Guest guest Posted September 30, 2004 Report Share Posted September 30, 2004 Beliefs are very powerful.......but the Mother-of-all-beliefs......The I-AM.......is the most powerful of all. It is the first born.......and the last to die........ All other beliefs kneel before IT. IT.......IS GOD ITSELF! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: >When mind tries to apply its accumulated debris of knowledge to a >concept like free will, enlightenment, re-incarnation or love... >well.. there's going to be some difficulty and more then a little >confusion....... I wholeheartedly agree! So lets listen to the masters... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Nisargadatta , " Stefan " <s.petersilge@c...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > >When mind tries to apply its accumulated debris of knowledge to a > >concept like free will, enlightenment, re-incarnation or love... > >well.. there's going to be some difficulty and more then a little > >confusion....... > > I wholeheartedly agree! > So lets listen to the masters... To hell with the masters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > Beliefs are very powerful.......but the Mother-of-all- beliefs......The I-AM.......is the most powerful of all. > > > It is the first born.......and the last to die........ > > All other beliefs kneel before IT. > > IT.......IS GOD ITSELF! The I AM, is Mother of all archetypes it is the original model or pattern from which all things come. Life is the I AM making or already made copies of itself, just not exact copies. FYI.... " For me, I would say that all you need to define life is imperfect replication. That's it. Life. And what that means is that the entity can make copies of itself but not exact copies. A perfectly replicating system isn't alive because it doesn't evolve. Quartz crystals make exact copies of themselves and have done so from the beginning of the earth. They don't evolve, though, because they're locked into that particular form. But with imperfect replication you get mutants that develop some sort of selective advantage that will allow them to dominate the system. That whole system then evolves, and you get this cascade of evolution progressing to more complicated entities. But something preceded all that, something that could do this basic thing of replication and mutation, and that's what everyone is trying to figure out. " What is known about FLO (the so-called first living organism), is that for it to have happened at all, it had to have been an even tougher entity than LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)was, merely to overcome the universe's most prohibitive law, the second law of thermodynamics, which dictates that all matter tends toward entropy, the dissipation of energy. All life is in utter defiance of that law, a bound, energy-gathering stay, however brief, against entropy. The other essential requirement for the kind of imperfect replication system that Bada describes is that there had to have been a first bit of information, some kind of biochemical message, or code, however crude, to begin to convey. Or, in this case, to misconvey, the whole story of life's emergence and evolution on earth being, in essence, a multibillion year long game of telephone, in which the initial utterance, the one that preceded all others, was increasingly transmuted and reinvented the further along it was passed. It is the precise nature of that first utterance that astrobiologists are trying to decipher. " There are some people, Bada says, who would argue quite vigorously with me about whether the simple kind of replicators I speak of qualify as life. Others would argue that even the sorts of simpler catalytic, self-sustaining reactions that occur on mineral surfaces are living, or are the first type of living system, without even the requirement for genetic information. But to me, that is chemistry, not life. Or, it's life as we don't know it. " Jeffrey Bada is a geochemist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at U.C. San Diego. He is one of the astrobiologists looking everywhere for the origins of life in the universe ~freyja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Beliefs are very powerful.......but the Mother-of-all- > beliefs......The I-AM.......is the most powerful of all. > > > > > > It is the first born.......and the last to die........ > > > > All other beliefs kneel before IT. > > > > IT.......IS GOD ITSELF! > > > The I AM, is Mother of all archetypes > it is the original model or > pattern from which all things come. > > Life is the I AM making or already made copies of itself, > just not exact copies. > > FYI.... > > " For me, I would say that all you need > to define life is imperfect replication. > That's it. Life. And what that means > is that the entity can make copies of itself > but not exact copies. A perfectly > replicating system isn't alive because > it doesn't evolve. Quartz crystals make > exact copies of themselves and have done > so from the beginning of the earth. > They don't evolve, though, because they're > locked into that particular form. But > with imperfect replication you get mutants > that develop some sort of selective advantage > that will allow them to dominate the system. > That whole system then evolves, and you get > this cascade of evolution progressing to more > complicated entities. But something preceded > all that, something that could do this basic > thing of replication and mutation, and that's > what everyone is trying to figure out. " > > What is known about FLO (the so-called first > living organism), is that for it to have > happened at all, it had to have been an even > tougher entity than LUCA (Last Universal > Common Ancestor)was, merely to overcome the > universe's most prohibitive law, the second > law of thermodynamics, which dictates that all > matter tends toward entropy, the dissipation > of energy. All life is in utter defiance of > that law, a bound, energy-gathering stay, > however brief, against entropy. > > The other essential requirement for the kind of > imperfect replication system that Bada describes > is that there had to have been a first bit of > information, some kind of biochemical message, or > code, however crude, to begin to convey. Or, > in this case, to misconvey, the whole story > of life's emergence and evolution on earth being, > in essence, a multibillion year long game of > telephone, in which the initial utterance, the > one that preceded all others, was increasingly > transmuted and reinvented the further along it > was passed. It is the precise nature of that > first utterance that astrobiologists are trying > to decipher. > ****************************************** It was: hello.................hello..........anybody there? ******************************************** > " There are some people, Bada says, who would > argue > quite vigorously with me about whether the > simple kind of replicators I speak of qualify > as life. Others would argue that even the > sorts of simpler catalytic, self-sustaining > reactions that occur on mineral surfaces are > living, or are the first type of living system, > without even the requirement for genetic > information. But to me, that is chemistry, > not life. Or, it's life as we don't know it. " > > Jeffrey Bada is a geochemist at Scripps > Institution of Oceanography at U.C. San Diego. > He is one of the astrobiologists looking > everywhere for the origins of life in the > universe > > > ~freyja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > Beliefs are very powerful.......but the Mother-of-all- > > beliefs......The I-AM.......is the most powerful of all. > > > > > > > > > It is the first born.......and the last to die........ > > > > > > All other beliefs kneel before IT. > > > > > > IT.......IS GOD ITSELF! > > > > > > The I AM, is Mother of all archetypes > > it is the original model or > > pattern from which all things come. > > > > Life is the I AM making or already made copies of itself, > > just not exact copies. > > > > FYI.... > > > > " For me, I would say that all you need > > to define life is imperfect replication. > > That's it. Life. And what that means > > is that the entity can make copies of itself > > but not exact copies. A perfectly > > replicating system isn't alive because > > it doesn't evolve. Quartz crystals make > > exact copies of themselves and have done > > so from the beginning of the earth. > > They don't evolve, though, because they're > > locked into that particular form. But > > with imperfect replication you get mutants > > that develop some sort of selective advantage > > that will allow them to dominate the system. > > That whole system then evolves, and you get > > this cascade of evolution progressing to more > > complicated entities. But something preceded > > all that, something that could do this basic > > thing of replication and mutation, and that's > > what everyone is trying to figure out. " > > > > What is known about FLO (the so-called first > > living organism), is that for it to have > > happened at all, it had to have been an even > > tougher entity than LUCA (Last Universal > > Common Ancestor)was, merely to overcome the > > universe's most prohibitive law, the second > > law of thermodynamics, which dictates that all > > matter tends toward entropy, the dissipation > > of energy. All life is in utter defiance of > > that law, a bound, energy-gathering stay, > > however brief, against entropy. > > > > The other essential requirement for the kind of > > imperfect replication system that Bada describes > > is that there had to have been a first bit of > > information, some kind of biochemical message, or > > code, however crude, to begin to convey. Or, > > in this case, to misconvey, the whole story > > of life's emergence and evolution on earth being, > > in essence, a multibillion year long game of > > telephone, in which the initial utterance, the > > one that preceded all others, was increasingly > > transmuted and reinvented the further along it > > was passed. It is the precise nature of that > > first utterance that astrobiologists are trying > > to decipher. > > > > ****************************************** > > It was: > > > > > > hello.................hello..........anybody there? > > > ******************************************** > Further from this current article: The so-called first living organism (FLO) may not even be an entity so much as a moment, the very one, in a sense, that countless alchemists over the centuries -- and later, scientists - have tried to isolate. Many credit Stanley Miller with starting the modern science of origins when, back in the fall of 1952, as a young graduate student in chemistry at the University of Chicago, he elctrically charged in his lab a flask bound rendition of the earth's early atmosphere and produced amino acids. Miller's primordial soup ingredients have since been reconfigured, and his results somewhat diluted by the revelation that amino acids can be not only easily synthesized in the lab, but also even found floating in outer space. And yet his experiment catalyzed the current search for tht moment when " being " began, when chemicals and crude organic compounds somehow culminated in a first living thing. The working definition of 'living' for Jeffrey Bada is, (as detailed above) " imperfect replication " . > > > > " There are some people, Bada says, who would > > argue > > quite vigorously with me about whether the > > simple kind of replicators I speak of qualify > > as life. Others would argue that even the > > sorts of simpler catalytic, self-sustaining > > reactions that occur on mineral surfaces are > > living, or are the first type of living system, > > without even the requirement for genetic > > information. But to me, that is chemistry, > > not life. Or, it's life as we don't know it. " > > > > Jeffrey Bada is a geochemist at Scripps > > Institution of Oceanography at U.C. San Diego. > > He is one of the astrobiologists looking > > everywhere for the origins of life in the > > universe > > > > > > ~freyja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > Beliefs are very powerful.......but the Mother-of-all- > > > beliefs......The I-AM.......is the most powerful of all. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the first born.......and the last to die........ > > > > > > > > All other beliefs kneel before IT. > > > > > > > > IT.......IS GOD ITSELF! > > > > > > > > > The I AM, is Mother of all archetypes > > > it is the original model or > > > pattern from which all things come. > > > > > > Life is the I AM making or already made copies of itself, > > > just not exact copies. > > > > > > FYI.... > > > > > > " For me, I would say that all you need > > > to define life is imperfect replication. > > > That's it. Life. And what that means > > > is that the entity can make copies of itself > > > but not exact copies. A perfectly > > > replicating system isn't alive because > > > it doesn't evolve. Quartz crystals make > > > exact copies of themselves and have done > > > so from the beginning of the earth. > > > They don't evolve, though, because they're > > > locked into that particular form. But > > > with imperfect replication you get mutants > > > that develop some sort of selective advantage > > > that will allow them to dominate the system. > > > That whole system then evolves, and you get > > > this cascade of evolution progressing to more > > > complicated entities. But something preceded > > > all that, something that could do this basic > > > thing of replication and mutation, and that's > > > what everyone is trying to figure out. " > > > > > > What is known about FLO (the so-called first > > > living organism), is that for it to have > > > happened at all, it had to have been an even > > > tougher entity than LUCA (Last Universal > > > Common Ancestor)was, merely to overcome the > > > universe's most prohibitive law, the second > > > law of thermodynamics, which dictates that all > > > matter tends toward entropy, the dissipation > > > of energy. All life is in utter defiance of > > > that law, a bound, energy-gathering stay, > > > however brief, against entropy. > > > > > > The other essential requirement for the kind of > > > imperfect replication system that Bada describes > > > is that there had to have been a first bit of > > > information, some kind of biochemical message, or > > > code, however crude, to begin to convey. Or, > > > in this case, to misconvey, the whole story > > > of life's emergence and evolution on earth being, > > > in essence, a multibillion year long game of > > > telephone, in which the initial utterance, the > > > one that preceded all others, was increasingly > > > transmuted and reinvented the further along it > > > was passed. It is the precise nature of that > > > first utterance that astrobiologists are trying > > > to decipher. > > > > > > > ****************************************** > > > > It was: > > > > > > > > > > > > hello.................hello..........anybody there? > > > > > > ******************************************** > > > > Further from this current article: > > The so-called first living organism (FLO) > may not even be an entity so much as > a moment, the very one, in a sense, that > countless alchemists over the centuries -- > and later, scientists - have tried to > isolate. Many credit Stanley Miller with > starting the modern science of origins > when, back in the fall of 1952, as a young > graduate student in chemistry at the > University of Chicago, he elctrically charged > in his lab a flask bound rendition of the > earth's early atmosphere and produced > amino acids. Miller's primordial soup > ingredients have since been reconfigured, > and his results somewhat diluted by the > revelation that amino acids can be not only > easily synthesized in the lab, but also > even found floating in outer space. And yet > his experiment catalyzed the current search > for tht moment when " being " began, when > chemicals and crude organic compounds > somehow culminated in a first living thing. > > The working definition of 'living' for > Jeffrey Bada is, (as detailed above) > " imperfect replication " . > > > > > > > > > " There are some people, Bada says, who would > > > argue > > > quite vigorously with me about whether the > > > simple kind of replicators I speak of qualify > > > as life. Others would argue that even the > > > sorts of simpler catalytic, self-sustaining > > > reactions that occur on mineral surfaces are > > > living, or are the first type of living system, > > > without even the requirement for genetic > > > information. But to me, that is chemistry, > > > not life. Or, it's life as we don't know it. " > > > > > > Jeffrey Bada is a geochemist at Scripps > > > Institution of Oceanography at U.C. San Diego. > > > He is one of the astrobiologists looking > > > everywhere for the origins of life in the > > > universe > > > > > > > > > ~freyja Freyja, This is beautiful.......... Life is so.............mysteriously.......... wonderful. Wouldn't it be grand if life could evolve a tool to see its own .........divine......majesty? .......maybe that's all we are........... maybe that's enough.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 > Freyja, > > This is beautiful.......... > > Life is so.............mysteriously.......... > > wonderful. > > Wouldn't it be grand if life could evolve a tool to see its own ........divine......majesty? > > ......maybe that's all we are........... > > maybe that's enough.......... ......Yes, music..... Hi! A little philosophy? My two cents....I changed a tad a message I sent for a few days to another board. Death and birth are coupled to sexual reproduction. A question of evolution and selective advantages and, above all, a question of economy. Birth and death are extraordinary tools concerning selection and adaptation. As well as sexual reproduction, which actually are based upon short life spans of individuals. The individual itself doesn't count " as an individual " , it just matters in a subsidiary way. I don't like the term " imperfect replication " very much. It disregards, in my opinion, the concept of economy in relation to life. Nothing observable that happens, is actually needlessly or unessential. The notion of imperfectness is meaningless concerning life, in my opinion. Replication is a misleading term, here, and actually related to genetics. The DNA replicates, but not quartz-stones. There is no mitosis. No living cells in stones. I wouldn't dare to judge a mutation not even a punctiform change of base pairs as an imperfection. On a subatomic level the borders between inert and living matter become blurred and both dissolve in each other and on an astrophysical level life losses nearly completely its significance. Life, as manifestation of organisation, follows strictly economic principles precisely on account of the 2. Law of thermodynamics. But even the notion of entropy is associated to a perceiving entity, precisely like the notion of economy as antinomy, as answer of living matter towards the 2. Law of thermodynamics. The underlying language, mathematics, and, at last, based on the notions of geometry & time. On Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) Even though Vico's view of truth as uncertain in man's eye, he doesn't proclaim everything to be unknowable. Vico views truth as knowable only by the creator of this truth. Thus, according to Vico, God is the only knower of all truths since He created it. Humans, though, know little. What little they did know had to be created by them within their heads. Mathematics is one such field in which Vico says is a divine science. Humans created it and manipulated it all within their minds, thus creating its own truth and knowledge (Verene; Edwards; Bizzel and Herzberg). Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Hi Freyja, Do you paint? If you do, and have digital pics, please posts your favorite in the photo section, either here or advaitatozen. Thanks. Now, what you wrote below provoked a few ideas I would like to bounce off your skull. It is obvious, as stated below by you, and Kip, that life advances itself thru the death of its units. So death is and instrument of creation, change, progress, evolution... and therefore...Good So, at what point death becomes bad, an evil thing? To use death as a tool of evolution places life in a dilemma: It must program its units to die, yet it must also program those units to avoid death because they have to last long enough to replicate. This poses no problem until consciousness appears, and these conflicting programs clash in awareness creating fear and suffering. Death is good for life, but bad for the conscious living organism whose nervous system is programmed to preserve life, and who at the cellular level is programmed to die. This is farther complicated by the nasty need life has to feed on itself. So animals are program to kill to eat. These three conflicting tendencies has created for human endless suffering, and the moral quagmire in which we still flounder. Life is sacred admonish some prophets. Kill in the name of country and God admonish others. Protect the unborn and support the death penalty and gun ownership demand good Christians. What a mess! Is it alright to kill an ant? Does an ant knows it's alive? Is it alright to kill a chicken, but not a dog? To see thru these three programs which constitute the axis of all evil, and suffering is a giant step in liberation. Pete N Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > " For me, I would say that all you need > to define life is imperfect replication. > That's it. Life. And what that means > is that the entity can make copies of itself > but not exact copies. A perfectly > replicating system isn't alive because > it doesn't evolve. Quartz crystals make > exact copies of themselves and have done > so from the beginning of the earth. > They don't evolve, though, because they're > locked into that particular form. But > with imperfect replication you get mutants > that develop some sort of selective advantage > that will allow them to dominate the system. > That whole system then evolves, and you get > this cascade of evolution progressing to more > complicated entities. But something preceded > all that, something that could do this basic > thing of replication and mutation, and that's > what everyone is trying to figure out. " > > What is known about FLO (the so-called first > living organism), is that for it to have > happened at all, it had to have been an even > tougher entity than LUCA (Last Universal > Common Ancestor)was, merely to overcome the > universe's most prohibitive law, the second > law of thermodynamics, which dictates that all > matter tends toward entropy, the dissipation > of energy. All life is in utter defiance of > that law, a bound, energy-gathering stay, > however brief, against entropy. > > The other essential requirement for the kind of > imperfect replication system that Bada describes > is that there had to have been a first bit of > information, some kind of biochemical message, or > code, however crude, to begin to convey. Or, > in this case, to misconvey, the whole story > of life's emergence and evolution on earth being, > in essence, a multibillion year long game of > telephone, in which the initial utterance, the > one that preceded all others, was increasingly > transmuted and reinvented the further along it > was passed. It is the precise nature of that > first utterance that astrobiologists are trying > to decipher. > > " There are some people, Bada says, who would > argue > quite vigorously with me about whether the > simple kind of replicators I speak of qualify > as life. Others would argue that even the > sorts of simpler catalytic, self-sustaining > reactions that occur on mineral surfaces are > living, or are the first type of living system, > without even the requirement for genetic > information. But to me, that is chemistry, > not life. Or, it's life as we don't know it. " > > Jeffrey Bada is a geochemist at Scripps > Institution of Oceanography at U.C. San Diego. > He is one of the astrobiologists looking > everywhere for the origins of life in the > universe > > > ~freyja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Hi Pete, Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <Pedsie2@a...> wrote: > Hi Freyja, > Do you paint? F: Yes, but not much over the years of raising children. Am slowly getting back to it now. If you do, and have digital pics, > please posts your favorite in the photo section, > either here or advaitatozen. Thanks. > F: Thank you for requesting.....I don't have any digital pics at this time, but if and when I do, I will remember > Now, what you wrote below provoked a few ideas > I would like to bounce off your skull. It is > obvious, as stated below by you, and Kip, that life > advances itself thru the death of its units. > So death is and instrument of creation, change, > progress, evolution... and therefore...Good > > So, at what point death becomes bad, an evil thing? > To use death as a tool of evolution places life > in a dilemma: It must program its units to die, yet > it must also program those units to avoid death > because they have to last long enough to replicate. > > This poses no problem until consciousness appears, and > these conflicting programs clash in awareness creating > fear and suffering. Death is good for life, but bad for > the conscious living organism whose nervous system > is programmed to preserve life, and who at the > cellular level is programmed to die. > > This is farther complicated by the nasty need life has > to feed on itself. So animals are program to kill to > eat. These three conflicting tendencies has created > for human endless suffering, and the moral quagmire > in which we still flounder. Life is sacred admonish > some prophets. Kill in the name of country and God > admonish others. Protect the unborn and support the death > penalty and gun ownership demand good Christians. What > a mess! > Is it alright to kill an ant? Does an ant knows it's alive? > Is it alright to kill a chicken, but not a dog? > F: The only time any tendencies are creating suffering is when they are seen as 'conflicting' to begin with. You said " consciousness appears and the conflicting programs clash in awareness, creating fear and suffering. There can be consciousness/awareness exclusive of suffering a conflict. All that awareness knows is .....ing, ...open-ness, open-ended-ness, that's it, that's all folks, any attached meaning, including this, is a story. At same time, all of that it is all part of the ......ing. ~freyja > To see thru these three programs which > constitute the axis of all evil, and suffering is a giant > step in liberation. > > Pete > > N > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > " For me, I would say that all you need > > to define life is imperfect replication. > > That's it. Life. And what that means > > is that the entity can make copies of itself > > but not exact copies. A perfectly > > replicating system isn't alive because > > it doesn't evolve. Quartz crystals make > > exact copies of themselves and have done > > so from the beginning of the earth. > > They don't evolve, though, because they're > > locked into that particular form. But > > with imperfect replication you get mutants > > that develop some sort of selective advantage > > that will allow them to dominate the system. > > That whole system then evolves, and you get > > this cascade of evolution progressing to more > > complicated entities. But something preceded > > all that, something that could do this basic > > thing of replication and mutation, and that's > > what everyone is trying to figure out. " > > > > What is known about FLO (the so-called first > > living organism), is that for it to have > > happened at all, it had to have been an even > > tougher entity than LUCA (Last Universal > > Common Ancestor)was, merely to overcome the > > universe's most prohibitive law, the second > > law of thermodynamics, which dictates that all > > matter tends toward entropy, the dissipation > > of energy. All life is in utter defiance of > > that law, a bound, energy-gathering stay, > > however brief, against entropy. > > > > The other essential requirement for the kind of > > imperfect replication system that Bada describes > > is that there had to have been a first bit of > > information, some kind of biochemical message, or > > code, however crude, to begin to convey. Or, > > in this case, to misconvey, the whole story > > of life's emergence and evolution on earth being, > > in essence, a multibillion year long game of > > telephone, in which the initial utterance, the > > one that preceded all others, was increasingly > > transmuted and reinvented the further along it > > was passed. It is the precise nature of that > > first utterance that astrobiologists are trying > > to decipher. > > > > " There are some people, Bada says, who would > > argue > > quite vigorously with me about whether the > > simple kind of replicators I speak of qualify > > as life. Others would argue that even the > > sorts of simpler catalytic, self-sustaining > > reactions that occur on mineral surfaces are > > living, or are the first type of living system, > > without even the requirement for genetic > > information. But to me, that is chemistry, > > not life. Or, it's life as we don't know it. " > > > > Jeffrey Bada is a geochemist at Scripps > > Institution of Oceanography at U.C. San Diego. > > He is one of the astrobiologists looking > > everywhere for the origins of life in the > > universe > > > > > > ~freyja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > Freyja, > > > > This is beautiful.......... > > > > Life is so.............mysteriously.......... > > > > wonderful. > > > > Wouldn't it be grand if life could evolve a tool to see its > own ........divine......majesty? > > Sure, maybe that is all it is doing. > > ......maybe that's all we are........... > > > > maybe that's enough.......... > > > > .....Yes, music..... > > > > > Hi! > Hi Kip > A little philosophy? > > My two cents....I changed a tad a message I sent for a few days to > another board. > > > Death and birth are coupled to sexual reproduction. A question of > evolution and selective advantages and, above all, a question of > economy. > Birth and death are extraordinary tools concerning selection and > adaptation. > As well as sexual reproduction, which actually are based upon short > life spans of individuals. The individual itself doesn't count " as an > individual " , it just matters in a subsidiary way. F: Yah > I don't like the term " imperfect replication " very much.