Synthetic life.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2013, 12:15 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(23-03-2013 01:23 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(23-03-2013 01:03 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  All I am saying is that we've essentially "proved" that life can originate via intelligent design
It has never been shown that life on Earth could have originated as the creation of an intelligent being.

(23-03-2013 01:03 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  yet we haven't proved that it can originate naturally.
Your ignorance of the current state of scientific research in no way negates the evidence we have to support abiogenesis.

(23-03-2013 01:03 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  This state of affairs weakens the atheist position.
What "atheist position"?

Vosur, I don't have a problem if you reject the following argument.

Premise: Demonstrating intellect can create life in the lab shows that intellect could have created life on earth.
Premise: Synthetic life was created by intellect in a lab.
Conclusion: Therefore an intellect could have created life on earth.

But if you are going to reject the above argument then you should also reject this one that follows:

Premise: Demonstrating abiogenesis in the lab shows that abiogenesis could be how life originated on this planet.
Premise: Abiogenesis has been demonstrated in the lab.
Conclusion: Therefore abiogenesis could be the origin of life on this planet.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
24-03-2013, 01:15 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2013 01:41 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(23-03-2013 02:00 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Wood.

Did you not just contradict yourself? If you don't accept Venter, then synthetic life HASN'T been proven, so you're back to square one.

That's why I sometimes put "proves" in quotes. I think Venter proved that in principle it can be done, but he hasn't actually done it. I suspect he will actually design and construct a living organism within a few years. What he is trying to do right now is design the smallest possible genome and still have life. If someone wants to say that the argument I making doesn't yet apply, they are technically correct.

Quote:
I agree that intellect is a viable candidate for the formation of life. But it has been pointed out that if panspermia is correct, life still had to originate somewhere. Also, if life was created by some naturally occurring intellect, then that intellect is not God, it's just a naturally occurring phenomenon like the rest of us. It's also been pointed out that if God did the work, then he used magical powers to do so, so it's less intellect as is comparable to our own, and more about having supernatural powers; in which case, our achievements are meaningless. Any way you slice it, if humans have/will produce synthetic life, it in no way comments on whether God created life and merely opens the door for aliens. In terms of its commentary on abiogenesis, if the intellect was natural, then it had to come from somewhere; suggesting abiogenesis. If the intellect was Godlike, then our abilities are irrelevant.

I don't like the term "magical powers" but I will use it here for the sake of argument. What difference does it make? Would the argument change if Venter used telekinesis? It doesn't matter how the previously non living components are handled when they are organized into a living being. What matters is an intellect is behind the organization. Maybe the "magic powers" point is valid against anyone who believes that God created life ex nihilo, but not too many theists believe that.

So what if our intellect is less than Gods? What Venter's work " proves " is that an intellect can do it. What remains unproven is that a natural, devoid of intellect, process can do it(here I am referring to just the origination of life...not subsequent evolution).


Quote:The great difficulty for the intellect argument is evolution. Evolution doesn't require a bus driver. It is an automated system. So if an intellect created the first life, it's unlikely that it created anything else... actually, that's not fair... it could very well make adjustments or introduce entirely new organisms as it saw fit, but it wouldn't have had to. If I set a ball rolling down a hill, I can interfere however I like. I can block it, slow it, divert it, blow it up, add more balls, whatever. But if I did nothing, the ball would still roll down the hill. Once I set it in motion, it no longer needs me.

You could design the slope and terrain of the hill in such a way that after you set the ball rolling it takes the path you intended without any additional interference. That was a point I was trying to make in the Dawkins thread. Construct the ball and construct the path is set it and forget it.

Quote:Now I know that you haven't used either God or creationism, so I understand that your argument is broader than that (too bad not everyone can see that). So while I feel that our creating life would have no commentary on any divine influence, it would prove that it was possible that a naturally occurring alien intellect could plausibly have created us. But there's so much information missing, that it's pure conjecture.

For me, abiogenesis is the simplest answer. We know that molecules form, we know that life is a molecular process, so it's likely just a mundane molecular process that occurs wherever it can occur. I feel that Miller-Uray's discovery of how amino acids may have formed and Fox's discovery of how microspheres form lends a lot to the idea, but yes, it's not proven.

What do you think will happen if Venter is or has already been successful? Well its not far fetched to believe that we intellects will create lots and lots and a whole lot of different lineages of life. By the time your grandkids are in kollege, there could be millions of lineages of life on this planet. All but one will be the product of intellect, that remaining one we won't know for sure. In such world what would happen if you observed life on some far off world? Would you assume it originated there via abiogenesis or did it originate as the product of intellect? Which is more likely?

Quote:At the end of the day, the only two possibilities are God or natural process. Because alien engineers (real ones, not those stupid ones from that sack of shit Prometheus) would have to either be created by God or natural process.

As an Agnostic, I hold that the existence of God or the question of God's actions are indemonstrable. So even if it's true, we'll never know. Abiogenesis is demonstrable, but is undemonstrated, so I can't accept that either. What I can and do accept is that it just took one single-celled organism to put the development of all life on Earth into motion.

Intellect may be fundamental and like everything else we believe to be fundmental, that intellect may be beyond our observation.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 01:25 AM
RE: Synthetic life.







Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 01:32 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2013 01:36 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(24-03-2013 01:25 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

The vid is not available on mobile and I still haven't replaced my laptop since the chicken noodle soup incident. However I believe I have seen it before. If doesn't demonstrate abiogenesis. It is merely an idea on how abiogenesis could occur.

Edit: on second thought its not appropriate for me to say anything until I actually view it. For some reason I am unable to delete this post, so carry on and pretend you never read it

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 01:56 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
Hey, Wood.

Your 'design and abiogenesis in the lab' premise is actually a pretty good one. I think the difference is that if we prove intellect, we still have to identify the intellect and the method, but if we prove abiogenesis, we have a complete theory.

I concur. Your argument does not yet apply.

I don't typically use the term magical powers. I kinda jumped on the band wagon on that one. Typically I argue that God MUST be supernatural. A non-supernatural God is not God, it's a natural phenomenon.

If Venter used telekenisis or some other supernatural power, then yeah, a lot would change. We'd be back to supernatural influence.

It absolutely matters how things are organised. Absolutely. Intellect can't actually DO a thing. Intellect cannot perform an action. The intellect of a genetic engineer tells a human body to do the heavy lifting. This means that the process is a naturally occurring phenomenon. If God created life from nothing with supernatural powers, then that is NOT a natural process. It is also not a process that humans, natural organisms, can mimic any more than we could create the Earth in six days. So it's irrelevant what we've achieved, it would have occurred on a level utterly beyond us. If God created life as a natural process, then our achievement would be relevant, but why would a supernatural entity use natural processes to do something? Moreover, even if God is supernatural, the phenomenon of creation would be a natural phenomenon. Which, I suppose, makes our achievements relevant again, it just doesn't make sense. Why would he create the heavens and the Earth with supernatural powers, but use the DIY kit to make life?

I agree. An intellect can do it. But until we identify that intellect and the method of creation (natural process, magic) we don't really have anything.

You can design the hill all you want, but at some point, you let go of the ball. At that point, it's out of your hands. Evolution takes over. You could design evolution too. But once it's designed, it's out of your hands because it's automatic. Any way you slice it, once you set it in motion, you're no longer needed.

If Venter is/has been successful, we'll know we can create life. We'll know that it's possible for an entity with an intellect to create life through natural processes. We will not know if that is the case, we will not have identified an intellect and we will not know what process was used (both in terms of natural/supernatural and in terms of methodology).

I have to admit, the only thing that bothers me about abiogenesis is, "why did it only occur 4.5 billion years ago? Why isn't it always happening?" One reason could be that abiogenesis requires primordial soup conditions. But what's bizarre about that is that complex multicellular organisms can exist in those conditions. So abiogenesis requires an almost completely hostile environment to create life and then it needs that environment to change drastically in order to support complex organisms. Seems like a bizarre process.

I have no idea if it's more likely that an alien organism was created by abiogenesis or by design because neither have been proven. Remember, I'm an Agnostic Cool

I don't really know what 'intellect might be fundamental' means.

"The" intellect may be beyond our observation. If that's the case, then it becomes indemonstrable. Meaning as an Agnostic, I cannot accept it.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 01:59 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(23-03-2013 09:31 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I think I've pretty clearly laid out what I think. And for the record, he isn't arguing the Theist position. He's simply talking about an intellect.

Quote:Evidence that life can be created by an intellect (specifically humans) means it's more likely a god exists? [Image: shocking.gif]

Well, neither Wood nor I are saying that, soooooooo.... no?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

That's correct, all I am saying is an intellect....which could be God or could be a seven dimensional Teletubby.

KingsChosen is a lying douchebag
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 02:35 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
Wow, Wood's actually saying stuff. Tongue

And Bucky's second vid works, Wood. What I'm guilty of - and totally unrepentant for Big Grin - is jumping to the conclusion that if it smells like ID, it must be ID; and ID must be terminated with extreme prejudice.

But it doesn't really say anything, your conjecture postulated to Vosur. A validated abiogenesis leads to a predictive, useful model; where as "intelligent creator" is pretty much the end of the line. It a "so what."

And this fucking thing about magic - of course it fucking matters. Venter spins up some shit in the lab using witchcraft, we're gonna burn him at the fucking stake. Big Grin

Again, it comes down to having a useful model. We don't wanna need a wizard, we wanna see behind the curtain.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
24-03-2013, 06:08 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(24-03-2013 12:15 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Vosur, I don't have a problem if you reject the following argument.

Premise: Demonstrating intellect can create life in the lab shows that intellect could have created life on earth.
Premise: Synthetic life was created by intellect in a lab.
Conclusion: Therefore an intellect could have created life on earth.
Your argument is flawed right off the bat. The technology that is required by intelligent beings who want to create life wasn't around billions of years go, which is why there is no reason to assume that life on Earth could have originated that way unless you believe that we were created by an advanced extraterrestrial species that possessed said technology.

(24-03-2013 12:15 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  But if you are going to reject the above argument then you should also reject this one that follows:

Premise: Demonstrating abiogenesis in the lab shows that abiogenesis could be how life originated on this planet.
Premise: Abiogenesis has been demonstrated in the lab.
Conclusion: Therefore abiogenesis could be the origin of life on this planet.
Contrary to the creation of synthetic life, abiogenesis works without the technology that we have today. In fact, the very goal of the Miller–Urey experiment was to simulate the conditions that were present on Earth billions of years ago.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2013, 06:20 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
Which makes more sense

1. Life develops through the natural process when the conditions for the formation of life are present.

2. An intellect created all life. Some other intellect created the intellect that created all life. Some other intellect created the intellect that created the intellect that created all life.
Some other intellect created the intellect that created the intellect that created the intellect that created all life. And so on into infinity and beyond.

Second question.

Which one has a literal planet of evidence on it's side ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
24-03-2013, 09:33 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
Hey, Vosur.

That doesn't make any sense. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Like I mentioned before, if we proved intellect could make life, we wouldn't know the methodology. Yes, HUMAN technology wasn't around, but it wouldn't BE human technology that the intellect would have used.

As a simple analogy, just because there were no Walkman's a billion years ago, doesn't mean that an ancient race of intersellar supergeniuses couldn't possibly listen to music.

I, of course, am not suggesting that we have any evidence of a past alien technology or that we wouldn't need to figure out what it was before we could confidently say an intellect created life. I'm just saying that your argument doesn't make sense.

Hey, Rahn.

I gotta say the same about yours.

It matters not which makes more sense. It matters what the evidence bears out.

The difference is, like I said and like Cantor echoed, proof of abiogenesis is a complete theory while proof of the capacity of intellect to create life still lacks an identified intellect and an identified methodology.

Also, as several people have pointed out, both panspermia and the alien engineer theories still demand an explanation of origin. So in the case of Earth, BOTH intellect and abiogenesis could explain life on THIS planet. However, if abiogenesis isn't the origin of all universal life, then an external intellect is required. If it originates outside of the universe, all bets are off cuz we're talking 'a wizard did it'.

Lastly, NEITHER theory has a planet full of evidence. We know there's life. We don't know it's exact origin.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: