• 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!

Scientists Create Living, Eating, Growing Machines

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Scientists have not created life, but . . .


From: Scientists Create Living, Eating, Growing Machines

Scientists Create Living, Eating, Growing Machines

A new biomaterial built in a Cornell University bioengineering lab uses synthetic DNA to continuously and autonomously organize, assemble, and restructure itself in a process so similar to how biological cells and tissues grow that the researchers are calling "artificial metabolism". However, scientists are not ready to admit that they have created lifelike machinery. Scientists have done everything but outright claim that their metabolizing biomaterial is alive, but research has listed the characteristics of life that the material exhibits-self-assembly, organization, and metabolism.

These human-engineered organic machines are capable of locomotion, consuming resources for energy, growing and decaying, and evolving. Eventually they die. As that may sound very similar to being alive, Dan Luo, professor of biological and environmental engineering in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell, who worked on the research, says otherwise. "We are introducing a brand-new, lifelike material concept powered by its very own artificial metabolism. We are not making something that's alive, but we are creating materials that are much more lifelike than have ever been seen before."

So scientists aren't ready to claim that they have created life, but just how lifelike is this material? According to the research they're on par with biologically complex organisms such as mold: "Here, we report a bottom-up construction of dynamic biomaterials powered by artificial metabolism, representing a combination of irreversible biosynthesis and dissipative assembly processes. An emergent locomotion behavior resembling a slime mold was programmed with this material by using an abstract design model similar to mechanical systems. An emergent racing behavior of two locomotive bodies was achieved by expanding the program. Other applications, including pathogen detection and hybrid nanomaterials, illustrated further potential use of this material. Dynamic biomaterials powered by artificial metabolism could provide a previously unexplored route to realize "artificial" biological systems with regenerating and self-sustaining characteristics."
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
As I said in the other OP....Yippee!

Creating lifelike machines, requires intelligence
Over reaching conclusions concerning the natural origin of life and intelligence. The scientists used natural methods to create the artificial life that resulted. There are no grounds that could conclude that intelligence is required to create life and intelligence.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Over reaching conclusions concerning the natural origin of life and intelligence. The scientists used natural methods to create the artificial life that resulted. There are no grounds that could conclude that intelligence is required to create life and intelligence.

Right! You keep believing that.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Right! You keep believing that.
Sarcasm noted!!! Unless otherwise demonstrated by scientific methods I have no reason to believe that naturally intelligence is necessary for the evolution of Intelligence as the Discovery Institute butchers and abuses science to justify this based on a religious agenda.

I, of course, believe God Created our physical existence, but I do not have the insecurity that Fundis have to corrupt science to falsely prove it, because of a religious agenda..
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Sarcasm noted!!! Unless otherwise demonstrated by scientific methods I have no reason to believe that naturally intelligence is necessary for the evolution of Intelligence as the Discovery Institute butchers and abuses science to justify this based on a religious agenda.

I, of course, believe God Created our physical existence, but I do not have the insecurity that Fundis have to corrupt science to falsely prove it, because of a religious agenda..
It's based on empirical evidence. No religion required.
 

dingdao

The eternal Tao cannot be told - Tao Te Ching
GREAT (half sarcastically)
Time to start testing how this interacts with "natural metabolism". Just in case it gets loose.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It's based on empirical evidence. No religion required.

I am a scientist with over fifty years experience and researched the absurd claims of Intelligent Design. There is no empirical evidence to support it. There are no peer reviewed research that can falsify the hypothesis.

The total extent of Intelligent Design science is; 'Well, ah . . . it looks designed, therefore it had to be designed.'
 
Last edited:

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I am a scientist with over fifty years experience and researched the absurd claims of Intelligent Design. There is no empirical evidence to support it. There are no peer reviewed research that can falsify the hypothesis.

The total extent of Intelligent Design science is; 'Well, ah . . . it looks designed, therefore it had to be designed.'

So...why do you think there's a God, then? There are no 'peer-reviewed articles' supporting the claim. What is your rationale?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So...why do you think there's a God, then? There are no 'peer-reviewed articles' supporting the claim. What is your rationale?

I do not take the vain egocentric arrogant route that I could somehow prove God's existence by logic nor the corrupted science of Intelligent Design (ID) based on my insecurities to justify my belief. Intelligent Design runs amuck with variations of a literal interpretation of Creation as described in Genesis, which have no basis in the objective verifiable evidence. The scientist that propose ID have failed to produce a falsifiable hypothesis that would support ID, which is the foundation of empirical science.

I believe in God for the belief in the more universal spiritual nature of humanity throughout human history. I believe the nature of our physical existence reflects the attributes of God in terms of the Laws of Nature and natural processes.

God is a Creator, and not an engineer that designs things.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
I do not take the vain egocentric arrogant route that I could somehow prove God's existence by logic nor the corrupted science of Intelligent Design (ID) based on my insecurities to justify my belief. Intelligent Design runs amuck with variations of a literal interpretation of Creation as described in Genesis, which have no basis in the objective verifiable evidence. The scientist that propose ID have failed to produce a falsifiable hypothesis that would support ID, which is the foundation of empirical science.

I believe in God for the belief in the more universal spiritual nature of humanity throughout human history. I believe the nature of our physical existence reflects the attributes of God in terms of the Laws of Nature and natural processes.

God is a Creator, and not an engineer that designs things.

Sorry, but you didn't answer my question...what is your rationale for believing in a God? According to many, there's no empirical evidence or falsifiable hypothesis. As a scientist you would value that, I'd assume, more than anything else.

Since when is a creator / inventor, not an engineer?
I'd call Jehovah the greatest Engineer, ever! Hebrews 3:4
 
Top