> F: I do not think " imperfect " in this case, is meant to imply " less than, or not good enough " . All it is meant to convey is " not EXACT copies " . It > disregards, in my opinion, the concept of economy in relation to > life. Nothing observable that happens, is actually needlessly or > unessential. The notion of imperfectness is meaningless concerning > life, in my opinion. > Replication is a misleading term, here, and actually related to > genetics. The DNA replicates, but not quartz-stones. There is no > mitosis. No living cells in stones. I wouldn't dare to judge a > mutation not even a punctiform change of base pairs as an > imperfection. F: Well, that is if you confine the term " replicates " to genetics only. He said that quartz crystals make 'exact copies' of themselves and have done so since the beginning of earth. Are you saying that is not so? > On a subatomic level the borders between inert and living matter > become blurred and both dissolve in each other and on an > astrophysical level life losses nearly completely its significance. > Life, as manifestation of organisation, follows strictly economic > principles precisely on account of the 2. Law of thermodynamics. But > even the notion of entropy is associated to a perceiving entity, > precisely like the notion of economy as antinomy, as answer of living > matter towards the 2. Law of thermodynamics. The underlying > language, mathematics, and, at last, based on the notions of geometry > & time. > > > On Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) > > Even though Vico's view of truth as uncertain in man's eye, he > doesn't proclaim everything to be unknowable. Vico views truth as > knowable only by the creator of this truth. Thus, according to Vico, > God is the only knower of all truths since He created it. Humans, > though, know little. What little they did know had to be created by > them within their heads. Mathematics is one such field in which Vico > says is a divine science. Humans created it and manipulated it all > within their minds, thus creating its own truth and knowledge > (Verene; Edwards; Bizzel and Herzberg). > > > Kip Almazy Thanks! ~freyja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > > wrote: > > > > > Beliefs are very powerful.......but the Mother-of-all- > > > > beliefs......The I-AM.......is the most powerful of all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the first born.......and the last to die........ > > > > > > > > > > All other beliefs kneel before IT. > > > > > > > > > > IT.......IS GOD ITSELF! > > > > > > > > > > > > The I AM, is Mother of all archetypes > > > > it is the original model or > > > > pattern from which all things come. > > > > > > > > Life is the I AM making or already made copies of itself, > > > > just not exact copies. > > > > > > > > FYI.... > > > > > > > > " For me, I would say that all you need > > > > to define life is imperfect replication. > > > > That's it. Life. And what that means > > > > is that the entity can make copies of itself > > > > but not exact copies. A perfectly > > > > replicating system isn't alive because > > > > it doesn't evolve. Quartz crystals make > > > > exact copies of themselves and have done > > > > so from the beginning of the earth. > > > > They don't evolve, though, because they're > > > > locked into that particular form. But > > > > with imperfect replication you get mutants > > > > that develop some sort of selective advantage > > > > that will allow them to dominate the system. > > > > That whole system then evolves, and you get > > > > this cascade of evolution progressing to more > > > > complicated entities. But something preceded > > > > all that, something that could do this basic > > > > thing of replication and mutation, and that's > > > > what everyone is trying to figure out. " > > > > > > > > What is known about FLO (the so-called first > > > > living organism), is that for it to have > > > > happened at all, it had to have been an even > > > > tougher entity than LUCA (Last Universal > > > > Common Ancestor)was, merely to overcome the > > > > universe's most prohibitive law, the second > > > > law of thermodynamics, which dictates that all > > > > matter tends toward entropy, the dissipation > > > > of energy. All life is in utter defiance of > > > > that law, a bound, energy-gathering stay, > > > > however brief, against entropy. > > > > > > > > The other essential requirement for the kind of > > > > imperfect replication system that Bada describes > > > > is that there had to have been a first bit of > > > > information, some kind of biochemical message, or > > > > code, however crude, to begin to convey. Or, > > > > in this case, to misconvey, the whole story > > > > of life's emergence and evolution on earth being, > > > > in essence, a multibillion year long game of > > > > telephone, in which the initial utterance, the > > > > one that preceded all others, was increasingly > > > > transmuted and reinvented the further along it > > > > was passed. It is the precise nature of that > > > > first utterance that astrobiologists are trying > > > > to decipher. > > > > > > > > > > ****************************************** > > > > > > It was: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hello.................hello..........anybody there? > > > > > > > > > ******************************************** > > > > > > > Further from this current article: > > > > The so-called first living organism (FLO) > > may not even be an entity so much as > > a moment, the very one, in a sense, that > > countless alchemists over the centuries -- > > and later, scientists - have tried to > > isolate. Many credit Stanley Miller with > > starting the modern science of origins > > when, back in the fall of 1952, as a young > > graduate student in chemistry at the > > University of Chicago, he elctrically charged > > in his lab a flask bound rendition of the > > earth's early atmosphere and produced > > amino acids. Miller's primordial soup > > ingredients have since been reconfigured, > > and his results somewhat diluted by the > > revelation that amino acids can be not only > > easily synthesized in the lab, but also > > even found floating in outer space. And yet > > his experiment catalyzed the current search > > for tht moment when " being " began, when > > chemicals and crude organic compounds > > somehow culminated in a first living thing. > > > > The working definition of 'living' for > > Jeffrey Bada is, (as detailed above) > > " imperfect replication " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " There are some people, Bada says, who would > > > > argue > > > > quite vigorously with me about whether the > > > > simple kind of replicators I speak of qualify > > > > as life. Others would argue that even the > > > > sorts of simpler catalytic, self-sustaining > > > > reactions that occur on mineral surfaces are > > > > living, or are the first type of living system, > > > > without even the requirement for genetic > > > > information. But to me, that is chemistry, > > > > not life. Or, it's life as we don't know it. " > > > > > > > > Jeffrey Bada is a geochemist at Scripps > > > > Institution of Oceanography at U.C. San Diego. > > > > He is one of the astrobiologists looking > > > > everywhere for the origins of life in the > > > > universe > > > > > > > > > > > > ~freyja > > > > > > Freyja, > > This is beautiful.......... > > Life is so.............mysteriously.......... > > wonderful. > > Wouldn't it be grand if life could evolve a tool to see its own ........divine......majesty? > > ......maybe that's all we are........... > > maybe that's enough.......... 