Artificial Life Created

Sam Vimes · 23-05-2010 04:24AM

monosharp wrote: »

His most high holiness is only made from spaghetti to our poor vision.

Don't forget he doesn't like homosexual activity or working on Sundays. And he sent his son to earth to die in order to save humanity from himself.

Occams Razor favors D) none at all.

Oh no we made similar points :eek:
It must be because we're both engaged in fundamentalism and groupthink and not at all because we both spotted the same flaws in SW's reasoning and pointed them out to him in similar ways.

PDN · 23-05-2010 07:20AM

Moderator's note:

Sam Vimes and monosharp, you are welcome to participate in a thread about the implications this particular scientific breakthrough has for Christians and Christianity.

The consensus from most Christians here seems to be that its an interesting breakthrough, but hardly something that's going to shake anyone's faith or beliefs.

However, you two guys in particular seem to have left that discussion behind and want to air your beefs against Christian faith in general - which is, of course, contrary to the Charter of this forum.

So, here's the deal. Please consider this a friendly inthread warning to cut out the piss taking and the crap about spaghetti. Any more breaches of the Charter will be dealt with separately. And, if you are unhappy with the moderating policy of this board then you both know by now the correct procedure to follow - so that way nobody gets infracted for backseat modding.

Thread remains open for now in case anyone still has anything sensible or relevant to contribute to the subject.

Killer Pigeon · 23-05-2010 07:44AM

zod wrote: »

Artificial life created from 4 bottles of chemicals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPE2CnThito

Discussed here last year by Venter :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvBV2qnSZwo

And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky." So God created the great sea monsters and every* living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

*almost

"Jaysus, it nearly sounds as ridiculous as Christianity", said the man.

DeVore · 23-05-2010 10:32AM

I dislike the way the reports say things like "made from four bottles of chemicals". Its not like he was just stirring a beaker with a swizzlestick and suddenly... boom, life.

If I were God, I'd have made DNA. Like Chris Smithers song "Origins of Species". "I'll sit back in the shade and watch everyone getting laid, thats what I call intelligent design!" (it pokes mild fun at people who believe every literal word of the bible, but in a nice way

)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpNoQaB2LT0

My point is that life is complex and wonderous and just like earthquakes and the Sun, would inspire people to say "God must have done this". We learned about earthquakes and the sun and no longer attribute them to God, and now we are learning about Life.

DeV.

ISAW · 23-05-2010 10:44AM

monosharp wrote: »

The FSM is a 'personal god' the same way as yaweh is a person god.

Not quite the same way but no matter.

The point is, you cannot disprove the FSM the same way we cannot disprove yahweh.

I agree. The FSM was created to argue that any amount of religions could apply for "equal time" on the science curriculum just as creationism had asked for equal time with evolution. But this has nothing to do with

abiogenesis being proven to be possible with God being directly involved

That has NOT been proved but even if true would not be a proof of no God.

And again linking evolution and the FSM and creationism ( with respect to evolution) to this is just off topic.

ISAW · 23-05-2010 10:47AM

DeVore wrote: »

My point is that life is complex and wonderous and just like earthquakes and the Sun, would inspire people to say "God must have done this". We learned about earthquakes and the sun and no longer attribute them to God, and now we are learning about Life.

I dealt with this point earlier. There is a series of cartoons with one persaying "I dont understand" and the other person saying "Call it God" but as I pointed out the knowledge domain isnt restricted to that of a deity. Ther are things we don't understand which we also call science for example or art or economics.

ISAW · 23-05-2010 10:59AM

monosharp wrote: »

Theories explain facts/laws. Theories are the highest 'level' in science. A theory does not become a fact/law, a theory explains facts/laws.

Were the eye not attuned to the Sun,/ The Sun could never be seen by it. — Goethe

Hanson says: “Theories and interpretations are there in the seeing from the outset.” We just cannot see things without having an idea of what we want to see. We rely on certain epistemic constructions of formal models of processes, perceptual and intellectual, by which we see and interpret something.

