• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A.B. : Artificial Biology.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The Lenski experiment with 10,000 generations of e.Coli is interesting,
and if you could do the same thing with flowers or humans you would
see the same thing. And placed in a stress environment evolution
speeds up enormously. So... every organism on earth has this inbuilt
ability/need to evolve - its built into us.

Experiments like the Lenski experiment twisted the knife in the side of Neo-Darwinism. They show that organisms adapt in a manner specifically designed and aligned with an undeniable attempt to adapt to environmental hazards or benefits.

Knowing that some form of conscious, or planned, biological impetus, is the death-knell for Neo-Darwinian ideology (i.e., the belief that no conscious or planned design characteristics are involved in the shape and kinds of living organisms), Neo-Darwinists bristled anytime an idiot like me argued against the Neo-Darwinian sacred-cow of unplanned, totally random, evolutionary direction.

Experimentation showed that the mutations affected when a stress was added to the environment were clearly, mathematically, beyond any doubt whatsoever, aimed at dealing specifically, and effectively, with the stress in the environment. The organisms were participating in some conscious way in how they dealt with the stress in the environment.

To their credit, the Neo-Darwinists know what it means if conscious design, intentional design, is part of the story of life. It's a slippery-slope that slides right back to the theology Neo-Darwinisms was hoping to replace.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
So what your saying is that eve would have naturally bore jesus

Ha-adam would have bore Jesus:

If Adam had not sinned the world would have entered the Messianic state on the first Sabbath after creation, with no historical process whatever.

Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 46.​

Like the first living organisms in the scientific understanding of life, the first human, ha-adam, was female. In Genesis 2:21, the first human was subjected to a gender transformation, from female, to bi-gendered (phallic) female. Material taken from the first human's body in Genesis 2:21 was used to clone Eve, just as every organism prior to the evolution of sex was a clone of its mother cell. It was a daughter cell.

So Eve is actually a clone of the original human, while the original human is the ******* hybrid now called Adam. When the phallic-female, Adam, has sex with the original female body, Eve, all hell breaks loose. They're kicked out of the garden of immortality, and Cain is born as the first murderer. They all senescence and die.

Jesus, not so much. He was immortal. His death is a trick played on death and the dying, none of which, whom, those who believe in him will be associated with in the approaching new world order.

Obligatory death as a result of senescence – natural aging – may not have come into existence for more than a billion years after life first appeared. This form of programmed death seems to have arisen at about the same time that cells began experimenting with sex in connection with reproduction. It may have been the ultimate loss of innocence.

Phd. Biologist William R. Clark, Sex and the Origins of Death.



John
 
Last edited:

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Experiments like the Lenski experiment twisted the knife in the side of Neo-Darwinism. They show that organisms adapt in a manner specifically designed and aligned with an undeniable attempt to adapt to environmental hazards or benefits.

Knowing that some form of conscious, or planned, biological impetus, is the death-knell for Neo-Darwinian ideology (i.e., the belief that no conscious or planned design characteristics are involved in the shape and kinds of living organisms), Neo-Darwinists bristled anytime an idiot like me argued against the Neo-Darwinian sacred-cow of unplanned, totally random, evolutionary direction.

Experimentation showed that the mutations affected when a stress was added to the environment were clearly, mathematically, beyond any doubt whatsoever, aimed at dealing specifically, and effectively, with the stress in the environment. The organisms were participating in some conscious way in how they dealt with the stress in the environment.

To their credit, the Neo-Darwinists know what it means if conscious design, intentional design, is part of the story of life. It's a slippery-slope that slides right back to the theology Neo-Darwinisms was hoping to replace.



John
Nonsense. Pure nonsense.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Experiments like the Lenski experiment twisted the knife in the side of Neo-Darwinism. They show that organisms adapt in a manner specifically designed and aligned with an undeniable attempt to adapt to environmental hazards or benefits.

This isn't exactly the case.
An example of organisms observing Neo-Darwinism today is your every day
Covid virus. It's evolving much faster than elephants - but even elephants are
quickly evolving to be smaller, more nocturnal and with dimunitive tusks.

