Artificial Life Created

sink

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Neither. I was hoping you would get the point and stop making proclamations on how this forum is run and what subjects it deals with.

Simply put, unless you can give God a definite role in the creation of life, then God is irrelevant to understanding how life was formed.

sink

sink wrote: »

Simply put, unless you can give God a definite role in the creation of life, then God is irrelevant to understanding how life was formed.

Also to point out that the reverse is true. If you don't define your Gods role in the creation of life then discovering how life was formed has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of your god. Which is the case for the majority of Christians. Creationists being the exception.

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

Not exactly. They gained knowledge by observing and experimenting with the natural environment. They then applied this knowledge by taking individual elements mined out of the soil, created compounds and alloys, moulded and shaped them into a jet engine. Creating a usefull propulsion device from what was rudimentary useless collection of elements

Similarly they gained knowledge by experimenting and the observing the cell. They then applied this knowledge by taking elements (that were not taken directly from a cell) and creating compounds with very long molecules. They then inserted them into a lifeless cell envelope, creating a fully functioning living cell from what was lifeless material.

Both process were done by examining the natural environment and applying the knowledge gained. No ones suggesting they created the natural environment, just applied it's own laws.

I think you've missed the point. The point is that they've not created anything as such. They simply spannered around with existing life. That they see "compound of type x" is an essential ingredient of life and figure out a way of synthesising another "compound of type x" merely tells us they got to the same destination by other means.

Perhaps a more accurate title for the thread is "Scientists manage to copy life" which few here would have a problem with.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think you've missed the point. The point is that they've not created anything as such. They simply spannered around with existing life. That they see "compound of type x" is an essential ingredient of life and figure out a way of synthesising another compound of type x" merely tells us they got to the same destination by another means.

Perhaps a more accurate title for the thread is "Scientists manage to copy life" which few here would have a problem with.

Would you agree that there are religious people who believe that the direct intervention of a supernatural deity is required for the formation of life from non-life?

And would you agree that this experiment shows this not to be the case?

lmaopml

Sink, in the Scientific 'method' God is irrelevant to understanding how life was formed; as it should be....

However, the Scientific 'method', and advances in Science and our understanding of the natural world has far from killed God.....I don't get why people don't 'get' that....

..perhaps you've used your free will to suppose it has killed God, and you've decided to be like spock or somat in how you function and describe life, love, beauty etc. etc. and pff, well that's fine and dandy for you if you have.....I hope it works out for you.

There is a basic human right that people have to either believe or no, and if people chose not to, well that's their decision....We have thousands of years of accounts in a bible, we have Jesus who claimed to be the son of the Creator God.....Science is not religion, and religion is not science...

Now, while science is fine, it doesn't belong to you or Atheism or anybody...It's a tool, no more no less...unless there's some kind of creed now that I'm not aware of?

We're very cock sure of ourselves, and we really know very little of what there is to know, it's exciting times we live in, but lets not decide that there is only 'one' method to live by, or one dimension to examine and explore how we perceive our place in this universe....

It's very elitist this notion!

Imo of course.

Fanny Cradock

sink wrote: »

Simply put, unless you can give God a definite role in the creation of life, then God is irrelevant to understanding how life was formed.

And if you think this is so then good for you. However, it would be nice if you didn't decide to inform us that the thread should now be locked and discussion ended. OK?

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think you've missed the point. The point is that they've not created anything as such. They simply spannered around with existing life. That they see "compound of type x" is an essential ingredient of life and figure out a way of synthesising another "compound of type x" merely tells us they got to the same destination by other means.

Perhaps a more accurate title for the thread is "Scientists manage to copy life" which few here would have a problem with.

But all engineering is simply copying what we've observed in nature through the scientific process and applying it in useful pursuits. We understand how a jet engine works from the ground up, because we've experimented with what's lying all around, and figuring out how to make use of it. And we're beginning to understand how a cell works from the ground up and we'll so be engineering cells to carry out useful tasks in the same way we use a jet engine.

From the cell to the jet engine it is all fundamentally the same thing.