Hanson’s most powerful argument in support of theory-laden observation is his assertion that training and background effect our observation. He cites an example of a professor of physics and a layman observing an experiment in a laboratory.

The layman cannot see what the physicist sees. The layman is not blind, but he is blind to what the physicist sees. Here, the elements of the layman’s visual field, though identical with those of the physicist, are not organised for him as for the physicist. The same lines, colours and shapes are observed by both, but not in the same way.

Hanson believes training enables us to know what to look for. He thinks causes are theory-loaded from beginning to end. They are not simple, tangible links in the chain of sense experience, but rather details in an intricate pattern of concepts.

“Causes certainly are connected with effects; but this is because our theories connect them, not because the world is held together by cosmic glue.” For him, the world appears causally held not because it is causally held. It appears so because our theories connect them.

An important point about Hanson’s arguments is that they cross the boundaries of natural science and deal with issues central to epistemology and philosophy. At the same time, they suffer from the constraints resulting from the dichotomy of knowledge into watertight compartments of specialisation.

If science has to remain true to itself, it must, in the words of Karl Popper, perpetually challenge and criticise its own conclusions. But it cannot do all this by its own.
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/science/archive/060624/science4.htm

It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt that a deity was not required from single-celled organisms to the life we have today.

If by "life WE have today" you mean "human life with souls" then it hasn't been proved.
If you think we are no different from bacteria or dogs and it is just a question of complexity then I suppose for you it has been proved. But if that is the case how can you say when someone is doing wrong?

monosharp · 23-05-2010 10:59AM

ISAW wrote: »

Not quite the same way but no matter.

Why not the same ?

abiogenesis being proven to be possible with God being directly involved

I didn't say proving abiogenesis would prove a deity wasn't involved, I said it would prove that a diety wasn't required.

That has NOT been proved but even if true would not be a proof of no God.

Please stop straw manning, you have done it for the past page of posts we've had togeather. You know I didn't say that.

ISAW · 23-05-2010 11:26AM

monosharp wrote: »

If you really just said that Christianity corrected science on anything, then yes.

First of all I dont recall saying that. I did say is that Christians in the past caused science to develop and simplistic examples given for example that of Galileo are ill informed. The cChurch already knew of the Tychonic system and Galileo never referred to it. It could not be disproved even today by naked eye observations.

but what are "ethics"?
Is it sufficient for science alone to determine ethics?

Christianity has informed science on matters of ethics.

Because they were biblically based.

Kepler's study was grounded in mathematics and physics. Many scientists had personal religious beliefs that led them to discoveries e.g. Mendel and his peas and modern genetics.

Utter dishonest tripe again. You make no distinction between scientists and science.

Science believed in a steady state infinite universe. this changed to an expanding universe. Then they introduced "inflation" because it was expanding too quickly to explain the obsrvation. then they introduced dark matter and they tried like mad to get rid of it but it kept coming back. then when they still hadent enough dark matter they changed it and added dark energy to make it look like the universe is explained . Now they are fiddling with the cosmological constant they threw out. Science changed its beliefs to suit science.

Individual scientists can believe in any sort of nonsense the wish, there has been many good scientists who believed in complete nonsense because of their religion, that does not mean science believes these things.

Science does not believe in wormholes black holes dark energy inflation etc. ?

Science does not have beliefs, science has evidence, facts, theories and hypotheses.

I don't care what you don't claim to have, your obviously some form of christian.

Please don't personalise the issue. I make the argument based on what I believe the church position would be. what I personally believe is beside the point.
I just asked you not to do this.

Off on a tangent much ? Why not argue whats been put forward not straw men.

What is being argued is that science doesnt change to suit science and that religion doesn't inform science. I have demonstrated both to be untrue.

No. The idea that the earth is about 6,000 years old was a Christian belief.

Not exclusively. the standard model of that day was dfrom Aristotle - pre christian -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens

Science corrected that belief.

So - Science changed its belief to suit science?

Your religion changed its belief because of science.

Cosmology was not an element of christian dogma like the Creed (which has not changed) was.

No. But the age of the earth, creation and a lot of other things was taken as literally true. Theres some of your compatriots who still take it as literally true.

So what? Christians and non christians believed in Aristotles non christian not created by the Church Theory.

I have absolutely no problem admitting science changes. Science makes a hypothesis based on something, new evidence comes and that hypothesis changes, new evidence comes and that hypothesis changes ... etc.

And Christianity accommodates the advances in science.

Christians claim their faith doesn't change, their beliefs don't change. Yet they do and continue to change.

The Creed has not changed in 2000 years!

monosharp · 23-05-2010 12:04PM

ISAW wrote: »

but what are "ethics"?
Is it sufficient for science alone to determine ethics?

Change the subject much ?

Christianity has informed science on matters of ethics.

No. It hasn't. Common human decency has. If christianity did half of scientific discoveries wouldn't have happened.

Kepler's study was grounded in mathematics and physics. Many scientists had personal religious beliefs that led them to discoveries e.g. Mendel and his peas and modern genetics.

Irrelevant. One scientist does not = Science.

Now they are fiddling with the cosmological constant they threw out. Science changed its beliefs to suit science.

Science changes itself because of the evidence. Thats what science is, the best possible answer to a question using the best available evidence.

What is being argued is that science doesnt change to suit science and that religion doesn't inform science. I have demonstrated both to be untrue.

No you have not. I never said science doesn't change, science changes every single day, if it didn't change it wouldn't be science.

Religion, belief has been changed because of real scientific truth.

Not exclusively. the standard model of that day was dfrom Aristotle - pre christian -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens

Which was perfectly fine then because of the lack of evidence.

Science only can tell us what is 'least wrong' based on the available evidence. Newton was 'wrong' but he was 'less wrong' then the people before him. Einstein corrected Newton and his theory is 'less wrong' then Newtons'.

So - Science changed its belief to suit science?

Nope. Science changed because of the available evidence. Just as it does every single day.

And Christianity accommodates the advances in science.

By changing the supposed 'word of god', twisting it around and about, turning it upside down and inside out, just so real scientific fact doesn't contradict the new interpretation.

The Creed has not changed in 2000 years!

Because science hasn't corrected any of it.

mcmickey · 23-05-2010 12:42PM

Well as a Christian it doesn't surprise me since we are made of various chemicals, it is probably inevitable that science will create artifical life. It's application can be put to extraordinary good use, regenerating limbs, kidneys etc.

Morbert · 23-05-2010 03:13PM

ISAW wrote: »

So what if you made the distinction after you stated what you did?
The point was about origin of life and you began stating something about development of life after origin.

Biologisit have not concluded anything about abiogenesis bases on evolution. thats it to comment to which you were responding!

You were asked in message 195 What had biologists concluded based on YOUR words in 194:

"Life could occur without any being!" are your words. this has nothing to do with the development of life after that point but you began you your reply to the question by stating what biology has to say on evolution. The fact that after that you distinguish between evolution and abiogenesis does not remove the f/act that you began and explanation of science saying "it is unlikely that life could occur without any being" involved by referring to evolution!

I stated what biology had to say on both evolution and abiogenesis. I referred to both evolution and abiogenesis. You took issue with the fact that I mentioned evolution first, which is a silly and irrelevant issue to take.

the problem is where you began you explanation of other comments on abiogenesis as "It's certainly not the conclusion of biologists" with a description of the conclusion of biologists on evolution.

I responded to comments on the occurence of life by referring to evolution and then, distinctly, abiogenesis, to ensure I can cover both the initial emergence of life from non-life, and the development of complex life. How is that a problem? This time, please elaborate, as opposed to simply repeating yourself.

Also, do not just read the beginning of my post. It is not the conclusion of biologists who study evolution, and it is not the concludion of biologists who study abiogenesis. You seem to be implying that I am hiding the 'fact' that it actually is the conclusion of biologists who study abiogenesis, which is nonsense. I am perfectly happy to link to scientific papers on abiogenesis if you like.

