- #71
Grimstone
- 66
- 0
sorry forgot this.
http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life
so I'm not just spouting my thoughts.
http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life
so I'm not just spouting my thoughts.
I do agree with your view, and I have advocate why. But please don't put this in support of it: the probability of ******** is one the highest I saw published in a peer-review paper.Grimstone said:http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life
so I'm not just spouting my thoughts.
Grimstone said:Data on star treck was an android
who could eat and excrete.
could breath (movement to simulate)
Grimstone said:sorry forgot this.
http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life
so I'm not just spouting my thoughts.
DaveC426913 said:What a sensationalist article.
"...unlike anything currently living in planet Earth..." :uhh:
"...a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today, working differently than the rest of the organisms in the planet..." :uhh:
"...Instead of using phosphorus, the newly discovered microorganism ... uses the poisonous arsenic for its building blocks..." :uhh: :uhh:
"... this breaks our ideas on how life can be created ..." :uhh:
Maybe. But, at least for this time, it's not fair to complain about reporters.thorium1010 said:This is typical of reporting.
Lievo said:Maybe. But, at least for this time, it's not fair to complain about reporters.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2010/12/01/science.1197258.abstract
I'm not saying we should not complain. :uhh:
I strongly disagree. Arsenic is clearly not something you could have expect to integrate DNA. This would implicates profound changes in the metabolism and even worst, in the genomic stability. So no there is no way to qualify this tentative finding as expected. The fact that this finding was not proven and is probably wrong does not make it standard.thorium1010 said:The finding of arsenic based life is not a radical shift from what is known by biologists.
I do agree we this interpretation. The fact is: we already knew it.thorium1010 said:The study is just that life is able to adapt even in hostile conditions.
Lievo said:Arsenic is clearly not something you could have expect to integrate DNA. . .
which substitutes arsenic for phosphorus to sustain its growth. Our data show evidence for arsenate in macromolecules that normally contain phosphate, most notably nucleic acids and proteins. Exchange of one of the major bioelements may have profound evolutionary and geochemical significance.
This would implicates profound changes in the metabolism and even worst, in the genomic stability
Nucleic acids refers to DNA (Desoxyribo- Nucleic Acid). It could have referred to RNA too (Ribo Nucleic Acid) but in this paper this is about DNA.thorium1010 said:Its not exactly sure what type of molecules have substituted phosphate for arsenate.
For proteins, we could imagine that things would remain as usual even if some arsenate was included in some protein, for exemple the way hemoglobin includes iron. This would be new proteins, and maybe someone will find some applications so as to become richer than Bill Gate. Boring.thorium1010 said:The finding only proves to show that there can be substitutes for what was thought to be the norm (rest of the chemistry remains the same like carbon, hydrogen , oxygen, nitrogen) i.e. phosphate.
This would necessitate a completely different form of life. We can imagine, but chemists are skeptical that silicon can lead to a biochemistry as rich as carbon do. Most would however agree that this statement is valid for our conditions of pressure and temperature. For an other range of pressure and temperature, let's recognize our quite complete ignorance.thorium1010 said:In fact there has been an idea by biologists that carbon can be substituted for silicon.
Archosaur said:Here's a sort of thought experiment:
If a person has a prosthetic leg, is he still human? Of course!
What if he has two prosthetic legs?
Two prosthetic legs and an artificial heart?
What if every organ is replaced with a mechanical substitute, even the brain, the contents of which are "downloaded" into a network with transistors instead of neurons?
After which gradual step is he suddenly no longer human?
Grimstone said:So we have 6 pages of highly intelligent humans talking together to come to a mutual conclusion of a question.
and the answer is?
?
Pythagorean said:I disagree. While this is a philosophical question, I'd rather hear what biologists have to say than philosophers.
SW VandeCarr said:Biologists can discuss this in the philosophy forum just as philosophical questions re physics are discussed in the "new improved" philosophy forum now. In any case, it's for the mentors to decide.
I'm just giving my opinion.
We've already had over 80 posts and gotten nowhere.
nismaratwork said:I don't believe we can AFFORD to believe that these are questions only for philosophers, or they're going to be alone in this thinking when scientists are called to testify and help make these determinations.
