Could it be possible that humans are creating a new form of life?

[Milken]

This problem only occures if one thinks of life as something special' date=' somthing that exists beyond the physical. I do not believe there is an "elan vital", a living force that seperates life from non life. Living entities are essentially a (very) complex chemical reaction. It is the complexity and emergent properties and behaviours od the "living" system that are important.

 

The important properties of the system are that it maintains it's system integerety, self catalizing, growth, transfers energy through it internal systerm (the source of metabolism) to do work, organisation and disequilibrium with it's suroundings.[/quote']

 

You definitely fit your avatar. Is "elan vital" another word for creator or is there a distinction? Exluding "elan vital" do you see any lines drawn between life and nonlife (excluding man made things)?

[Milken]

You're the only one who's drawing that line. In fact' date=' since everyone in the entire world has a different, personal definition of life, nobody can say for certain whether electronic life existed 80 years ago (as per bascule's reference), exists now, will possibly exist in the future, or will never exist.

 

You give me your definition of life, and I'll tell you why it's wrong (because everybody's is), without resorting to God.[/quote']

 

I was curious to see how the cards fell on the question. A definition of life NOT a simple, easy, or short answer.

[Edtharan]

Are you able to describe to me the final series of events, or provide an equation, or graphical representation of the chemical reactions that show the point at which a “lifeless” chemical reaction becomes life?

No. And that is my point. When you look at life and non life ther is no real distinction between them. The only comparison is that degree of emergent behaviour, and this is not a good guide as many traditionaly nonliving systems also have high degrees of emergent behaviour.

 

Lets look at a complex system, like weather for example.

You are essentially building a strawman here (or something like it). Just by taking 1 criteria and saying that this criteria is aplicable to other system does not invalidate my point. It is a bit like saying that becaue dimond is made from carbon and organic chemicals are made of carbon then dimond is an orcanic chemical.

 

One of my criteria is that of "self catalizing". A storm system seems to fullfill a lot of the other categories, but it fails this one. Storms do not create other storms. Storms are created by an imbalance in the atmosphere (due to humidity, pressure, temperature, etc).

 

self catalizing

Elen Vital (i'm not too sure on the spelling" roughly means life force. It make no reference to a creator or lack there of. It is used in reference to an unknown "something" that makes ordenary matter be alive. Wheather this is a spirit, some unknown or undetectable field or substanceis what it refers to.

 

It was used to be used by alchemists, but the modern useage of the word has changes to mean that of an unknown agent that causes life. It is not ment as a derogitory term here, but just to stand in for the myriad of posibilities that could be the unknown cause of life.

 

I supposed that if you wanted to think that way that my use of complexity and emergent behaviour could be seen as an elen vital.

 

You definitely fit your avatar.

 

That is probably the most sterile description of life I’ve ever heard lol.

On the surface, but from all the definitions of life I have heard it seems the best fit.

 

It may be a sterile description, but it does not mean that I think life is not special or amazing. As far as we know, the only place in the universe that contains life is our small chunk of rock that is wizzing around a super heated ball of plasma (the sun ). If we go just a few just 100 kilometers life as we know it is completely imposable. The universe is either too hot or too cold to suport life. We are lucky.

[qed]

This problem only occures if one thinks of life as something special' date=' somthing that exists beyond the physical. I do not believe there is an "elan vital", a living force that seperates life from non life. Living entities are essentially a (very) complex chemical reaction. It is the complexity and emergent properties and behaviours od the "living" system that are important.

 

The important properties of the system are that it maintains it's system integerety, self catalizing, growth, transfers energy through it internal systerm (the source of metabolism) to do work, organisation and disequilibrium with it's suroundings.[/quote']

 

I fully agree on this view of a living system. Howerver, i ask myself it it is sufficient to create a disequillibrium system just by applying a model for it, (let me say "just information based"), or if it is required to have "real" energy potentials and real gradients that loead to energy AND information flow. How do you introduce entropic effects in your system, which are caused by complex interactions. Im not sure if im still able to follow on this complex topic.

The point i want to reach with this reasoning is:

Dont you think that you would have to "simulate" a whole universe in order to get your living systems? I think otherwise it would only be an idealization.

[Edtharan]

Howerver, i ask myself it it is sufficient to create a disequillibrium system just by applying a model for it, (let me say "just information based"), or if it is required to have "real" energy potentials and real gradients that loead to energy AND information flow.

