Not really. It goes to proof of concept. It supports abiogenesis. Beyond that, we still do not know.Please, Christine!
If that were the case, the issue of life's origin would be solved.
It isn't.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not really. It goes to proof of concept. It supports abiogenesis. Beyond that, we still do not know.Please, Christine!
If that were the case, the issue of life's origin would be solved.
It isn't.
Maybe because He's not necessary in every single thing that happens. Some things just happen on their own, from natural causes.
Why are some people so wedded to magic?
Oh grief!!!
What may or may not have happened in the past has no bearing on the acceptance of theories today.
I accept that birds descended from theropods based on the evidence I have seen.
The belief you are promoting is based on faith and not on evidence. It is not the belief that is used in science. You can scream it. You can disrespect people. You can point out instances in the past where ignorance was acted on rather than evidence. You can highlight the trivial as if it were more significant. You can substitute straw man arguments and manipulate other logical fallacies to promote your attempts to denigrate science. But that is all you are doing.
You have not shown that accepting scientific theories is equivalent to believing without evidence. You have not shown that the views of science are equal to any random persons opinion.
You have done nothing to persuade anyone that the reasons you reject science are more than just blindly following the doctrine of your sect.
These examples are fascinating!Why would you say that? I know.... Because you have completely ignored the science, you have not bothered with a simple google search. Rather you rely on personal belief.
So what i will do is save you the bother of a Google search and instead provide a few links
World’s first living organism with fully redesigned DNA created
"A New Form of Life" --Living Organism Created With Entirely Human-Made DNA | The Daily Galaxy
Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'
First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab
There are several more examples if you care to look, none of which need your or the bibles approval
Explain your assertion. Show how I obfuscated the point.Very good job of obfuscating my point.
These examples are fascinating!
I have no issue with these experiments. If anything, it highlights the need for intelligence to be the cause.
And I appreciate how the first article puts it; “redesigned DNA”, indicating the original DNA was designed.
These examples are fascinating!
I have no issue with these experiments. If anything, it highlights the need for intelligence to be the cause.
And I appreciate how the first article puts it; “redesigned DNA”, indicating the original DNA was designed.
Oh, grief!
Why were rejected theories of science, accepted in the first place?
Because they were initially believed to be accurate!
Don't you get it? Belief is always part of it.
Do you know how many superceded theories there are? All were believed in, at one time.
Just like the 'BAND' paleontologists....they don't believe birds descended from theropods; you though, I'm sure, do believe in that idea.
Actually it shows the need for the right constituents and environment. Which given time is known to occur
Redesign does not necessarily imply original design, only a change from a template. In this case a natural template.
Redesign : design (something) again or in a different way.
But feel free to interpretate words to suit your own belief
No, they aren’t, I agree....
But the biological sciences do deny a Designer!
Wouldn't that second sentence qualify you as an "Intelligent Design stooge" as well? If not, why not?
Your version certainly looks like ID and/or divine creationism to me.
One version posits that life is a direct special creation, the result of God reaching into the natural world and working a miraculous act of creation here on Earth (or wherever life originated).
The other version posits God initially producing the "laws of nature" in some grand miraculous act of universe creation, with the "laws of nature" (and presumably the initial conditions to plug into those laws) crafted in such a way that things subsequently evolve as God intended.
I believe that St. Augustine's theology of miracles is consistent with the latter version. Augustine argued that God works miracles not by capriciously violating his own natural laws, but by exploiting very obscure 'small-print' laws originally built into nature at creation. Augustine's motivation wasn't to defend science, which didn't exist in his time, but rather to protect divine consistency.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned. Life ends up being divinely created and intelligently designed either way. All that's different is the manner of the Divine creation event.
Sort of...
As Shunyadragon wrote earlier, the natural sciences proceed according to methodological naturalism.
Methodological naturalism is about what the scope of science is. Its justification is epistemological, by consideration of what human beings can know. Science seeks to describe and explain things that can be known by humans in terms of other things that can be known by humans. If we try to explain things that can be known by appealing to things that can't be known, then it's hard to see how that would be an informative explanation at all.
Metaphysical naturalism is about what the boundaries of reality are. Many atheists are fond of this one, insisting that the boundaries of reality are coextensive with the range of science. If it isn't recognized by science, it can't exist. I don't really see how this version of naturalism can be justified. It seems to be a matter of faith.