You're illustrating a point I made earlier that the scientific definition may change if we face a robot that our brain will obviously consider alive. I was answered that the biological definition of life is narrow and focused. And excluded viruses.SW VandeCarr said:The scientific answer to the OP's question is "no". The biological definition of life is narrow and focused: RNA, DNA based replicating organisms including viruses.
Lievo said:You're illustrating a point I made earlier that the scientific definition may change if we face a robot that our brain will obviously consider alive. I was answered that the biological definition of life is narrow and focused. And excluded viruses.
You don't get my point. This is not my choice, but that was the choice of most biologists before the mimiviruses (I'm not sure of the present concensus). I'm just stating this an example that what we call scientific definition is obviously subject to change. Thus, when you argue that robots are not defined as living form, I'm not arguing this is not the present definition. I'm just underling that this definition may well change in the future, as it did before (at least for a couple of biologist, including me).SW VandeCarr said:Even if you choose to consider viruses as non-living, they are RNA and DNA based replicating entities which interact with cell-based life to such an extent that no biologist would deny they are proper, in fact essential, subjects in the study of living systems.
SW VandeCarr said:Who said these type of questions are only for philosophers? I didn't. I said this was a philosophical question. The scientific answer to the OP's question is "no". The biological definition of life is narrow and focused: RNA, DNA based replicating organisms including viruses. Prions are borderline, but are studied by biologists because they are replicating proteins and interact with living systems. Beyond this we get into opinions and speculation.
The ethical questions that might arise with intelligent robots certainly are important philosophical questions deserving serious discussion. Should a science forum deal with ethics (other than perhaps the ethics of practicing science)? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean scientists shouldn't get involved.
SW VandeCarr said:his question belongs in the philosophy forum, not biology. Langauge follows reality, not the other way around.
Lievo said:You don't get my point. This is not my choice, but that was the choice of most biologists before the mimiviruses (I'm not sure of the present concensus). I'm just stating this an example that what we call scientific definition is obviously subject to change. Thus, when you argue that robots are not defined as living form, I'm not arguing this is not the present definition. I'm just underling that this definition may well change in the future, as it did before (at least for a couple of biologist, including me).
SW VandeCarr said:OK. But there's a difference between saying 'a virus is alive' and a virus is 'an RNA,DNA based replicating entity'. The former might be subject to change, but the latter is just a fact. I'm not saying that science forum discussions ought to only discuss facts, but they should stay within the bounds of accepted theory and conventions surrounding those facts. It probably doesn't matter that much whether you want consider viruses as alive or not as long as you accept the objective knowledge regarding viruses and their importance in biology.
Sure! But why do you think it can change?SW VandeCarr said:there's a difference between saying 'a virus is alive' and a virus is 'an RNA,DNA based replicating entity'. The former might be subject to change, but the latter is just a fact.
Lievo said:Sure! But why do you think it can change?
scienceisbest said:Can a self replicating, or self growing robot (programmed to make logical decisions) can be called as Living thing?
If not, what is the definition of living thing?
scienceisbest said:If not, what is the definition of living thing?
Pythagorean said:And construct cell networks and get them to differentiate and reproduce in our own novel way? Then start selecting for human usefulness (while still experimenting with bio-engineering)?
DanP said:Ah eugenics :P Hitler was a big fan.
Grimstone said:we are not defining alive with "what if's".
Grimstone said:I do not agree. We do not define knowledge with "what it" we define it with facts, proven and re-creatable data that is as close to irrefutable as possible.
the "what ifs" are what causes science to look for the facts to prove or disprove it.
The truth is. we need the What ifs, they help the sturdy minded, non free thinking, humans to look outside the box.
No, a robot cannot be considered a living thing because it does not possess the characteristics of life, such as the ability to reproduce, grow, and respond to stimuli.
No, a robot cannot have emotions like a living being because emotions are a complex human experience that requires consciousness and self-awareness, which robots do not possess.
No, a robot cannot die or have a lifespan because it is not a living being. It is a machine that can be repaired or replaced, but it does not have a biological lifespan.
No, a robot cannot evolve or adapt to its environment like living beings do. Robots are designed and programmed by humans and can only perform tasks within their programmed capabilities.
No, a robot cannot have consciousness or self-awareness because these are unique human qualities that involve complex brain functions and emotions. Robots are not capable of experiencing consciousness or self-awareness.