Posted on 06/23/2007 12:21:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Exactly.. How did the first DNA sequence form ALIVE?..
Since DNA can also be dead?.. Dead DNA is just protoplasm..
Even, Dead DNA would be almost impossible to form statistically..
Wonder why nobody cares what makes DNA ALIVE or NOT..
DNA is only wondrous because its alive, dead DNA is merely "SNOT"...
Who says it is "dead" - perhaps "dormant" is a better term since it mey be merely (temporarily ??) lacking the 'tools' to 'live.' After all, we can transpose genes from one organism to another. It is not out of the realm of possiblility, were we to find a complete strand of dinosaur DNA that we might bring dinosaurs back to life ... ???
As to the first part of how the first formed "alive" - that is the mystery, perhaps miracle if you wish, although I think it is just the possibility that there can be such a thing as DNA the underlying miracle.
I think I may have an interesting perspective on that ... developing (where's the siren gif ??? ) but still some aspect to work out. Fascinating ramifications though. Sorry to tease, but just trying to explain a temporary silence on the matter.
I agree. That is the question.
Right now, the disagreement seems to be over whether or not the answer to that question is embedded in the program.
Most functions are not computable. There would be no program, no instructions.
Thats what Dr. FrankenSteyn(ominous organ chord) thought..
What I say is road kill will never become "roundish" again.. but will remain flatt..
I continue to embrace the Shannon model which I might point out is also compatible with this speculation.
And Wimmer made the point by bootstrapping the polio virus in the lab. But to do it, it started with the message itself - and then provided a cell-free juice whereupon the virus became active - or in the Shannon model, successfully communicating as "noise" in the channel.
The Miller/Urey experiments lacked the insight of the information (successful communications) - and the message.
I gather this is the classical understanding, dougd. Yet I have encountered many articles recently that speak of a zero-point vacuum field as being a mediating field of zero-point energy, spontaneous emissions of virtual particles (photons). The conjecture is such a field more basic or fundamental than the EM field may "reside" in an additional fifth "time-like" dimension. I don't know whether or not this is true. But I find the speculation interesting.
A particularly interesting example that doesn't deal specifically with photons, but with particles generally, is one offered by P. S. Wesson in his article “Five Dimensional Relativity and Two Times” — in which it is posited that time-like paths of massive particles in four dimensions can arise from null paths in a fifth dimension, where there is an oscillation around the hypersurface we call space/time. His article also suggests that a particle in the fifth dimension could be multiply imaged in the four dimensions, and that the weak equivalence principle in the four dimensions may be the symmetry of a corresponding five-dimensional metric.
Or to put it another way, instead of there being 1080 particles in the visible four dimensions, it could actually be the case that as little as a single particle in a fifth dimension is imaged 1080 times in the four dimensions of our normal experience. [P. S. Wesson, "Five Dimensional Relativity and two Times," Cornell University Library, May 2002. (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0205/0205117.pdf), which A-G and I quote in our book, Timothy.]
Anyhoot, Wesson's model seems to answer for non-local particle behavior and superluminal velocities.
Fair enough. In that context, “observation” seems to involve searching for various means of getting it to emit that information, in a form we can utilize.
Well, of course that was the premise of Jurassic Park.... Evidently you're not the only person who thinks this is possible.
Probably we could more easily find a complete strand of DNA from a recently deceased person. As far as I know, nobody has yet tried to use it to bring that person "back to life."
Programs don't create themselves as far as I know. They require a programmer. At least all the programs that we humans know about do.
I think it's quite compatible, too, A-G.
LOLOL!!!!!!!!!!
Indeed - though I was alluding to the CERN search for the Higgs field/boson.
I'll be glad to read 'em both. :^) Though if RightWhale's prose is anything like Hegel's (or even Kant's -- he seems to admire the latter), it would likely be a struggle....
If there exists an algorithm [Euclidean which includes decision, process and recursives] which is also self-modifying, at the inception of biological life, then we can pitch abiogenesis for good. LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.