I'm not 100% sure what you are asking here but I will try to answer your question.

 

Energy doens not jsut mean heat, or electrical, or chemical energy. Energy is a very nebulous concept. So what I ment was not a physical energy (like electrical or chemical), but more "The capacity of a system to do work". Work here could also mean many things (and does), but does include the processing of infomation.

 

So this could be taken to mean that the energy of a system is its capacity to process infomation (and growth can be thought of as processing the infomation in the genes).

[Airmid]

I used to be a believer in "elan vital" myself, but I gradually changed my mind.

It started with the realization that there's no way to actually see if a bacterium is alive or dead. There's some exceptions to that: if the cell wall is broken, it's dead; and if it's metabolizing, it's alive. But an intact cell that is not metabolizing might be either.

The death blow to my former belief came from bacteria that had been encased in fossile amber. In a number of experiments, bacterial spores that had been encased for up to 35 million years were made to germinate in laboratories and created viable cultures.

This lead me to the conclusion that bacteria are basically immortal: if the chemical machinery is intact, it's alive. When conditions go bad, they simply start to protect themselves (by creating spores or other structural and chemical adaptations) and shut down completely. In this "dead-but-alive" state they can persist forever, unless for instance radiation damages their chemistry beyond repair.

There was no way I could match this conclusion with my former belief in the "sparkle of life". So, exit "elan vital"!

 

Airmid.

[whap2005]

People in labs routinely assemble viruses from "nonliving" components: protein shells, nucleic acids, and accessory proteins. What made it so "special" in the transition of mixing these chemicals together?

 

 

What we are doing is making copies of living entities based on human observation of a creature that already exsisted. No one has been able to explain how or under what circumstanses live was originally created from random events.

[Edtharan]

No one has been able to explain how or under what circumstanses live was originally created from random events.

There are many different ways that life might have been started, it is pinning down the one that took place here on earth is the problem. Some scientists are coming to the conclusions that there might have been several paths taken and that life originated in several locations in different ways. This is still hard to prove.

 

Also, not being able to know exactly how life got started here on earth has no impact on whether or not we can, ourselves, create life (chemically or electronically) and so is not applicable to the discussion topic.

[Dark Photon]

I just read an article (Thanks bascule for posting the link: http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/) that basically tells of the discovery of a new form of bacteria and describes our current understanding of the role bacteria play in the tree of life. The article even suggests that bacteria most likely played a key role in the creation of the eukaryotic cell, which all multicelular organisms are descendants of. I’m a computer programmer by day, and what I found really interesting is that computer viruses and biological seem to play a very similar roll in thier environments. They both need a host to survive, they replicate, they have a genetic/binary code, they adapt, they respond to stimuli (and in a sense, computer viruses even metabolize using electricity). This got me thinking about the current state of computer technology and how many similarities it has with our theorized view of what early life may have looked like on this planet.

 

Computer programs are becoming extremely complex and some are arguably more complex (I’m taking on a genetic level if you compare the machine code of a program to the DNA/RNA structure of some viruses) then even some viruses. Could the computer programs we are creating be a precursor to a new form or life not based on DNA/RNA? Based on the most widely excepted definition of DNA/RNA based life, something must have organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction to be considered “alive”. I can argue that computer programs can exhibit all of these characteristics.

 

Question: Could it be possible that humans could someday create a new form of life which exists in an electronic universe of our own making?

 

 

Well with your argument, you are asking if humans can produce entities that possess life processes. weather or not humans can "create" life depends on what your definition of life. in modern science a lifeform is defined by the functions it carries out, distinctly 7 of which are required to classify it as a lifeform. there are grey areas in classification. for example, viruses such as influenza do not perform all 7 of the life functions, so are we to say they are not alive, they are alive or they are "half" alive?

 

 

 

 

it may be possible to in the future replicate many of these functions and create what is in a technical sense considered life. even if not directly replicated as said previously in the excretion argument, we may be able to go so far as simulate emotions and free will. many people argue that computers are incapable of doing this, but we must remember that humans also simulate these emotions from our own progamming . what we see as free will, common sense, and emotion are phychological responses to chemical simulants. so one can argue that free will , emotions and the others do not really exist , and are a collection of functions.

 

if humans survive that long and if political ethics allow for this, i believe humans will be able to create another format of life, biological and electronic or possibly a combination of which (Oooooooooooo!!!!! , not unlike the androids from the Dragon Ball Z series:cool: ).