So... I'd argue that the biological sciences don't deny the existence of a designer, nor do they propose one. What the biological sciences do is say that "explanations" that rely on supernatural designers aren't part of natural science, simply by definition. That (contra the metaphysical naturalists) doesn't mean that a designer can't exist.
Admittedly many scientists, especially the ones who write pop-science books, and most normal people in the street, blur and confuse these distinctions.
Why would you say that? I know.... Because you have completely ignored the science, you have not bothered with a simple google search. Rather you rely on personal belief.
So what i will do is save you the bother of a Google search and instead provide a few links
World’s first living organism with fully redesigned DNA created
"A New Form of Life" --Living Organism Created With Entirely Human-Made DNA | The Daily Galaxy
Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god'
First Life with "Alien" DNA Created in Lab
There are several more examples if you care to look, none of which need your or the bibles approval
Here's a good wikipedia article that explains what J. Craig Venter and his people were doing and the motivation for it.
A treatment comprehensible by laypeople
Minimal genome - Wikipedia
A more advanced treatment
Essential gene - Wikipedia
The idea is to try to determine the minimum number of genes that can still result in a cell capable of metabolism (in ideal conditions) and reproduction. It wasn't to "create life" or argue for abiogenesis, or anything like that. So they snipped genes out of natural cells and looked to see if the cell could continue functioning without those genes. That way they determined which genes were essential genes and which ones were additional "apps" so to speak.
For example, some of the non-essential genes were concerned with survival in media where particular nutrients were in short supply, enabling the cell to synthesize the missing nutrients from ones that were present. Since that isn't necessary in ideal laboratory media where all nutrients are supplied, the cells could continue to survive in ideal conditions. (They might not have survived out in the wild where conditions are less ideal.)
So then these scientists tried to engineer a cell with all of the bloated set of additional apps deleted, a cell with only Android remaining. (To use a cell-phone analogy.) The essential cell operating system, so to speak. (Genomics is gradually starting to look more like biological computer science.)
Then they did something that caught the attention of the science journalists and the public, and was inevitably distorted (Scientists create life!) when they synthesized that minimal genome from chemicals in segments, spliced it together, and placed it in a cell whose original DNA had been removed. The resulting engineered cell continued reproducing.
That isn't creating life, per se. The DNA had been laboratory synthesized, but it was placed inside a naturally occurring cell. Cells are more than DNA. And what's more (this is crucial) the code of all the essential genes in the synthesized DNA was derived from life, determined in the experiments up above. If you copy a file from a computer to a usb drive, the content of the file isn't created de-novo in the thumb drive even if the information in the file is encoded in new physical memory states. Venter didn't create the information in the DNA that he synthesized, he copied it from preexisting life.
And, as Hockeycowboy points out, the whole thing happened as the result of a whole lot of laboratory planning and experimental design by Venter and company. It's far from a totally natural process as is hypothesized in abiogenesis.
I don't think that it has anything directly to do with abiogenesis. Indirectly perhaps, since one might want to argue that the earliest cells had simpler genomes, perhaps closer to the ones here deemed essential. Or perhaps not, since "essential" is relative to environment and the first cells probably existed in non-ideal conditions.
Thank you for this informative and understandable post! It is refreshing, at least to me.Here's a good wikipedia article that explains what J. Craig Venter and his people were doing and the motivation for it.
A treatment comprehensible by laypeople
Minimal genome - Wikipedia
A more advanced treatment
Essential gene - Wikipedia
The idea is to try to determine the minimum number of genes that can still result in a cell capable of metabolism (in ideal conditions) and reproduction. It wasn't to "create life" or argue for abiogenesis, or anything like that. So they snipped genes out of natural cells and looked to see if the cell could continue functioning without those genes. That way they determined which genes were essential genes and which ones were additional "apps" so to speak.
For example, some of the non-essential genes were concerned with survival in media where particular nutrients were in short supply, enabling the cell to synthesize the missing nutrients from ones that were present. Since that isn't necessary in ideal laboratory media where all nutrients are supplied, the cells could continue to survive in ideal conditions. (They might not have survived out in the wild where conditions are less ideal.)
