Sione

Please, explain what part do you not understand? ANYTHING that is not created by INTELLIGENT BEING = SPONTANEOUS spon⋅ta⋅ne⋅ous –adjective 1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency 3. arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting. 4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous. 5. produced by natural process. Please, what part of the DEFINITION is still not clear to you? It doesn't matter WHERE. Planet, moon, universe, big-bang... it was either CREATED by BEING or it EMERGED SPONTANEOUSLY, naturally! There is no 'C', you simply must pick ONE of these two: a.) by INTELLIGENT BEING b.) SPONTANEOUSLY (by itself, naturally) ...otherwise you refuse to communicate human language defined by DICTIONARY.

================================================= Scrappy: Life coming out of space = SPONTANEOUS (unless you suggest GOD DID IT somewhere in outer space?) ANYTHING that is not created by INTELLIGENT BEING = SPONTANEOUS ================================================= ================================================= iNow: "changes over time", "slight modifications" = SPONTANEOUS (unless you suggest GOD DID those changes and modification?) Changed by WHOM? Modified by WHOM? a.) by INTELLIGENT BEING b.) SPONTANEOUSLY (by itself, naturally) ...there is no 'c' my young friend, by the very definition, so pick one. Check and Mate. Wikipedia IS scientific textbook, articles are taken out of text-books and you can see reference at the bottom of each article, stop insulting yourself and buy new textbooks if yours say differently. Read some dictionary and stop pretending, you're making your adolescence very obvious by exposing your limited vocabulary. ANYTHING that is not created by INTELLIGENT BEING = SPONTANEOUS =================================================

I accept the challenge, mate. Wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Spontaneous_generation By definition ABIOGENESIS = SPONTANEOUS emergence. It means OPPOSITE of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Therefore you are sorely confused or you believe in God, pick one. a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis –noun Biology. 1. the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis does not (should not) only refer to that kind of experiments, but anything that was not caused by INTELLIGENT DESIGN. By the way, Dictionary is wrong about credibility, because the theory was recently CONFIRMED experimentally. Anyway, you can't really discredit such general theory with few unsuccessful experiments. The lack of evidence is not proof of absence. Spontaneously means "naturally", opposite of which is "artificially", opposite of "intelligent design". Is this so hard to understand, sheesh! Now, your turn.... Do you believe in god? Pick one: a.) GOD DID IT (Religious explanation) b.) SPONTANEOUS (Scientific explanation) ------------------------------------------------- c.) Something else? Explain. (Your explanation) What say you, up for challenge? There is no many better word to describe what "spontaneous" means. But all it matters here is that it means OPPOSITE of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Recent experiments actually have produced environments where spontaneous emergence of self-replicating molecules occur. That is no secret' date=' Google it and pay attention! [b']spon⋅ta⋅ne⋅ous[/b] –adjective 1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency 3. arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting. 4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous. 5. produced by natural process. I answered all your questions, would you now care to share your theory: a.) GOD DID IT (Religious explanation) b.) SPONTANEOUS (Scientific explanation) ------------------------------------------------- c.) Something else? Explain. (Your explanation)

Amazing. I'm quoting SCIENTIFIC knowledge from text-books here. It is scientific standpoint that life EMERGES SPONTANEOUSLY from inanimate matter. If you disagree with that, then your only standpoint can be 'GOD DID IT'. No? What I mean by that "mumbo jumbo" is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis -"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth began from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things have changed over time." Why do you do that to yourself? Most of the general knowledge, as this, is only a click away... stop insulting yourself already and pay attention! Spontaneously means 'without willingness', 'without planning' , 'naturally', 'self-acting'... If you do not agree with that than you suggest: WILLINGNESS, PLANNING, INTERVENTION... INTELLIGENT DESIGN?!

Who says it codes for nothing? Of course it does, it "codes" itself so to be able to self-replicate - it has a code to make itself, ok? Self-replicating polymer (like Phosphoramidate DNA) is a "code" by definition of "genetic information", what do you imagine DNA and RNA are made of? What is it you want to argue? I don't see the basis for your objection? Can't see the point you are trying to make and why? Does this misunderstanding make any of my earlier statement false or less true somehow, which one?