[lucaspa]

it may be possible to in the future replicate many of these functions and create what is in a technical sense considered life.

 

Actually, it's 4 functions required for life: metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, and reproduction. And humans have already "created" entities that do these 4 functions. Or rather, they have discovered the chemical reactions that will make cells that do these.

 

we may be able to go so far as simulate emotions and free will. many people argue that computers are incapable of doing this, but we must remember that humans also simulate these emotions from our own progamming . what we see as free will, common sense, and emotion are phychological responses to chemical simulants. so one can argue that free will , emotions and the others do not really exist , and are a collection of functions.

 

You will want to read Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained and Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Dennett does a thought experiment about a robot, which is perfectly plausible with current technology, that basically has free will.

[Edtharan]

Actually, it's 4 functions required for life: metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, and reproduction. And humans have already "created" entities that do these 4 functions. Or rather, they have discovered the chemical reactions that will make cells that do these.

The number varies depending who you ask. If we just go by those 4, then I have written programs that have entities able to do this in a virtual environment. SO by these criteria, I have created life (which fits my Internet moniker "Edtharan" who is the creator God from my D&D game world ).

 

I have written programs that have entities that also "evolve" (genetic algorithms) and used these to define the agents in the life simulation.

 

The metabolism was various simulated "chemicals" that they could gather from their environment and convert into other "chemicals". Some of these conversions would require energy and some would release energy. To build the various structures they needed to move these "chemicals" into place and bind them together (this was governed by the genetic algorithm). So growth and metabolism worked together.

 

Some of the structures they could build were sensitive to other "chemicals" or even touch, so they could sense their environment and react to it.

 

They also could reproduce via the genetic algorithm and it also allowed them to evolve.

 

So, as for those 4, well they have been filled by computer programs and humans have created a new form of life.

[lucaspa]

The number varies depending who you ask. If we just go by those 4, then I have written programs that have entities able to do this in a virtual environment.

 

Can you please cite those with 7? I've only ever seen the 4.

 

I think the key there is "virtual environment". When the definition of "life" was made, computers didn't exist so everyone was looking at physical entities. Maybe an additional criteria should be that "life" has its own independent physical existence. Even when Star Trek Voyager explored the similarities of a collection of computer programs to living humans, they still had a physical entity by a physical "hologram".

 

OTOH, if your critters evolve to the point of sentience, does that sentience matter if it is a computer program rather than a physical entity. I've seen at least one science fiction book exploring that. Gotta look up the name, tho.

 

I have written programs that have entities that also "evolve" (genetic algorithms) and used these to define the agents in the life simulation.

 

You and lots of other people.

 

Some of the structures they could build were sensitive to other "chemicals" or even touch, so they could sense their environment and react to it.

 

Yeah, but I like the protocells better. When stimulated, they produce a depolarization exactly like that found in nerve cells! Now, that's a response to stimuli!

[Edtharan]

Can you please cite those with 7? I've only ever seen the 4.

Well I have heard everything from the 4 to Must be Carbon based, Have DNA, be Autocatalytic (similar, but not the same as reproduction - it is more like growth and reproduction combined, with a bit more about homoeostasis), that they must evolve, emergent properties, and so forth.

 

I think I have heard around 12 or more different aspects that people use classify something as "living".

 

The 4 seem to be things that all accept as necessary, but not everyone agrees that there is only the 4 necessary.

 

Personally, I think the problem lies with Humans. We tend to want simple and straightforward explanations and classifications. We also tend to think of Life as something "special". A sort of "élan Vital" .

 

Most people have long abandoned the physical élan Vital (some still subscribe to a spiritual version), but other fall for the Conceptual élan Vital.

 

This conceptual version is that we think we can find some conceptual property that allows us to classify something as living or not. The reality is that Life (as we know it) is a chemical reaction. There is nothing conceptually special about life.

 

A lot of the discussion in this thread is about the conceptual élan vital. There is no evidence that such a thing exists, just as the original élan vital has long since been disproved, as also there is also no evidence for a spiritual élan vital, the conceptual élan vital has no evidence for it either.

 

When we try to classify something a living or not, we keep running into the problem of the definition. Is a virus alive? Are prions alive? Are computer programs created to emulate living system alive? Are complex, self replicating and evolving computer programs alive?

 

If we could provide a definite answer that all could agree on, then there might just be a conceptual élan vital, but as it seems we can't, this means that the is not likely to be a conceptual élan vital (or any other kind).