So then these scientists tried to engineer a cell with all of the bloated set of additional apps deleted, a cell with only Android remaining. (To use a cell-phone analogy.) The essential cell operating system, so to speak. (Genomics is gradually starting to look more like biological computer science.)
Then they did something that caught the attention of the science journalists and the public, and was inevitably distorted (Scientists create life!) when they synthesized that minimal genome from chemicals in segments, spliced it together, and placed it in a cell whose original DNA had been removed. The resulting engineered cell continued reproducing.
That isn't creating life, per se. The DNA had been laboratory synthesized, but it was placed inside a naturally occurring cell. Cells are more than DNA. And what's more (this is crucial) the code of all the essential genes in the synthesized DNA was derived from life, determined in the experiments up above. If you copy a file from a computer to a usb drive, the content of the file isn't created de-novo in the thumb drive even if the information in the file is encoded in new physical memory states. Venter didn't create the information in the DNA that he synthesized, he copied it from preexisting life.
And, as Hockeycowboy points out, the whole thing happened as the result of a whole lot of laboratory planning and experimental design by Venter and company. It's far from a totally natural process as is hypothesized in abiogenesis.
I don't think that it has anything directly to do with abiogenesis. Indirectly perhaps, since one might want to argue that the earliest cells had simpler genomes, perhaps closer to the ones here deemed essential. Or perhaps not, since "essential" is relative to environment and the first cells probably existed in non-ideal conditions.
Thank you for this informative and understandable post! It is refreshing, at least to me.
I doubt many could "pull the wool over your eyes" so to speak with regard to science.
It is interesting to take a neutral attitude towards research. Not often done, so it's refreshing to see Yazata's comments.Thank you for this informative and understandable post! It is refreshing, at least to me.
I doubt many could "pull the wool over your eyes" so to speak with regard to science.
Interesting, thanks for your refreshing summation. Although...there is mystery in the universe and the ideas posited by some scientists.Here's a good wikipedia article that explains what J. Craig Venter and his people were doing and the motivation for it.
A treatment comprehensible by laypeople
Minimal genome - Wikipedia
A more advanced treatment
Essential gene - Wikipedia
The idea is to try to determine the minimum number of genes that can still result in a cell capable of metabolism (in ideal conditions) and reproduction. It wasn't to "create life" or argue for abiogenesis, or anything like that. So they snipped genes out of natural cells and looked to see if the cell could continue functioning without those genes. That way they determined which genes were essential genes and which ones were additional "apps" so to speak.
For example, some of the non-essential genes were concerned with survival in media where particular nutrients were in short supply, enabling the cell to synthesize the missing nutrients from ones that were present. Since that isn't necessary in ideal laboratory media where all nutrients are supplied, the cells could continue to survive in ideal conditions. (They might not have survived out in the wild where conditions are less ideal.)
So then these scientists tried to engineer a cell with all of the bloated set of additional apps deleted, a cell with only Android remaining. (To use a cell-phone analogy.) The essential cell operating system, so to speak. (Genomics is gradually starting to look more like biological computer science.)
Then they did something that caught the attention of the science journalists and the public, and was inevitably distorted (Scientists create life!) when they synthesized that minimal genome from chemicals in segments, spliced it together, and placed it in a cell whose original DNA had been removed. The resulting engineered cell continued reproducing.
That isn't creating life, per se. The DNA had been laboratory synthesized, but it was placed inside a naturally occurring cell. Cells are more than DNA. And what's more (this is crucial) the code of all the essential genes in the synthesized DNA was derived from life, determined in the experiments up above. If you copy a file from a computer to a usb drive, the content of the file isn't created de-novo in the thumb drive even if the information in the file is encoded in new physical memory states. Venter didn't create the information in the DNA that he synthesized, he copied it from preexisting life.
And, as Hockeycowboy points out, the whole thing happened as the result of a whole lot of laboratory planning and experimental design by Venter and company. It's far from a totally natural process as is hypothesized in abiogenesis.
I don't think that it has anything directly to do with abiogenesis. Indirectly perhaps, since one might want to argue that the earliest cells had simpler genomes, perhaps closer to the ones here deemed essential. Or perhaps not, since "essential" is relative to environment and the first cells probably existed in non-ideal conditions.
It is interesting to take a neutral attitude towards research. Not often done, so it's refreshing to see Yazata's comments.