Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
@jackooboy1 That is true, but life had to have originated somewhere and there is evidence it has been here on Earth for most of its existence. Life may have not originated here on Earth but wherever it did had to have allowed nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids to come together in an aqueous solution.
@jackooboy1 Hard to survive a cosmic journey for life, so it probably evolved here. Building blocks for life came from space though, like meteorites with amino acids and water, but that still had a little way left to go to become life. : )
The price equation is indeed applied to more than evolution...its applied to meme theory, economics, engineering and design etc. So its not confined to biology.
Cronins idea is basically a study of Catalysis. I think you could easily apply the price equation to that if you mapped the properties of chemicals.
Although I accept it was not designed for that task.
@rwwanon I'm sure he's a fine researcher but I agree he was a very bad public speaker. I doubt he'll be doing any stand up comedy to supplement his income.
@DukeTwicep Well the equation that governs this is not Drakes equation, simplistic though it is but rather Prices equation. Prices equation explains evolution by selective processes mathematically. It does not require the advent of 'organic' building blocks....just building blocks.
However Prices equations are extremely complex and its only now with cloud computing and extremely powerful processors and GPU's that we could embark on emulating the procedure in software.
@MumblingMickey But price's equation is about evolution no? I was thinking about abiogenesis, the random event that leads to life that can evolve, in the traditional sense. Maybe you're saying, like Cronin, that evolution is a process that is always in motion, not only a process among biological entities? In that case, was this part of Price's equation? If so, then it sounds like he was thinking way ahead of his time.
As a Biochemist I am very impressed by this. I don't know how he will pull it off in 2 years, but I sure hope he does. The implications would be staggering.
@TheYgds As a physicist considering a course in biocybernetics I've been awaiting this for some time now.... It seems to me that a life spent researching carbon structures is about to be demonstrated to me as a bad call...lol
I take the point about the timeframe...I mean seriously how is he going to research, produce and write this up in such a narrow window...unless he's already more than 50% there....and I haven't read a single thing about this in Nature recently... have you?
@MumblingMickey, Geez I feel kind of sheepish by not putting in the rejoinder that I am an undergrad biochemist, I should not be so generous to myself with that. with that said to answer your question I have only read his paper on iCHELLS which is published in Angerwandte Chemie. So far he has only demostrated that be can form compartments. He has not yet published anything (to my knowledge) that could fill the role of instruction. As for metabolism, depends on what kind of metabolism is there.
The probabilities I was referring to when it comes to quantum operations is not knowing the outcome of the system. There are many possible end-scenarios for a set of particles interacting, but there is no way to know the outcome in advance, we can only surmise the probability of it coming out in a certain state. On a plank's length- There are still conceptual ideas that have dimensions smaller than a plank's length, such as the de Broglie wavelength of a macroscopic object.
@rkyeun either way- in short, 'our' universe (coz i cant speak for any other, but ours might have influence on others), must eventually produce some kind of observer as part of its own function. ditto for life on earth and therefore i guess any life growing planet- a sentience that as a mechanic of this universe is the observer.
@rkyeun yep for sure- the universe itself is unthinking and has no wants. but need is a different story, such as it needs gravity to function in its form or it isnt what it is anymore. so perhaps we as the observer are 'just' another mechanic of the universe like gravity, but obviously not as immediately important as gravity. or alternatively, perhaps we are a produce of the universe that must happen as a part of its function, like a tree photosynthesising and producing gas.
our universe is probably pointless if there is no one here to see it. I kind of think that we're a default mechanic of the universe for the purpose of observation. if not us then another thing on another planet?
"You are made of stuff and you use stuff." A most beautiful, simple, and elegant refutation of anti-materialistic philosophical positions. While I wish him the best in his endeavor I don't think a mere two years is realistic.
Sigh, this was a bit lame. They have a word in chemistry for what he's talking about that's been around a long time...it's called kinetics. Chemical reactions have different rates and mechanisms and when multiple reactions are happening simultaneously using the same chemicals you have "competition", but trying to brand this as evolution is stupid.
@eduTouY Its a 10 minute lecture? less than 1/6th the time any student would sit through in a single lecture.... What exactly would you like to walk away with after 10 minutes....?
I think he's presuming the audience would be familiar with basic chemistry, biocybernetics and biology.... and where he didn't demonstrate anything other than the basic premise he doesn't have to, its already out there...why would he need to go over everything in the public domain all over again?
What about viruses? Wouldn't they be the smallest evolvable unit? They don't fall within the definition of "life" because they don't have cell membranes and require the use of living cells to replicate. They are made of DNA or RNA housed inside a protein coat and they compete with other viruses and other lifeforms. Maybe you should try to spontaneously generate new viruses, though you'd need to be careful about containment to avoid an outbreak.
Some people extend the definition of life to accommodate them, but I think this in turn makes it all more murky. We thing we'd know life if we saw it, but would we?
@potaschlor I think he confined it to 'self contained' in relation to evolution... current RNA like viruses need a hosts DNA to replicate... on its own its not prone to evolution. Well its not been researched well enough to say that for definite....but theres no evidence it can replicate and be enter the selection process without a host.
Maybe with other RNA and some crude protein polymers it might be possible.
@MOADAM2010 Caps reduce readability by up top 60%, they are a serious turn off... Considering reading from a standard LCD display also reduces readability and comprehension by 30%... this leaves your comments having a total effect of about 12%....
If caps done anything at all to increase readability every book would be printed in upper case.
@Jeffersonwazright Hey, dont disreguard the Queen. She is a very good leader, much better than Obama, bush or any american president after... probably, the founding fathers...
Most of the time its just a developmental stage. America was supposed to develop, but not destroy somthing which will take much longer to replace. In time, we will see american kings. Hah, what is the federal reserve but a hidden kind of king?
@Elephantintheroom01 The difference between a king and the federal reserve is that people can get rid of the federal reserve just by talking about it.
After the founding fathers! Cmon, that is a very general statement.
@Jeffersonwazright Britian had many chances to oust its loyals, in the same way France did. But we chose not to. When we passed the magna carta, we still only forced the king to sign it. When we amended it with the bill of rights, which curtailed the powers of the king, we also curtailed the powers of the Vatican, who claimed he could be killed.
And yes, none of the poleticians since the founders have shown so much dicipline. Except perhapse Lincoln.
@Elephantintheroom01 I think Andrew Jackson was pretty good president. He tried to go after the banks and debt as a way of life- among a few other good moves.
Evolution doesn't run on competition, Darwin's theory has been largely evolved itself beyond neodarwinian selfish genes, he should really take this more seriously.
There are also considerations about what is life and is not that other scientists has already considered in larger contexts, as the Gaia theory. The most important seams to be the consequences of such technology can, an "intelligent", no-organic life friendly competitor? scary!
The interesting question to me is "How does the universe possess such qualities?" This research is finding out what happens when you mix this and that, but I'd like to know how this happens, how these qualities exist in our universe. Where is the energy that is required for this to happen coming from? How is consciousness possible in this universe? How is thinking possible? If better thinking has evolved over time, when was the point when thinking began?
@LittleTownInNorway : you humans think you are very special and think everything comes out of nothing , create a fly if you think you are that special, create something out of nothing , GO SEEK KNOWLEDGE AND THANK GOD EVERY DAY THAT YOU ARE ALIVE !!!!
@MOADAM2010 Oh dear. There was no 'who', thats a begging the question fallecy. I would expect nothing less from a bad troll. Read up on cosmological science, I ain't gonna teach you.
@xSilverPhinxx : what ya talking about :-) ??? off course is common sense more important, why do you have intellect and brain you think you moron :-) ????
You really think that common sense is what describes reality? have you ever heard of a little thing called quantum mechanics? Or even going back to old classical physics, you think, based on your common sense, that the planet is revolving around the sun at a high speed?
What do you know about reality, man? Especially based on an ancient book written by people just as ignorant (and stupid) as you? Religion loves ya, man ;D
this guy prepared the talk to take advantage of the ignorance of common people, every grad student in biological sciences knows that evolution is just an Algorithm, it applies to any self replicating system that makes mistakes while replicating. The fact that many consider only dna-based self-replicating systems to be alive is an archaism from the first half of the 20th century. However, i liked a lot his Zero-carbon approach to create life, he's not a biologist for sure. I'm going to sleep now
@wachi03 Yeah and he is using really confusing language that obscures the interesting points he should be making. What now, carbon doesn't count as 'matter'? And he seems to identify 'organic' (as in, organic chemistry) with being alive. Organic chemistry just means carbon based. Not everything that is carbon based is alive, and whether on the other hand life needs carbon based chemistry is an interesting question, but the answer wouldn't radically change our understanding of what life 'means'.
@wachi03 The way he talks about it, he makes it sound like there is that stuff out there (carbon) that is inherently alive, but now he makes 'ordinary matter' alive as well.
There is an interesting (and important) talk to be given about how self-replicating molecules kick-started life, and one about how life might not need carbon, but this isn't it.
@wachi03 : You wrote "evolution is just an Algorithm." Are you a biologist? Your response is as fascinating as the Talk. Where can I find out more about Algorithms, and the "mistakes" you mention?
I have started to wonder if we humans are some kind of "self-replicating defective robots" and we are trying to "fix ourselves" or "replicate copies" or something. Life is turning out to be so different than we were led to believe when I was born in 1950 and growing up since then.
@wachi03 the ramification of this is; 1) what is being alive and 2) do free will exist, if we are nothing more than à carbon-based self-replicating system?
But now you have to specify what "certain kinds of constraints" entails.
Other problems have to do with the word "choice."
I remember reading about a study where they had a person in an MRI making choices, and the researched managed to detect the choices being made in the brain before the participant was consciously aware of them.
Also, if someone offered you lots of money with no strings attached (without negative consequences), do you really have the choice to turn it down?
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi It entitles your genetical makeup, your previous experience, your undestanding of the situation (which is made up by the two former parameters), your wanted result (based on the previous), etc. There is no choice. All these affects the sensation of any given situation, your understanding of it and your wished result. I have read about the same study too. And regarding your last question; let me put it this way. Lets say you was thought that taking money from other would put
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi (conti) put you in hell for eternal suffering, and you really believed that with all of your heart. Would you take the money anyways?
Of course I wouldn't take the money in that case, but in that case there obviously are huge negative consequences. I agree with you, it's just doing a calculation of which path will lead to the better outcome. That's what choice is all about, it's a mechanism "designed" by evolution in order to help us navigate the environment in order to best pass on our genes.
I think our will is just our conscious sense of what a beneficial path or endpoint is.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi But so do insects, but do we talk about free will in that regard? And better outcome? Then tell me; why do people take drugs, act on emotions, etc? The outcome mostly end up bad, but many still do. There is no choice, it is an illusion. Our genetical makeup, upbringing, etc. arent chosen by us, but they greatly affect our decisions. Any given situation, is a result of the ones before.
@wachi03 So, his main premise is that life=evolving matter, and you're saying that evolving is "just an algorithm, [that] applies to any self-replicating system that makes mistakes while replicating", and if these are compatible then life would=matter that self-replicates and can make mistakes, right? So what exactly are you criticizing? That self-replication is only limited to carbon-based matter? I just want some clarification (I'm not saying you don't make sense).
If it wasn't for the crusades, who knows how technologically advanced we could be right now.
Theists, pay attention to how easily you believe what your pastor says. Ask more questions, stay curious. You will quickly find something that doesn't add up.
The advance of scientific research makes me positive about the future. And if it wasn't for the ignorant dogma we would know much more about the natural world by now.
Yeah we can look for "change over time," which is evolution in matter. But how do we know the difference between change that is evolution and change that isnt evolution?
ALSO consider this. Evolution has no "goal." Evolution includes the survival of some properties while the elimination and change of others. So let me ask you this. How much of one thing is to survive and how much of one thing is to change for it to be considered evolution? What ratio?
You do not need a container for something to compete, you need instability. The most stable RNA molecule would be the more fittest information carrier for example.
Then when the strain of the ultimate stable RNA molecule would have been created one can then imagine that the competition amongst these strains to adapt even further stability by adding proteins, lipids and whatnot to available as a sort of skeleton to prevent the molecule from deteriorating before it could be replicated.
Smallest evolvable unit is not bacteria, it is simply a molecule made of several interconnected molecules that can spontaneously be copied by using the surrounding matter, id est self-replicating.
To take a few examples from the organisms in existens, there are many self-replicating molecules but the most famous of them are DNA. However other kinds of molecules like RNA and protein can also make copies of itself and I am sure there are other molecules.
Hmm, a definition of life as matter that evolve just pushes our unknown to the question of what it means to evolve. When does a natural process, a change in the composition of matter, go from being dead to alive? Don't we need a more holistic view, where life is just as much defined by the environment as of the "living" entities themselves?
@Huckxxx Those bacteria have arsenic in the backbone of their DNA replacing the phosphorous component, they are still carbon based as far as the nucleic acids and carbohydrates they require to survive.
For a very broad interpretation of evolutionary processes which do indeed extend beyond biology, check out "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" (free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website)
That, of course, is a far more plausible hypothesis. Furthermore, it may even be that such systems may have already have arisen. Unlike carbon based biology, however, they could not have progressed very far, the configurational options being very limited.
