Re No.
OK a no answer for not AI.
Leads to baby not being artificial.
Aim here is to decide on WHEN baby became not artificial (not artificial was decided with the no answer declaring intelligence of baby not being AI).
Last edited:
Most British scientists: Richard Dawkins' work misrepresents science
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Re No.
OK a no answer for not AI.
Leads to baby not being artificial.
Aim here is to decide on WHEN baby became not artificial (not artificial was decided with the no answer declaring intelligence of baby not being AI).
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Being realistic this is way outside my area of expertise which is more around non existent mythical entities which as they are non existent and mythical I find that I need to know little or nothing about about them.
However my observation would be if I made one, which I dont, is that the baby is not artificial, even its conception is not artificial it is merely different to what we have become accustomed to...
If we created life by boiling some chemicals under a special light could we call that life artificial, I dont see how we could, but of course there will be those who may disagree with me but they would be wrong.
Alex
And that post followed a post by exchemist.
It was more a chemistry question.
:EDIT:
As far as I know, carbon can form more molecules than any other element; a precursor to DNA.
Last edited:
I'm hoping you're right.
Yes but was anyone disputing that? No need to answer btw.
Yes but, how many people wouldn't have known?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I was coming from the direction of the cross examination game played in another lifetime.
Some of the smart arse has not left me unfortunately.
I take this opportunity to appologise to you if there is anything that I have said that may have upset you.
I am old and prone to outbursts of silliness which I hope you can overlook and perhaps in time forgive.
I have been trying to inject a little bit of cheerfulness into this thread so as to ease the tention that I perceive building.
Your questions are important and you have every right to ask them.
There in no such thing as a silly question.
Alex
At a place like this, I'd guess quite a few.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro
extract:
No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.
Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap [4, 10, 15, 28].
Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! [8]
Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".
Conclusions
The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.
At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.
However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping.
extract:
No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.
Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap [4, 10, 15, 28].
Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! [8]
Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".
Conclusions
The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.
At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.
However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping.
Here's an interesting 45 minute video, discussing the origins of life here and elsewhere by a bunch of professionals including Richard Dawkins, J. Craig Venter, Nobel laureates Sidney Altman and Leland Hartwell, Chris McKay, Paul Davies, Lawrence Krauss, and The Science Network's Roger Bingham discuss the origins of life, the possibility of finding life elsewhere, and the latest development in synthetic biology.
Just one more video I find appropriate to the nonsense being pushed here.....
only 5 minutes also!
Intelligent Design is Stupid: Neil deGrasse Tyson:
NeildeGrasse Tyson the comedian.
How many hats does this man have?
NeildeGrasse Tyson the comedian.
How many hats does this man have?
He was in Sydney a couple of months ago, doing a lecture tour, and all to full houses!Could not get a ticket at all!
You say that, but you have not posted their cogent arguments, you have posted fundie crap you got from long-debunked website bs. And you have not posted from any other source for ID arguments at all. So in what way are you different from the dozens of previous A-fundie spammers a forum like this one has dealt with over the decades?
You have yet to post anything except this, already noted: "(Your posts so far have presented detailed evidence that modern living beings are very complex, and the true claim that nobody knows exactly how the earliest living beings came to exist - "
and a couple of probability claims that amount to basic, elementary level errors of concept and calculation. You inferred a cumulative probability of unity from the fact of an event having occurred, for example.
Is that what you think of as a "good argument"? Because nobody thinks of that kind of stuff as good argument, (or uses terms like "materialist philosophy" when addressing Darwinian evolution), except Abrahamic Monotheistic Fundamentalists.
Could not get a ticket at all!
Any ID'ers on poster?
You know. Just to be PC and present the other side.
Equal time and all that.
<< Poe markTook you a whole day of ruminating to come up with that Mendacious spiel? And so repetitive. Just couldn't let things be. Please go unload your pent up spite on someone else. Oh, forgot, you in fact do just that all over the place. As a kind of perverse hobby. Sad.
And so we have our answer to this question:
In no way.
And just to bring it around: this is part of what Dawkins is pointing to when he makes those claims about religion that so offend the religious and "misrepresent science". He's saying things that are simply and obviously true.
Reported.
Not sure what emotion to express after that amazing little hypocritical doozy!
Is this simply the greatest example of dummy spitting that this forum has seen?
Last edited: