Terrible news for the Creation Science museum (and Republicans)

Do you think it's possible that robots with AI could ever be "alive"?

First, the idea of 'artificial intelligence' is not intelligence at all. It is just a learning program, using a specific set of rules set by the programmer.
Robots normally have AI so they can learn about their surroundings and how to handle what their various sensors are telling them. None of it is intelligence in any form.

Robots do not reproduce, even if a robot is assisting in building robots. In all cases, we program the robots to do that task and we are the builders of all robots.
 
Notes from my Origin of Life class:

Metabolism-first hypothesis: The first possibility is that life began with metabolism, and genetic molecules were incorporated later. This metabolism-first scenario states that life began autotrophically. Life began with a self-replicating chemical cycle, such as the reverse citric acid cycle, perhaps on a mineral surface. Variants of this cycle competed for resources, and the system became more efficient and more complex. All subsequent chemical complexities, including genetic mechanisms and encapsulation into a cell-like structure, emerged later by the process of natural selection. Life emerged as an evolving chemical coating on rocks.

RNA World: The second scenario is that life began with a self-replicating strand of some genetic molecule—the RNA World. Life relied on an abundance of biomolecules in the environment. Metabolism was incorporated later. A template, such as a clay mineral or astack of PAHs, helped to assemble information-rich polymers from organic molecules in the prebiotic soup. Ultimately, one of these polymers acquired the ability to self-replicate. Then, as variants of the genetic polymer became more efficient at self-replication, new chemical complexities arose through natural selection. In this genetics-first version, life began as an evolving polymer with a functional genetic sequence.
The model lacks the crucial support of one experiment that demonstrates the prebiotic synthesis of a genetic polymer like RNA. If such an experiment succeeds, most experts will agree that the problem of life’s chemical origins has been more or less solved.

Dual metabolism-genetics hypothesis: In the third scenario, life began as a cooperative chemical phenomenon, arising between metabolism and genetics.
It is possible that neither a primitive metabolic cycle nor a primitive genetic molecule could have progressed far by themselves. Metabolic molecules without enzymes tend to react in uncontrolled ways and may be too unconstrained to sustain advanced cellular life. Genetic molecules are much too unstable, and their individual building blocks—the nucleotides—don’t seem to emerge spontaneously from the soup.
Yet what if crudely self-replicating genetic molecules became attached to a crudely functioning surface-bound metabolic coating? A kind of cooperative chemistry might have occurred.
If experiments establish easy synthetic pathways to both a simple metabolic cycle and an RNA-like genetic polymer, such a symbiosis may be the most likely origins scenario of all.



Source credit: Professor Robert M.Hazen, George Mason University

That’s some serious wishful thinking lol.

For example, citric acid cycle involves ten different fairly complex organic molecules and intermediate molecules. These just happened to be around? They’re notoriously unstable outside of the cell.

Also, there are no ‘information rich’ molecules for abiogenesis to start with. The biological information is what needs to be explained and the writer was trying to smuggle it in to the equation.

But I caught him.
 
First, the idea of 'artificial intelligence' is not intelligence at all. It is just a learning program, using a specific set of rules set by the programmer.
Robots normally have AI so they can learn about their surroundings and how to handle what their various sensors are telling them. None of it is intelligence in any form.

Robots do not reproduce, even if a robot is assisting in building robots. In all cases, we program the robots to do that task and we are the builders of all robots.

I didn't say anything about reproduction.

I do agree that robots cannot be "intelligent" in the sense humans are intelligent. But it is a good question that is worth exploring.
 
I find it interesting that these inert chemicals have been lying around for three or four hundred million years an apparently they've only erupted into life once......where is random shit happening randomly when you really need it?.......
 
That’s some serious wishful thinking lol.

For example, citric acid cycle involves ten different fairly complex organic molecules and intermediate molecules. These just happened to be around? They’re notoriously unstable outside of the cell.

Also, there are no ‘information rich’ molecules for abiogenesis to start with. The biological information is what needs to be explained and the writer was trying to smuggle it in to the equation.

But I caught him.

These are perfectly respectable hypotheses circulating in the scientific conmunity. The RNA hypothesis is in particular an active area of research
 
I find it interesting that these inert chemicals have been lying around for three or four hundred million years an apparently they've only erupted into life once......where is random shit happening randomly when you really need it?.......

Who said they've "erupted" into life?
 
Ummmm...no. The gravitational forces resulting in the shapes of most galaxies (not all) and solar systems is a matter of gravitational physics, but snowflakes are a matter of temperature and crystalline structures. You know, crystals like in Meth. ;)

9f0uMPf.jpg

Umm..yes, it’s the same process in the sense it’s simply matter obeying natural [physical] laws. It’s only a matter of different laws and a matter of scale.

But I’ll be generous and call it a nice try.
 
Umm..yes, it’s the same process in the sense it’s simply matter obeying natural [physical] laws. It’s only a matter of different laws and a matter of scale.

But I’ll be generous and call it a nice try.

And yet there are many, many different forms.
 
These are perfectly respectable hypotheses circulating in the scientific conmunity. The RNA hypothesis is in particular an active area of research

Which proves what lol?

I don’t care how ‘respectable’ it is, it borders on asking for miracles.
 
Which proves what lol?

I don’t care how ‘respectable’ it is, it borders on asking for miracles.

I have never been the type of person to think that just because we do not understand something now, means it is permanently beyond our comprehension.

On the other hand, I have the intellectual integrity to consider the possibility that the organization of complex, self-replicating cells from an inert pre-biotic soup may have been the result of an infinitesimally improbable series of chemical and physical reactions, rendering the possibility of life elsewhere in the galaxy remote.

I devoted an entire thread to those, and other insights:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?162896-Origin-of-Life&p=4273023#post4273023
 
Could Homo sapiens sapiens mate with a Homo erectus and produce fertile offspring lol?

My guess is no more than you can with a chimp. What's the answer and why?

Why are you limiting God to a book written by a desert nomad 4000 years ago?
 
Back
Top