Synthetic life.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2013, 02:24 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 02:13 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(23-03-2013 01:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Synthetic life is life designed and constructed by an intellect from previously non living componets. Now there are two possible ways life originated on this planet(there's really 3 but I am ignoring panspermia for simplicity). One way it could have happened is via abiogenesis, or life arising naturally from previously non living components. The other way is life could have originated as a construction of some intellect. Neither of these "possibilities" have ever been demonstrated so we can't say even say for certain that they are really possible.

What happens if synthetic life is created by humans? Well such an event would demonstrate that it is possible life can originate as a construction of intellect. If synthetic life is demonstrated and abiogenesis isn't, doesn't that strengthen the theists position? Couldn't a theist claim in an argument that intelligent creation of life is a demonstrated fact, while abiogenesis remains just an assertion? Where would that put atheists like Bearded Dude who maintain you shouldn't believe in something until it is observed? He would be forced to concede that intelligent creation of life is believable while abiogenesis is only something worthy of research.


Derp

It has been.




Ah....no...Venter just copied an existing genome tossing in a couple of watermarks for tracking purposes. When he actually designs a genome then he actually created something. He done bootlegged life is what he done.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 02:39 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 02:24 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-03-2013 02:13 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Derp

It has been.




Ah....no...Venter just copied an existing genome tossing in a couple of watermarks for tracking purposes. When he actually designs a genome then he actually created something. He done bootlegged life is what he done.
I won't disagree...it looks like that's what he did. Nevertheless, most all of the technological problems associated with the creation of new life forms seem to be solved (mostly). Now...if we can understand genomes well enough, then we're good to go.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 03:41 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 03:53 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 02:24 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-03-2013 02:13 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Derp

It has been.




Ah....no...Venter just copied an existing genome tossing in a couple of watermarks for tracking purposes. When he actually designs a genome then he actually created something. He done bootlegged life is what he done.
Well almighty then if that goal post must be moved then I can find other examples.




Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
25-03-2013, 04:31 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from
which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they
couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...ucleotides



The researchers showed that a mixture of a fatty acid, its
corresponding fatty alcohol, and the glycerol ester of the fatty acid,
all combined to spontaneously assemble into vesicles that allowed sugars
and modified nucleotides to pass into the vesicle.
To see if the
nucleotide could polymerise inside the protocell without the aid of
enzymes, the researchers placed a short, simple DNA template 15 bases
long within the vesicles. They then added the complementary nucleotide
to the medium containing the protocells. 'We saw the monomers diffuse
into the cell, bind to the template and spontaneously polymerise,' says
Szostak. 'The new chain grew to its full length.'

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2...060803.asp

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
25-03-2013, 05:46 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 12:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I always find the competition.explanation on why we only see one lineage of life to be a bit hand wavy. Its like claiming God wrote his name on the side of the moon when he created it but you can't see it now because its been covered with meteor impacts.

Suppose there was a time when conditions on earth were just right for abiogenesis. It should have happened more than once, yet we only have evidence of one lineage. Now to claim that one lineage drove the rest to extinction implies that the one lineages was fittest a cross all the varied environments of the early earth. I just don't buy that.
Yes, if God had written his name on the side of the moon thousands of years ago then it probably would have eroded away. Why did you use such an analogy? It reinforces my point.

You claim "we only have evidence of one lineage", and I just gave you a very plausible explanation of that. I know you "just don't buy that" because that would prove you wrong, and you're never going to accept that you could be wrong about this. Others here have presented you with evidence that rebuts your idea of a grand designer, and you're nit-picking it to try to find ways to ignore or deny it. But frankly, if there was a grand designer, then none of this ought to be possible -- tweaking existing life to make our own unique variety, playing with chemicals to make parts of the chain of primitive life -- even if you deny that these are evidence for abiogenesis, they make even less sense from the grand designer viewpoint. Don't you understand that if you're going to posit an alternative theory that you have to make existing evidence fit it? It doesn't become the default theory just because you think the prevailing one is false -- that's the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
25-03-2013, 08:03 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
Hey, Wood.

Quote:I agree. It only proves that intelligent design of life is a
demonstrable fact. Meanwhile, life occurring naturally in process
devoid of intellect is merely an assertion.

True. So long as the implication is not: therefore, design is a better theory. It is not. It is, in fact, further from being a theory with explanatory power than abiogenesis.

All abiogenesis has to do at this point is bridge the gap between the spontaneous creation of amino acids to the spontaneous creation of life. Design has to bridge the gap from design is possible to who did it and then to how did they do it.

But that being said, there's nothing mere about the abiogenesis assertion. It wasn't pulled out of thin air. While not a proven fact, the evidence we do have is pointing in that direction.

For abiogenesis, we know what the conditions were like. We're just trying to figure out the precise phenomenon that occurred in those conditions.

Design still has no evidence for who the creator (terrestrial or universal) is and no evidence for the methodology used.

So yeah, our ability to design life is a triumph for the idea of design, but design is still very far behind in the race for a plausible answer.

Hey, Vosur.

Quote:No, it doesn't, because abiogenesis is not the only viable option. Both
panspermia and the creation of life on Earth by extraterrestrials are
possibilities that are entirely compatible with atheism.

Yes and no.

Proving the possibility of design does lend some credence to the idea of panspermia and alien engineers; however, the transplanted life and the aliens both have to come from somewhere. So at it's core, for those who don't believe in Theos and the idea that a divine force created life, abiogenesis still needs to occur at some point.

I think the difference that has to this point remained unspoken is that there's actually two questions:
1 - What is the origin of life in the universe?
2 - What is the origin of life on Earth?

Theists can answer those questions: 1 - design and 2 - design, panspermia or alien engineer.
Atheists answer those questions: 1 - abiogenesis and 2 - abiogenesis, panspermia, alien engineer.

When we admit to the existence of two questions, the fundamental difference is clear.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 08:30 AM
Synthetic life.
I've yet to see evidence of an intellect creating life from scratch. Humans creating synthetic life based on knowledge of life that already existed before themselves is hardly evidence of this.

Also, I thought you said you didn't want to discuss panspermia. And yet, that's all I get from what you've discussed so far. You're still talking about the origin of life on earth, right? And if you are suggesting it originated by means of an intellect, you've not explained the origin of life in this universe, merely a possibility of life on earth. This does not equate to "creation" of life ex nihilo, unless you are suggesting an intellect which is not alive.

Honestly, HJ, your little mouse mazes of logic grow tiresome. If you truly believed yourself privy to earth-shattering knowledge why would you not do the egalitarian thing and just explain it already. A scientist would yield all data and theory at once, not toy with their audience.

What is it you're dying to tell us?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 09:07 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
Why in the hell did I just read 8 pages of this thread? All this just to say that intellect could have created life on Earth?

Am I missing something?

I mean I suppose some advanced species from a distant planet, could have come here and created life on Earth billions of years ago even though I'm certain that's not what the OP was intending to conclude. But regardless, without specific reasons (i.e., evidence), why supposed such a thing?

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 10:15 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 08:30 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I've yet to see evidence of an intellect creating life from scratch. Humans creating synthetic life based on knowledge of life that already existed before themselves is hardly evidence of this.

Honestly, HJ, your little mouse mazes of logic grow tiresome. If you truly believed yourself privy to earth-shattering knowledge why would you not do the egalitarian thing and just explain it already. A scientist would yield all data and theory at once, not toy with their audience.


What is it you're dying to tell us?

Well now there's the problem. Tip toe around the non existent punchline.

(25-03-2013 09:07 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Why in the hell did I just read 8 pages of this thread? All this just to say that intellect could have created life on Earth?

Am I missing something?

I mean I suppose some advanced species from a distant planet, could have come here and created life on Earth billions of years ago even though I'm certain that's not what the OP was intending to conclude. But regardless, without specific reasons (i.e., evidence), why supposed such a thing?

Which is exactly where were at now, it could have happened. A belief in something isn't justified simply because you think it's possible.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2013, 11:11 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 05:46 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(25-03-2013 12:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I always find the competition.explanation on why we only see one lineage of life to be a bit hand wavy. Its like claiming God wrote his name on the side of the moon when he created it but you can't see it now because its been covered with meteor impacts.

Suppose there was a time when conditions on earth were just right for abiogenesis. It should have happened more than once, yet we only have evidence of one lineage. Now to claim that one lineage drove the rest to extinction implies that the one lineages was fittest a cross all the varied environments of the early earth. I just don't buy that.
Yes, if God had written his name on the side of the moon thousands of years ago then it probably would have eroded away. Why did you use such an analogy? It reinforces my point.

You claim "we only have evidence of one lineage", and I just gave you a very plausible explanation of that. I know you "just don't buy that" because that would prove you wrong, and you're never going to accept that you could be wrong about this. Others here have presented you with evidence that rebuts your idea of a grand designer, and you're nit-picking it to try to find ways to ignore or deny it. But frankly, if there was a grand designer, then none of this ought to be possible -- tweaking existing life to make our own unique variety, playing with chemicals to make parts of the chain of primitive life -- even if you deny that these are evidence for abiogenesis, they make even less sense from the grand designer viewpoint. Don't you understand that if you're going to posit an alternative theory that you have to make existing evidence fit it? It doesn't become the default theory just because you think the prevailing one is false -- that's the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy.

Starcrash, I don't buy the competition explainantion on why there is just one lineage because it implies that one lineage was fittestest across all environments. There are other explanations. Google ring of life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: