Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Good news everyone! The Boards.ie Subscription service is live. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Artificial Life Created

1…78101213…23

Comments

  • #272
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    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.

    Only a matter of time tbh. And they HAVE made synthetic organelles already. Why wait until we can create complete cells before they test their DNA creation? That wouldn't make any sense, and the DNA is really the important bit, since that is what allows you to reprogram the cell to do what you want. Creating a new cell wall etc doesn't get you much more usefulness out of the cell; it doesn't allow to change the programming of it, so meh. Although of course it still would be interesting to do it just because. These cells are reproducing, that's very impressive, and entirely down the coding of the new completely original DNA.


  • #273
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Morbert wrote: »
    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.

    Not any old driver. If Venter had put random DNA sequences in to a cell and it "lived" there my be some merit. That did not happen. The DNA was sequenced specifically. At one point one base pair was in error and the experiment failed. This points clearly to non-randomness and intelligence required to determine the specific order of the base pairs.

    Otherwise we are still waiting for an infinity number of monkeys with an infinite amount of time putting together the correct sequence.

    Morbert wrote: »
    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.

    To the computer man is supernatural. It also tells us that a computer cannot run with code generated randomly or by code generated by an infinite number of monkeys given infinite time.

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

    No its not. An artificial waterfall is not an equivalent analog. Living cells reproduce. Waterfalls do not. Living cells respirate. Waterfalls do not.

    If however your artificial waterfall was created by directing water over hard rock and then soft rock it would support the requirement and involvement of natural phenomenon in the creation of waterfalls.


  • #274
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Only a matter of time tbh. And they HAVE made synthetic organelles already. Why wait until we can create complete cells before they test their DNA creation? That wouldn't make any sense, and the DNA is really the important bit, since that is what allows you to reprogram the cell to do what you want. Creating a new cell wall etc doesn't get you much more usefulness out of the cell; it doesn't allow to change the programming of it, so meh. Although of course it still would be interesting to do it just because. These cells are reproducing, that's very impressive, and entirely down the coding of the new completely original DNA.

    tbh it is an extension of recombinant DNA technology taken to the point of generating a new DNA sequence. Part of the experiment showed that the DNA sequence must be exactly correct or it does not work.

    As some arguments here are presenting this experiment as evidence that a higher intelligence is not required it is a little baffling as it is clearly obvious that intelligence is required.


  • #275
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    It does prove that DNA is required for life but that is not a new discovery.
    It proves that DNA must be sequenced correctly and that required intelligence on their part.
    The DNA is neither new nor completely original. Only the sequence is. This is the same as presenting a new book and trying to say that intelligence is not required to produce a new original book.

    It is both new and original, it has never existed before. It's like saying "Oh I don't need to read books, I read a book once." Books don't self replicate because of their chemistry. DNA does, which is why it is special. Analogy fails on almost every level.


  • #276
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Experiment: prove intelligence is not required to create life.

    Method: get Venter and a couple of computers.

    Question: is he intelligent? Are the computers programmed by intelligent programmers?

    Answer: Oops! We might have to start over.


    New experiment: prove intelligence is required to create life.

    Method: get some chemicals and expose them to natural phenomenon.

    Answer: We have some interesting molecules and more questions but so far that's it.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    iUseVi wrote: »
    It is both new and original, it has never existed before. It's like saying "Oh I don't need to read books, I read a book once." Books don't self replicate because of their chemistry. DNA does, which is why it is special. Analogy fails on almost every level.

    You miss the point. Was intelligence involved in the development of this DNA sequence or not?

    To me it looks like intelligence was and is required in this specific case and by inference all natural cases.


  • #278
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    iUseVi wrote: »
    It is both new and original, it has never existed before. It's like saying "Oh I don't need to read books, I read a book once." Books don't self replicate because of their chemistry. DNA does, which is why it is special. Analogy fails on almost every level.

    Actually it looks like I didn't say that but I will take it on board.

    No it's not life saying "Oh I don't need to read books, I read a book once.", it's like saying " I read a book once and I liked it. I hope something intelligent puts another one together so I can read that one too."

    Books don't replicate because of chemistry, they replicate through the application of technology. Books do not spontaneously appear, they require a higher intelligence to put the words together in a comprehensible order.


  • #279
    iUseVi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Actually it looks like I didn't say that but I will take it on board.

    No it's not life saying "Oh I don't need to read books, I read a book once.", it's like saying " I read a book once and I liked it. I hope something intelligent puts another one together so I can read that one too."

    Books don't replicate because of chemistry, they replicate through the application of technology. Books do not spontaneously appear, they require a higher intelligence to put the words together in a comprehensible order.

    Ah man you did say that and then you snap edited your post. You are entirely wrong but I'm not rehashing the creationist thread here. And to be fair saying you "didn't say that" when you know full well you did is dishonest. I'm done.


  • #280
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Ah man you did say that and then you snap edited your post. You are entirely wrong but I'm not rehashing the creationist thread here. And to be fair saying you "didn't say that" when you know full well you did is dishonest. I'm done.

    I didn't say "I didn't say that", what I said was "Actually it looks like I didn't say that but I will take it on board." Which is true because of the edit and I took it on board because of the edit.

    Nothing intentional I just realized where what I was saying was going to go and decided on a better track. I can't help it if you don't like it when a higher intelligence interferes :D


  • #281
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    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.

    Neither silly nor irrelevant. The subject is abiogenesis. when you begin with "biology claims evolution is an acceptable theory" you are appealing to a totally different aspect.
    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.

    You responded to comments on the spontaneous creation of life by referring to what happened AFTER that!

    I am perfectly happy to link to scientific papers on abiogenesis if you like.

    Okay do so supply three of them. But don't claim evolution has anything to do with it!


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    monosharp wrote: »
    Why not the same ?

    Already answered by others. FSM and God are not the same.
    I didn't say proving abiogenesis would prove a deity wasn't involved, I said it would prove that a diety wasn't required.

    This particular research does not prove that. But if it did so what?


  • #283
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    monosharp wrote: »
    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 somewhere there is a perfect theory which perfectly describes the universe? and science is trying to reach they goal you believe exists?
    But like God isn't it?
    Nope. Science changed because of the available evidence. Just as it does every single day.

    Now you are contradicting yourself. all of a sudden there is no science describing the real world . all there is is "available evidence" and science is only about describing what is available at the time and there are no absolute laws to the universe?


  • #284
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    I woldn't worry about it Steath, I've used vi and to be honest it is a bit evil. Here's what the boards favourite source says about it

    "The design of vi is based on considering the needs of users after they have become proficient, and who then require, from the software, efficiency and convenience rather than ease of learning. Another design assumption in vi is that inserting text is not the most important operation: people who maintain text files as part of their job need to be able to quickly move around in those files, and quickly make small, precise edits in different locations. The cost of transitions to insert mode is reduced by combining the mode switch with other commands. For instance, replacing a word is cwreplacement textEscape which is a combination of two independent commands (change and word-motion) together with a transition into and out of insert mode."

    :p

    Anyone who claims to use vi and then cannot understand the difference between intelligence being proven to be required to create life and life not being proven to be capable of arising spontaneously and then runningoff in a huff because an insert mode error occured is a bit like saying " I'm happy to play with you as long as you don't change your mind because most religious people don't change their minds and I can use that to embarrass them".

    What yerman is saying is like saying I read what you wrote but I can't argue with that so I'll make up you what I think I wanted you to say so I can destry that and not your original argument.
    StealthRolex wrote: »
    "This is the same as presenting a new book and trying to say that intelligence is not required to produce a new original book."


    and in response
    iUseVi wrote: »
    "It's like saying "Oh I don't need to read books, I read a book once."

    The latter is likfe saying " We already have DNA, why do we need new DNA" whereas the former is like saying " where do new books come from?"

    The atheists and anti-theists are lost on this one tbtG

    in answer to zod when GOd created life He created all the living creatures at the time. He did not however create mules or hinnys or ligers or tionesses or any other hybrids but gave the asses and horses and lions and tigers the power to generate hybrids.

    This new lfe form is synthetic, created by man because God gave man the power and intelligence by creating man in His own image and likeness. It just took time for man to evolve to the point where he could emulate* God. If an atheist cannot see that playing God is proof positive of GOds existence it's like sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la, laa laa la laa laa"

    *almost


  • #285
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    DeVore wrote: »
    To be fair, gravity is still a "theory" but I'm betting you walked out your front door today and not, say, your bedroom window.


    DeV.



    Gravity is a fact, observable, repeatable, irrefutable. It keeps us and everything else on the planet, provides orbits for satellites, free return trajectories for lost astronouts etc etc etc

    How gravity works is a theory.


  • #286
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Oh dear. You know that gravity, electromagnetism, biology and, well, pretty much everything in science is a theory?

    There are elements of science that are facts and there are elements that are theories. Behind every scientific fact there is a theory.

    Gravity is a fact. How gravity works is a thoery.
    Biology is an area of study comprising facts and theories
    electromagnatism is a force described by theory. It is however a fact that like charges attract and opposite charges repel so is another demonstration that pretty much everything in science is either theory, fact or a mixture of both.

    Synthetic life can be created - fact.
    Requires intelligence - fact.


  • #287
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Not any old driver. If Venter had put random DNA sequences in to a cell and it "lived" there my be some merit. That did not happen. The DNA was sequenced specifically. At one point one base pair was in error and the experiment failed. This points clearly to non-randomness and intelligence required to determine the specific order of the base pairs.

    Otherwise we are still waiting for an infinity number of monkeys with an infinite amount of time putting together the correct sequence.

    To the computer man is supernatural. It also tells us that a computer cannot run with code generated randomly or by code generated by an infinite number of monkeys given infinite time.

    No. To the computer, man is not supernatural. Artificial/intelligently designed and supernatural are not the same thing in any situation. Even if man was supernatural, that would be irrelevant, as I only mentioned the components of life itself, and not any creator. The difference between artificial, intelligently designed life and supernaturally created life is the former, while cleverly built, is still being "driven" by natural laws once it has been created.
    No its not. An artificial waterfall is not an equivalent analog. Living cells reproduce. Waterfalls do not. Living cells respirate. Waterfalls do not.

    The differences between waterfalls and life were not relevant for the purposes of the analogy. In short, just because some phenomenon can be created with intelligence doesn't mean it supports the idea that it must be created with intelligence. I have a feeling you are ironically confusing my analogy with the inappropriate comparison IDers commonly make between life and machines.
    If however your artificial waterfall was created by directing water over hard rock and then soft rock it would support the requirement and involvement of natural phenomenon in the creation of waterfalls.

    The requirement? What if you built a waterfall out of bamboo shoots, a couple of plastic reservoirs, and an electric pump? Would that support the requirement of electricity? Basically, the best you can infer is that natural phenomena can be involved, but are not necessarily required. Similarly, the artificial creation of a cell shows us that intelligence can be inolved, but does not imply that intelligence is necessarily a requirement.


  • #288
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    Neither silly nor irrelevant. The subject is abiogenesis. when you begin with "biology claims evolution is an acceptable theory" you are appealing to a totally different aspect.

    You responded to comments on the spontaneous creation of life by referring to what happened AFTER that!

    You are still ignoring significant portions of my posts, and it seems you are more interested in not admitting your accusations were misplaced than with progressing the conversation. If I, for example, only referred to evolution and not abiogenesis, then you woud be very correct. The fact that I referred to both means I am open to discussing both the emergence of life itself and the complexity that developed afterwards, and that your accusations are indeed silly and irrelevant.
    Okay do so supply three of them. But don't claim evolution has anything to do with it!