You reply is not an answer to my objection. There is no such thing as "DIGITALLY CODED LANGUAGE". By using the word "language" you're making silly assertions and showing inability to differentiate the concept of "pure information" and the concept of "language". Do not confuse those two or you will again make yourself look silly like that. Stop making me repeat myself, pay attention! YOU SAID: "What's needed is an explanation of how chemical analogs managed to evolve a digitally coded language." "EVOLUTION" is not equal to "ORIGIN", Can you grasp? You confused yourself by asking two different questions. Of course, you still need to explain what you meant by "language". Yes' date=' of course. Now, do you think you can actually articulate your confusion about it? [b']"...some of these are capable of SPONTANEOUS polymerization, such as Phosphoramidate DNA."[/b] What part do you not understand? What part of "SPONTANEOUS" do you not understand? Do you not believe experiments? Do you not know what is "polymerization"? Articulate your confusion, explain what confused you - don't just repeat how much confused you are, its obvious. What part do you not understand? Yes evolution. Are you planning to "answer" every question with even more confused questions? Can you please concentrate a bit and try to answer some questions with answers, not confusion. What part of the presented theory you disagree with, again?

I like the sound of that. All motion is achieved via COLLISION. Without collision everything will move with constant velocity, which is what 1st Newton law says. It is important to understand that every single particle is in CONSTANT COLLISION with any other particle in the universe. This is simply because electromagnetic and gravity fields extend to infinity and therefore every single particle influences, exerts the force or in other words "collides" with every other particle all the time. When this collision is unbalanced, i.e. more force comes from one side, then object accelerates.

"digitally coded language" - what is this now? There is no such thing, what are you referring to? Pay attention and be specific, otherwise you will confuse yourself like this again. You asked about ORIGIN of genetic code and answer was given. Nucleotide polymerization IS answer to your original question - it happens SPONTANEOUSLY given the conditions we have on Earth - that is explanation of the ORIGIN and what you originally asked. Now, you have another question: "How could it have EVOLVED into what we see today?" Your new question is about EVOLUTION and answer to that is NATURAL SELECTION, about which I already made a comment in my 1st post. What part do you not understand? Do you not believe? What is the problem you have with all this and what is it you suggest?

Are you asserting something is wrong with proposed theory, or you just missed to notice that part? Anyway, here how it goes: 1.) lipid vesicles that can grow and divide. (this is enough to explain Abiogenesis, as spontaneous formation of self-replicating molecule aka. LIFE.) 2.) genetic code = nucleotide polymers that can self-replicate. (this is also enough to explain Abiogenesis, as spontaneous formation of self-replicating molecule aka. LIFE.) Origin of genetic code: "The pre-biotic environment contained many different types of nucleotides beside DNA and RNA. Recent experiments have shown that some of these are capable of spontaneous polymerization, such as Phosphoramidate DNA." Fatty acid vesicles are permeable to nucleotide monomers, but not polymers and once we have 2nd inside the 1st and if it can divide and split genetic material, then we can call it a CELL. I thought everyone else was referring to similar kind of theories, is this is something new?

That is a good point, to make a difference between "work done" and "work done on the body". I think when considering human performance it is natural to assume the question is about "work done by the body" as to be able to find energy consumed. The way I saw the question is in the sense of energy loss - will I loose more weight by running or walking every day certain distance. Yes, thank you. Unfortunately, if we have some human as a part of the system most people would assume, I think, it concerns the work that goes inside the body and how much energy it takes to do it. Another question: Human person walks some distance with constant velocity, calculate: a.) work against inertia b.) work against gravity c.) work against friction d.) total work done by the human e.) total work done on the human f.) energy exhausted from the human =================================== Addendum: Nonconservative forces other than friction include tension, compression and drag. Inertia as well?. Anyway, making displacement against these forces will always cause positive work. Negative work can be done only against conservative forces like gravity. When you lift your knee you are doing positive work against gravity. When you lift your knee gravity is doing negative work on your knee. When you let your knee fall you are doing negative work "against" gravity. When you let your knee fall gravity is doing positive work on your knee. Work is done by a force. To define problem properly we need to name that single 'applied force' and object it is acting on. By introducing complex system such as human being we are unable to name that force because there are many forces involved, forces that move knee, elbow, shoulder... Question should only involve one applied force, in a form: What is work done by FORCE on OBJECT. If we really wanted to know work done ON the human, we would need to specify what EXTERNAL force are we talking about, in some form of: What is work done by 'gravity force' ON human. (zero, force vector is perpendicular to the displacement) or What is work done by 'air friction force' ON human. (negative non zero, force vector is in opposite direction to the displacement) ...however What is work done by 'compound human force' AGAINST air friction (positive non zero, force vector is in the direction of the displacement)