Sam Vimes

lmaopml wrote: »

However, the Scientific 'method', and advances in Science and our understanding of the natural world has far from killed God.....I don't get why people don't 'get' that....

I don't think anyone has said that tbh. Several people have gone to great pains to point out that it's impossible to disprove the christian god because it's defined in such a way as to be unfalsifiable. The only thing we can do is show that a god is not required for certain things that some people think a god is required for, which is what was done here.

And in a future hypothetical scenario where science has shown that there is nothing that requires a god, when it can be shown that everything from supernovae to smarties can do their thing quite easily without the invention of a divine being, why would anyone go on believing in one?

StealthRolex

monosharp wrote: »

Nonsense. Christians used to believe that god created all life as it is now, the form it is now. Fish, animals, birds etc. That used to be the mainstream Christian belief and for some it still is.

Science, Evolution specifically changed that.

Your making the mistake of assuming I am a Creationist who rejects evolution.
This is not the case.

However I would argue that for many Christians the theory evolution added to our body of knowledge and provided some of the details as to how the Earth and nature works.
There is no conflict with a belief in God and understanding or accepting evolution. Indeed much work on evolutionary theory is funded and supported by the Vatican.

monosharp wrote: »

I asked for any possible scientific discovery. You said 'none'.

Of course. There are none.

lmaopml

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think anyone has said that tbh. Several people have gone to great pains to point out that it's impossible to disprove the christian god because it's defined in such a way as to be unfalsifiable. The only thing we can do is show that a god is not required for certain things that some people think a god is required for, which is what was done here.

And in a future hypothetical scenario where science has shown that there is nothing that requires a god, when it can be shown that everything from supernovae to smarties can do their thing quite easily without the invention of a divine being, why would anyone go on believing in one?

Good answer Sam. I guess the short answer is because we're human with the capacity to do so....and the free will to choose where our faith lies on this incredibly short time we have been given to experience life in all it's glory.

I choose God. I don't particularly mind that others don't, or how they feel about my faith choice. I do, I choose God if that's ok.

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And would you agree that this experiment shows this not to be the case?

Apologies for butting in but it appears to prove the case that a higher intelligence is required for the formation of life from non-life.

I fail to see how it can prove otherwise.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Your making the mistake of assuming I am a Creationist who rejects evolution.
This is not the case.

However I would argue that for many Christians the theory evolution added to our body of knowledge and provided some of the details as to how the Earth and nature works.
There is no conflict with a belief in God and understanding or accepting evolution. Indeed much work on evolutionary theory is funded and supported by the Vatican.

And yet several people here are talking about the astronomical odds and absurdity of the idea that evolution could have produced life as it is today from non-life without the intervention of their god.

If you can show me the part of the theory of evolution that states "and then a miracle happened"......

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

Apologies for butting in but it appears to prove the case that a higher intelligence is required for the formation of life from non-life.

I fail to see how it can prove otherwise.

You appear to be saying that because intelligence was involved in this process that it cannot happen without intelligence being involved. Does the existence of snow machines that produce artificial snow prove that a higher intelligence is required for the formation of snow?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Would you agree that there are religious people who believe that the direct intervention of a supernatural deity is required for the formation of life from non-life?

Doubtlessly.

And would you agree that this experiment shows this not to be the case?

This experiment shows me is that it took extremely intelligent life to demonstrate that God isn't required to copy an existing and extremly simple form of life.

What is and isn't possible without God can't be inferred from this experiment given that we can't tell whether life could arise spontaneously. Spontaneous is the other show in town - not a group of very intelligent scientists.

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And yet several people here are talking about the astronomical odds and absurdity of the idea that evolution could have produced life as it is today from non-life without the intervention of their god.

To date we have not created life from individual atoms of elements using spontaneity or randomness or primordial soup or electricity.
The recent discover falls way short of creating life. It is nothing more than the creation of synthetic DNA which was then inserted into a yeast shell that already existed in nature.

Once the genome was pulled apart the next step was always going to be constructing artificial DNA.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you can show me the part of the theory of evolution that states "and then a miracle happened"......

You've got it the wrong way around - the miracle happened before evolution. It occurred at a time before evolution and life existed.
If you like the miracle is evolution or the miracle started evolution.

No life then life and evolution.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Doubtlessly.

This experiment shows me is that it took extremely intelligent life to demonstrate that God isn't required to copy an existing and extremly simple form of life.

What is and isn't possible without God can't be inferred from this experiment given that we can't tell whether life could arise spontaneously.

Even this "simple" form of life is the result of 4 billion years of evolution and is not in fact simple at all. This type of cell was almost certainly not the first form of life. The current theory is that it was something like RNA, which has also been produced in a lab from inorganic material:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

And you seem to be conflating "god" with "intelligent life". This does show that it's possible without god, what we're talking about here is whether it's possible without intelligent life. And that's where abiogenesis theory and evolutionary theory come in.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

To date we have not created life from individual atoms of elements using spontaneity or randomness or primordial soup or electricity.
The recent discover falls way short of creating life. It is nothing more than the creation of synthetic DNA which was then inserted into a yeast shell that already existed in nature.

Once the genome was pulled apart the next step was always going to be constructing artificial DNA.



You've got it the wrong way around - the miracle happened before evolution. It occurred at a time before evolution and life existed.
If you like the miracle is evolution or the miracle started evolution.

No life then life and evolution.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Are you saying that the miracle is the creation of the universe itself and that everything after that followed the laws of nature?

and if so, what's the problem with the idea that life could form from "spontaneity or randomness or primordial soup or electricity"? If god didn't directly do it through a miracle then surely it must have formed through one of these process or some other unknown but natural process?

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You appear to be saying that because intelligence was involved in this process that it cannot happen without intelligence being involved.

I don't appear to be saying that. I am saying that.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Does the existence of snow machines that produce artificial snow prove that a higher intelligence is required for the formation of snow?

No., but it does prove that a higher intelligence is required to produce snow machines that produce artificial snow.

sink

lmaopml wrote: »

Sink, in the Scientific 'method' God is irrelevant to understanding how life was formed; as it should be....

However, the Scientific 'method', and advances in Science and our understanding of the natural world has far from killed God.....I don't get why people don't 'get' that....

..perhaps you've used your free will to suppose it has killed God, and you've decided to be like spock or somat in how you function and describe life, love, beauty etc. etc. and pff, well that's fine and dandy for you if you have.....I hope it works out for you.

There is a basic human right that people have to either believe or no, and if people chose not to, well that's their decision....We have thousands of years of accounts in a bible, we have Jesus who claimed to be the son of the Creator God.....Science is not religion, and religion is not science...

Now, while science is fine, it doesn't belong to you or Atheism or anybody...It's a tool, no more no less...unless there's some kind of creed now that I'm not aware of?

We're very cock sure of ourselves, and we really know very little of what there is to know, it's exciting times we live in, but lets not decide that there is only 'one' method to live by, or one dimension to examine and explore how we perceive our place in this universe....

It's very elitist this notion!

Imo of course.

I agree to a point. Love a beauty can be explained through natural processes but this does not diminish their splendour.

Alternate methods to science can pose interesting questions and provide satisfying answers to the soul. Unfortunately there is no way to verify any of it, and what's more two contradictory answers can both be equally satisfying, yet there is no way of knowing which is true. Without a means of verification it's nothing but an exercise in self satisfaction. Which is all very well if that's all you're looking for.

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

I don't appear to be saying that. I am saying that.

No., but it does prove that a higher intelligence is required to produce snow machines that produce artificial snow.

Then, my good man, you need to read up a bit on evolution which has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be able to produce the kind of complexity that human beings have an overwhelming urge to ascribe to intelligent agency because the whole thing seems so counter intuitive. Counter intuitive and yet it happens nonetheless

lmaopml

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And yet several people here are talking about the astronomical odds and absurdity of the idea that evolution could have produced life as it is today from non-life without the intervention of their god.

If you can show me the part of the theory of evolution that states "and then a miracle happened"......