    A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

    Carbonyl Sulphide-Mediated Prebiotic Formation Of Peptides by Luke Leman, Leslie Orgel and M. Reza Ghadiri, Science, 306: 283-286 (8th October 2004)

    Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

    These papers, and others, discuss the development (not evolution) of complex chemicals, and how natural chemical environments would serve to overcome the high improbabilities associated with 'spontaneous' productions.


  • #289
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Morbert wrote: »
    The requirement? What if you built a waterfall out of bamboo shoots, a couple of plastic reservoirs, and an electric pump? Would that support the requirement of electricity? Basically, the best you can infer is that natural phenomena can be involved, but are not necessarily required.

    Would your waterfall work without electricity?
    Morbert wrote: »
    Similarly, the artificial creation of a cell shows us that intelligence can be inolved, but does not imply that intelligence is necessarily a requirement.

    Which is why the null hypothesis must be applied. Can artificial life be created without intelligence?

    All that has been demonstrated by Venter is that man can put base pairs together in the right order and insert them into a cell. After that nature takes over and because the base pairs are in the right order it behaves like an other living cell.

    However your arguments seem a little contradictory.

    It is ok for man to create life in the laboratory but it is not ok for God to have created life on earth.

    No matter what analogy is used what cannot be escaped is that we have proved that life is created. How? By putting base pairs together in the right order.

    one of your earlier assertions:
    Morbert wrote: »
    Christians are free to believe that, despite the research carried out by scientists, life is still unlikely to have arisen without any intelligent, guiding influence. But they should make it emphatically clear that what they believe is contradicted by science.

    What Venter has proven by science is that intelligent guiding influence is required.

    With regard to the rest of the science community and abiogeneis - no conclusive evidence of how life started.


  • #290
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Gravity is a fact, observable, repeatable, irrefutable. It keeps us and everything else on the planet, provides orbits for satellites, free return trajectories for lost astronouts etc etc etc

    How gravity works is a theory.

    Precisely, but you said evolution is only a theory. The change in organisms over time is a fact, observable, repeatable ** and that's what constitutes evolution. In fact you chose a really peculiar analogy given that we know so little about gravity and one can easily argue that the theory of evolution has far less fundamental holes.

    **In the case of gravity, evolution or any scientific theory, I would not go to the extreme length of claiming them to be irrefutable. No amount of experiments can make them so.


  • #291
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    StealthRolex wrote: »

    No matter what analogy is used what cannot be escaped is that we have proved that life is created. How? By putting base pairs together in the right order.

    one of your earlier assertions:

    What Venter has proven by science is that intelligent guiding influence is required..

    No what Venter has shown was that with his guiding input the process can be much much faster than it previously was on earth. That is all. From Venter's experiment it is impossible to determine whether or not an intelligence guided the initial process on this planet.

    Put it this way, Venter's team carried out an experiment until it worked. Each time it failed his team made various tweaks until they got what they wanted (a). They then made some more tweaks again on (a), until they got what they wanted (b) and so on and so forth until they landed at the final result (z).
    This is similar to how natural selection works. Nature will select the "fit" result whether this nature was guided by an intelligence or not simply cannot be determined. All Venter's team did was copy what nature does/did until they got the result he wanted.
    It is ok for man to create life in the laboratory but it is not ok for God to have created life on earth.

    This obviously depends on where a person's philosophy lies. Obviously if someone sees no need to postulate a God's existence then they will agree with that statement. If they see need to postulate a God, or they "know" there is one, then obviously they'll disagree.
    As for science's attitude to this statement, well it doesn't really give two sugars.

    Btw, I'm pretty sure you mistook Morbert's argument. I'll leave that to him.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    You are still ignoring significant portions of my posts,

    Just like you are still ignoring the subject being abiogenesis and you beginning a diatribe on
    "what biology accepts as true" with an expose on evolution and not on abiogenesis.

    and it seems you are more interested in not admitting your accusations were misplaced than with progressing the conversation.

    they weren't misplaced! You should not have begun with evolution but you did because it was in response to a question about what biology accepts. It doesnt progress from abiogenesis to evolution since the topic IS abiogenesis. appealing to other aspects of biology is off topic.
    If I, for example, only referred to evolution and not abiogenesis, then you woud be very correct.

    If you refer to evolution at all I would be correct. In fact the reference to evolution was quickly followed by a comment that "this of course had nothing at all to do with abiognesis"
    SO? shutup already about evolution!

    You were asked in relation to the current experiment about artificial life
    What have biologists concluded?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66008159&postcount=195


    You began
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66008288&postcount=197
    with evolution and then went on about abiogenesis. If evolution was off topic why doid you introduce it?
    The fact that I referred to both means I am open to discussing both the emergence of life itself and the complexity that developed afterwards, and that your accusations are indeed silly and irrelevant.


    The discussion is about the creation of artificial life and NOPT about the evolution of life after creation!


    A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)
    [/quote]
    I don't know how many times I have to repeat that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, yet the strawman of "how did life start" always creeps up in every evolution debate...
    http://www.factsnotfantasy.com/abiogenesis.php


  • #293
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Requires intelligence - fact.
    I'm hoping this is considered on topic enough to avoid the wrath of the moderators......

    On what basis do you declare that to be a fact? What I see is that in this specific case intelligence was applied to create synthetic life that is far more complex than what is theorised to have been the first form of life. How do you get from "intelligence was applied in this case" to "inelligence must be applied for this to happen"?

    Also, if intelligence must be applied in order for such complexity to be created, what was the intelligence that was involved in creating god? Or are there some exceptions made to this rule that complexity requires a designer?


  • #294
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Would your waterfall work without electricity?

    My waterfall? Yes. Waterfalls? No. Similarly, intelligence is required to create Ventner's synthetic life. But we cannot say intelligence is therefore required for life in general.


    Which is why the null hypothesis must be applied. Can artificial life be created without intelligence?

    All that has been demonstrated by Venter is that man can put base pairs together in the right order and insert them into a cell. After that nature takes over and because the base pairs are in the right order it behaves like an other living cell.

    However your arguments seem a little contradictory.

    It is ok for man to create life in the laboratory but it is not ok for God to have created life on earth.

    I never said it is not ok. I don't mean to sound rude but so far my experience of this thread has been people assuming I have said something when, in fact, I have not. If you disagree, please explicitly point out where I have said it is not ok for God to have created life on earth. So far, I have said that the synthetic life does not support the idea that intelligence is required for life, and I have said that biology does not support the conclusion that life is unlikely to have arisen without intelligence.
    What Venter has proven by science is that intelligent guiding influence is required.

    With regard to the rest of the science community and abiogeneis - no conclusive evidence of how life started.

    Again, it has in no way shown that intelligence is required. Only that intelligence can be used to create life.


  • #295
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Malty_T wrote: »
    In fact you chose a really peculiar analogy given that we know so little about gravity and one can easily argue that the theory of evolution has far less fundamental holes.

    **In the case of gravity, evolution or any scientific theory, I would not go to the extreme length of claiming them to be irrefutable. No amount of experiments can make them so.

    Discuss gravity with Sam - that was his peculiar analogy.


  • #296
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Discuss gravity with Sam - that was his peculiar analogy.

    No not really interest as I think he has no problem in admitting that gravity is only a theory. The point is still stuck with you, you stated gravity is a fact because it is observable, repeatable etc. So too is the evolution.


  • #297
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Malty_T wrote: »
    No what Venter has shown was that with his guiding input the process can be much much faster than it previously was on earth. That is all. From Venter's experiment it is impossible to determine whether or not an intelligence guided the initial process on this planet.

    Not true. This is only true if Venter was experimenting in abiogenesis. he wasn't
    Malty_T wrote: »
    Put it this way, Venter's team carried out an experiment until it worked. Each time it failed his team made various tweaks until they got what they wanted (a). They then made some more tweaks again on (a), until they got what they wanted (b) and so on and so forth until they landed at the final result (z).
    This is similar to how natural selection works. Nature will select the "fit" result whether this nature was guided by an intelligence or not simply cannot be determined. All Venter's team did was copy what nature does/did until they got the result he wanted.

    Again not entirely true. The process was a reverse engineering to find the minimum requirements.


  • #298
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Morbert wrote: »
    What if you built a waterfall out of bamboo shoots, a couple of plastic reservoirs, and an electric pump?
    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Would your waterfall work without electricity?
    Morbert wrote: »
    My waterfall? Yes.

    Interesting design. Do post it here sometime.


  • #299
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Also, if intelligence must be applied in order for such complexity to be created, what was the intelligence that was involved in creating god? Or are there some exceptions made to this rule that complexity requires a designer?

    How many times is this asked, answers given and then some threads later repeated again! Its a flippin simple answer, so why is the above constantly asked, and by the same posters??!!

    The natural world is what it is. You DON'T apply the rules of the natural world to God. While evident inside his creation, his realm is OUTSIDE of his creation. By definition he DOESN'T have to obey natural laws etc. He is the creator of them and the natural world. He has defined what natural is, and wrote the laws of Physics etc. One can observe the world, and see its patterns and laws etc. You cannot then apply them to a being who is OUTSIDE and not under these laws and patterns.

    Of course you can disregard this creator, but can you please just TRY to comprehend why the whole Cause and effect scenario DOES NOT have to be applied to God. Phooey it or not, its a very simple concept.


  • #300
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Malty_T wrote: »
    No not really interest as I think he has no problem in admitting that gravity is only a theory. The point is still stuck with you, you stated gravity is a fact because it is observable, repeatable etc. So too is the evolution.

    I can see and experience the effects of gravity every day. I can test it at will.

    I cannot see or experience the effects of evolution every day. I cannot test it at will. I can see over time some species go through minor changes but that is not necessarily evolution.
    I can examine the palaeontological record and make deductions.
    I can examine bacteria in the lab and make observations. If I find something that points to evolution I can re-run the experiment and have it not behave the same way again.

    This is why I am fully prepared to accept evolutionary theory but while repeatability does not exist it remains a theory for me. Others may consider it a fact but fact it is not.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JimiTime wrote: »
    How many times is this asked, answers given and then some threads later repeated again! Its a flippin simple answer, so why is the above constantly asked, and by the same posters??!!

    The natural world is what it is. You DON'T apply the rules of the natural world to God. While evident inside his creation, his realm is OUTSIDE of his creation. By definition he DOESN'T have to obey natural laws etc. He is the creator of them and the natural world. He has defined what natural is, and wrote the laws of Physics etc. One can observe the world, and see its patterns and laws etc. You cannot then apply them to a being who is OUTSIDE and not under these laws and patterns.

    Of course you can disregard this creator, but can you please just TRY to comprehend why the whole Cause and effect scenario DOES NOT have to be applied to God. Phooey it or not, its a very simple concept.

    It's asked because what you'be just given me is a very unsatisfying answer. You define a rule with no justification, that complexity requires a designer, then immediaty go on to mention the one and only exception to the rule. You're saying "complexity requires a designer except when it doesn't".

    If you acknowledge that complexity can arise without a designer in the case of a god, why not even consider the possibility that there might be other exceptions to the rule? We are both after all stating that complexity can arise without a designer given certain conditions so we both know that the idea that complexity requires a designer is false


Advertisement