"Immortal Molecule" Evolves — How Close To Synthetic Life? 270
An anonymous reader writes with word of ongoing work at Scripps Research Institute: "Can life arise from nothing but a chaotic assortment of basic molecules? The answer is a lot closer following a series of ingenious experiments that have shown evolution at work in non-living molecules."
what is a living molecule? (Score:4, Insightful)
molecules can live?
ok just making sure
Evolution is a Process. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what is a living molecule? (Score:5, Insightful)
> molecules can live?
You are molecules. Do you live?
Re:what is a living molecule? (Score:5, Insightful)
Example: a watch can keep time therefore a cog can keep time.
Re:Evolution is a Process. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would not follow you to that extreme. For some substrate to evolve it has to be able to replicate itself, i.e. locally work against entropy. The following steps of mutation due to imperfect copies and selection are then simple or even self-evident. I wonder if you could call the process before that point a competition between non-replicating substrates to become the first one to replicate itself.
And if science finally manages to crack the abiogenesis nut there, I can still appease those of more religious conviction that a simple god has to build everything himself, but that awesome being you worship made the universe so that life and thus us just sprung from its ingenious rules.
Re:Evolution is a Process. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have a set of entities capable of some analog of reproduction(whether those be organisms, these catalyst molecules, or religions that spawn sects), a source of variation(whether it be genetic mutation, stochastic thermal buffeting in the test tube, or people dreaming up new rituals and scriptural interpretations), and some sort of selective pressure(whether it be predation and starvation, running out of substrate molecules, or a combination of competition for converts and outright violence), you can have an essentially "evolutionary" process in a manner quite similar to the biological one.
"Change over time" applies essentially universally; but is so much more limited that it is barely of interest. The surprisingly broad reach of nearly-biological evolution, with its interesting features, is quite notable, though.
God who is not God. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what is a living molecule? (Score:5, Insightful)
At the C2 wiki a mad debate once broke out[1] about the definition of "life". What I've come to conclude based on my participation is the borderline is probably inherently fuzzy. Some things are "half alive". It's not a Boolean concept but rather a continuum, or at least many variables that we as humans have conveniently, and perhaps naively, packaged together into the mental concept called "life".
[1] I was about to say "lively debate"
Re:what is a living molecule? (Score:4, Insightful)
He did also say "while we compute". None the less I actually agree with your point; it is obvious that you have the equivalent amount of computing power as the average iceberg.
you have that burden of proof on backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
You are getting the issue sort of backwards. You are asking for evidence of a negative--evidence that God does NOT exist, and since proving a negative is impossible (disregarding logical impossibilities, like square circles), it's no wonder that you're coming up short. The issue is whether or not there is any reason TO believe.
Have you found it more difficult to continue not believing in Zeus, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, etc? It's not in dispute that there are many things about the universe that we do not understand. I just don't see how "I don't know" maps to "God did it." Ignorance is not a theological argument.
Isn't that just as true of all the other gods? I'm an atheist because I see no reason to believe in God, not because I claim to have total knowledge of the universe and can definitively tell you that there is no God. Please stop acting as if atheists are the one making untenable knowledge-claims. Theism is the claim that God exists, and atheism is just skepticism towards that claim. The burden of evidence still rests on the theists, just as it always does for the person making the claim.