Creating life

1. 74

   pylos26posted 12 years ago

   God is not the only creator of  life. Craig Venter has created synthetic life in his laboratory from simple chemicals, a new era for humanity.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      leebertteaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He didn't create life he created a different life from an existing life.

      replyreport
      1. 50

         paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Hi friend  leeberttea
         
         I agree with you.
         
         Thanks

         replyreport
         1. 57

            Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            But without reason, Usmanali. Do you hate Truth so much?

            replyreport
      2. 96

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         He apparently created life from a dead corpse and some chemicals, not from life.  That the new life was different from what the corpse was before it died is kinda the point.  He didn't simply resurrect the corpse - he created new life.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Um, what?  He made a micro-organism.

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Indeed he did.  One that is alive and reproducing - a feat that has never before been accomplished.

               replyreport
2. 74

   Cagsilposted 12 years ago

   And your point?
   
   Men and Women create life too.

   replyreport
3. 0

   ralwusposted 12 years ago

   Yeah, I did it 6 times, maybe more. LOL

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Never had the pleasure. I have none that I know of.

      replyreport
4. 72

   Rafiniposted 12 years ago

   the miracle of life is created every day.

   replyreport
5. 96

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   I saw that the other day.  Is Jurassic Park just around the corner, so to speak?

   replyreport
6. 0

   ralwusposted 12 years ago

   

   replyreport
7. 76

   spiderpamposted 12 years ago

   Enough hype, what really happened? “Scientists have assembled a bacterial chromosome (using intelligence and a multi-million dollar lab) patterned after an existing bacterial chromosome. But all the components already existed. They were not created from scratch; instead, a bacterium was simply rebuilt.”
   
   Technically speaking
   
   "They took the known DNA sequence of the genome of the bacteria Mycoplasma mycoides and had a machine synthesize copies of portions of the sequence.
   The copied portions of the genome of M. mycoides were then “stitched” together and transferred to the bacteria Mycoplasma capricolum that had its own natural genome removed.
   The M. capricolum bacteria were able to use the M. mycoides genome and reproduce, effectively making a synthetic version of the bacteria called M. mycoides JCVI-syn 1.0.
   So to make the synthetic bacteria, intelligent scientists used a bacterial sequence that already existed (they merely made a slightly altered copy of it), along with bacteria that already existed. This is excellent research, but not the creation of life in the lab from scratch."
   
   Simply speaking
   They are children playing with pre existing building blocks.
   
   “It’s important to remember that scientists are not “creating” life; they are merely synthesizing a genome based on the Creator’s original design for life.”
   
   
   From articles by Dr. Georgia Purdom Ph.D., molecular genetics and Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis

   replyreport
   1. 50

      paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hi friends
      
      The Creator-God Allah YHWH, created everything from nothing or ex-annihilation.
      
      Thanks
      
      I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Do you believe in the tooth fairy too?
         
         Just curious.

         replyreport
8. 74

   pylos26posted 12 years ago

   You might want to update your research Spiderpam...rather than simply quoting outdated bias stuff.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
   2. 76

      spiderpamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Oh and your sources aren't biased.   I simply posted the truth of what really happened without the materialistic hype. Don't feel bad you can still have faith that one day they will “create” life from scratch, but it would only prove creating life requires intelligence.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If I accomplish the feat of pushing a rock down a mountain side does that prove that pushing a rock requires intelligence?  Or does the same logic only apply to the feat of creating life?

         replyreport
         1. 76

            spiderpamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Comparing the complexity of the single cell(more complex than a rocket ship) to pushing a rock down the sides of a mountain(non living material)?  You’ve committed a reductive fallacy here.  You’re right on one point DNA is information we can have random information: LOEHL, but to make sense of this you would need to add intelligence: HELLO

            replyreport
            1. 96

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Perhaps I misunderstood.  I read your post to indicate that if man ever creates life then life is only "creatable" by intelligence and not by chance or random atomic movement.  I simply do not understand where the reasoning comes from as intelligence does many things that are duplicated by random chance, such as insects eating at a tree until the wind can blow it over into a rock which then rolls down hill.
               
               That we might be ignorant of the exact mechanisms of such a random circumstance doesn't prove it can't happen...........

               replyreport
   3. 0

      Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      indisputable bias 'stuff' though.
      
      let's for one intelligent second pay attention -apart from ALL existing elemental properties in the universe, what has any scientist 'created'? They are fabricating and redesigning things that are -by their very admissions- potentially millions of years old. Hmm, looks like religion to me -only more sanitary, less napkins.
      
      Do this: Bring or create your own ingredients without using any pre-existing universal element. Then just maybe we won't call you Kris Kringel.
      
      "They'll be no toy makers to the king!"

      replyreport
      1. 74

         pylos26posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Sorry,“Your Eminence”, I surely should of realized that the four chemicals and computer used by the scientist to create the first synthetic bio cell, ever by mankind, were formed over time by your “sky ferry”.
              Forgot to allocate tolerance for the double standard sect.

         replyreport
         1. 50

            paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Hi friend  pylos26
            
            I have to differ with you.
            
            Whatever Scientific achievements are made are less of an individual’s doing; it is more of a collective human doing at a certain level of Evolution set in motion by the Creator- God Allah YHWH. Further it is creating a hill of a molehill. The Scientists are humble person, they don't claim much of what they have done; it is other eulogizing them as if they have done these things.
            
            Thanks
            
            I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Twenty One Daysposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            That is a pylos of nonsense. A or many scientist did not 'create' silica, they merely fashioned it. Nor did they create the binary system or energy current required to power it and certainly they did not create the light used to push the existing radio frequencies between two of these machines. Add to it, that cell is a product of existing creation, not at all new.
            
            So, I reiterate - please, Mr. Dawkin's disciple, no toy makers to the king. Science is just another church with shinier statues and a bigger variety of magic and corpses, living or dead...

            replyreport
            1. 74

               pylos26posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               One might say that it makes no difference in the end whether one lives in denial of further education (science) or supports the only tool mankind has (its scientists) to scratch for some evidence of truth, and one would be accurate. Cus at the end of your life on earth dude you’re going to the same place I am, that being the recycling heap.
               
               You sir have undoubtedly  attached yourself to a fire extinguishing squad of some religious sect that stands ready with nozzle in hand to extinguish and condemn any further advancement in scientific research hammered out by the world’s true scientists, especially if any truth discovered may seem to unravel any of your religion’s mythology.
               
               Tis a pity to waste such a bright mind as yours on a simple task of filling the monetary coffers of some religious sect, rather than dedicating it to the betterment of mankind. But what do I know?
               
               No response necessary...as I am tired of talking to you.

               replyreport
9. 96

   wildernessposted 12 years ago

   "Simply speaking
   They are children playing with pre existing building blocks."
   
   “It’s important to remember that scientists are not “creating” life; they are merely synthesizing a genome based on the Creator’s original design for life.”
   
   I suppose when a similar feat is accomplished using the basic building blocks of the universe (atoms) the denial will be the same?  Must we start with pure energy?  Or even do it from nothing but imagination?  These scientists built DNA from on the shelf chemicals and used that blueprint with some conveniently arranged dead molecules to form life.  Either that or they resurrected a totally dead organism to life.......

   replyreport
   1. 76

      spiderpamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Whose denying anything? I simply stated what really happened. Read the full articles(not  snippets) for yourself or the interviews on TV. They say the same thing. It's a great accomplishment, but the hype in unnecessary and misleading.
      
      “Must we start with pure energy?” Well no, adding energy(the sun) would destroy anything before it had a chance to replicate. We know this entropy and the second law thermodynamics.
      .
      
      “Even do it from nothing but imagination?” “Imagination” interesting word choice but no. “If scientists want to “create” their own life, they need to go and make their own code system—their own “DNA”! As I say, if you want to make this an origin of life issue, then go and get your own DNA!” All they’re doing reorganizing existing data.

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I understood you to indicate that the DNA was only similar, not a copy, of the original.  Do we have to make life without any DNA at all to be considered as creating it? 
         