Interesting. The question of simulating or anyhow else producing consciousness ultimately comes down to determinism. If we could define precisely what is consciousness, what we are ready to accept as consciousness, and if it happens to be some deterministic process, then yes - you could program it with if-then-else. This is in the same time a question of "free will". If consciousness is deterministic, then theoretically it is possible, but then if we ever create AI it would mean we were destine to do it, which would then feel as if we ourselves are part of some simulation. But, if consciousness is not deterministic then we still have a chance of manufacturing it, thought not with if-then-else. Rather, it will be some physical system capable of learning so that it can in effect program itself. Somewhere along this process of learning and evolving the consciousness could emerge, at least in a sense that we could not make a difference between real conscious response and that of our AI. This is how "Terminator" and "The Matrix" came to be. With non deterministic AI there is always a possibility for it to go crazy and turn us into batteries. It is all about input, response and how we define consciousness. Say, a fly has a consciousness. If we could know how fly responds to any given situation then we could program artificial fly to do exactly that. This is not consciousness, but if we can not tell the difference based on response, then obviously the very definition of the word "consciousness" must involve the mechanics by which process occurs. This is circular trick, because if we could define the mechanics of consciousness we would be able to re-produce it.

This is nice movie explaining it the way I come to understand it. The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis -http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg The key words are: chance, lipids, fatty acids... On the other hand is this also kind of true, in a way that we can't really grasp, or we find it hard to believe, the sheer complexity this simple mechanism apparently leads to. Thought, this person seem to suggest God of Bible did it while I think it is still in the scope of chance, time and natural selection, this Goddess I call - "Princess Chance".

Interesting. One of the confusing factors in this discussion is that "force" can be noun as well as verb, say something that exist vs. something that happens (exerting force = forcing). PSX talks about noun, about something that exists, while Sisyphus talks about verb and other than that there is no much _real disagreement. The essence of the problem is that we can not measure field forces directly as a single property. We can't really confirm it exists until something happens. This is in agreement with "force come in pairs", but it doesn't mean the ability to exert the force was not there before. Wikipedia says: "The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy makes it very real... For example, the gravitational field is a vector field because every point needs a vector to represent the magnitude and direction of the force." The issue is indeed the one of definitions, thought I think that is exactly what PSX tried to illustrate and I agree Newton's laws are badly defined as well as that 1st law is superfluous given the 2nd law. Wikipedia says: "In physics, a force is that which can cause an object with mass to accelerate."; In that respect force is a property of charge or mass as an ability to perform interaction rather than consequence of interaction. Interaction itself could not have happened if that ability was not there before and the only question is how to call that ability. PSX calls it "force", while Sisyphus would probably call it "energy" or "potential energy"? Wikipedia says: "Instead of a force, often the mathematically related concept of a potential energy field can be used for convenience."

After reading some research I have to express my surprise to find out their results show positive work is actually close to negative work. Still, air friction and joint friction will guarantee net positive work for any human motion. Muscles do more positive than negative work in human locomotion: http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/210/19/3361 That does not make sense to me because muscles are always in tension whether knee is going up or down, so i thought that resistance will cause positive work to be much greater than any negative work. In the light of that I'd like to expand. It is obviously very important to recognize the direction of the force and that of displacement. We can have positive and negative work. Energy is used to do work on an object, exerting a force through a distance and this force is usually against something: 1.) Work against fundamental forces. Gravitational attraction, electromagnetic and nuclear forces. 2.) Work against friction or drag. Friction is always present when two objects are in contact with each other and is always a force in the opposite direction of the applied force. 3.) Work against inertia. Since inertia is an objects resistance to change of motion, it naturally follows that this would resist forces acting upon it. Now I have a question. What kind of work is the one against inertia, can it be negative and how to recognize it. Here is a very popular example with two interpretations, which one is true? Carrying a heavy box Most of the textbooks say that this is not work, because the force of gravity is perpendicular to your motion, while some say moving the box across the room is work against the inertia of the box and lifting the box up is work against the resistive force of gravity.

you say velocity, but calculate acceleration. to answer your question, work is most certainly not zero and is most definitely not the same for running and walking. perhaps if there was no gravity, but then you would be floating. energy is the ability to do work or to cause change, so from that you should know that you indeed perform work in such exercise, even if you run on a treadmill. you must not ignore friction if you are interested in calculating work, the friction is what makes you repel and move in a first place. air/ground friction and gravity is what you work against. when running, you lift your knees higher and with more acceleration, so you should be performing more work per unit time. people also can do work when rotating an object. for example, a person who unscrews the lid of a milk jug does work. in this case, the resistance is the force of friction that the screw threads of the jug exert against the lid. no work is done when you hold your hand stationary against gravity, in a classical sense. but, it will get you tired and you will use extra energy to perform it. having energy as an ability to do work you know that in fact you did perform some work, only the things that were displaced were internal, like muscle contraction, movement within the fibers, heart-rate, blood pressure, temperature...