Artificial Life Created

Zombrex

sensibleken wrote: »

dubito ergo sum?

Not quite, Descarte seemed to be trying to prove his own existence by saying he wasn't sure he existed. That isn't quite the same thing.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

How is that given I mention God with no specific reference to any particular religion. Reads like just another atheistic swipe.

I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument that if atheists are wrong watch out. If you are wrong you are in as much trouble as I am, but that doesn't seem to bother you that much. So why we it bother me?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Is there a scientific evolutionary benefit to being religious?

I already answered that question. Yes there is an evolutionary benefit to being religion (see previous post)

sensibleken

Wicknight wrote: »

Not quite, Descarte seemed to be trying to prove his own existence by saying he wasn't sure he existed. That isn't quite the same thing.

only initially. from there he then moved onto proving the world and god exists and that arguement was complete non-sense. not that im saying all arguements for the existance of god are rubbish as i have not heard them all.

im referencing something that was stated way back in the thread that is probably now irrelevant and argueing that just because one can start at a tautology does not mean that one will arrive at the truth.

all we then have is aproximations of the truth which may be right or wrong depending on the progression of that logic be they thiest or athiest

the arguements conducted in this thread seem to me as an irrelevant party to those discussions that they seem to be a matter of trust.

those arguing from a christian standpoint seem to trust the bible as it, presumably, has failed to lead them astray in the past. those who trust science do so as it also not led them astray and if it has provided incorrect answers the method is still sound enough to arrive at a better conclusion if new evidence is uncovered.

i think this is why there is a failure to see eye to eye or to accept the others arguement.

forgive me if i have missed some points that have made what i said non-sense, its a very long thread

StealthRolex

sensibleken wrote: »

those arguing from a christian standpoint seem to trust the bible as it, presumably, has failed to lead them astray in the past. those who trust science do so as it also not led them astray and if it has provided incorrect answers the method is still sound enough to arrive at a better conclusion if new evidence is uncovered.

There are elements of truth in what you say. If the Bible is interpreted correctly and not just taken literally, and taken as a whole and not just the bits that serve your purpose then the Bible will not lead people astray.
However there have been times in the past when the Bible has been misinterpreted or sections have been used to justifiy certain actions.

One good example would be the operations of Mossad who take "an eye for an eye" literally as Biblical support for wet operations of behalf of the Israeli governement.

On the side of science this has brought us both nuclear power and nuclear weapons, or more topically " legal highs" and illegal drugs in addition to life saving and life improving drugs so in a way there is always the potential for science to lead us astray and it has been shown to.

On balance it would be easier for science to lead us astray as it has no moral or ethical code other than that which is implemented, regulated and enforced by human derived legislation and is always open to abuse, than the Bible which is the Divine Word of God and under His guidance will not lead us astray.

In summary humans can lead humans astray. God can only lead us to the truth.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't really have it both ways, appeal to evolution as to why we all have a tenancy towards religion and then ignore the rest of it.

And why not - evolution is more than one theory, in fact it is a collection of theories and unproved hypotheses. Nor am I appealing to evolution, I am pointing out the incoherent contradictions of science and atheistic thought.

Accepting evolution as theory is one thing. Stating it dogmatically to be fact and ignoring the fact that it is a collection of theories is quite another.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

And why not - evolution is more than one theory, in fact it is a collection of theories and unproved hypotheses. Nor am I appealing to evolution, I am pointing out the incoherent contradictions of science and atheistic thought.

Accepting evolution as theory is one thing. Stating it dogmatically to be fact and ignoring the fact that it is a collection of theories is quite another.

So you accept well supported scientific theories that help your case but well support scientific theories that don't are "unproven hypotheses"

The theory that humans create religious like thought to help process the world around us is in the context of human like interactions is well supported as the theory that religion is a product of evolution.

Appealing to one but ignoring the other is some what silly.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

The theory that humans create religious like thought to help process the world around us is in the context of human like interactions is well supported as the theory that religion is a product of evolution.

You appear to be accepting what I said at face value and giving it the authority of an established theory with no further support. Is that not a bit silly?

Wicknight wrote: »

Appealing to one but ignoring the other is some what silly.

Atheists also ignore lots of things. You also twisted what I said

Well supported theories are theories. Hypotheses are hypotheses. A theory that contains hypotheses is a theory that contains unsupported elements.

sensibleken

StealthRolex wrote: »

There are elements of truth in what you say. If the Bible is interpreted correctly and not just taken literally, and taken as a whole and not just the bits that serve your purpose then the Bible will not lead people astray.
However there have been times in the past when the Bible has been misinterpreted or sections have been used to justifiy certain actions.

One good example would be the operations of Mossad who take "an eye for an eye" literally as Biblical support for wet operations of behalf of the Israeli governement.