QED

This makes no sense.

Why do you keep inserting "evolutionary biology" ? if evolution after the creation of life is a different subject why are you trying to conflate it with abiogenesis?

I made the specific distinction in my second paragraph. The purpose of this was to allow people to expand on either evolution or abiogenesis, depending on which they are interested in. Your repeated accusation of conflating the two is obviously silly, and recognisable as such to everyone reading this.

StealthRolex · 23-05-2010 04:18PM

monosharp wrote: »

The FSM is a 'personal god' the same way as yaweh is a person god.

The point is, you cannot disprove the FSM the same way we cannot disprove yahweh.

Oh dear. Have you not read the bible that records the origin of the FSM. You should.

StealthRolex · 23-05-2010 04:20PM

mcmickey wrote: »

Well as a Christian it doesn't surprise me since we are made of various chemicals, it is probably inevitable that science will create artifical life. It's application can be put to extraordinary good use, regenerating limbs, kidneys etc.

Thank you.

This is true. Science is knowledge and a function of our intelligence. If science develops artificial life it can only prove ( by inference) that intelligence is required to develop life.

StealthRolex · 23-05-2010 04:22PM

ISAW wrote: »

And again linking evolution and the FSM and creationism ( with respect to evolution) to this is just off topic.

I think it's call "straw manning"

Ciaran500 · 23-05-2010 04:22PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

If science develops artificial life it can only prove ( by inference) that intelligence is required to develop life.

No it doesn't, it proves that intelligence can develop life.

StealthRolex · 23-05-2010 05:02PM

zod wrote: »

What happened to the ghost in the machine, the magic elixir, the spark that can't be copied ?

Where is the spark?

vhere...is...da...spark?

*fthwump* vhere is da spaarrrk?

These guys went out a bought pre-assembled DNA, stitched them togehter in the right order using a computer - a man made or man created thinking machine - then put it into an already living cell, merely replacing the existing genome with their artificial one - then when they saw DNA behaving as we expect it to behave went around whooping " it's alive... it's alive... shall we call it Gordon?"

What can we learn from this.

Someone in a lab copied what we know from nature is small sections using powerful computers.
Chemicals exist in nature and existed when life on earth started. Computers did not. Gene sequencing programs did not.

Someone in another lab put the small sections together using a different computer with different programming but with knowledge of gene sequencing.

A mistake was made with one pair which caused the experiment to fail proving among other things that science is fallible.

Try again but without the mistake.

Put the artificially constructed sequence into a living cell.
When life on earth started we had chemicals that could be put together, somehow, to make gene sequences but we didn't have any living cells.

Where did the living cell come from?

Okay. So now we know that to create artificial life not only do we need masses and masses of computer power, human intelligence and lots of money. We also don't need to make mistakes and we do need, and this the important bit, we do need another living cell.

Are call membranes and mitochondria so much more complicated than a DNA sequence? Surely it must be easier to create an artificial cell. Should Venter now collaborate with Chang?

The Channel 4 news item goes on to suggest such things as Pandora's Box and the possibility of bio errors escaping.

While some scientists may be atheistic let us trust they understand the moral of the story of Pandora (who may or may not have existed).

All this tells us is that man is further down the road to playing God which is atheistically ironic because we should only be able to do this if we were created in His own image and likeness, and despite the fact that we can play God some will insist that this proves God does not exist or was not required.

What next? Create an artificial universe?

I wonder: if that new artificial yeast evolves to something of a higher intelligence will we see M. mycoides venter sapiens that refuses to believe in man. And if it gets really nasty will we have to send one of our sons to try to explain to them the errors of their ways

StealthRolex · 23-05-2010 05:03PM

Ciaran500 wrote: »

No it doesn't, it proves that intelligence can develop life.

Surely the point of the exercise is to prove that intelligence is not required to develop life.

Otherwise intelligence is required to develop life.