The Lenski on-going experiment is evolution in action. It's not designed to
force any direction to the mutations, just to observe them. With zero evolutionary
pressure an organism will still change because it's hard to keep DNA exact over
thousands and millions of generations.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
In science human vision of human immortality as scientific is for science to not allow a human to die.

Science says heart attacks cause death.

How do I bring a human back from not owning death.

Makes a spare part says science gave you immortality. Heart transplant.

As science who tells religious humans what is wrong with you all humans as bodies die. We cannot stop sun irradiation as a bio effect or else we would have no light.

Back in earth time once earths gases owned no light highest state.

Real mind status superior science human being I beat natural death ego.

Same scientist says I want electricity.

I invent electricity by destroying huge masses of pre burnt irradiated bodies to have electricity.

Says I want energy first then convert energy into electricity

Science has a human ego problem.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Experiments like the Lenski experiment twisted the knife in the side of Neo-Darwinism. They show that organisms adapt in a manner specifically designed and aligned with an undeniable attempt to adapt to environmental hazards or benefits.

Knowing that some form of conscious, or planned, biological impetus, is the death-knell for Neo-Darwinian ideology (i.e., the belief that no conscious or planned design characteristics are involved in the shape and kinds of living organisms), Neo-Darwinists bristled anytime an idiot like me argued against the Neo-Darwinian sacred-cow of unplanned, totally random, evolutionary direction.

Experimentation showed that the mutations affected when a stress was added to the environment were clearly, mathematically, beyond any doubt whatsoever, aimed at dealing specifically, and effectively, with the stress in the environment. The organisms were participating in some conscious way in how they dealt with the stress in the environment.

To their credit, the Neo-Darwinists know what it means if conscious design, intentional design, is part of the story of life. It's a slippery-slope that slides right back to the theology Neo-Darwinisms was hoping to replace.



John

There's no consciousness in e.Coli that we know of.
What do you think - which one is human?
Neanderthal and Sapien.jpg
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
This isn't exactly the case. An example of organisms observing Neo-Darwinism today is your every day Covid virus. It's evolving much faster than elephants - but even elephants are quickly evolving to be smaller, more nocturnal and with dimunitive tusks.

The Lenski on-going experiment is evolution in action. It's not designed to
force any direction to the mutations, just to observe them. With zero evolutionary pressure an organism will still change because it's hard to keep DNA exact over thousands and millions of generations.

I was thinking of a number of other experiments. For instance, in his book, The Global Brain, Howard Bloom says:

Several researchers testing bacterial adaptivity have tormented colonies with problems so overwhelming that they dwarf any individual bacterium's solo computational powers. For example, experimenters have taken a community of the intestine-dwelling bacteria Escherichia coli away from the cuisine it normally eats and offered it only salicin ---- a pain-reliever squeezed form the bark of willow trees which, to the E. coli bacterium, is inedible as pitch. An individual bacterium can crank nourishment out of this unpalatable medication only if it undergoes a step-by-step sequence of two genetic breakthroughs, one of which entails taking a giant step backward. The odds of pulling this off through random mutations are less than 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 --- or to put it in English, more than 10 billion trillion against one. Yet E. coli consistently mange it.​

I don't think viruses, like covid, qualify as life? They're more like a non-living parasite in that they can't reproduce of themselves, but only through living cells.




John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
It is not my optimism that has anything to do with the nonsense you call science.

Science, like space, has new frontiers to be explored. But exploration is not for the weak-stomached since there are dangers and perils involved that might make a weak-willed person lose their lunch and have to remain behind in the lurch. There's indeed a goldmine at the end of the rainbow. But alas, it takes more than mere optimism to get there. Those who follow the herd should probably be seen a lot more than they're heard.



John
 
Last edited:

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Science told us that water came from out of space as life on earth.

As a status where water as mass came from first.

Our biology a high percentile water.

As a human I would ask myself if I placate that science speaks all themes about presence as science and maths then why does a human exist?

If your quote creation is science is maths no need for any human then.

So I look at sciences God.

I see sciences God placating natural orders as a human stating where its place began in natural history.

Claiming I speak on its behalf.

Then I see his science model water UFO stealing by radiation mass.