Unfortunately, the way in which this talk is presented can easily lead to fundamental misunderstanding.
I presume this is the fault of those who produced the talk rather than of the speaker himself.
Analysing carefully, all that Lee Cronin seems claiming is not that any other element than carbon is capable of allowing the very extensive and complex manifestations of biology that we observe, but rather that much simpler systems using other elements may prove to be evolvable.
All bullshit, his definition of evolution is weak and incomplete. He wasted more then 10 minutes to get to the point. His idea is not even new. But confounds so much concepts. If his experiments pans out it will be great, I sympathize with the quest, I find it even doable, but in other terms, but I wouldn't put my money into his project. It sounded as scam
He's just being metaphorical, it's an anthropomorphic simplification so the audience can understand. No different than saying that magnets "want" to stick together, it's just how you express the nature of a force to lay people.
Besides, although we are intelligent our own selfishness, our "want" for survival doesn't come from that, rather it is our genes which are not self aware which are selfish, so it's perfectly valid to refer to genes as matter that wants its shape to win.
@TheFounderUtopia Adequate use of language and thought process are most important in science. Saying that magnets or genes "want" something is inexcusable distortion of reality and a great disservice to the though process of young people. Our human world consists of words and thoughts; the more they resemble relations from reality the more there will be traction for future discoveries. Saying things differently is not harder to understand but describes them better. Its a Mickey Mouse world now.
I do see your point and I understand to a degree, but I think you are reading too much into it. I think it's an acceptable compromise to use anthropomorphizing as a tool to present a very simplistic overview of something you are mentioning in passing. One could say "compelled" rather than "want", but this begs the question of "how" which sidetracks the discussion and derails the original lecture. To not simplify is to be forced to address everything, there's a time and a place.
@MarkoKraguljac agreed, the use of the word "want" in reference to molecules is unfortunate.
There was a talk some time ago about genes, memes, and temes that had a much better description of life: Self replecating information. (imperfect replication of information then leads to evolution).
The speaker had organized it into tiers where genes (biologic entities) were the first replicator, memes (ideas) were the second, and temes (technologies) were the third. First tier could be other "hardware".
@MarkoKraguljac I'm sure he realizes that molecules aren't conscious. He's trying to explain the process in simplistic terms that we can all understand.
@MarkoKraguljac nah, it's common for scientists to speak of atoms/molecules/etc as having "wants" and so on. it makes it easier to understand what they do if you antropomorphize a little bit. and of course everyone knows atoms or molecules don't have personalities so it's a harmless way to describe things.
@xjaskix It needs good will to understand what I am saying. It is just my opinion that science should not be a PR project. Instead of saying that molecules "want" anything they should admit (their language must reflect the fact) that they simply dont know enough about molecule interactions to authoritatively talk about it (and simplify). If they knew, protein folding for example would be solved by now. I am just asking that language (expression) should reflect facts in all scientific fields. c>
@xjaskix c> It might sound petty and jaded as you say but this deformed and unscientific approach is all around us. It is damaging and does not promote true understanding. People should not be constantly fed with ideas that in science everything is under control. It is not. Allowing people to see how little we know and understand could motivate them better to take part in it. We still school legions of "experts" in economy, a "science" whose conclusion ends with "invisible hand". Not benign.
@xjaskix : Thank you for speaking in terms we "little people" or the "common people" can understand. I was a Liberal Arts major in college and all this is a foreign language to me, but one I want to learn.
"Survival of the fittest" only serves our current barbaric narrative dependent on slavery and ignorance. "Disappearance of non adjusted" is much better definition of evolution. Cells do not compete (another economic (religious) scam), they simply are and those not adjusted to environment simply disappear. Cells have no consciousness and thus intentions to compete (in our human sense of the word). Economists and their bosses just like when biologists use such terminology and phrases.
@MarkoKraguljac Cells are observed to do everything animals do and yet they have no brains.. Science ignores that because its classical materialistic concepts have no incite into the matter. Cells however are observable and are a reality... They think, remember, solve problems, act socially, hunt... ext Looking at cells you can see atoms alive and acting with intent.
In cells atoms don't act like the rocks science imagines.
Evolution isn't some kind of great force that creates life, it's the other way around!
Life, by existing, mutating and undergoing natural selection, gave birth to what we call evolution.
If there is a phenomena worth mentionning that might be at the origin of life, it's the fact that all transformations and movement in nature happens with a minimal energy cost....
I can't wait to see this live matter, but i find reprogrammable matter (few TEDtalks ago) to be more practical/exciting/usefull....
@IvanMarinIvkovich "most people ...know" otherwise in fact trees 'know' otherwise ...the "food, sunlight, water" IS ..."war" is a fantasy ...'war' is just an english word 'we' give it meaning ...we can live beyond giving 'war' meaning ...in so doing we would make the word obsolete having little meaning, that being a blip in the 'historical' record of 'carbon based bi-pedal beings' ...trees are some of the largest examples of living beyond... ...even now many of us are living beyond
Survival of the fittest=psychopaths at the wheel=eugenics, mass murder, ecocide and madness- unless this changes we will not even register on the historic record.
Intelligent design can't exist without intelligent design you say, and yet we can't begin to fathom what a god would be, or "know," or "think."
At least you can see the universe? How shallow and small you sound. Don't continue trying to lecture me when you know nothing about me other than my belief in God. You seem to think intelligent design and evolution must be mutually exclusive.
Like you, I am a man of science. Unlike you, I marvel at all of creation, whether intelligently designed or not.
How dare you call yourself a man of science, when at certain points in your life you just throw up your arms in the air and grin: "Goddidit, Ibelieveit, thatsettlesit."
No, you are not a man of science. You are a clown who lacks intellectual curiosity and honesty, analytical thinking and knowledge. Don't kid yourself.
@AshrielDrummer You seem like a pretty open-minded theist to me. Frankly, I don't see why many atheists take exception to ANYONE who expresses a belief in God. It's supremely counter-productive. Organised religion and fundamentalism are the 'baddies', but an individual who comes to the conclusion that there is some sort of unspecified creator or 'God' in the universe is definitely nothing to worry about!
@GuyTM Thanks, I try to be, and I agree, it is counterproductive. I hate being told that if I think God exists, I have to throw science out the window. To reject science is foolishness, but the existence of science is not enough for me to disregard the possibility of a divine hand. I've drawn my own conclusions about the universe we live in, but in today's society where Christianity seems so looked down upon, it's mostly pointless arguing with people who think their thoughts are so "special."
Doesn't Dawkins tackle this sort of generalized Natural Selection in his first book? 'The Selfish Gene'? He even used the word 'stuff'... :D
damith219 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 1 month ago
Get ready fot the Zombie Apocalipse!
nonnv 4 months ago
He doesn't know that we "came from stuff on planet Earth." We could have come from some sort of cosmic life...
jackooboy1 4 months ago
@jackooboy1 That is true, but life had to have originated somewhere and there is evidence it has been here on Earth for most of its existence. Life may have not originated here on Earth but wherever it did had to have allowed nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids to come together in an aqueous solution.
Al3xX420 3 months ago
@jackooboy1 Hard to survive a cosmic journey for life, so it probably evolved here. Building blocks for life came from space though, like meteorites with amino acids and water, but that still had a little way left to go to become life. : )
winterstellar 3 months ago
Evolution is indeed a process always in motion.
The price equation is indeed applied to more than evolution...its applied to meme theory, economics, engineering and design etc. So its not confined to biology.
Cronins idea is basically a study of Catalysis. I think you could easily apply the price equation to that if you mapped the properties of chemicals.
Although I accept it was not designed for that task.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
Jeez, this guy just basically rambled for 15 minutes.
rwwanon 4 months ago
@rwwanon If he's right it is probably in the top 5 biggest breakthroughs ever made.
AustralianAllTheWay 4 months ago
@AustralianAllTheWay In that case, they should have considered inviting someone fully capable of speech to talk about it.
rwwanon 4 months ago
@rwwanon I'm sure he's a fine researcher but I agree he was a very bad public speaker. I doubt he'll be doing any stand up comedy to supplement his income.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
also, if you're planning on "setting things up" over the next two years, who or what set the unaccounted for soup?
GuitarPlayerHV16 4 months ago
where did the "soup" come from in the first place?
GuitarPlayerHV16 4 months ago
This is very interesting, I wonder how this will affect the equations for the amount of life that is probable to exist in our galaxy alone.
DukeTwicep 4 months ago
@DukeTwicep Well the equation that governs this is not Drakes equation, simplistic though it is but rather Prices equation. Prices equation explains evolution by selective processes mathematically. It does not require the advent of 'organic' building blocks....just building blocks.
However Prices equations are extremely complex and its only now with cloud computing and extremely powerful processors and GPU's that we could embark on emulating the procedure in software.
I'd give it 6 months.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey But price's equation is about evolution no? I was thinking about abiogenesis, the random event that leads to life that can evolve, in the traditional sense. Maybe you're saying, like Cronin, that evolution is a process that is always in motion, not only a process among biological entities? In that case, was this part of Price's equation? If so, then it sounds like he was thinking way ahead of his time.
DukeTwicep 4 months ago
As a Biochemist I am very impressed by this. I don't know how he will pull it off in 2 years, but I sure hope he does. The implications would be staggering.
TheYgds 5 months ago
@TheYgds As a physicist considering a course in biocybernetics I've been awaiting this for some time now.... It seems to me that a life spent researching carbon structures is about to be demonstrated to me as a bad call...lol
I take the point about the timeframe...I mean seriously how is he going to research, produce and write this up in such a narrow window...unless he's already more than 50% there....and I haven't read a single thing about this in Nature recently... have you?
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey, Geez I feel kind of sheepish by not putting in the rejoinder that I am an undergrad biochemist, I should not be so generous to myself with that. with that said to answer your question I have only read his paper on iCHELLS which is published in Angerwandte Chemie. So far he has only demostrated that be can form compartments. He has not yet published anything (to my knowledge) that could fill the role of instruction. As for metabolism, depends on what kind of metabolism is there.
TheYgds 4 months ago
@rkyeun
The probabilities I was referring to when it comes to quantum operations is not knowing the outcome of the system. There are many possible end-scenarios for a set of particles interacting, but there is no way to know the outcome in advance, we can only surmise the probability of it coming out in a certain state. On a plank's length- There are still conceptual ideas that have dimensions smaller than a plank's length, such as the de Broglie wavelength of a macroscopic object.
axelasdf 5 months ago
@rkyeun yep like the vid says we should be also be looking for other programs running too
RippdUb 5 months ago
@rkyeun either way- in short, 'our' universe (coz i cant speak for any other, but ours might have influence on others), must eventually produce some kind of observer as part of its own function. ditto for life on earth and therefore i guess any life growing planet- a sentience that as a mechanic of this universe is the observer.
RippdUb 5 months ago
@rkyeun yep for sure- the universe itself is unthinking and has no wants. but need is a different story, such as it needs gravity to function in its form or it isnt what it is anymore. so perhaps we as the observer are 'just' another mechanic of the universe like gravity, but obviously not as immediately important as gravity. or alternatively, perhaps we are a produce of the universe that must happen as a part of its function, like a tree photosynthesising and producing gas.
RippdUb 5 months ago
our universe is probably pointless if there is no one here to see it. I kind of think that we're a default mechanic of the universe for the purpose of observation. if not us then another thing on another planet?
RippdUb 5 months ago
"You are made of stuff and you use stuff." A most beautiful, simple, and elegant refutation of anti-materialistic philosophical positions. While I wish him the best in his endeavor I don't think a mere two years is realistic.
jaymthegenius 5 months ago
"A bacteria" I think you mean a bacterium, bacteria is the plural form of the word.
jaymthegenius 5 months ago
Inorganic biology is an oxymoron.
jaymthegenius 5 months ago
@xjaskix I think it's more of a language thing than actually ascribing personality to matter, though the two are linked.
xSilverPhinxx 5 months ago
Sigh, this was a bit lame. They have a word in chemistry for what he's talking about that's been around a long time...it's called kinetics. Chemical reactions have different rates and mechanisms and when multiple reactions are happening simultaneously using the same chemicals you have "competition", but trying to brand this as evolution is stupid.
Uhlbelk 5 months ago
A Star is the most simpliest form of matter evolviing , it is the cells of the organism known as the galaxy
jmm1233 5 months ago
WHY DON'T LET HIM TO THINK ABOUT HE DOES,,, HIS THOUGHTS ARE RESPECFULL
Zicid 5 months ago
ok here goes doctor Frankenstein
SerbSimulator 5 months ago
For someone who claims to want to keep away from general terms and think about specifics, he managed to give a surprisingly vague talk.
tky011 5 months ago
This lecture didn't prove anything. It's pure speculation.
eduTouY 5 months ago
@eduTouY Its a 10 minute lecture? less than 1/6th the time any student would sit through in a single lecture.... What exactly would you like to walk away with after 10 minutes....?
I think he's presuming the audience would be familiar with basic chemistry, biocybernetics and biology.... and where he didn't demonstrate anything other than the basic premise he doesn't have to, its already out there...why would he need to go over everything in the public domain all over again?
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey You're right. My expectations were too high. I nonetheless look forward to seeing what he comes up with after further research.
eduTouY 4 months ago
Cool! so we could create living chairs. it would be like sitting on a puppy. Or sumthing. Oh, and nobody created the universe. It just happened.
salahhe 5 months ago
What about viruses? Wouldn't they be the smallest evolvable unit? They don't fall within the definition of "life" because they don't have cell membranes and require the use of living cells to replicate. They are made of DNA or RNA housed inside a protein coat and they compete with other viruses and other lifeforms. Maybe you should try to spontaneously generate new viruses, though you'd need to be careful about containment to avoid an outbreak.
potaschlor 5 months ago
@potaschlor
Some people extend the definition of life to accommodate them, but I think this in turn makes it all more murky. We thing we'd know life if we saw it, but would we?
xSilverPhinxx 5 months ago
@potaschlor I think he confined it to 'self contained' in relation to evolution... current RNA like viruses need a hosts DNA to replicate... on its own its not prone to evolution. Well its not been researched well enough to say that for definite....but theres no evidence it can replicate and be enter the selection process without a host.
Maybe with other RNA and some crude protein polymers it might be possible.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
WHAT A JOKE HUMANS REALLY THINK THAT THEY ARE SPECIAL !!!
GOD IS REAL AND GO SEEK KNOWLEDGE !!!!
MOADAM2010 5 months ago
@MOADAM2010 Caps reduce readability by up top 60%, they are a serious turn off... Considering reading from a standard LCD display also reduces readability and comprehension by 30%... this leaves your comments having a total effect of about 12%....
If caps done anything at all to increase readability every book would be printed in upper case.
Try that on for knowledge.
MumblingMickey 4 months ago
@MumblingMickey : LOL thnx 4 the advice :-) !!!
MOADAM2010 4 months ago
63 people want a dictator king and theocracy.
Jeffersonwazright 5 months ago
@Jeffersonwazright Hey, dont disreguard the Queen. She is a very good leader, much better than Obama, bush or any american president after... probably, the founding fathers...
Most of the time its just a developmental stage. America was supposed to develop, but not destroy somthing which will take much longer to replace. In time, we will see american kings. Hah, what is the federal reserve but a hidden kind of king?
Elephantintheroom01 5 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 The difference between a king and the federal reserve is that people can get rid of the federal reserve just by talking about it.
After the founding fathers! Cmon, that is a very general statement.
Jeffersonwazright 5 months ago
@Jeffersonwazright Britian had many chances to oust its loyals, in the same way France did. But we chose not to. When we passed the magna carta, we still only forced the king to sign it. When we amended it with the bill of rights, which curtailed the powers of the king, we also curtailed the powers of the Vatican, who claimed he could be killed.
And yes, none of the poleticians since the founders have shown so much dicipline. Except perhapse Lincoln.
Elephantintheroom01 5 months ago
@Elephantintheroom01 I think Andrew Jackson was pretty good president. He tried to go after the banks and debt as a way of life- among a few other good moves.
Good commentary. You follow this stuff.
Jeffersonwazright 5 months ago
oh god... no one laughed at his jokes...
lolofdoom 5 months ago
Evolution doesn't run on competition, Darwin's theory has been largely evolved itself beyond neodarwinian selfish genes, he should really take this more seriously.
There are also considerations about what is life and is not that other scientists has already considered in larger contexts, as the Gaia theory. The most important seams to be the consequences of such technology can, an "intelligent", no-organic life friendly competitor? scary!
melinatrix 5 months ago
I think this guy played SPORE a bit too much.
froyboy4life 5 months ago
Balsy... definitely balsy.
leonidasx666 5 months ago
The interesting question to me is "How does the universe possess such qualities?" This research is finding out what happens when you mix this and that, but I'd like to know how this happens, how these qualities exist in our universe. Where is the energy that is required for this to happen coming from? How is consciousness possible in this universe? How is thinking possible? If better thinking has evolved over time, when was the point when thinking began?
1simonmatthews 5 months ago
I wish someone that disliked this clip would explain why, because I can't fathom why.
LittleTownInNorway 5 months ago
@LittleTownInNorway : you humans think you are very special and think everything comes out of nothing , create a fly if you think you are that special, create something out of nothing , GO SEEK KNOWLEDGE AND THANK GOD EVERY DAY THAT YOU ARE ALIVE !!!!
MOADAM2010 5 months ago
@MOADAM2010 You're a moron and a bad troll.
LondonIrishRover 5 months ago
@LondonIrishRover : YOU ARE A MORON THINKING THAT EVERYTHING COMES OUT OF NOTHING AND IS NOT CREATED FOOOL :-) !!!!
MOADAM2010 5 months ago
@MOADAM2010 Yeah. Only religious people think that everything came from nothing. Fail. Troll on, boy.
LondonIrishRover 5 months ago
@LondonIrishRover : WHO CREATED THE MOON, STARS, SUN, UNIVERSE YOU FOOL :-) ????
MOADAM2010 5 months ago
@MOADAM2010 Sad, sad troll. You really need a girlfriend.
LondonIrishRover 5 months ago
@LondonIrishRover : ANSWER THE QUESTION WHO CREATED IT :-) ???
DON'T TURN AROUND !!!
MOADAM2010 5 months ago
@MOADAM2010 Oh dear. There was no 'who', thats a begging the question fallecy. I would expect nothing less from a bad troll. Read up on cosmological science, I ain't gonna teach you.
LondonIrishRover 5 months ago
@LondonIrishRover ; WHO CONTROLS THE SUN WITH THE MOON AND THE EARTH ????
WHAT CAME EARLIER THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG :-) ????
MOADAM2010 5 months ago
@MOADAM2010
THE EGG!
xSilverPhinxx 5 months ago
@xSilverPhinxx : WHERE THE EGG CAME FROM :-) ????
MOADAM2010 5 months ago
@MOADAM2010
THE EGG EVOLVED!
xSilverPhinxx 5 months ago
@xSilverPhinxx : WUHAHAHAHAHAH HOW DID THE EGG EVOLVED :-) ?????
MOADAM2010 4 months ago
@MOADAM2010
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
IT MADE IT EASIER FOR THE ANIMALS WHO CAME OUTTA THE WATER! YA KNOW, THE CHICKEN'S ANCESTOR!
xSilverPhinxx 4 months ago
@xSilverPhinxx : wuhahahahaha you are a foool if you really believe that :-) !!!!!
MOADAM2010 4 months ago
@MOADAM2010
wha wha wha wha like a religious fool? ;D
xSilverPhinxx 4 months ago
@xSilverPhinxx : what makes more sense that everything is created or that is just random and change :-) ????
MOADAM2010 4 months ago
@MOADAM2010
Doesn' t matter what makes more sense man, reality defies common sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
xSilverPhinxx 4 months ago
@xSilverPhinxx : what ya talking about :-) ??? off course is common sense more important, why do you have intellect and brain you think you moron :-) ????
MOADAM2010 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MOADAM2010
You really think that common sense is what describes reality? have you ever heard of a little thing called quantum mechanics? Or even going back to old classical physics, you think, based on your common sense, that the planet is revolving around the sun at a high speed?
What do you know about reality, man? Especially based on an ancient book written by people just as ignorant (and stupid) as you? Religion loves ya, man ;D
xSilverPhinxx 4 months ago
@LondonIrishRover : YOU ARE A FOOL THE SUN AND THE MOON IS IN ORBIT WITH THE EARTH THAT IS CONTROLED OK :-)
MOADAM2010 5 months ago
@MOADAM2010
'WHAT', NOT 'WHO'!
xSilverPhinxx 5 months ago
@MOADAM2010
Dude. You forgot your capslock on.
BlizBob 5 months ago
@BlizBob : YES SORRY THNX MATE :-)
MOADAM2010 5 months ago
@MOADAM2010
if everything has to be created then surely that includes god too.
RippdUb 5 months ago
That was difficult to pay attention to. But I can't wait to hear progress! Evolvable matter...
kevinjloder 5 months ago
So, God; is not your friend. You are more likely to find the beginnings of life in the deep ocean.
b29349 5 months ago
3:31 spot the massive yawn to the left!! hahaha
snylekkie 5 months ago 3
Wouldn't his job be a lot easier if he worked with carbon given that we know it can work?
dookiecheez 6 months ago
This Guy is bullshit!
malevmani 6 months ago
60 people think that the universe was designed.
fatcat2939 6 months ago
Very cool story! So the conclusion of finding life is related to only 3 things:
1. "evolvable stuff" (any matter in my opinion)
2. an energy source
3. and a liquid (to be able for matter to 'meet' and compete)
87vortex87 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@87vortex87
agreed, but
3. and a liquid (to be able for matter to 'meet' and compete)
Maybe its a question of temperature above absolute zero.
fatcat2939 6 months ago
Id go with the "Campbells soup theory!"...but I have a hunch it had something to do with lightning hitting that 'tide pool'
AxelTiger 6 months ago
Comment removed
AxelTiger 6 months ago
2:20 I think biology is as special as you want it to be, lol. what a weird question
abeismain 6 months ago
this guy prepared the talk to take advantage of the ignorance of common people, every grad student in biological sciences knows that evolution is just an Algorithm, it applies to any self replicating system that makes mistakes while replicating. The fact that many consider only dna-based self-replicating systems to be alive is an archaism from the first half of the 20th century. However, i liked a lot his Zero-carbon approach to create life, he's not a biologist for sure. I'm going to sleep now
wachi03 6 months ago 24
@wachi03 Yeah and he is using really confusing language that obscures the interesting points he should be making. What now, carbon doesn't count as 'matter'? And he seems to identify 'organic' (as in, organic chemistry) with being alive. Organic chemistry just means carbon based. Not everything that is carbon based is alive, and whether on the other hand life needs carbon based chemistry is an interesting question, but the answer wouldn't radically change our understanding of what life 'means'.
TopGunYesTopGun 6 months ago 2
@wachi03 The way he talks about it, he makes it sound like there is that stuff out there (carbon) that is inherently alive, but now he makes 'ordinary matter' alive as well.
There is an interesting (and important) talk to be given about how self-replicating molecules kick-started life, and one about how life might not need carbon, but this isn't it.
TopGunYesTopGun 6 months ago
@wachi03 : You wrote "evolution is just an Algorithm." Are you a biologist? Your response is as fascinating as the Talk. Where can I find out more about Algorithms, and the "mistakes" you mention?
I have started to wonder if we humans are some kind of "self-replicating defective robots" and we are trying to "fix ourselves" or "replicate copies" or something. Life is turning out to be so different than we were led to believe when I was born in 1950 and growing up since then.
CommentsSurvey 6 months ago
@wachi03 the ramification of this is; 1) what is being alive and 2) do free will exist, if we are nothing more than à carbon-based self-replicating system?
Ko252 5 months ago
@Ko252
What is the definition of "free will?"
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 5 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Good question. "Free will is the apparent ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints."
Ko252 5 months ago
@Ko252
But now you have to specify what "certain kinds of constraints" entails.
Other problems have to do with the word "choice."
I remember reading about a study where they had a person in an MRI making choices, and the researched managed to detect the choices being made in the brain before the participant was consciously aware of them.
Also, if someone offered you lots of money with no strings attached (without negative consequences), do you really have the choice to turn it down?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 5 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi It entitles your genetical makeup, your previous experience, your undestanding of the situation (which is made up by the two former parameters), your wanted result (based on the previous), etc. There is no choice. All these affects the sensation of any given situation, your understanding of it and your wished result. I have read about the same study too. And regarding your last question; let me put it this way. Lets say you was thought that taking money from other would put
Ko252 5 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi (conti) put you in hell for eternal suffering, and you really believed that with all of your heart. Would you take the money anyways?
Ko252 5 months ago
@Ko252
Of course I wouldn't take the money in that case, but in that case there obviously are huge negative consequences. I agree with you, it's just doing a calculation of which path will lead to the better outcome. That's what choice is all about, it's a mechanism "designed" by evolution in order to help us navigate the environment in order to best pass on our genes.
I think our will is just our conscious sense of what a beneficial path or endpoint is.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 5 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi But so do insects, but do we talk about free will in that regard? And better outcome? Then tell me; why do people take drugs, act on emotions, etc? The outcome mostly end up bad, but many still do. There is no choice, it is an illusion. Our genetical makeup, upbringing, etc. arent chosen by us, but they greatly affect our decisions. Any given situation, is a result of the ones before.
Ko252 5 months ago
@wachi03 So, his main premise is that life=evolving matter, and you're saying that evolving is "just an algorithm, [that] applies to any self-replicating system that makes mistakes while replicating", and if these are compatible then life would=matter that self-replicates and can make mistakes, right? So what exactly are you criticizing? That self-replication is only limited to carbon-based matter? I just want some clarification (I'm not saying you don't make sense).