[ydoaPs]

What if someone wrote a virus that could have random mutations occure in its code each time it coppied it's self. This would make it act a bit more like a genetic code.

 

However ther would need to be some method to "kill" off other viruses as wellas it's self because in an imortal population (death is imposable) no evolution can take place. Evolution occures because of the posability of death. And selection pressure is strongest amongst peers.

 

This competition amongst peers means that there must be something that have to compete over (proccessor time, memory, avoidance of anti virus software, etc).

 

These programs would evolve, die (get deleted), reproduce, comsume resources (memory and cpu time)... But would they be alive?

 

I think so, as that list covers most definitions of "Alive". They don't excrete, unless you consider the junk that remains of the data on your hard drive.

 

Doesn't Avida do that?

[lucaspa]

Well I have heard everything from the 4 to Must be Carbon based, Have DNA, be Autocatalytic (similar, but not the same as reproduction - it is more like growth and reproduction combined, with a bit more about homoeostasis), that they must evolve, emergent properties, and so forth.

 

I think I have heard around 12 or more different aspects that people use classify something as "living".

 

The 4 seem to be things that all accept as necessary, but not everyone agrees that there is only the 4 necessary.

 

Personally, I think the problem lies with Humans. We tend to want simple and straightforward explanations and classifications.

 

I was hoping you could give me some citations rather than the generic "I think I have heard".

 

Let me suggest that adding criteria beyond the 4 is to avoid having to admit that someone else has made life from non-life.

 

This is where the "must have DNA" or "must contain carbon" comes from. Those rule out your virtual critters as "alive", don't they?

 

Let's face it, the guy who does create life from non-life has a Nobel waiting for him. Scientists are human like anyone else and can sometimes let jealousy interfere with acknowledging what is going on.

 

The reality is that Life (as we know it) is a chemical reaction. There is nothing conceptually special about life.

 

As a biochemist, I'm hardly likely to disagree. However, actually a package of chemical reactions. Life is not one single chemical reaction, but consists of many chemical reactions happening within a defined volume/area.

 

When we try to classify something a living or not, we keep running into the problem of the definition. Is a virus alive? Are prions alive? Are computer programs created to emulate living system alive? Are complex, self replicating and evolving computer programs alive?

 

Prions and viruses, no. They don't, by themselves, have metabolism. They have to hijack the metabolism of living cells. The computer programs suffer from the same problems as the viruses: they can't make the computers that hold them. In a sense, the programs are viral parasites without the ability to make their own "bodies". However, we may have to modify the definition if a computer program becomes sentient. After all, our behavior is the sum of algorithms run in our brains. I can't see that algorithms run by a computer program are all that different.

 

If we could provide a definite answer that all could agree on, then there might just be a conceptual élan vital, but as it seems we can't, this means that the is not likely to be a conceptual élan vital (or any other kind).

 

That argument is flawed. There probably isn't an elan vital. But our inability to make a definition doesn't tell us anything one way or another. Look at "species". No one can make a precise definition of species, either, but no one denies that species exist. Or that one species can evolve into another species.

 

If we take the basic 4 criteria -- metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, and reprodution -- then I submit that people have already made life from non-living chemicals. The protocells made by thermal polymerization of amino acids meet all 4 criteria.

[Edtharan]

I was hoping you could give me some citations rather than the generic "I think I have heard".

Yes, I can't give you the citations as I can't remember the specific locations that I have heard them form. But they have come form Biologists (retired) that I worked with, books, TV programs, magazines, lay people, etc. The sources are so diverse and they don't all agree with each other that I can't actually give citations.

 

The point I was trying to make was not that there are more than those 4, but that people have such different definitions of what is necessary for life that the classification of live and non life is a false one. It is more of a continuum from non life to life than a sharp classification.

 

As a biochemist, I'm hardly likely to disagree. However, actually a package of chemical reactions. Life is not one single chemical reaction, but consists of many chemical reactions happening within a defined volume/area.

Yes, a package of chemical reactions is a better description. Thanks.

 

Prions and viruses, no. They don't, by themselves, have metabolism. They have to hijack the metabolism of living cells.

Again, I see this as the conceptual "élan vital". You say that there is a definite thing (set of criteria) that we can apply that separates Life from Non Life.