8888888888888888888888888888888888888 it's enough if you want it/choose it to be enough. ~*~ Donny 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider " <laughterx8@h...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " carolina112900 " > > > <freyjartist@a...> wrote: > > > > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " > <cptc@w...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Beliefs are very powerful.......but the Mother-of-all- > > > > > beliefs......The I-AM.......is the most powerful of all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is the first born.......and the last to die........ > > > > > > > > > > > > All other beliefs kneel before IT. > > > > > > > > > > > > IT.......IS GOD ITSELF! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The I AM, is Mother of all archetypes > > > > > it is the original model or > > > > > pattern from which all things come. > > > > > > > > > > Life is the I AM making or already made copies of itself, > > > > > just not exact copies. > > > > > > > > > > FYI.... > > > > > > > > > > " For me, I would say that all you need > > > > > to define life is imperfect replication. > > > > > That's it. Life. And what that means > > > > > is that the entity can make copies of itself > > > > > but not exact copies. A perfectly > > > > > replicating system isn't alive because > > > > > it doesn't evolve. Quartz crystals make > > > > > exact copies of themselves and have done > > > > > so from the beginning of the earth. > > > > > They don't evolve, though, because they're > > > > > locked into that particular form. But > > > > > with imperfect replication you get mutants > > > > > that develop some sort of selective advantage > > > > > that will allow them to dominate the system. > > > > > That whole system then evolves, and you get > > > > > this cascade of evolution progressing to more > > > > > complicated entities. But something preceded > > > > > all that, something that could do this basic > > > > > thing of replication and mutation, and that's > > > > > what everyone is trying to figure out. " > > > > > > > > > > What is known about FLO (the so-called first > > > > > living organism), is that for it to have > > > > > happened at all, it had to have been an even > > > > > tougher entity than LUCA (Last Universal > > > > > Common Ancestor)was, merely to overcome the > > > > > universe's most prohibitive law, the second > > > > > law of thermodynamics, which dictates that all > > > > > matter tends toward entropy, the dissipation > > > > > of energy. All life is in utter defiance of > > > > > that law, a bound, energy-gathering stay, > > > > > however brief, against entropy. > > > > > > > > > > The other essential requirement for the kind of > > > > > imperfect replication system that Bada describes > > > > > is that there had to have been a first bit of > > > > > information, some kind of biochemical message, or > > > > > code, however crude, to begin to convey. Or, > > > > > in this case, to misconvey, the whole story > > > > > of life's emergence and evolution on earth being, > > > > > in essence, a multibillion year long game of > > > > > telephone, in which the initial utterance, the > > > > > one that preceded all others, was increasingly > > > > > transmuted and reinvented the further along it > > > > > was passed. It is the precise nature of that > > > > > first utterance that astrobiologists are trying > > > > > to decipher. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ****************************************** > > > > > > > > It was: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hello.................hello..........anybody there? > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************** > > > > > > > > > > Further from this current article: > > > > > > The so-called first living organism (FLO) > > > may not even be an entity so much as > > > a moment, the very one, in a sense, that > > > countless alchemists over the centuries -- > > > and later, scientists - have tried to > > > isolate. Many credit Stanley Miller with > > > starting the modern science of origins > > > when, back in the fall of 1952, as a young > > > graduate student in chemistry at the > > > University of Chicago, he elctrically charged > > > in his lab a flask bound rendition of the > > > earth's early atmosphere and produced > > > amino acids. Miller's primordial soup > > > ingredients have since been reconfigured, > > > and his results somewhat diluted by the > > > revelation that amino acids can be not only > > > easily synthesized in the lab, but also > > > even found floating in outer space. And yet > > > his experiment catalyzed the current search > > > for tht moment when " being " began, when > > > chemicals and crude organic compounds > > > somehow culminated in a first living thing. > > > > > > The working definition of 'living' for > > > Jeffrey Bada is, (as detailed above) > > > " imperfect replication " . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " There are some people, Bada says, who would > > > > > argue > > > > > quite vigorously with me about whether the > > > > > simple kind of replicators I speak of qualify > > > > > as life. Others would argue that even the > > > > > sorts of simpler catalytic, self-sustaining > > > > > reactions that occur on mineral surfaces are > > > > > living, or are the first type of living system, > > > > > without even the requirement for genetic > > > > > information. But to me, that is chemistry, > > > > > not life. Or, it's life as we don't know it. " > > > > > > > > > > Jeffrey Bada is a geochemist at Scripps > > > > > Institution of Oceanography at U.C. San Diego. > > > > > He is one of the astrobiologists looking > > > > > everywhere for the origins of life in the > > > > > universe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~freyja > > > > > > > > > > > > Freyja, > > > > This is beautiful.......... > > > > Life is so.............mysteriously.......... > > > > wonderful. > > > > Wouldn't it be grand if life could evolve a tool to see its > own ........divine......majesty? > > > > ......maybe that's all we are........... > > > > maybe that's enough.......... > > 8888888888888888888888888888888888888 > > it's enough > > if you want it/choose it to be enough. > > ~*~ Donny > > 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 It is the wanting (desire) for " things " to be different then they are perceived to be.....from which the dream arises..... It is the illusion.....that the identified-entity has a choice......from which the suffering emerges....... Life is not suffering........It is self-identification that causes the illusion of separation........and the resulting pain.......and unrelenting lonliness..... The phantom......has no personal choice.......It believes that it does.....and without that belief....it has nothing...........a prospect that it is incapeable of facing........ It cannot ever see....its own vacuity...... Do " you " really believe that the infinite chain of causation will adjust its entire momentum.......simply beacuse " you " " choose " to move to Chicago? There is no place in the universe for personal choice......... There is no place in the universe...for options........... There is an infinite....inter-related reactional....flow..... that appears to include a most peculiar....I-Amness....that dreams up its very own....personal prison........and then dreams of escape......... Isn't that bizarre? toombaru toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Freyja, > F: I do not think " imperfect " in this case, > is meant to imply " less than, or not good enough " . > All it is meant to convey is " not EXACT copies " . Yes, I understand. Production of exact copies vs production of descendants are two different pairs of shoes; Self-replication vs replication. Mineralogy vs biology?! > F: Well, that is if you confine the term " replicates " > to genetics only. He said that quartz crystals make > 'exact copies' of themselves and have done so since > the beginning of earth. Are you saying that is not so? Definitely not. He uses, in my opinion, the term replication in a rethoric manner, when he applies it to two very different areas i.e. mineralogy & biology, without being concise about what he really means with it. ºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº Wikipedia: In biology, replication is the act or ability to make a copy. Mostly commonly meaning molecular replication). Self-replication is the act of a molecule (or any other pattern) making a copy of itself. DNA replication is the act of copying the genetic material of a cell (DNA) to a daughter cell is almost, but not quite, a form of self- replication because it requires the cellular apparatus to perform that replication. Semiconservative replication is the particular mechanism of DNA replication, of several mechanisms that were originally hypothesised, that was found to be actually used in cells. (and in computer science) ºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº The most fixed pattern of replication I know, is actually to find in tumor cells and they are, strangely enough, characterized by their " immortality " . Why did he not use these collectives of cells to illustrate his theories? It would have been self-evident and a question about " imperfect replication " wouldn´t have popped up, perhaps. Do you see, what I mean? Nevertheless, it is a nice subject of discussion. > Thanks! > > ~freyja Thanks to you! Love Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Hi Cerosoul! I assume you don´t like soul-music! > So death is and instrument of creation, change, > progress, evolution... and therefore...Good > So, at what point death becomes bad, an evil thing? > To use death as a tool of evolution places life > in a dilemma: It must program its units to die, yet > it must also program those units to avoid death > because they have to last long enough to replicate. ....to avoid death until at least one replication succeeded, would I say. Lions try to kill sometimes their male descendants and nearly always the descendants of an earlier rival, despite the efforts of the lionesses to keep their offspring saved. Why? Those, who live longer, will have more opportunities for reproduction. Consciousness, above all, the reflexive sort, had an selective advantage in another environment, in a socio-cultural one. > This poses no problem until consciousness appears, and > these conflicting programs clash in awareness creating > fear and suffering. It isn´t a problem as long as it doesn´t get a pathological dimension. That, what probably makes the biggest difference between consciousness and reflexive consciousness, is our capability to commit suicide. And, under certain conditions & circumstances not even suicide constitutes a pathological reaction, in my opinion. > Death is good for life, but bad for > the conscious living organism whose nervous system > is programmed to preserve life, and who at the > cellular level is programmed to die. Roughly: It is programmed to preserve his own life, the life of its descendants, of a pack, a herd, a flock, a swarm (consciousness). To preserve the life of a tribe, community, region, nation and so on (reflexive consciousness, " egoistic " consciousness) Exactly, cells in an organism are programmed to die, until this organism isn´t able anymore, to continue to function sufficiently in a given environment. > This is farther complicated by the nasty need life has > to feed on itself. So animals are program to kill to > eat. You, too! Observe your denture > These three conflicting tendencies has created > for human endless suffering, and the moral quagmire > in which we still flounder. Life is sacred admonish > some prophets. Kill in the name of country and God > admonish others. Protect the unborn and support the death > penalty and gun ownership demand good Christians. What > a mess! > Is it alright to kill an ant? Does an ant knows it's alive? > Is it alright to kill a chicken, but not a dog? Corridas are horrible; foxhunting on horses is aristocratic! > To see thru these three programs which > constitute the axis of all evil, and suffering is a giant > step in liberation. Yes! rgds Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 That, what probably makes the biggest difference between consciousness and reflexive consciousness, is the (our) capability to commit suicide.... and, to act cruelly! Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > That, what probably makes the biggest difference between > consciousness and reflexive consciousness, is the (our) capability > to commit suicide.... > That which is unborn......cannot kill itself. > > > and, to act cruelly! > > > > Kip Almazy " Cruelly " is a loaded word. Have you ever seen a cat " play " with a mouse? ......or a pack of wolves dispatch an elk? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2004 " <cptc@w...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > That, what probably makes the biggest difference between > > consciousness and reflexive consciousness, is the (our) capability > > to commit suicide.... > > > > That which is unborn......cannot kill itself. > > > > > > > > > > and, to act cruelly! > > > > > > > > Kip Almazy > > > " Cruelly " is a loaded word. > > Have you ever seen a cat " play " with a mouse? > > .....or a pack of wolves dispatch an elk? > > > ............or Kali..........snatch up a baby? > toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Hi Kip, Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > > > F: Well, that is if you confine the term " replicates " > > to genetics only. He said that quartz crystals make > > 'exact copies' of themselves and have done so since > > the beginning of earth. Are you saying that is not so? > > > Definitely not. He uses, in my opinion, the term replication in a > rethoric manner, when he applies it to two very different areas i.e. > mineralogy & biology, without being concise about what he really > means with it. > > ºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº > F: OK. The article does state that astrobiology's overall mission includes answering the questions of whether life exists elsewhere and what life's overall prognosis on earth and beyond might be...those answers pivoting around the holy grail of science: divining the origin of life in the universe AND, that this quest is being pursued from 3 different directions: comparative analysis of DNA on earth, biochemical synthesis of life in the lab, or " test-tube evolution; and, examination of the various organic compounds that exist in the depths of outer space (perhaps the ideal laboratory because of both its deep history and inherent lack of contamination. > Wikipedia: > > In biology, replication is the act or ability to make a copy. Mostly > commonly meaning molecular replication). > > Self-replication is the act of a molecule (or any other pattern) > making a copy of itself. > > DNA replication is the act of copying the genetic material of a cell > (DNA) to a daughter cell is almost, but not