His God owns lots of alien themes as mass of radiation. By maths calculus. Science.

So I wondered are you trying to put water back out into space claiming the right of science is natural order.

To my psychic advice it seems like you are oh mighty man science God machine mass metal inventor.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I was thinking of a number of other experiments. For instance, in his book, The Global Brain, Howard Bloom says:

Several researchers testing bacterial adaptivity have tormented colonies with problems so overwhelming that they dwarf any individual bacterium's solo computational powers. For example, experimenters have taken a community of the intestine-dwelling bacteria Escherichia coli away from the cuisine it normally eats and offered it only salicin ---- a pain-reliever squeezed form the bark of willow trees which, to the E. coli bacterium, is inedible as pitch. An individual bacterium can crank nourishment out of this unpalatable medication only if it undergoes a step-by-step sequence of two genetic breakthroughs, one of which entails taking a giant step backward. The odds of pulling this off through random mutations are less than 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 --- or to put it in English, more than 10 billion trillion against one. Yet E. coli consistently mange it.​

I don't think viruses, like covid, qualify as life? They're more like a non-living parasite in that they can't reproduce of themselves, but only through living cells.




John

At least there's something to address here. The Lenski experiment actually addressed this
through the e.Coli changing diets to consume citrate. But the jump wasn't some random
change in two genes but rather a process of mutations - these mutations were greatly
sped up as a result of a single mutation, and the ability to consume citrate came about as
a result of various other genes mutating.
It took about 33,000 generations to reach this point, and Lenski observed 19 other E.coli
populations were heading down the same path to citrate consumption.

Really, what it shows is how marvellously clever life is - not how dumb.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Science, like space, has new frontiers to be explored. But exploration is not for the weak-stomached since there are dangers and perils involved that might make a weak-willed person lose their lunch and have to remain behind in the lurch. There's indeed a goldmine at the end of the rainbow. But alas, it takes more than mere optimism to get there. Those who follow the herd should probably be seen a lot more than they're heard.



John
Nonsense does not require a strong stomach or a strong will. I know you believe your nonsense, but that does not make it science or mean you are some powerful mind pushing truth through some imagined orthodoxy. Your optimism seems fully formed on no basis I have seen. Sometimes those that are not following in the footsteps of knowledge are just lost stragglers that will never find their way, because they think they are the way.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I thought life's evolution was supposed to be random? Cleverness seems to imply purpose.



John
You thought wrong, but that is the overarching paradigm here. Perhaps you should learn what you dismiss as orthodoxy before you assume to declare your reality into existence. Try looking at the science and not at popular books for cherry-picked quote mines.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Nonsense does not require a strong stomach or a strong will. I know you believe your nonsense, but that does not make it science or mean you are some powerful mind pushing truth through some imagined orthodoxy. Your optimism seems fully formed on no basis I have seen. Sometimes those that are not following in the footsteps of knowledge are just lost stragglers that will never find their way, because they think they are the way.

In science there are the orthodox ideas and beliefs of a given time. Those beliefs evolve. And part of the process required for the evolution of those beliefs requires that some sacred cows be sacrificed on the altar of newfangled ideas that at one time seemed ridiculous or insane. Like the story of Mercedes Benz engineers believing no car would ever go faster than eighty-miles per hours since the human body couldn't withstand much more.

If someone told your great grandfather that with enough cash you ---his great grandson ----could board a spacecraft and circumnavigate the entire planet traveling 17,000 miles per hour he'd think the person telling him that should consider a sanitarium.

This doesn't justify every kooky idea come from every high-minded speculator. So it's up to each and every person, from the Archimedean pearch of their own wit and insight, to determine what is unorthodox science biding its time versus what is speculation born out of boredom and too much time on hand?



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
You thought wrong, but that is the overarching paradigm here. Perhaps you should learn what you dismiss as orthodoxy before you assume to declare your reality into existence. Try looking at the science and not at popular books for cherry-picked quote mines.

. . . Can I assume you know something I don't? Perhaps you could show us some of this real science? Maybe you could show some real science that directly refutes something posited in this thread? Or maybe you assume you can but have never tested that hypothesis using something like the scientific-method?



John
 
Top