 

I do not think such a line exists. The fact that we can not agree on what criteria to use indicates that (but, admittedly, is not proof) that such a line does not exist.

 

One may see virus (and may be even prions) as parasites, that have not needed to develop a metabolism (or lost it) because of their host. The Plasmodium parasite that causes malaria, it has lost the ability o reproduce by its self, has it therefore lost the ability to reproduce and so not alive (by the 4 criteria)?

 

I doubt that you would think that. But, as it has lost the ability to reproduce without a host, so to has the virus lost the ability to metabolise without a host. It must have lost it because it virus could not have existed as they can not metabolise without a host, so without a host they could not exist. And unless then "sprang forth" fully formed as virus, they must have evolved form something else, and that would have had the ability to metabolise.

 

Prions, on the other hand, do seem to have "sprung forth" fully formed as they are a "mutation" of a protein. So, it is quite likely that they can be classified as "not alive", but in reality are part of the package of chemical reactions that make up a living organism. They are part of a living organism (although a part that has gone wrong), but not a living organism in their own right.

 

The computer programs suffer from the same problems as the viruses: they can't make the computers that hold them. In a sense, the programs are viral parasites without the ability to make their own "bodies".

But are parasites alive? Yes, the computer virus are more like parasites (just as virus are parasites) than a bacteria.

 

However, we may have to modify the definition if a computer program becomes sentient. After all, our behavior is the sum of algorithms run in our brains. I can't see that algorithms run by a computer program are all that different.

Why do people associate a living organisms in a computer as needing to be Sentient or Intelligent? Why can't the program be no more Sentient or Intelligent than a bacteria, or Algae?

 

That argument is flawed. There probably isn't an elan vital. But our inability to make a definition doesn't tell us anything one way or another.

Yes it does. It tells us that if there is a direct answer, it won't be simple. Which is my point.

 

If we take the basic 4 criteria -- metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, and reprodution -- then I submit that people have already made life from non-living chemicals. The protocells made by thermal polymerization of amino acids meet all 4 criteria.

but the whole point of my last post was that people can't even agree on that is is just 4, let alone agree what those 4 are.

 

By specifying that there is 4 and only 4 criteria needed to determine if a system is living or not, you are subscribing to the Conceptual élan vital, that is you think that there is a set of properties that if a system has them then they are alive. These 4 criteria you proposed are the Conceptual Vital Force that makes a system living or not.

[lucaspa]

The point I was trying to make was not that there are more than those 4, but that people have such different definitions of what is necessary for life that the classification of live and non life is a false one. It is more of a continuum from non life to life than a sharp classification.

 

I think you have to look at the motivations for the different definitions. From what I have seen within biology, the differences come from 2 motives: trying to get their discovery classified as life (as in the case of the RNA World hypothesis) or to eliminate the discovery of the rival (as in the case of adding directed protein synthesis to exclude Fox's protocells).

 

I stick to the 4 because 1) they work and 2) they were developed long before motivations to jigger with the criteria appeared.

 

Also, the protocells have a sharp delineation. Start with definite non-living amino acids then add heat and then add water and voila! you have living cells. No continuum. Went from non-living proteins to living cells in one step.

 

That may not be true for all systems, but it is for that one. Viruses I view as the ultimate in parasites. IOW, they are not moving from non-life to life, but evolved from living cells down to viruses.

 

Again, I see this as the conceptual "élan vital". You say that there is a definite thing (set of criteria) that we can apply that separates Life from Non Life.

 

"elan vital" was supposed to be some inner driving force. The criteria aren't that. Instead, they are 4 objective observations on how the entity behaves. Look at them:

1. Metabolism which consists of both catabolism and anabolism. That simply describes breaking down things for energy and building up components of the living entity. No elan vital here; either chemical or some other type of reaction.

2. Growth. This can come from anabolism or accretion. Both are reactions.

3. Response to stimuli. This could be misconceived as to involve some "inner drive" but response is also chemical or physical processes. After all, look at our autonomic reflex that doctors check for when they hit your knee: chemical reactions in the nerves and then chemical reactions in the muscles. And chemical reactions between the nerves and muscles.

4. Reproduction. Oil droplets "reproduce". Any elan vital there?

 

Basically, we can find ALL of these criteria singly or in combinations of two or three without finding life. Fire fits catabolism, grwoth, response to stimuli, and reproduction. Yet no one thinks it is "alive". It is apparent that there is no "elan vital" in fire or in the 3.5 criteria it fills.