AwarenessandDesire 5 months ago
@wachi03 You're right. He however don't seem to think in a way an ''every grad student in biological sciences'' would.
eschersky 5 months ago
I'm thrilled to live in a time where science is breaching the frontiers into the unimaginable!
Maybe we should pause arguing about the religious consequences for a while. Just go blank and hear these nerds out first
ratje67 6 months ago
Fuck i just gave this video its 420th like and I don't even have any weed -_-
4ourOne6ix 6 months ago
Incredible stuff.
GeneralRushHour 6 months ago
If it wasn't for the crusades, who knows how technologically advanced we could be right now.
Theists, pay attention to how easily you believe what your pastor says. Ask more questions, stay curious. You will quickly find something that doesn't add up.
drche420 6 months ago
The advance of scientific research makes me positive about the future. And if it wasn't for the ignorant dogma we would know much more about the natural world by now.
ZZzzzzzWhat 6 months ago
"biology does not care about design unless it works" I disagree, look at your self, how well you are designed.
cloudywhitesky 6 months ago
People playing Gods.
KisekiDonum 6 months ago
Yeah we can look for "change over time," which is evolution in matter. But how do we know the difference between change that is evolution and change that isnt evolution?
ALSO consider this. Evolution has no "goal." Evolution includes the survival of some properties while the elimination and change of others. So let me ask you this. How much of one thing is to survive and how much of one thing is to change for it to be considered evolution? What ratio?
Evolution is just a colloquial term.
redsbr 6 months ago
Great to see Chris Anderson again.
meotaku2 6 months ago
the idea is very cool, but he just doesn't deliver it very well.
SuperiorApostate 6 months ago
Can you please make your videos 720P? Thanks
toutagamon 6 months ago
this guy is retarded.
1schwererziehbar1 6 months ago
so as a chemist..
SinaA41 6 months ago
what a waste of my time :/
Kongolox 6 months ago
HARRISON FORD 13:33
FLAWSONEUPONYA 6 months ago
This is good. "General Theory of *Physical* Evolution" But doesn't it already exist?
MultiRationale 6 months ago
It's getting tiresome to point out...TED, change your intro, it's too damn loud. Thank you.
jahrleriksen 6 months ago
I wish he spent more time on what has been actually accomplished in his lab.
tantzer 6 months ago
i am living in a material world, cause i"m a material girl.....
drorbenami 6 months ago
You do not need a container for something to compete, you need instability. The most stable RNA molecule would be the more fittest information carrier for example.
Then when the strain of the ultimate stable RNA molecule would have been created one can then imagine that the competition amongst these strains to adapt even further stability by adding proteins, lipids and whatnot to available as a sort of skeleton to prevent the molecule from deteriorating before it could be replicated.
lordmetroid 6 months ago
Smallest evolvable unit is not bacteria, it is simply a molecule made of several interconnected molecules that can spontaneously be copied by using the surrounding matter, id est self-replicating.
To take a few examples from the organisms in existens, there are many self-replicating molecules but the most famous of them are DNA. However other kinds of molecules like RNA and protein can also make copies of itself and I am sure there are other molecules.
lordmetroid 6 months ago
Hmm, a definition of life as matter that evolve just pushes our unknown to the question of what it means to evolve. When does a natural process, a change in the composition of matter, go from being dead to alive? Don't we need a more holistic view, where life is just as much defined by the environment as of the "living" entities themselves?
a575981735977018 6 months ago
1:40 Um, isn't that what evolution IS? How can you not think about evolution when thinking about natural selection and survival of the fittest?
hihihidddd 6 months ago
Haven't we already discovered non-carbon-based life on our own planet? Bacteria that originate from arsenic, I believe.
Huckxxx 6 months ago
@Huckxxx Those bacteria have arsenic in the backbone of their DNA replacing the phosphorous component, they are still carbon based as far as the nucleic acids and carbohydrates they require to survive.
johndoe77774444 6 months ago
For a very broad interpretation of evolutionary processes which do indeed extend beyond biology, check out "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" (free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website)
Cognosium 6 months ago
That, of course, is a far more plausible hypothesis. Furthermore, it may even be that such systems may have already have arisen. Unlike carbon based biology, however, they could not have progressed very far, the configurational options being very limited.
Cognosium 6 months ago
Unfortunately, the way in which this talk is presented can easily lead to fundamental misunderstanding.
I presume this is the fault of those who produced the talk rather than of the speaker himself.
Analysing carefully, all that Lee Cronin seems claiming is not that any other element than carbon is capable of allowing the very extensive and complex manifestations of biology that we observe, but rather that much simpler systems using other elements may prove to be evolvable.
Cognosium 6 months ago
@GrudgyDiablo whatever...you understood me
1mashoman 6 months ago
All bullshit, his definition of evolution is weak and incomplete. He wasted more then 10 minutes to get to the point. His idea is not even new. But confounds so much concepts. If his experiments pans out it will be great, I sympathize with the quest, I find it even doable, but in other terms, but I wouldn't put my money into his project. It sounded as scam
jrlmenezes1 6 months ago
10:40 Molecules compete and want their shape to win? This guy is unintentional propagandist. The way he explains is anti-scientific.
MarkoKraguljac 6 months ago
@MarkoKraguljac Border-line Pseudo Science!
Shunkitology 6 months ago
@MarkoKraguljac
He's just being metaphorical, it's an anthropomorphic simplification so the audience can understand. No different than saying that magnets "want" to stick together, it's just how you express the nature of a force to lay people.
Besides, although we are intelligent our own selfishness, our "want" for survival doesn't come from that, rather it is our genes which are not self aware which are selfish, so it's perfectly valid to refer to genes as matter that wants its shape to win.
TheFounderUtopia 6 months ago
@TheFounderUtopia Adequate use of language and thought process are most important in science. Saying that magnets or genes "want" something is inexcusable distortion of reality and a great disservice to the though process of young people. Our human world consists of words and thoughts; the more they resemble relations from reality the more there will be traction for future discoveries. Saying things differently is not harder to understand but describes them better. Its a Mickey Mouse world now.
MarkoKraguljac 6 months ago 2
@MarkoKraguljac
I do see your point and I understand to a degree, but I think you are reading too much into it. I think it's an acceptable compromise to use anthropomorphizing as a tool to present a very simplistic overview of something you are mentioning in passing. One could say "compelled" rather than "want", but this begs the question of "how" which sidetracks the discussion and derails the original lecture. To not simplify is to be forced to address everything, there's a time and a place.
TheFounderUtopia 6 months ago
@MarkoKraguljac - Stop mentally masturbating - you are talking nonsense. Are you incapable of recognizing metaphors?
OccamsKatana 6 months ago
@MarkoKraguljac agreed, the use of the word "want" in reference to molecules is unfortunate.