StealthRolex · 23-05-2010 05:11PM

monosharp wrote: »

I didn't say proving abiogenesis would prove a deity wasn't involved, I said it would prove that a diety wasn't required.

straw man deconstruction. If a deity is not required then why would a deity be involved?

MS, we know by your own admission you are atheist, anti-theist, hate evangelicals and by logical inference you have a problem with Christianity and scientists who profess a faith.

Now, imagine you are a member of M. mycoides. How would man appear to you. As a deity perhaps?

Now, imagine you are a member of the newly created M. mycoides venter. How would man appear to you. As a scientific deity perhaps?

Proof positive to my mind that if you are M. mycoides venter that for your creation a deity is both required and involved.

philologos · 23-05-2010 05:12PM

Ciaran500 wrote: »

No it doesn't, it proves that intelligence can develop life.

Again, it being wildly unlikely to have occurred otherwise, gives credence at least as far as I am concerned that there is a higher intelligence involved.

People discard what seems unlikely to them, and affirm what seems to make sense. That's what I and others are doing in this case.

Indeed, this is the justification that many use to reject God also.

StealthRolex · 23-05-2010 05:21PM

monosharp wrote: »

This is the most incredibly frustrating thing talking to religious people, especially religious people with no understanding of science.

Equally frustrating is talking to atheists who make assumptions about religious persons understanding of science.

monosharp wrote: »

They take a scientific idea and then make claims as to what it doesn't explain as if thats some kind of argument against it when in actuality it doesn't try to explain those things at all.

I think that is called discussion and debate using various tools of logic, inference and deduction.

monosharp wrote: »

e.g. The Big Bang theory, its been said here a few times on this very forum that the big bang theory doesn't explain how the universe started. Well thats because The Big Bang theory doesn't try to explain bow the universe started.

Strawman. What has been mentioned here and elsewhere is that the Big Bang theory explains what happened after the universe started.
Unfortunately for atheists some other atheists don't understand that and have tried to use the Big Bang theory to assist them in support of their assertions for their belief in the non-existence of God.

There are enough scientists here, both professional and armchair, to debunk any use of science in support of atheism or anti-Christianity.

Morbert · 23-05-2010 05:38PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

Thank you.

This is true. Science is knowledge and a function of our intelligence. If science develops artificial life it can only prove ( by inference) that intelligence is required to develop life.

It in no way proves or even supports the claim that intelligence is required to develop life.

StealthRolex · 23-05-2010 05:48PM

Morbert wrote: »

It in no way proves or even supports the claim that intelligence is required to develop life.

So what does it prove or support?

gbee · 23-05-2010 05:49PM

After reading some of this experiment and listening to comments on how it could grow organic fuel, this though occurred to me ...

So I fill up my car in the morning and drive it all day until it stops, but as long as I have a drop of fuel in the tank, it will reproduce itself and in a few hours I can drive off again ~~~

NEVER FILL UP AGAIN

StealthRolex · 23-05-2010 05:53PM

gbee wrote: »

After reading some of this experiment and listening to comments on how it could grow organic fuel, this though occurred to me ...

So I fill up my car in the morning and drive it all day until it stops, but as long as I have a drop of fuel in the tank, it will reproduce itself and in a few hours I can drive off again ~~~

NEVER FILL UP AGAIN

Indeed. According to the news media this discovery will lead to perpetual energy machines.

In all likelyhood your car will require feeding with sugar or other nutrient substrates so look out for sugar tax if you put it in your tank instead of your tea

StealthRolex · 23-05-2010 06:10PM

It appears the gene is coded with various sequences as watermarks. One of these is a quotation from Richard Feynman.

I wonder if it's this one...

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong "

All we need now are experiments for the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution.

I trust whoever performs these knows that they need to mimic exactly the conditions of the Big Bang, the earth when life appeared and a method of speeding up evolution so the experiments can be peer reviewed.

For the atheists who don't understand science here's a couple of clues.
Experiments are based on the rejection of the null hypothesis. To prove a theory by experiment the experiment must be based on a hypothesis which asks if there is observable, verifiable, repeatable evidence that the hypothesis must be wrong.

You can go the other way and set up and experiment that is observable, verifiable and repeatable in support of your hypothesis but it is not as strong.

If you still don't get it try watching Mythbusters. All they have to do is bust it and their job is done. Making it work is easy.

Evolution - is it observable in real time? No- we cannot see things evolve. Is it repeatable? No - we cannot make things evolve. Is it verifiable? Plausible from historic evidence
Big Bang - is it observable in real time? No. Is it repeatable? No, but bits of it are in small scale experiments. Is it verifiable? Plausible from historic evidence
Abiogenesis - is it observable in real time? No. Is it repeatable? No. Is it verifiable? No. Is it in fact a theory? Not yet but there are hypotheses.

In the meantime I'm sending a request to Mythbusters to see if life can be created with only four bottles of chemicals, a computer, something from under the foreskin, and some brewers yeast.

Morbert · 23-05-2010 06:25PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

So what does it prove or support?

Well it opens many doors regarding the potential for these kinds of chemicals and molecules.

As far as what is relevant to this thread: I suppose you could say it shows that life does not need some fundamental supernatural component as a drive, and that the line between what is living and what is not is very thin.

Morbert · 23-05-2010 06:36PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

It appears the gene is coded with various sequences as watermarks. One of these is a quotation from Richard Feynman.

I wonder if it's this one...

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong "

All we need now are experiments for the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution.

I trust whoever performs these knows that they need to mimic exactly the conditions of the Big Bang, the earth when life appeared and a method of speeding up evolution so the experiments can be peer reviewed.

In the meantime I'm sending a request to Mythbusters to see if life can be created with only four bottles of chemicals, a computer and something from under the foreskin.

There are experiments for the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution. Currently, the Big Bang and evolution are supported without a doubt thanks to such experiments (journal papers provided on request). Scientists studying abiogenesis have learned a lot about the behaviour of chemical replication processes, but have not yet reproduced young earth conditions due to poor records of the early climate.

StealthRolex · 23-05-2010 06:44PM

Morbert wrote: »

Well it opens many doors regarding the potential for these kinds of chemicals and molecules.

As far as what is relevant to this thread: I suppose you could say it shows that life does not need some fundamental supernatural component as a drive, and that the line between what is living and what is not is very thin.

With all due respect, I don't think you understand what actually happened. An artificial DNA sequence was created and inserted into an already living cell.

Artificial life has not been created. Synthetic DNA has. There is a difference.

If Venter goes on to create an entirely artificial cell that would be a different story but it still supports the requirement and involvement of intelligence in the creation of life.

The abiogenetic experiment would involve making the primordial soup experiment produce a living reproducing eukaryotic cell or a prokaryotic cell that can be shown to lead to eukaryotes over time.

Morbert · 23-05-2010 07:13PM

StealthRolex wrote: »

With all due respect, I don't think you understand what actually happened. An artificial DNA sequence was created and inserted into an already living cell.

Artificial life has not been created. Synthetic DNA has. There is a difference.

If Venter goes on to create an entirely artificial cell that would be a different story but it still supports the requirement and involvement of intelligence in the creation of life.

The abiogenetic experiment would involve making the primordial soup experiment produce a living reproducing eukaryotic cell or a prokaryotic cell that can be shown to lead to eukaryotes over time.

But I didn't say anything at all about creating life from scratch, or from a primodrial soup. I said it shows that life does not need a supernatural component as some sort of fundamental drive. What has been done here is an artificial (but in no way supernatural) "driver" has been installed into a cell which, without a driver, is little more than an incredibly sophisticated collection of chemicals.

An anaology would be writing an OS for a computer. While the computer wasn't built from scratch, the man-made OS tells us that a computer can run without a some supernatural piece of code.

If Venter goes on to create an entirely artificial cell that would be a different story but it still supports the requirement and involvement of intelligence in the creation of life.

This is like saying that artificial waterfalls decorating gardens support the requirement and involvement of intelligence in the creation of waterfalls.

Artificial Life Created

Comments