 

I do not think such a line exists. The fact that we can not agree on what criteria to use indicates that (but, admittedly, is not proof) that such a line does not exist.

 

That does not follow. Look above at what I said about motivation. A person can refuse to agree because of motivation not to; motivation that has nothing to do with objectively laying out criteria for "life".

 

Again I go back to "species". We can't all agree on what criteria to use to define "species". But species do exist.

 

One may see virus (and may be even prions) as parasites, that have not needed to develop a metabolism (or lost it) because of their host. The Plasmodium parasite that causes malaria, it has lost the ability o reproduce by its self, has it therefore lost the ability to reproduce and so not alive (by the 4 criteria)?

 

As you noted, I think we are looking at the loss of independent criteria by parasitism. IOW, it is going from life to non-life. Now that may be a continuum, because the organism is getting some of the criteria by another living organism. Criteria it once had for itself but evolved to use another organism instead.

 

Why do people associate a living organisms in a computer as needing to be Sentient or Intelligent? Why can't the program be no more Sentient or Intelligent than a bacteria, or Algae?

 

Because a non-sentient computer "life" doesn't raise the issue of "rights" like a sentience would. We can declare the non-sentient life as non-life simply because it can't reproduce it's physical self. That is, life is very tied to a physical object instead of non-physical lines of program. The programs can't make another computer. However, sentience is an idea that is not tied to a physical body. That is, it is the ability to think and reason and is sentience no matter what physical body it occurs in. So that ability could also appear as the result of non-physical lines of programs. So whether the program could make another computer is irrelevant -- we consider infertile people to be sentient.

 

but the whole point of my last post was that people can't even agree on that is is just 4, let alone agree what those 4 are.

 

Look, you can't give me sources for other than 4 or sources for definitions that don't include one of the 4. I questioned your premise and you can't back it as fact. Yet you are still insisting it is fact. You can't keep doing that until you demonstrate it is fact.

 

So, taking the 4 criteria that are in the dictionary, humans have already "created" life from non-living chemicals. Whether they can do so by other means -- such as the RNA first pathway or computer programs -- remains to be seen.

 

By specifying that there is 4 and only 4 criteria needed to determine if a system is living or not, you are subscribing to the Conceptual élan vital,

 

No more so that we specifiy criteria for what is a computer, or what is a species, or what is a church or what constitutes a religion. For every entity in the universe, we set out criteria to determine, or define, that entity. Objects that meet that criteria are one of those entities. Objects that don't meet the criteria are not one of those entities.

 

For instance, here is a definition of "mammal"

"Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class Mammalia, including humans, characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young." http://www.answers.com/topic/mammal

 

So, let's list the criteria:

1. have a backbone (vertebrate)

2. Have hair on the skin

3. be warm blooded

4. female has milk-producing mammary glands

5. be an animal

 

So, 5 criteria. If an animal meets those criteria, it is a mammal. I don't think anyone would argue this is "conceptual elan vital". It is no more a conceptual elan vital for criteria to be alive. Sauce for the goose.

 

Remember what I said about motivation? I think you are arguing because you want your discovery of computer "living organisms" to be considered "alive" and are thus unhappy with the criteria.

[satrohraj]

I just read an article (Thanks bascule for posting the link: http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/) that basically tells of the discovery of a new form of bacteria and describes our current understanding of the role bacteria play in the tree of life. The article even suggests that bacteria most likely played a key role in the creation of the eukaryotic cell, which all multicelular organisms are descendants of. I’m a computer programmer by day, and what I found really interesting is that computer viruses and biological seem to play a very similar roll in thier environments. They both need a host to survive, they replicate, they have a genetic/binary code, they adapt, they respond to stimuli (and in a sense, computer viruses even metabolize using electricity). This got me thinking about the current state of computer technology and how many similarities it has with our theorized view of what early life may have looked like on this planet.

 

Computer programs are becoming extremely complex and some are arguably more complex (I’m taking on a genetic level if you compare the machine code of a program to the DNA/RNA structure of some viruses) then even some viruses. Could the computer programs we are creating be a precursor to a new form or life not based on DNA/RNA? Based on the most widely excepted definition of DNA/RNA based life, something must have organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction to be considered “alive”. I can argue that computer programs can exhibit all of these characteristics.

 

Question: Could it be possible that humans could someday create a new form of life which exists in an electronic universe of our own making?

 

May be in near future..