There was a talk some time ago about genes, memes, and temes that had a much better description of life: Self replecating information. (imperfect replication of information then leads to evolution).
The speaker had organized it into tiers where genes (biologic entities) were the first replicator, memes (ideas) were the second, and temes (technologies) were the third. First tier could be other "hardware".
gulllars 6 months ago
@MarkoKraguljac I'm sure he realizes that molecules aren't conscious. He's trying to explain the process in simplistic terms that we can all understand.
ONLYBESTVlDEOSFORYOU 6 months ago
@MarkoKraguljac nah, it's common for scientists to speak of atoms/molecules/etc as having "wants" and so on. it makes it easier to understand what they do if you antropomorphize a little bit. and of course everyone knows atoms or molecules don't have personalities so it's a harmless way to describe things.
don't be so jaded.
xjaskix 6 months ago 46
@xjaskix The conceptual models are wrong though... I think I have a better understanding of atoms.
abram730 6 months ago
@xjaskix It needs good will to understand what I am saying. It is just my opinion that science should not be a PR project. Instead of saying that molecules "want" anything they should admit (their language must reflect the fact) that they simply dont know enough about molecule interactions to authoritatively talk about it (and simplify). If they knew, protein folding for example would be solved by now. I am just asking that language (expression) should reflect facts in all scientific fields. c>
MarkoKraguljac 6 months ago
@MarkoKraguljac : You wrote "I am just asking that language (expression) should reflect facts in all scientific fields."
I am not a scientist and I don't know scientific language, but I agree that the language used should be accurate. Thank you.
CommentsSurvey 6 months ago
@xjaskix c> It might sound petty and jaded as you say but this deformed and unscientific approach is all around us. It is damaging and does not promote true understanding. People should not be constantly fed with ideas that in science everything is under control. It is not. Allowing people to see how little we know and understand could motivate them better to take part in it. We still school legions of "experts" in economy, a "science" whose conclusion ends with "invisible hand". Not benign.
MarkoKraguljac 6 months ago
@xjaskix : Thank you for speaking in terms we "little people" or the "common people" can understand. I was a Liberal Arts major in college and all this is a foreign language to me, but one I want to learn.
CommentsSurvey 6 months ago
"Survival of the fittest" only serves our current barbaric narrative dependent on slavery and ignorance. "Disappearance of non adjusted" is much better definition of evolution. Cells do not compete (another economic (religious) scam), they simply are and those not adjusted to environment simply disappear. Cells have no consciousness and thus intentions to compete (in our human sense of the word). Economists and their bosses just like when biologists use such terminology and phrases.
MarkoKraguljac 6 months ago 2
@MarkoKraguljac Cells are observed to do everything animals do and yet they have no brains.. Science ignores that because its classical materialistic concepts have no incite into the matter. Cells however are observable and are a reality... They think, remember, solve problems, act socially, hunt... ext Looking at cells you can see atoms alive and acting with intent.
In cells atoms don't act like the rocks science imagines.
abram730 6 months ago
this guy sounds a bit lik ricky gervais
violet101 6 months ago
@violet101 Or Wheatly if you get the reference :P But not as funny.
Grymyrk 6 months ago
alchemy of 21st century, no more, just crap
PR0H0LDEM 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution isn't some kind of great force that creates life, it's the other way around!
Life, by existing, mutating and undergoing natural selection, gave birth to what we call evolution.
If there is a phenomena worth mentionning that might be at the origin of life, it's the fact that all transformations and movement in nature happens with a minimal energy cost....
I can't wait to see this live matter, but i find reprogrammable matter (few TEDtalks ago) to be more practical/exciting/usefull....
961kgb 6 months ago
Trees are in war in each other for food, sunlight, water... Most ppl don't know that.
IvanMarinIvkovich 6 months ago
@IvanMarinIvkovich "most people ...know" otherwise in fact trees 'know' otherwise ...the "food, sunlight, water" IS ..."war" is a fantasy ...'war' is just an english word 'we' give it meaning ...we can live beyond giving 'war' meaning ...in so doing we would make the word obsolete having little meaning, that being a blip in the 'historical' record of 'carbon based bi-pedal beings' ...trees are some of the largest examples of living beyond... ...even now many of us are living beyond
you can too
gaiagale 6 months ago
Matter already evolves. It is our perceptions that need to catch up.
triforcelink 6 months ago
Survival of the fittest=psychopaths at the wheel=eugenics, mass murder, ecocide and madness- unless this changes we will not even register on the historic record.
ehpl 6 months ago
@ehpl It's how nature works, it doesn't have to be how society works... and it isn't.
P1ranh4 6 months ago
@ehpl oh so spot on ...just a blip ;-]) ...even in our own "historical record" ;-])
gaiagale 6 months ago
Intelligent design can't exist without intelligent design you say, and yet we can't begin to fathom what a god would be, or "know," or "think."
At least you can see the universe? How shallow and small you sound. Don't continue trying to lecture me when you know nothing about me other than my belief in God. You seem to think intelligent design and evolution must be mutually exclusive.
Like you, I am a man of science. Unlike you, I marvel at all of creation, whether intelligently designed or not.
AshrielDrummer 6 months ago
@AshrielDrummer
How dare you call yourself a man of science, when at certain points in your life you just throw up your arms in the air and grin: "Goddidit, Ibelieveit, thatsettlesit."
No, you are not a man of science. You are a clown who lacks intellectual curiosity and honesty, analytical thinking and knowledge. Don't kid yourself.
d3st88 6 months ago
@d3st88 hm ...who is kidding who!?!?!
gaiagale 6 months ago
@AshrielDrummer You seem like a pretty open-minded theist to me. Frankly, I don't see why many atheists take exception to ANYONE who expresses a belief in God. It's supremely counter-productive. Organised religion and fundamentalism are the 'baddies', but an individual who comes to the conclusion that there is some sort of unspecified creator or 'God' in the universe is definitely nothing to worry about!
GuyTM 6 months ago
@GuyTM Thanks, I try to be, and I agree, it is counterproductive. I hate being told that if I think God exists, I have to throw science out the window. To reject science is foolishness, but the existence of science is not enough for me to disregard the possibility of a divine hand. I've drawn my own conclusions about the universe we live in, but in today's society where Christianity seems so looked down upon, it's mostly pointless arguing with people who think their thoughts are so "special."
AshrielDrummer 6 months ago
@AshrielDrummer "Intelligent design can..." only "exist with... intelligent design" ...the 'fathoming' is the marvelling...
"I marvel at all of creation" too ;-) ...AND 'we' have plenty of company in this 'marveling' ;-])
gaiagale 6 months ago