It does not matter how vetner did it, the fact is he did it
However i suggest you do a little research, as i said, life has been created several times using different techniques.
-
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!
New discoveries and research in abiogenesis
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
It does not matter how vetner did it, the fact is he did it
However i suggest you do a little research, as i said, life has been created several times using different techniques.
Actually Ventnor did not not, so to speak, develop life from scratch, he modified existing DNA from bacteria to develop new life forms. It was actually an artificial effort and not lab abiogenesis.
If scientists are able to demonstrate abiogenesis they would have to do by developing a natural environment and chemistry where it happens naturally, and not scientists doing it synthetically. At present scientists are developing the natural chemical steps that would take place in an environment like volcanic sea vents.
As i understand it he used an entirely synthetic genome in an existing cell
Sort of correct, but a bit more complicated, and has nothing to do with abiogenesis..
Last edited:
No doubt much more complicated.
Venter was first but I am actually more interested in how they are creating life using an expanded genetic code, is in "it's life Jim but not as we know it".
exchemist
Veteran Member
Oh God , not James Tour again.
This guy has done no work in abiogenesis research and simply trots out the Disco 'Tute party line, apparently because he is a Messianic Jew with a religious axe to grind. There is no scientific argument in anything he says about the origins of life and he has done no relevant research in the field.
All Tour can do is produce another version of the Argument from Personal Incredulity, dressed up with irrelevant bits and pieces of science. This article consists of pages and pages of irrelevant stuff about molecular motors etc that he has worked on, which tell us nothing about abiogenesis at all. And at the end he makes only 2 points:
- It is all terribly difficult to do in the lab. [Well, what a surprise. In the lab. On the timescale of the career of one Houston academic chemist.]
- Science does not know how abiogenesis occurred. [Er, we are all well aware of that.]
However, because he includes masses of detailed - and irrelevant - synthetic chemistry about his molecular motors etc, he can bamboozle people who don't know any chemistry into thinking: "Gosh this guy seems to know what he's talking about: it must be a knockout argument".
However, if one does know a bit of chemistry, and is not fazed by loads of pictures of organic molecules, one finds after ploughing through this article that he has nothing new to say!
Yazata
Active Member
Translation: Tour disagrees with Shunyadragon.
As for me, I don't personally think that ID qualifies as a scientific research program because it seems to mystify things rather than explaining them. It just introduces a hypothetical designer that itself cries out for explanation.
Regarding Tour, I'm unfamiliar with him apart from his short and rather unfriendly wikipedia article. That being said, I'm somewhat sympathetic to his ideas based on what little I know about them. As I wrote earlier in this thread, there's a huge gap from natural synthesis of a few amino acids which isn't really anything new (Miller-Urey experiments) and functioning prokaryotic cells of even the simplest sort. Where did cell anatomy, cell metabolism and the exquisitely complex genome and its regulatory system originate? In a word, how do we explain the transition from biochemistry to cell biology?
Wikipedia's article on Tour says, "...he said he remains open-minded about evolution but maintains that evolution of complex systems remains pure conjecture. He was quoted as saying "I respect that work" and being open to the possibility that future research will complete the explanations."
I don't have a great deal of disagreement with that, provided that's as far as Tour goes. Saying it is probably a valuable corrective, since 'abiogenesis' is often over-sold to laypeople.
The word 'abiogenesis' doesn't name a scientific explanation for the origin of life, rather it names a scientific research program into the origin of life in hopes of someday crafting that explanation.
How is that different from Intelligent Design? In one version, it's life itself that's a special creation. In the other version, it's the 'laws of nature' that are special creations, presumably such that they unfold in the manner that God intended in order to result in life. Many orthodox theologians such as St. Augustine have proposed similar ideas of the universe unfolding in accordance with natural law to realize God's designs. It was kind of a staple of 17th-18th century deism in which skepticism had attacked revealed theology (the Bible etc.) but still accepted natural theology, in particular the design argument.
Can't argue with that.
Last edited:
Agreed. Even if theories of science are rejected, belief is not the substitute by default. New theories would need to be formulated to explain what we see and account for the failure of the previous theories.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Why do you think (as the article even states multiple times) that the scientists performing these types of experiments are trying to do so by recreating (as close as possible) NATURAL phenomea? Duh man. DUH.
No Tour is an outlier in science and has not done any research to advance the knowledge of abiogenesis. He focuses on 'arguing from ignorance' as how abiogenesis cannot happen, which is meaningless to any science. It is not meaningful to try and falsify the negative.
Last edited:
You need to distinguish between artificial synthesis of basic organic chemicals, and other genetic research, like Ventor who did not claim to research abiogenesis, from the actual research into the natural processes and chemistry that reflects the ancient Hadean pre-life environment where life forms.
Actually by the various contemporary scientific methods science can synthesis virtually all the necessary organic compounds necessary for life including RNA and DNA, but this does not represent the natural processes of abiogenesis, nor the research into abiogenesis..
Last edited:
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
And? What do you think that says about me? Why don't you just say it outright? Or ask me my age? That's what you'd like to know, isn't it? Or are you more concerned with just trying to discredit me because I used a word you felt you could jump on and pretend it points to my being verifiably immature? You have nothing cogent to reply with. And THAT is why you replied as you did. Think about that.
Last edited:
Yazata
Active Member
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.
My position remains a highly skeptical agnosticism regarding both versions. While I think that it's very important to acknowledge that science currently doesn't know how life originated, I personally lean towards the more naturalistic approach. I can't "prove" that's the best way forward though. It's more a matter of faith at this point. Abiogenesis is a research program, not a scientific explanation. We don't even know whether a scientific explanation will be forthcoming or not. Personally, I look to science and its methodological naturalism to perhaps someday solve the riddle. I'm doubtful that religion can, since all it seems to me to do is further mystify things, by gratuitously introducing a 'God' posit that's inexplicable by its very nature.
But my choice to embrace a more naturalistic alternative is still a choice. It doesn't licence me to try to insult 'ID' proponents into oblivion or to pretend that I'm somehow more intelligent, thoughtful or rational than they are.
Please, Christine!
If that were the case, the issue of life's origin would be solved.
It isn't.
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.
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
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.