.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 04:40 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
Hey, AtotheT.

Miller-Urey for sure shows that amino acids can form. Fox shows that microspheres can form (a candidate for cellular membranes). But there's still a jump we haven't hurdled and that is, does/did all of this lead to life?

Hey, Vosur.

Quote:I think you misunderstood what I said. Heywood argues that a successful creation of life in a lab (human technology) shows that life on Earth could have originated as the creation of intelligent beings. I responded that this argument doesn't work unless you assume that these "intelligent beings" who supposedly created us possessed our technology. His argument would be a non-sequitur otherwise, since showing that human technology can create life doesn't prove that alien technology can do the same.

I gotta disagree, brother.

If I start a fire in laboratory conditions using matches, then I know that fire can be caused deliberately by an entity with an intellect (instead of mindless phenomena like lava or lightning).

In no way shape or form is any other intellect, known or hypothetical, required to use matches to start a fire. The can rub sticks, strike flint, use a zippo, use a blowtorch, fire their Illudium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator, doesn't matter. We know that the technology (the idea) is possible. The application (the thing or the method) is irrelevant.

However, what this doesn't prove is three things:
1 - THAT an intellect created life on Earth
2 - WHO that intellect is
3 - WHAT application they used





Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 05:08 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
(24-03-2013 01:56 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I have to admit, the only thing that bothers me about abiogenesis is, "why did it only occur 4.5 billion years ago? Why isn't it always happening?"

Who's saying it only occurred 4.5 billion years ago? If primitive life arose now, how would you or I know it was happening? You point out "primordial soup" conditions, and I propose that the most important of those conditions was the lack of competition. If a new form of cellular life were to develop right now, it would be competing with organisms that have had the time to become much better suited to the environment... its chances of survival would be very nearly 0%.

The source that I cited on page 3 of this thread explains a likely probability of abiogenesis, and if it is accurate then we can expect that abiogenesis happens at some random place in the world routinely. But we'd have to be extremely lucky to observe it. In any case, I love the rest of your post and I enjoy the amount of thought put into it.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 05:09 PM
RE: Synthetic life.

(24-03-2013 01:29 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  

(24-03-2013 12:56 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  



WOW, just wow...smh

Producing fire in a lab doesn't mean nature can
Producing electricity in a lab doesn't mean nature can
Producing light in a lab doesn't mean nature can

Reproducing the conditions of early earth and then stepping back and see what happens means YES you can.

Do you think that natural chemicals and chemicals in a lab are some how different ?
Are there "lab elements" and natural elements, you know like lab oxygen, lab nitrogen ?
Perhaps the pressure that can be created in a laboratory is different.
Maybe chemical reactions that happen in a lab don't occur in nature when you take those reactions outside ?

Really ? I mean like REALLY ?

*bangs head against wall until it hurts
(turns out it takes one bang)



Rhan, put you straw man away. I was pointing out that if Vosur is going to reject laboratory created life as evidence that intelligence can be the origin of life on the basis that it only demonstrates human intelligence can create life, then he should also reject labratory abiogenesis for the same reason. If abiogenesis is replicated in the lab, then abiogenesis becomes a demonstrated fact....just like intelligent design of life is or will very soon be a demonstrated fact.

But for fun i will adress you straw man argument, The element ununpentium can be produced in the lab, but it is not likely it can be produced without the aid of intellect. The same is true of a whole host of things including the device upon which you are reading this.

Strawman ? Really ? - Did I misrepresent what you said ? I don't think so.


Again, you are missing the connection.
A lab experiment reproducing a natural occurring biological process (abiogenesis) isn't the same as scientists making ununpentium by bombarding americium-243 with calcium-48 ions to produce it.
Ununpentium hasn't been shown to occur naturally as far as I know.

The same goes for the computer that I am using. It doesn't occur naturally.

I would accept that alien life (intelligence) can be responsible for bringing together the components that allow life to begin.
Or even by accident through comets, meteors, etc delivering proteins from outside our planet.
But at some point along the line that intelligence must have a naturally occurring beginning.

So far we don't have any evidence that I know of that another intelligence outside our own existing, let alone been shown that this intelligence has done anything to start life on this planet. As far as we can tell , our life was generated naturally. We can demonstrate that the building blocks can naturally form given the right conditions.


It would seem that this could also happen on other planets where the conditions are right for life to develop.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
24-03-2013, 05:40 PM
RE: Synthetic life.
Hey, Starcrash.

Point well made. Point well taken.

Although I'm still scratching my head about how abiogenesis needs hell on Earth conditions to happen, but complex life requires Goldilocks conditions to survive. That seems kinda fucked up to me.

And thanks for the props Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
25-03-2013, 12:16 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(24-03-2013 05:08 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(24-03-2013 01:56 AM)Ghost Wrote:  I have to admit, the only thing that bothers me about abiogenesis is, "why did it only occur 4.5 billion years ago? Why isn't it always happening?"

Who's saying it only occurred 4.5 billion years ago? If primitive life arose now, how would you or I know it was happening? You point out "primordial soup" conditions, and I propose that the most important of those conditions was the lack of competition. If a new form of cellular life were to develop right now, it would be competing with organisms that have had the time to become much better suited to the environment... its chances of survival would be very nearly 0%.

The source that I cited on page 3 of this thread explains a likely probability of abiogenesis, and if it is accurate then we can expect that abiogenesis happens at some random place in the world routinely. But we'd have to be extremely lucky to observe it. In any case, I love the rest of your post and I enjoy the amount of thought put into it.

I always find the competition.explanation on why we only see one lineage of life to be a bit hand wavy. Its like claiming God wrote his name on the side of the moon when he created it but you can't see it now because its been covered with meteor impacts.

Suppose there was a time when conditions on earth were just right for abiogenesis. It should have happened more than once, yet we only have evidence of one lineage. Now to claim that one lineage drove the rest to extinction implies that the one lineages was fittest a cross all the varied environments of the early earth. I just don't buy that.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 12:30 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(24-03-2013 05:09 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  
(24-03-2013 01:29 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  




Rhan, put you straw man away. I was pointing out that if Vosur is going to reject laboratory created life as evidence that intelligence can be the origin of life on the basis that it only demonstrates human intelligence can create life, then he should also reject labratory abiogenesis for the same reason. If abiogenesis is replicated in the lab, then abiogenesis becomes a demonstrated fact....just like intelligent design of life is or will very soon be a demonstrated fact.

But for fun i will adress you straw man argument, The element ununpentium can be produced in the lab, but it is not likely it can be produced without the aid of intellect. The same is true of a whole host of things including the device upon which you are reading this.

Strawman ? Really ? - Did I misrepresent what you said ? I don't think so.


Again, you are missing the connection.
A lab experiment reproducing a natural occurring biological process (abiogenesis) isn't the same as scientists making ununpentium by bombarding americium-243 with calcium-48 ions to produce it.
Ununpentium hasn't been shown to occur naturally as far as I know.

The same goes for the computer that I am using. It doesn't occur naturally.

I would accept that alien life (intelligence) can be responsible for bringing together the components that allow life to begin.
Or even by accident through comets, meteors, etc delivering proteins from outside our planet.
But at some point along the line that intelligence must have a naturally occurring beginning.

So far we don't have any evidence that I know of that another intelligence outside our own existing, let alone been shown that this intelligence has done anything to start life on this planet. As far as we can tell , our life was generated naturally. We can demonstrate that the building blocks can naturally form given the right conditions.


It would seem that this could also happen on other planets where the conditions are right for life to develop.

You argument depends on the premise that there must ultimately have been some initial natural occurring intellect. The premise that there must there must have been some initial natural occurring intellect depends on another premise. That other premise is only nature can create an intellect. Of course that other premise is false as evidenced by IBM's Watson computer laying the smack down to the two best Jeopardy champions in history. Intellect can beget intellect so you do not need nature as the first link in the chain.

If you assume there was no initial intellect and therefore no intellect could be responsible for the creation of life on this planet, you are making a fallacy by concluding something which is contained completely in one of your assumptions. You are guilty of circular thinking.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: