Synthetic life.
|
|
|
25-03-2013, 11:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 11:11 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:(25-03-2013 05:46 AM)Starcrash Wrote: 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. Good for you. That's the explanation experts in the field seem to hold. It's perfectly reasonable to say one form of life would have more trouble growing roots if the ground was already occupied by other life. Fittestest? Ring of life? 2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious |
||||
![]() |
25-03-2013, 11:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 08:03 AM)Ghost Wrote: For abiogenesis, we know what the conditions were like. We're just trying to figure out the precise phenomenon that occurred in those conditions. The abiogenesis problem is a lot more complex then that. To my knowledge only 2 of the four necleotides of DNA have been synthesized under conditions which could occur naturally. Then there is the chicken-egg conundrum between DNA/RNA/proteins. We are still very far away from having any sort of working theory of abiogenesis. Without a working theory you have no real explaination. I would agree with you that a complete working theory of abiogenesis would have better explainatory power....but we are a long way from that. |
||||
25-03-2013, 11:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 12:01 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 11:29 AM)Adenosis Wrote:(25-03-2013 11:11 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: 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. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notroc...lex-cells/ The above is specific link to what I am referring too as the ring of life origin Presumably abiogenesis would happen where ever the conditions are right for abiogenesis. It should have happened multiple times in different places. So far we only have evidence that it happened once. Now you can come up with hand wavy explanations why we only have evidence that it happened once, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence we do have suggests it only happened once. Can you name any other natural phenomenon that there is only evidence that it happened once? |
||||
25-03-2013, 11:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 12:00 PM by Vosur.)
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 08:03 AM)Ghost Wrote: Yes and no.I understand where you're coming from and I agree with the point you're trying to make, however, the current discussion is about the second question, not the first one. ![]() |
||||
25-03-2013, 12:27 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 11:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:(25-03-2013 08:03 AM)Ghost Wrote: Yes and no.I understand where you're coming from and I agree with the point you're trying to make, however, the current discussion is about the second question, not the first one. Even if we were to demonstrate abiogenesis in the lab, doing so would prove that intellects originate life via abiogenesis. It would only be ambiguous evidence for the atheistic world view. Unambiguous evidence would be observation of a natural phenomenon occurring in nature....devoid of the influence of any intellect. |
||||
25-03-2013, 12:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Synthetic life.
Hey, Vosur.
What I'm also saying is that the Atheist position can have, as the ultimate origin of life, only abiogenesis; regardless of what happened on Earth. Hey, Wood. Quote:Even if we were to demonstrate abiogenesis in the lab, doing so would prove that intellects originate life via abiogenesis. I like you, brother. But that's fucking cockamamie lol. So if I build an airplane I demonstrate that only human inventions generate lift? If we re-create, not create, re-create, conditions in the lab and the process occurs on its own, we prove that it occurs in those conditions. It's proof of a process, not an act. Also, if you want to get into details, sure it seems harder, but if we get into details, life by engineer has even further to go. When all is said and done, designed life laboratory-style only tells us that it's possible. Nothing else. At all. Abiogenesis boasts an understanding of actual processes. You cannot pretend that designing life in the lab negatively impacts the abiogenesis theory in any way. Neither gets bragging rights until they're proven. Peace and Love and Empathy, Matt |
||||
25-03-2013, 01:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 01:23 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 12:59 PM)Ghost Wrote: Hey, Vosur. The point was that an abiogenetic process can be used by an intellect as a means to originate life. To prove that abiogenesis happens in nature, wouldn't you have to observe it in nature? When we finally observe abiogenesis in the lab, I suspect we will find it in nature too because we will know where to look. But what if we don't find it? |
||||
25-03-2013, 02:15 PM
(This post was last modified: 25-03-2013 02:28 PM by fstratzero.)
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Synthetic life.
(23-03-2013 01:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: What happens if synthetic life is created by humans? This is interesting. I of course would think about the applications of the microbes to do some useful things. Like make insulin, white blood cells, inactive versions of bacteria and viruses, or even viruses that could wipe out certain diseases etc. The applications of that technology is amazing! (23-03-2013 01:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: 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? This question is malformed. It assumes the conclusion. Playing devils advocate here for a second. Yes it might show that it is possible for life to be created. However the justification for life being created on earth out of the rest of the universe opens up more questions. The creators would have to know about life, dna, rna, and how all those things work. They'd have to have a motivation to plant life onto planets that makes sense. (23-03-2013 01:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Couldn't a theist claim in an argument that intelligent creation of life is a demonstrated fact, while abiogenesis remains just an assertion? No. Excluding the Urey-Miller experiment, there have been multiple newer experiments that have show that natural processes can bring about life with out anything other than natural processes interacting with one another. (23-03-2013 01:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: Where would that put atheists like Bearded Dude who maintain you shouldn't believe in something until it is observed? The same place? (23-03-2013 01:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: He would be forced to concede that intelligent creation of life is believable while abiogenesis is only something worthy of research.?Nope. No, they are both pretty believable. The problem is that with the immense distances involved with space it makes more sense that life came about naturally. Not to mention that if aliens needed anything they could probably get it from their home star system. Member of the Cult of Reason
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
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- |
||||
26-03-2013, 10:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Synthetic life.
(25-03-2013 12:16 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:Your mistake is in the assumption that conditions were "just right". This implies that life would spring up all over the place.(24-03-2013 05:08 PM)Starcrash Wrote: Who's saying it only occurred 4.5 billion years ago? If primitive life arose now, how would you or I know it was happening? You point out "primordial soup" conditions, and I propose that the most important of those conditions was the lack of competition. If a new form of cellular life were to develop right now, it would be competing with organisms that have had the time to become much better suited to the environment... its chances of survival would be very nearly 0%. The likelihood is that abiogenesis is extremely unlikely and occurred only once, or only locally. The DNA evidence supports common ancestry, not multiple ancestries. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. ![]() |
||||
26-03-2013, 12:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 10:34 AM)Chas 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.Your mistake is in the assumption that conditions were "just right". This implies that life would spring up all over the place. It is well know fact of biology that some simple organisms exchange genetic material simply by coming in contact with each other. A loose description of the ring of life view on abiogenesis is that multiple lineages emerge but through the exchange of genetic material all those lineages merged into what appears to be a universal common ancestor. Unless abiogenesis is ultra contrived, it should occur anywhere the conditions are right. I don't believe your claim that it likely happened only once or in one location is the commonly accepted view. |
||||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)