Can robots become self-aware?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

You link to a muslim site with anti-evolutionist articles and then link to sites which say muslims are liars!

That's kmart for you, an oasis of controversy.

hahahaha...the site's name is islam, the name of the religion, lies...not muslims...though, if they know what their stuff says and say something other than that...it's a lie

There are no dominant and ressessive genes in bacteria because reproduction is assexual. A bacterium is essentially clones of its parent. If there were no mutation all bacteria would be the same and resistance to anti-biotics would be impossible.

There is a form of sexual reproduction. I forgot how it goes, but it involes a tube between two bacteria where DNA is transferred....and probably more I forgot.

There have also been speciations due to mutations in plants, and in some other cases too. It's just not dramatic because all that has happened is two populations have ceased to interbreed. They don't look much different.

So, it is a common phenomenon that white people and black people do not generally marry and have children....they can, some do....but the overwhelming majority don't...so what we have here is two SPECIES

The source of DNA is different to the evolution of DNA. Evolution is about how DNA changes over time according to mutation and natural selection to create new design. In many ways I think the link you gave is irrelevant to evolution and is instead talking about the origin of life. It doesn't mention mutation or natural selection but seems to be arguing against DNA suddenly appearing out of nowhere.

Well, you guys are first stuck with the fact that DNA requires proteins, and proteins require DNA...and the problem that the organic material that make up proteins and DNA RESIST bonding at any temperature...maybe a slight difference, but not stated in what I read, but they still won't bond without an enyzme or what not. If I were to retype a cook book, over and over again. allowing mistakes to grow...I'm never gonna end up writing a science book. And, the transitions along the way will never work....add two quarts of water and sufur dioxide... And the site is not irrelevant. Information=mental source, it's not a complex thing. More simple than algebra. Natural selection and mutations...you do realize that when you put that together...you're just going to remove any chance of something "new and improved" to form, right? You stick something advanced back into the population...and it'll disappear basically.

[BobSmith]

I'm not convinced that mutations are the cause here.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/B ... tions.html

It turned out that the number of resistant bacteria varied greatly between cultures; the fluctuations in payoff were far too great to be accounted for purely by chance. These fluctuations proved that bacteria did undergo mutation - and that the resistance to the virus they used in the experiment (a T1 bacteriophage) arose through such mutation.

http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/Q&A/Q&A_AR.html

How do bacteria become resistant?
Some bacteria are naturally resistant to certain types of antibiotics. However, bacteria may also become resistant in two ways: 1) by a genetic mutation or 2) by acquiring resistance from another bacterium.

Mutations, rare spontaneous changes of the bacteria's genetic material, are thought to occur in about one in one million to one in ten million cells. Different genetic mutations yield different types of resistance. Some mutations enable the bacteria to produce potent chemicals (enzymes) that inactivate antibiotics, while other mutations eliminate the cell target that the antibiotic attacks. Still others close up the entry ports that allow antibiotics into the cell, and others manufacture pumping mechanisms that export the antibiotic back outside so it never reaches its target.

Also even the anti-evolutionist sites explain that resistance is caused by mutation, except they add that the resistance is a "loss of information". hmm

[Dan]

I'm not convinced that mutations are the cause here.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/B ... tions.html

It turned out that the number of resistant bacteria varied greatly between cultures; the fluctuations in payoff were far too great to be accounted for purely by chance. These fluctuations proved that bacteria did undergo mutation - and that the resistance to the virus they used in the experiment (a T1 bacteriophage) arose through such mutation.

http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/Q&A/Q&A_AR.html

How do bacteria become resistant?
Some bacteria are naturally resistant to certain types of antibiotics. However, bacteria may also become resistant in two ways: 1) by a genetic mutation or 2) by acquiring resistance from another bacterium.

Mutations, rare spontaneous changes of the bacteria's genetic material, are thought to occur in about one in one million to one in ten million cells. Different genetic mutations yield different types of resistance. Some mutations enable the bacteria to produce potent chemicals (enzymes) that inactivate antibiotics, while other mutations eliminate the cell target that the antibiotic attacks. Still others close up the entry ports that allow antibiotics into the cell, and others manufacture pumping mechanisms that export the antibiotic back outside so it never reaches its target.

Also even the anti-evolutionist sites explain that resistance is caused by mutation, except they add that the resistance is a "loss of information". hmm

Most mutations are detrimental to the organism that has the mutation, for evolution to occur (and this is macroevolution where new beneficial information is added, not microevolution where existing data is simply optimized and streamlined) the ratio of negative to positive mutations has to be significantly different to what it really is.

[Felgar]

I'm not convinced that mutations are the cause here.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/B ... tions.html

Interesting link... I'd like to point out that the expirement was done "starting each culture with a small number of cells" when really what's required is to start each one with a single cell, in order to ensure that all bacteria starts with the same DNA.

I'd also question whether there are portions of the DNA that are selectively used by each cell - this would give the appearance of mutation when there is actually none. This is the reason why I wanted documented evidence of new genes being produced through mutation that are beneficial to the individual, and the new DNA sequences to go with them.

[BobSmith]

There is a form of sexual reproduction. I forgot how it goes, but it involes a tube between two bacteria where DNA is transferred....and probably more I forgot.

There are forms of gene transfer between bacteria, but it isn't sexual reproduction (two parents mixing DNA). Some bacteria such as yeast do use sexual reproduction, but most do not.

So, it is a common phenomenon that white people and black people do not generally marry and have children....they can, some do....but the overwhelming majority don't...so what we have here is two SPECIES

Don't joke because many species of birds and butterflies are no different to other species but in color. The species grouping concept is man-made and attempts to fit a wide spread of life into small boxes. So there will be contradictions and difficulties like this.

Well, you guys are first stuck with the fact that DNA requires proteins, and proteins require DNA...and..

I am not arguing that DNA formed from nothing

If I were to retype a cook book, over and over again. allowing mistakes to grow...I'm never gonna end up writing a science book.

Noone says you would

And, the transitions along the way will never work....add two quarts of water and sufur dioxide...

Analogies can be poor arguments. For example:
"The aeroplane will never work....throw a rock in the air and it just falls to the ground"

Information=mental source, it's not a complex thing. More simple than algebra.

Shannon information theory shows that random noise increases information. The word information in this sense is mathematically defined. Random mutations are random noise. Therefore information can increase. Is that a good argument? No it isn't because shannon information theory defines information in terms of communications, not genetics.

The point is that if you are using the word information you have to define it. As you are attacking a learning algorithm you have to define information in relation that that algorithm.

I should be able to take a definition of information, apply it to a sequence of nucleotides of a gene and get a single number representing the amount of information in that gene. If I can't do that then use of the word information is undefined and scientifically useless - we might as well be using the word "stuff" instead. I am not blaming you for making this tactic up, as I know it has been invented by anti-evolutionist organisations. All they have done is used a long word to make their argument sound more intellectual. Really they are just saying "Evolution can't work because stuff can't increase"

Natural selection and mutations...you do realize that when you put that together...you're just going to remove any chance of something "new and improved" to form, right? You stick something advanced back into the population...and it'll disappear basically.

Why? Are you saying the advanced thing won't reproduce?

[BobSmith]

Dan: Most mutations are detrimental to the organism that has the mutation, for evolution to occur (and this is macroevolution where new beneficial information is added, not microevolution where existing data is simply optimized and streamlined) the ratio of negative to positive mutations has to be significantly different to what it really is.

Not at all. The majority of mutations are actually neutral, having no effect on the organism. The majority of the rest are detrimental. All evolution requires is for some to be beneficial.

The evolutionary process of mutation and selection is simulated on computers to create designs in things called genetic algorithms. In these genetic algorithms, as in life, beneficial mutations are rare yet specific solutions are still found in massive search spaces.

[BobSmith]

Interesting link... I'd like to point out that the expirement was done "starting each culture with a small number of cells" when really what's required is to start each one with a single cell, in order to ensure that all bacteria starts with the same DNA.

Yes that is true. The experiment just shows that resistance evolves from mutation prior to being exposed by the virus, rather than developing as a consequence of being exposed by the virus, so I probably linked to the wrong thing.

I'd also question whether there are portions of the DNA that are selectively used by each cell - this would give the appearance of mutation when there is actually none. This is the reason why I wanted documented evidence of new genes being produced through mutation that are beneficial to the individual, and the new DNA sequences to go with them.

I am not sure what you mean by portions of DNA that are selectively used by each cell.

[Felgar]

Interesting link... I'd like to point out that the expirement was done "starting each culture with a small number of cells" when really what's required is to start each one with a single cell, in order to ensure that all bacteria starts with the same DNA.

Yes that is true. The experiment just shows that resistance evolves from mutation prior to being exposed by the virus, rather than developing as a consequence of being exposed by the virus, so I probably linked to the wrong thing.

No, I don't think that expirement shows that restistance evolves from mutation prior to being exposed by the virus (which actually would be good enough). In order to show that, each culture would have had to start from an individual cell, so that all offspring would have the same DNA unless some had mutated. But starting with a "small number of cells" (what like a 1000?) just shows that one of the starting cells had the resistance trait - no mutation is even shown here.

I'd also question whether there are portions of the DNA that are selectively used by each cell - this would give the appearance of mutation when there is actually none. This is the reason why I wanted documented evidence of new genes being produced through mutation that are beneficial to the individual, and the new DNA sequences to go with them.

