I can't answer those questions because I'm not sure exactly what you are asking.
-
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!
Evolution based on random mutations and natural selection
- Thread starter FearGod
- Start date
We can even create alien life. Scientists create 'alien' life form with artificial genetic code - CNET
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
That is a dishonest and a misleading answer, they didn't create life but just make a new strain (alien bacteria) by adding synthetic DNA strands to the genetic code of E-coli.
It does come down to whether one should or not believe that life needs a supernatural agent to arise, doesn't it?
I wonder... we have already learned so much, and even learned to clone lifeforms.
I figure many people truly believe that it is altogether impossible for scientists to develop living microorganisms out of unliving molecules in a laboratory.
But if it turns out to be possible, what then? My best guess is that they a sizeable part will simply disbelieve that it happened, much as they disbelieve the current evidence of biological evolution despite it being so widely present and relied upon. But even more will simply reframe their beliefs and say that it does not count because God had to create humans first before they could think to do anything.
I wonder... we have already learned so much, and even learned to clone lifeforms.
I figure many people truly believe that it is altogether impossible for scientists to develop living microorganisms out of unliving molecules in a laboratory.
But if it turns out to be possible, what then? My best guess is that they a sizeable part will simply disbelieve that it happened, much as they disbelieve the current evidence of biological evolution despite it being so widely present and relied upon. But even more will simply reframe their beliefs and say that it does not count because God had to create humans first before they could think to do anything.
What do you mean then when you say "create life"? Do you mean something different than we mean?
"Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about "playing god" Scientist Craig Venter creates life for first time in laboratory sparking debate about 'playing god' - Telegraph
The article's experiment describes changing a bacteria (E. Coli) into a different form of life, doesn't it?
I think FearGod expected no previously existent lifeforms to be present.
I think FearGod expected no previously existent lifeforms to be present.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Exactly.
I'll wait for him to explain exactly what he means.
And when you say "create life" what exactly do you mean if it isn't the same as we mean?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
To create life from non life.
And by non life you mean?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
from non living matter.
But FearGod there are 100,000,000,000,000 atoms in a human cell. There are 1.76 x 10 to the power of 14 molecules in a human cell. Are you expecting laboratory technicians to put them together one by one? Would you like to pay for the work? Or exactly how would you expect them to do it?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Simple life is enough from non living matter.
How would you define life?
The simplest life we know today is a bacterium. It contains about 10 to the power of 14 atoms. I don't think it's feasible for laboratory technicians to put a bacterium together atom by atom or molecule by molecule. How do you expect they could do it?
The same objection might as well apply to building polymers, if I am not mistaken. Coacervates have been made in laboratory, far as I know.
There is no clear or definite reason why living beings can't be obtained from unliving matter in a laboratory at some point. It just has not happened yet.
My point is that in theory we could build a living cell, we could create life from non-living materials in a laboratory piece by piece, but it just isn't practical or worth the effort right now when we can just modify previously living material. As far as I understand it when the headlines say that scientists have created life they mean that literally. They have created life from non-life. They have taken a living cell, removed the genome, at which point the cell can't do what living cells can do and is per definition not alive, and put in their own genome and made new life. It is life from non-life.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
They only added a synthetic DNA molecules, they didn't remove life.