quite, a form of self- > replication because it requires the cellular apparatus to perform > that replication. > > Semiconservative replication is the particular mechanism of DNA > replication, of several mechanisms that were originally > hypothesised, that was found to be actually used in cells. > > (and in computer science) > > ºººººººººººººººººººººººººººººººº > > The most fixed pattern of replication I know, is actually to find in > tumor cells and they are, strangely enough, characterized by > their " immortality " . Why did he not use these collectives of cells > to illustrate his theories? It would have been self-evident and a > question about " imperfect replication " wouldn´t have popped up, > perhaps. Do you see, what I mean? Nevertheless, it is a nice subject > of discussion. > Yes, in part I see what you mean. I am pondering why a question about imperfect replication wouldn't have popped up. I think it was part of an attempt to define " living " and what is meant by " biology " . Plus, I am sure that all of Bada's reasoning was not included in the article. Are you a scientist, Kip? If so, this part of the article may be of interest and may speak to this: begin There is a consensus now about the existence and the essential character of life's common ancestor, the great, great, great, great (to the power of a gazillion) grandparent of you and me and everything else that we see (or can't see)living around us. (LUCA) There is very little known about LUCA, though scientists currently agree on two things. One, that it had to have existed. and two, that it had to have been extremely rugged. As recently as the mid-70's there wer thought to be only two domains of life on earth: the prokaryotes -small single celled bacteria lacking a nucleus, or other complex cellular structures; and the eukaryotes - organisms made of one or more cells with a nucleus, a category embracing everything from complex multicellular entities like mammals, reptiles, birds and plants to the single celled amoeba. In 1977, however, a molecular biologist from the U of Illinois named Carl Woese, identified within the prokaryotes a genetically distinct class of bacteria now known as the archaea, many of them primitive, single celled organisms known as " extremophiles " because they live in extreme environments like volcanic vents or Antartic waters. When the DNA of archaea was compared with that of prokaryotes and eukaryotes, it beame clear that the trifurcation of life from LUCA occurred far earlier than previously believed, well over three billion years ago, when there was little or no oxygen in the earth's atmosphere. LUCA, in other words, had to have been a hard bitten little extremophile of some kind or another. And while the debate rages as to precisely what sort of entity this common ancestor was, and which of the three current domains it was more kindred to, scientists have now discovered a variety of examples of what it might have been, now thriving all over the earth - decidedly uncuddly extremophilic creatures sometimes called superbugs. There are, for instance, the acidophiles bacteria that have been found to thrive on the gas given off by raw sewage and that both excrete and multiply in concentrations or acid strong enough to dissolve metal and destroy entire city sewer systems. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there are superbugs that live in temps below -320 F, lower than that of liquid nitrogen. Still, it turns out that some of the clearest, and certainly most stunning, evidence of LUCA's former existence and of our inextricable bond with it, is literally right beneath our noses, within each of our body's cells, in the form of so-called living fossils. DNA analysis of the distinct organisms, or, organelles, that live inside and help govern the various functions of our body's cells - the nucleus, the mitochondria, the flagella, and so on - has revealed a direct genetic link between those organelles and the primordial earth's earliest extremophilic bacteria. Somewhere along the line, in other words, but certainly very early on, these fully independednt, single-celled primordial superbugs and their specialized functions got co-opted, in a kind of primitive symbiosis, into the greater service of the more secure, membrane-bound, multi-tasking complex that would become the eukarytic cell and its subsequent multicellular manifestations, most prominent among these (at least in our minds) being ourselves. You and I and the darting birds, and the windswept tree boughs, carry around with each of us the living remnants of our own and all life's fiery origins. and later in article... A number of chemists are now trying to recreate in their labs at least a rough approximation of this elusive and and somewhat ill-defined transition from the purely chemical to the biological, searching for the mix of ingredients which in their interaction create ever more complex molecules in a recurring series of feedback loops that eventually culminate in a self-replicating system that soon dominates its environment. Gerald Joyce, a colleague of Bada's and one of the pioneers of test-tube evolution, has managed to achieve such a sythesis in his lab using a random mix of RNA molecules. Jack Szostak of the Harvard Medical School, meanwhile, has been doing groundbreaking work in his lab, with organic compounds known as amphiphiles - compounds tht have been shown to produce in water cell-like structures known as vesicles, the ideal sort of microenvironment that the earliest living entity on earth might have needed to get started. Bada says he would be surprised if in the next 5 or 10years somebody somewhere doesnt make a molecular system that can self-replicate with very little interaction on our part. You just give it the proper chemicals and it starts churning away and replicates and growing and soon dominates the system, " Steven Benner, a test-tube evolutionist working with a team of researchers at the University of Florida, may soon be closing in on that elusive alchemy. " We're not quite at origins yet " , he says, " My goal now is 100 percent focused on getting a self-replicating system, to make synthetic life. It won't get us the absolute answer to the question of origins, but it could give us a model, a framework for understanding how certain pathways that led to life evolved. " end > > > > Thanks! > > > > ~freyja > > > Thanks to you! > > Love > Kip Almazy yes, thanks for the conversation! love back ;-) freyja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Hi Toombaru, I know what you mean, but.... > > " Cruelly " is a loaded word. I really don´t think so! > > Have you ever seen a cat " play " with a mouse? Is the cat aware of its apparent cruelness? > > .....or a pack of wolves dispatch an elk? or, the wolves? > ...........or Kali..........snatch up a baby? or Kali? or Dr. Mengele, Auschwitz, a november morning, during an ºin vivo dissectionº? No-body had a choice! But, who was aware of it? Kip Almazy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Nisargadatta , " kipalmazy " <kipalmazy> wrote: > Hi Toombaru, > > > I know what you mean, but.... > > > > > > " Cruelly " is a loaded word. > > I really don´t think so! > > > > Have you ever seen a cat " play " with a mouse? > > Is the cat aware of its apparent cruelness? > > > > .....or a pack of wolves dispatch an elk? > > or, the wolves? > > > ...........or Kali..........snatch up a baby? > > or Kali? > > or Dr. Mengele, Auschwitz, a november morning, during an ºin vivo > dissectionº? > > No-body had a choice! > > But, who was aware of it? awareness itself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.