I am not sure what you mean by portions of DNA that are selectively used by each cell.

Consider humans. Our DNA sequence is what, 13 billion characters? Yet we have only 38,000 genes, and they make up only a small portion of the 13 billion in the sequence.

So, why is it not possible that this bacteria has say a sequnce 2,000,000 characters long. But there's a mechanism that determines which portions of the 2M sequence will actually be used by the individual. So say the behaviour for parent bacteria is determined by the first 50,000 sequence, but the child might use the next 50,000 after that. This would result in two genetically identically individuals (bacteria) exhibitting different traits and behaviours. So again, the question of whether these new resistances and traits are actually new traits that are the result of random mutation is certainly in doubt, in my mind.

[Battlehelmet]

No.

[BobSmith]

No, I don't think that expirement shows that restistance evolves from mutation prior to being exposed by the virus (which actually would be good enough). In order to show that, each culture would have had to start from an individual cell, so that all offspring would have the same DNA unless some had mutated. But starting with a "small number of cells" (what like a 1000?) just shows that one of the starting cells had the resistance trait - no mutation is even shown here.

I cannot find a specific study tailoured to exactly what you are asking for

However this kind of knowledge was obtained in the early years of genetics - hence why it is taken as a given now.

Cultures have been developed from single bacteria (and still are) and then innoculated resulting in the survival of a few resistant bacteria. If the original bacteria was resistant then almost all of the bacteria would have survived (as all would have inherited the resistance). If the original bacteria was not resistant, very few bacteria survived (the few that mutated resistance).

So there is no way that this could be an unknown. Simple experiments could establish whether or not resistance is due to mutation, and these have been done (it would be inexplicable if they hadn't).

Nowadays they can actually compare the genome before and after a mutation to see how the mutation changed the DNA sequence and the protein produced (in fact they can even case and test specific mutations). They can then understand how the change in the protein actually causes resistance to the anti-biotic.

I'd also question whether there are portions of the DNA that are selectively used by each cell - this would give the appearance of mutation when there is actually none. This is the reason why I wanted documented evidence of new genes being produced through mutation that are beneficial to the individual, and the new DNA sequences to go with them.

The cause of resistance is known. It is caused by genes which are not the same as in non-resistant bacteria. If the bacteria have the resistant genes then they have resistance, if not then they don't. It is also known that non-resistant bacteria can reproduce resistant bacteria (and vice-versa). This is due to copy errors (or mutation) when the bacteria reproduce.

So, why is it not possible that this bacteria has say a sequnce 2,000,000 characters long. But there's a mechanism that determines which portions of the 2M sequence will actually be used by the individual.

Anything is possible. But despite decades of studying the genome no indications of such a mechanism have been found. In fact it would contradict a lot that is known. For example if a bacterium couldn't use part of the genome that held a critical gene then it would die. Basically something as simple as this would have been found if it existed.

So say the behaviour for parent bacteria is determined by the first 50,000 sequence, but the child might use the next 50,000 after that. This would result in two genetically identically individuals (bacteria) exhibitting different traits and behaviours.

The problem with that is that bacteria with the same DNA (clones) don't exhibit different traits. Different traits are caused by different DNA.

[Felgar]

So, why is it not possible that this bacteria has say a sequnce 2,000,000 characters long. But there's a mechanism that determines which portions of the 2M sequence will actually be used by the individual.

Anything is possible. But despite decades of studying the genome no indications of such a mechanism have been found. In fact it would contradict a lot that is known. For example if a bacterium couldn't use part of the genome that held a critical gene then it would die. Basically something as simple as this would have been found if it existed.

I'm only trying to get you to consider that not as much is known as you might think, and that all scientific theory has the potential to be reworked and/or dismissed.

A good example of this is new evidence that so-called 'junk DNA' is actually very important and plays an important role. You would have it established as fact that this DNA is never used by an orginism, and until now that has been the prevailing assumption. Yet that presumption is starting to be challenged. The reality is that we're not all-knowing, esspecially in a relatively new area of research like genetics. We've just gotten to the point where we can actually read the characters in DNA; understanding what that DNA does is difficult enough; understanding how it does it, is currently beyond our capabilties.

[BobSmith]

I'm only trying to get you to consider that not as much is known as you might think, and that all scientific theory has the potential to be reworked and/or dismissed.

And I am trying to get you to consider that more is known than you might think. That mutations occur and can cause resistance is a known fact.

A good example of this is new evidence that so-called 'junk DNA' is actually very important and plays an important role.

Some junk-DNA is very important and plays an important role. There are plenty of sections of DNA that can be removed entirely without any negative effect on the organism.