Sam, equally it could be said to show us the part of evolution that doesn't include meteorites in order to have this code that started the whole thing? We don't have the answers! Granted, I can understand that perhaps I have a distant snottite relation there somewhere abouts, but where did it come from?

It's like saying we can 'describe' natural life, but we are barely off the starting line yet? It's presumtious to think that we can even consider ruling out God....In fact, a 'creator' is the most likely and simple explanation at the moment..even if it leaves a sour taste in some mouths....

Then of course we have the son of God who we have chosen to put our faith in...and this is where we part ways with 'faith'...

I dunno why people argue at all tbh considering how little we know. I prefer to look on it in a 'human rights' sort of way, and can respect that some people are different to me, and others aren't etc. I can't really hope for a whole lot more, unless I somehow managed to copy myself and inhabit the planet with mini me's....

How boring..!

Sam Vimes

lmaopml wrote: »

Sam, equally it could be said to show us the part of evolution that doesn't include meteorites in order to have this code that started the whole thing? We don't have the answers! Granted, I can understand that perhaps I have a distant snottite relation there somewhere abouts, but where did it come from?

It's like saying we can 'describe' natural life, but we are barely off the starting line yet? It's presumtious to think that we can even consider ruling out God....In fact, a 'creator' is the most likely and simple explanation at the moment..even if it leaves a sour taste in some mouths....

Then of course we have the son of God who we have chosen to put our faith in...and this is where we part ways with 'faith'...

I dunno why people argue at all tbh considering how little we know. I prefer to look on it in a 'human rights' sort of way, and can respect that some people are different to me, and others aren't etc. I can't really hope for a whole lot more, unless I somehow managed to copy myself and inhabit the planet with mini me's....

How boring..!

Again you're back to "ruling out god". No one is trying to rule out god, as I said that's impossible, what's being done is showing that god is unnecessary. If you want to go on believing that he was involved anyway you are of course more than welcome to do that. If someone wants to say that an invisible and undetectable being had some unknown and equally undetectable and unverifiable influence on something then there is no way anyone can definitively prove them wrong. The question then becomes: if there is nothing to suggest that he was involved, what makes you think he was?

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

The only people twisting and squirming are those who possess enough faith to believe that the vast diversity of complex life we see on earth could have developed without help in the duration of time available. Such a belief depends greatly on the number and complexity of steps necessary to produce such diversity of life, and the time available for these steps to take place.

In fact you could express this as an equation a÷b=c
(where a represents the available time, b represents the number and complexity of steps required, and c represents the plausibility of our current biodiversity developing unaided)

It can be readily seen that, if a increases and b is kept low, then c is high.

Up until the 1960s this seemed a no-brainer since most cosmologists agreed (in opposition to the biblical worldview) that the universe had always existed and therefore lacked a beginning. This of course meant that there had been an infinite amount of time for life, DNA, and everything else to develop.

However, each new scientific discovery has served to affect our equation by reducing a and increasing b - thereby reducing c (the crucial plausibility).

It has now been demonstrated to most people's satisfaction that the universe had a beginning and is about 15 billion years or so old (rather embarrassingly, this means that Archbishop Ussher was closer to the real age of the universe than most cosmologists up until the 1960s oops!). So, in one fell swoop the a in our equation has been reduced from infinity to a finite number.

Similarly, we have discovered that 'simple' structures such as cells (which previous generations blithely assumed could mutate very simply) are actually much more complex (the more we learn the more complex we see the universe to be, as demonstrated by quantum mechanics and string theory. This massively increases the b in our equation.

However, there are still those who twist and squirm to ignore the fact that, with a decreasing and b increasing, then c becomes increasingly harder to sustain.

One or two posters here have encouraged me to learn more about science. So, over the last few months, I've been reading up a bit on the subject. What I've learned has strengthened my faith considerably.

The equation doesn't tell us how difficult it is for the complex steps reflected in "b" to be achieved by natural processes like evolution. We could have a very high value for b, but if all these complicated steps can be developed in a very short amount of time (say, 3.5 billion years) then c=a/b becomes misleading. If we were to accommodate natural processes that drive the development of complexity with some other coeffient (say 'd') so that c = a*d/b, then c is not hard to sustain at all.

mattman_iflaf

Armageddon is on the way !!!

sink

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And if you think this is so then good for you. However, it would be nice if you didn't decide to inform us that the thread should now be locked and discussion ended. OK?

