• 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 just took a major step toward making life from scratch

dyanaprajna2011

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
Scientists just took a major step toward making life from scratch | The Verge

Science keeps getting closer and closer to all kinds of goals, here, making life from nothing. Some people, particularly creationists, like to say that this isn't possible, but science keeps pushing forward, and is getting closer. What would it mean if they get to the point where they can make life from nothing? Would creationists concede that there would be even less evidence for their beliefs, or just find another cop-out in order to keep believing?
 
Runewolf1973

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
Cool. Pretty soon they'll realize that what I was saying all along was true...

There is no such thing as inanimate matter. All matter is animated by virtue of the fundamental forces of nature. Some forms of matter are simply more animated or "lifelike" than others. Therefore, animate lifeforms did not emerge from inanimate matter, they appeared because matter is and always was animate. That which we call Life is just another natural form that matter can take given enough time and the right conditions.
 
Amechania

Amechania

Daimona of the Helpless
Well they just strung together some existing DNA to make a "designer" yeast chromosome. Seems to argue for ID as much as against it. Instead take the basic chemicals of life, recreate the conditions of the early earth as best as possible, put in the chemicals, and see what happens. Oh wait, somebody tried that already. What did they get, amino acids? that's seems like a better approach.
Its sort of like examining life that adapted to thrive in extreme enviornments on Earth and saying this is what could happen on another planet. It assumes that the life existing in the extreme enviornment originated there. It doesn't really address the issue of the actual origin of life.
 
shawn001

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Amechania said:
Well they just strung together some existing DNA to make a "designer" yeast chromosome. Seems to argue for ID as much as against it. Instead take the basic chemicals of life, recreate the conditions of the early earth as best as possible, put in the chemicals, and see what happens. Oh wait, somebody tried that already. What did they get, amino acids? that's seems like a better approach.
Its sort of like examining life that adapted to thrive in extreme enviornments on Earth and saying this is what could happen on another planet. It assumes that the life existing in the extreme enviornment originated there. It doesn't really address the issue of the actual origin of life.
Click to expand...

"recreate the conditions of the early earth"

This is very important and something a lot of anti-evolutionist never talk about. For one the Iron core had not cooled enough to form the Van Allen belts and life would have been fired by all the radiation.

of course some animals can live in space even, the Waterbear.


Why would an Intelligent designer use evolution? Also why can't the design see in the entire electromagnetic spectrum? Or absorb energy a different way?
 
Amechania

Amechania

Daimona of the Helpless
shawn001 said:
"recreate the conditions of the early earth"

This is very important and something a lot of anti-evolutionist never talk about. For one the Iron core had not cooled enough to form the Van Allen belts and life would have been fired by all the radiation.

of course some animals can live in space even, the Waterbear.


Why would an Intelligent designer use evolution? Also why can't the design see in the entire electromagnetic spectrum? Or absorb energy a different way?
Click to expand...

Presumably life originated in deep water largely shielded from radiation, perhaps at geothermal vents, hence the reasoning that extreme enviornments can potentially produce life and may be even be necessary.

True the tardigrade (waterbear) can survive extreme enviornments, but it is a highly evolved creature. I would be happy with any simpler but sturdy life form, such as a virus.

Alas, we don't know the exact conditions that led to the origin of life on this planet, but looking at existing life in current enviornments and working backwards from there seems like a second-best approach to me.

I'm not arguing for ID, just that a human's ability to recreate existing life in a laboratory doesn't really argue against it.
 
Amechania

Amechania

Daimona of the Helpless
Obviously not. It is possible to argue that a design is present in something, as Dawkins has, and not attribute it to a supernatural force or being. It is not wholly illogical, however, to assume a designer if design is present. Of course one would have to demonstrate design, which is problematic, and then work backwards again to try to discover the designer. That will likely never happen. Perhaps even that is by design.
 
George-ananda

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
dyanaprajna2011 said:
Would creationists concede that there would be even less evidence for their beliefs, or just find another cop-out in order to keep believing?
Click to expand...

I would continue believing intelligent nature spirits fostered life on earth. The very beginnings of life seem improbable but showing that would just be the first inch of a 10 mile endeavor to show complex animals with DNA, multiple organs, sexual reproduction, etc. occurred.

Plus my beliefs don't come just from the argument of unlikelihood.
 
Last edited:
CynthiaCypher

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
I really don't buy into the primordial soup thing. There is no evidence of there even being any primordial soup in the first.
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
dyanaprajna2011 said:
Scientists just took a major step toward making life from scratch | The Verge

Science keeps getting closer and closer to all kinds of goals, here, making life from nothing. Some people, particularly creationists, like to say that this isn't possible, but science keeps pushing forward, and is getting closer. What would it mean if they get to the point where they can make life from nothing? Would creationists concede that there would be even less evidence for their beliefs, or just find another cop-out in order to keep believing?
Click to expand...

Interesting article. However, it appears to me they were stringing together pre-existing strings of DNA. Quote: "This careful planning is what allowed the researchers, along with 60 undergraduate students, to painstakingly string chunks of DNA together and insert them into living yeast cells."
So, what do we conclude from these scientific advances? If scientist ever do succeed in making "life from nothing", it would simply prove to me that life doesn't arrive by chance, but must be created by an intelligent person or persons. Having said that, I seriously, seriously doubt scientists would ever be able to create a living cell from non-living elements.
 
Runewolf1973

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
rusra02 said:
I seriously, seriously doubt scientists would ever be able to create a living cell from non-living elements.
Click to expand...

But what part of a living creature, or a single cell for that matter, is actually living? Basically, everything that exists (life-forms included) are composed of matter in various forms...atoms, molecules, chemical compounds...all that physical stuff which makes up matter. That said, specifically what part of a creature or a cell's anatomy is living versus what part is non-living? What we call life forms have very complex chemical and electrical interactions, but are all those chemical or electrical interactions actually alive or living, or are they simply interacting on a very complex level giving the appearance or illusion of something that is alive?

The way I see it, there are forms of matter which based on the complexity of their chemical or electrical interactions, are more animated or more "lifelike" in appearance than other forms of matter. I believe life is somewhat of an illusion in that way, and so is consciousness. All that really exists is matter in different forms.


---
 
Last edited:
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Sees said:
How can they intentionally make life from nothing? :areyoucra
Click to expand...
They designed a yeast chromosome from scratch. First they modeled the genes they wanted in a computer, then used 60 undergraduates to help them assemble the codons to create the genes. Somethin' like that.

It's basically doing machine code program on a 64bit CPU. Urgh... Lots of work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top