         "reorganizing existing data" - but DNA only has 4 chemicals and the reorganization is all that separates any species from another.  Again, must we make life without DNA to actually create it?

         replyreport
         1. 76

            spiderpamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Do we have to make life without any DNA at all to be considered as creating it?"
            First you would need to define life: biological or chemical replication. This is why the "creating life" hype is a complete falsehood scientist have yet to answer the basic questions what means did the code of life and the enzymes necessary to make the code originate? Which came first: the code to make the enzymes or the enzymes to make the code? That's why as of right now they can only reorganize existing information.
            
            
            "DNA only has 4 chemicals and the reorganization is all that separates any species from another"
            
            Now we're leaving origins and going into speciation.
            
            Reorganization and recombination has to do more with the adaptability and survivability of a population or kind. Speciation is simply the variety in said population. We have coyotes wolves, and pit bulls, great and wide speciation and adaptability of the dog kind, but they are all dogs.
            
            We have black, white, brown, red hair, blonde hair blue and brown eyes etc,. Again wide variety, but we are still human.
            
            All we have witnessed is great range of variety(speciation) and adaptability within populations or kinds. We've never seen one kind change into another.
            
            How does this pertain to information? In the cases of speciation and adaptability information can be copied, or loss. There is no evidence that shows any new information has ever been added just a modification existing genetic information. These mutations can be beneficial (very rare), but the mutations are still the result of a loss of information and when placed back into the parent population it cannot/does not survive. For example, trying placing a poodle (lots of lost information) into a pack of wolves (parent population). Mutations and natural selection have strict limits on how long to maintain a population that why we hear so much about species going extinct. Natural selection is not a creative process(meaning it cannot create new ways or create new genetic information in order to help a species to survive), it simply selects.
            
            What a great exchange, it's late I must retire. Any other questions feel free to PM me. Good night.

            replyreport
   2. 67

      mrpopoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You read my thoughts exactly.

      replyreport
10. 60

    qwarkposted 12 years ago

    IF a new synthetic species has been "created," it will be the most important and wonderfilled (or deadly) man made construct since the "atom bomb."
    The potential for good and bad is unimaginable!
    It's a 1st step in the future of genetic engineering.

    replyreport
11. 67

    mrpopoposted 12 years ago

    It always bugs me when people say that life wasn't created because he used a dead corpse or he used DNA or he took a pre-existing cell to generate a new being...
    
    What constitutes as creating life then? Creating something out of nothing?
    
    We can't do that because we are material beings. Anything we create will have to come from something, because we ourselves are a something.

    replyreport
    1. 96

       wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Of course, mrpopo.  The concept of man being as good as God is not permitted.  Now that we have done the impossible and created life we must do it using only energy to be considered creators.  When we have done that (we can already turn matter into energy - someday we'll do the reverse) then we will have to create a new universe, using only imagination, and use the materials there.  When we do THAT we will have to populate it with intelligent beings.  It is a never ending cycle of raising the burden of "proof".

       replyreport
       1. 67

          mrpopoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          The proof being looked for is simply impossible though! It goes outside the bounds of logic. It's like asking to create a round square. That's why it's pretty much impossible to prove wrong, because the proof asked for is impossible by nature.

          replyreport
          1. 96

             wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             Your complaints are valid, but only if you are assuming that there is an attempt being made to use logic or observation to find Truth. 
             
             In fact the attempt being made is to use false logic to maintain a set of beliefs or conclusions.  When those beliefs or conclusions are threatened, then one way to alleviate the threat is to claim that the logical proof is insufficient now - additional proof is needed.  It is often carried out to the point that, as you point out, the "proof" required is impossible to produce with a finite amount of time and effort.
             
             There are other ways; proof may be ignored, or ridiculed, or changed into something it never was.  Logical arguments are often introduced that have little or nothing to do with the question.  Always in an effort to maintain current concepts.

             replyreport
12. 0

    Twenty One Daysposted 12 years ago

    That is a false notion. As good is not the same as equal. However, using human method to achieve a godliness is futile. One must use the universal method, already established, by its rules, not change the rules, bend them or artificially inseminate them into the -already failing, fragile human condition- to great the illusion of godliness. That's called religion -Bunsen burner or scented candle, makes no difference.

    replyreport
13. 63

    awareposted 12 years ago

    my mom and dad  created me

    replyreport
14. 74

    pylos26posted 12 years ago

    Another response from the "double standard" sect of denial.

    replyreport