On the side of science this has brought us both nuclear power and nuclear weapons, or more topically " legal highs" and illegal drugs in addition to life saving and life improving drugs so in a way there is always the potential for science to lead us astray and it has been shown to.

On balance it would be easier for science to lead us astray as it has no moral or ethical code other than that which is implemented, regulated and enforced by human derived legislation and is always open to abuse, than the Bible which is the Divine Word of God and under His guidance will not lead us astray.

In summary humans can lead humans astray. God can only lead us to the truth.

thanks for replying stealthrolex.

i should have clarifyed that i meant in terms of the natural world rather than led astray ethically. for example a discussion on dna versus a discussion on nuclear arms which could be discussed on an ethical standpoint with reference to the bible or other moral code.

the discussion thus far seems to have concentrated on the nature of the natural world. which is common ground for the bible and science and where the controversy arises in my eyes.

so in relation to the natural world. do you think that the the two positions are held due to a matter of trust

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

You appear to be accepting what I said at face value and giving it the authority of an established theory with no further support. Is that not a bit silly?

What you said is an established theory (that humans are predisposed to being religious due to evolution), I assumed you already knew that.

You want me to support that what you said is an established theory?

StealthRolex wrote: »

Well supported theories are theories. Hypotheses are hypotheses. A theory that contains hypotheses is a theory that contains unsupported elements.

Correct but neither the theory you mentioned nor the one I presented in response are hypotheses. They are both supported theories.

StealthRolex

sensibleken wrote: »

so in relation to the natural world. do you think that the the two positions are held due to a matter of trust

Thanks for the clarity.

There should be trust as the two positions or science and religion are complementary. The issues of trust or mis-trust arise when one side is mis-represented for the purposes of negating the other.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

What you said is an established theory (that humans are predisposed to being religious due to evolution), I assumed you already knew that.

Actually I had only seen fleeting references to it and had not given it much thought. For me scientists exploring Biblical phenomena such as evil or religion were... well you have your own answer for that - not science was it?

If evolution has hard wired us for religion and evolution is cold and unthinking then it does not make sense for evolution to do it for that means it has to guess at how humans might behave in certain circumstances. There is also the presumption that at some point there was a hominid who was not hard wired for religion.

In evolutionary terms we are animals. Why has evolution elevated man to a position where there are massively huge differences between humans and their nearest genetic neighbour.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Actually I had only seen fleeting references to it and had not given it much thought. For me scientists exploring Biblical phenomena such as evil or religion were... well you have your own answer for that - not science was it?

Religion isn't a "Biblical phenomena", it is an observed behavior in humans.

We are religious. Science is attempting to model this why this is. Evolutionary biology provides interesting and supported theories (ie models) towards answering this.

StealthRolex wrote: »

If evolution has hard wired us for religion and evolution is cold and unthinking then it does not make sense for evolution to do it for that means it has to guess at how humans might behave in certain circumstances.

Not really. Evolution works on natural selection. Humans that had (due to mutations in the genetic code that structures the brain) these instincts that produce systems like religion survived better than that ones that didn't. Eventually the only ones left were the ones that had evolved this behavior.

Evolution is not forward thinking, it doesn't say this will be of benefit to you in the future, it looks at what is of benefit to you now in the present. By benefit I mean keeping you alive long enough to mate. Those that do not have this benefit die before they can have sex and thus their genetic code is lost to time. Eventually this happens enough that only those with the genetic code causing the behavior (the phenotype) survive.

To put it simply those without instinct towards religious behavior couldn't get laid before they died.

StealthRolex wrote: »

There is also the presumption that at some point there was a hominid who was not hard wired for religion.

Yes, and the historical record supports this. Our distant ancestors showed no evidence of ritual behavior, for example leaving the dead where they died. Slowly evidence of ritual behavior appears in the historical record.

StealthRolex wrote: »

In evolutionary terms we are animals. Why has evolution elevated man to a position where there are massively huge differences between humans and their nearest genetic neighbour.

Massively different in terms of what? Intelligence? Actually that is more a fluke of when you were born than anything else. Our close ancestors such as the Neanderthals died out in what in evolutionary terms was recently but they diverged from us about 5 million years ago.

If you lived 30,000 years ago (which in the grand scheme of things is a blink of the eye) you may well have asked why has nature decided to elevate two species above the other animals.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

To put it simply those without instinct towards religious behavior couldn't get laid before they died.

Does that not just seem a tiny wee bit riduculous as an argument :rolleyes:

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, and the historical record supports this. Our distant ancestors showed no evidence of ritual behavior, for example leaving the dead where they died. Slowly evidence of ritual behavior appears in the historical record.

Current evidence from chimpanzee behaviour does not support this. Given that early hominids would have evolved from apes it would be more reasonable of they did behave more like chimpanzees do now.

Also the historic record is incomplete so it is impossible for us to accurately model early hominid behaviour.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

If you lived 30,000 years ago (which in the grand scheme of things is a blink of the eye) you may well have asked why has nature decided to elevate two species above the other animals.

We did, and we do still

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

Does that not just seem a tiny wee bit riduculous as an argument :rolleyes:

I don't think so.

As far as evolution is concerned reproduction is the central mechanism. Behavior that increase the chances of reproduction before death (and thus continuation of genetic material) is by definition more likely to last through the generations.

We are beginning to understand why instinct towards religious behavior would have helped our ancestors stay alive along enough to reproduce, where as those without it would have been at a disadvantage and would have slowly died out.

StealthRolex wrote: »

We did, and we do still

Ok, but then it becomes a bit less of a big deal though doesn't it. Nature evolved a number of species to levels of intelligence above other animals. But why not. Nature evolved a number of species to fly as well. And to live in the sea.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Current evidence from chimpanzee behaviour does not support this. Given that early hominids would have evolved from apes it would be more reasonable of they did behave more like chimpanzees do now.

Current chimpanzees are not our distance ancestors. There is no reason why our distance ancestors would behave like modern chimps since modern chimps have been evolving from these ancestors as long as we have.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Also the historic record is incomplete so it is impossible for us to accurately model early hominid behaviour.

Incomplete in what way? It is compete enough that we can accurately model early hominid behavior enough to say that ritual behavior appeared. If you have hundreds of thousands of years of no evidence for ritual behavior, then the apparence of ritual behavior and then the continued appearance of ritual behavior that is enough to gauge that our earlier ancestors did not practice ritual behavior and then started to. This supports the theory that religious behavior evolved in humans (something I thought you agreed with)

I agree that when exactly this behavior appeared is not known for certain as new discoveries always move the date, but that isn't central to the point.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

As far as evolution is concerned reproduction is the central mechanism. Behavior that increase the chances of reproduction before death (and thus continuation of genetic material) is by definition more likely to last through the generations.

We are beginning to understand why instinct towards religious behavior would have helped our ancestors stay alive along enough to reproduce, where as those without it would have been at a disadvantage and would have slowly died out.

So you are saying that religious behaviour increases ones chances of getting laid and reproducing.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

Incomplete in what way? It is compete enough that we can accurately model early hominid behavior enough to say that ritual behavior appeared. If you have hundreds of thousands of years of no evidence for ritual behavior, then the apparence of ritual behavior and then the continued appearance of ritual behavior that is enough to gauge that our earlier ancestors did not practice ritual behavior and then started to. This supports the theory that religious behavior evolved in humans (something I thought you agreed with)

I agree that when exactly this behavior appeared is not known for certain as new discoveries always move the date, but that isn't central to the point.

So there is a fossil record of behaviour. Hmmm. I thought behavioural paleontology was based on inference from modern observable behaviour.

Lets take a 1pod that evolved during the Green era and so is made of mostly biodegradable components, bury it and come back to it in 30,000 years time. What could be deduced from or about the remains of the 1pod and the behaviour of it's owner?

There are some big leaps of faith there.

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

So you are saying that religious behaviour increases ones chances of getting laid and reproducing.

Not quite, religious-like behavior increases ones change of surviving long enough to get laid.

Or at least did for large proportions of human history. Not sure if that still holds in modern western society where survival rates are so high anyway due to modern medicine.

But even today there is strong evidence that religious behavior decreases depression and other mental issues.

Also aspects of religious behavior such as doctrines on family units help the growth of children. In evolution it is not just important that you survive long enough to reproduce but also some of your children do to, since obviously all your children dying before they can reproduce is the evolutionary equivalent of you dying before you can reproduce.

StealthRolex wrote: »

So there is a fossil record of behaviour. Hmmm. I thought behavioural paleontology was based on inference from modern observable behaviour.

Not really. It is inferred from artifacts found, such as tools. Eg. we know stone age man hunted it stone tools, hence the name of the period itself.

We know ritualistic behavior appears in human history because of the artifacts we find, such as burial mounts and bodies buried with possessions.

Burial of a body with possessions suggests the existence in the society of the time of a concept of an after life. This behavior has not always existed, it appeared in human ancestors about 300,000 years ago coinciding with the development of homo sapiens themselves. It would be some what odd if this was just a coincidence.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Lets take a 1pod that evolved during the Green era and so is made of mostly biodegradable components, bury it and come back to it in 30,000 years time. What could be deduced from or about the remains of the 1pod and the behaviour of it's owner?

What is a 1pod? Do you mean an iPod?

If in 30,000 years they found it and figured out what it was it would tell a lot of about the cultural aspects of todays society, such as the existence of music and film.

StealthRolex

Wicknight wrote: »

What is a 1pod? Do you mean an iPod?

If in 30,000 years they found it and figured out what it was it would tell a lot of about the cultural aspects of todays society, such as the existence of music and film.

The hard part is figuring out what it was and what it did. Over 30,000 years it is unlikely that the hard drive would have survived in a readable format if at all so how could they deduce that it contained any media. As far as I am aware the only data storage systems that would be around in 30,000 years would be rocks.
Likewise the other metal components would have long since decayed.
Essentially they would have a shell a plastic screen and a PCB with corroded bits of metal attached.

Would that be enough to tell anything about the cultural aspects of todays society, such as the existence of music and film?

Zombrex

StealthRolex wrote: »

The hard part is figuring out what it was and what it did.

True, though I think we can both agree that an iPod is a bit more complex, and difficult to decode, than a small stone figure of a man and some coins buried with a person.

I hear what you are saying though.

I myself often wonder about the meaning archeologists read into say carvings on special weapon that they find, the often speculate it holds great significance with regard to the culture of the time when perhaps it is just a doodle someone made. I would be cautious about reading too much into any particular find.

Which is why it is important to build up an amount of evidence for things like ritual burial from lots of different sites, which I think archeologists have done.

Nick Dolan

StealthRolex wrote: »

There are elements of truth in what you say. If the Bible is interpreted correctly and not just taken literally, and taken as a whole and not just the bits that serve your purpose then the Bible will not lead people astray.
However there have been times in the past when the Bible has been misinterpreted or sections have been used to justifiy certain actions.

On balance it would be easier for science to lead us astray as it has no moral or ethical code other than that which is implemented, regulated and enforced by human derived legislation and is always open to abuse, than the Bible which is the Divine Word of God and under His guidance will not lead us astray.

In summary humans can lead humans astray. God can only lead us to the truth.

Ill have to take issue with the argument that only religious people can be moral and ethical .Theres no reason a human etical code has any more validity than a religious one, or that either will be more adhered to.Also regards the bible predicting under water currents etc. If the bible is meant to be interpreted symbolically, then you can find evidence of everything from black holes to the correct way to eat a Caburys creme egg.

Zombrex

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Ill have to take issue with the argument that only religious people can be moral and ethical

It depends on what you mean by moral and ethical

To a Christian moral and ethics are doing what is in keeping with God's view.

So a lot of what an atheist does would be considered immoral to a Christian.

Rather than take issue with that I think it is more helpful to simply accept that it is their view point. A lot of what Christians do I would consider immoral, but I don't expect a Christian to take great exception to this.

StealthRolex

Nick Dolan wrote: »

Ill have to take issue with the argument that only religious people can be moral and ethical

That is not the argument that I made and you know it.

The point was that science of itself has no moral or ethical position, whereas the Bible quite clearly does. I did not say or suggest that only religious people can be moral or ethical. One does not need to be religious to adhere to a moral code or develop ethics that are consistent with Biblical morality.

old_aussie

Artificial life, is that like an artificial leg?

Looks real but it not real.

Turtwig

old_aussie wrote: »

Artificial life, is that like an artificial leg?

Looks real but it not real.

Not really an accurate analogy. An artificial leg tends to be made out composite materials that isn't in any way identical to an actual leg, only that it can be used to perform the same function. A more accurate analogy to this experiment would be cutting off you leg and keeping only the outside skin then from a genome manufactured from inert materials construct the rest of the leg inside the skin. When you're done you should have a leg identical to the real one provided by nature. Only this "leg" was provided artificially by man. Real in every sense of the word. Chemically and biologically it's identical to your own leg in every way. It just depends on how your philosophy defines life to determine whether this is life or not.

StealthRolex

old_aussie wrote: »

Artificial life, is that like an artificial leg?

Looks real but it not real.

In a sense. Venters "artificial life" cannot survive outside of the laboratory. This is condition imposed by the designers as a failsafe. It requires maintenance in the laboratory.

A complex artificial leg such as a robotic leg also requires maintenance to keep it serviceable.

To be more correct Venters bacteria are "synthetic" life rather than artificial. As of yet we so not have synthetic limbs.

However your question does point out that the use of the term "artificial life" is a misnomer as true artificial life has already been created in the form of computer programs and the term is more correctly applied in the IT/CS world.

Venter himself is the best source for what actually happened

"We did not create life from scratch: we transformed existing life into new life. Nor did we design and build a new chromosome from scratch. Rather, using only digitised information, we synthesised a modified version, a copy of the M. mycoides genome with 14 of its genes deleted and a "watermark" written in another 5000-plus base pairs. The result is not an "artificial" life form; it is a living, self-replicating cell that most microbiologists would find hard to distinguish from the progenitor cell, unless they sequenced its DNA."