Ok!

Sam Vimes

Morbert wrote: »

The equation doesn't tell us how difficult it is for the complex steps reflected in "b" to be achieved by natural processes like evolution. We could have a very high value for b, but if all these complicated steps can be developed in a very short amount of time (say, 3.5 billion years) then c=a/b becomes misleading. If we were to accommodate natural processes that drive the development of complexity with some other coeffient (say 'd') so that c = a*d/b, then c is not hard to sustain at all.

Apparently the time scale was something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXSEyttblMI

so there was extremely simple life for a very very long time but once the cambrian explosion happened it all kicked off

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. Are you saying that the miracle is the creation of the universe itself and that everything after that followed the laws of nature?

That would appear to be what I am saying. God created the laws of nature. If the laws of nature are ever to be broken they can only be broken by God.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and if so, what's the problem with the idea that life could form from "spontaneity or randomness or primordial soup or electricity"? If god didn't directly do it through a miracle then surely it must have formed through one of these process or some other unknown but natural process?

The idea is an idea.
It's a what if and if is a very popular word especially with atheists and possibly more-so than with scientists.
The problem with "what ifs" is that they mean nothing unless the alternate hypothesis can be tested.

The problem is that it cannot be proven that it was not an act of God, and so far the only proof is that higher intelligence is required.

MrStuffins

PDN wrote: »

Such research demonstrates that the very simplest life forms are incredibly complex. This makes it increasingly harder for anyone to believe the simplistic theories that such complex structures as DNA somehow just happened as a happy result of random lightning strikes etc.

Oh..... wow!

This is an incredible statement to make. Showing complete misunderstanding! My jaw actually dropped when i read this from a Moderator in the Christianity forum! I'd expect it (and do expect it) from a regular Joe Soap Christian, but every time i have read PDNs posts before, even though i don't necessarily agree with what he is saying, his posts are normally very articulate and show great understanding of his own views and those in contrast wit his own.......... but now.............

Sam Vimes

StealthRolex wrote: »

That would appear to be what I am saying. God created the laws of nature. If the laws of nature are ever to be broken they can only be broken by God.



The idea is an idea.
It's a what if and if is a very popular word especially with atheists and possibly more-so than with scientists.
The problem with "what ifs" is that they mean nothing unless the alternate hypothesis can be tested.

The problem is that it cannot be proven that it was not an act of God, and so far the only proof is that higher intelligence is required.

And again we're back to "you can't prove god didn't do x, y and z". This is why arguments like the flying spaghetti monster exist, ie you can't prove life wasn't created by the flying spaghetti monster. The question is not about proving that being X wasn't involved, it's if there is any reason to believe it was.

Can you imagine this form of argumentation in a court of law? Someone is murdered and all the police do is find someone who can't provide a provable alibi. Well if they can't prove it wasn't them that's enough reason to believe it was right :rolleyes:

StealthRolex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Then, my good man, you need to read up a bit on evolution which has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be able to produce the kind of complexity that human beings have an overwhelming urge to ascribe to intelligent agency because the whole thing seems so counter intuitive. Counter intuitive and yet it happens nonetheless

An you my good boy need to read a little wider.

To the best of my knowledge the theory of evolution is still, well, a theory.

Evolution did not produce DNA
Evolution did not produce life

If some want to suggest that God took an ape that evolved from a bacterium and turned him into a man that is one way of viewing it.

If some want to suggest that God created life in bacterial form and let evolution at it until man appeared and then he ensouled man that is equally valid.

If some want to suggest that God created everything we see today and manipulated the fossil record that is equally within His power.

Equally valid is that evolution had its way with the animals and plants after God started it but He took man on specifically as His personal project.

You seem to be working under the misapprehension that there exists in science proof the God is not required and that humans except for atheists are innately stupid.