1. 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!

Featured The Creationist Lie That Just Wont Die

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Skwim, Feb 20, 2019.

  1. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,820
    Ratings:
    +4,862
    Religion:
    atheist

    That implanted an image into my brain that I pray will go away soon.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,736
    Ratings:
    +7,420
    Religion:
    Catholic
    But were the processes dormant or disrupted? If disrupted, yes, dead, if dormant, then maybe not.
     
  3. Bob the Unbeliever

    Bob the Unbeliever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    7,139
    Ratings:
    +4,488
    Religion:
    unbeliever
    I think you are splitting hairs: It was as dead as someone with severe brain trauma, who's brain waves were flatlined, and the only reason they still "breathed" was because of a machine forcing them to.

    It could not do the processes you describe. Therefore? Dead.

    But that doesn't fit the narrative you want; I am so sorry-- reality is more messy than neat little categories would seem to say.

    Google Artificial Cell, and see for yourself-- lots of articles on the experiment.
     
  4. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,736
    Ratings:
    +7,420
    Religion:
    Catholic
    The narrative I want? What, pray tell, is the "narrative I want"? I think you may have mistaken me for someone else. You're acting rather like the Creationists we disdain, frankly, getting aggressive and ad homy when someone asks inconvenient questions.

    You can claim I'm "splitting hairs" but I thought we were having a discussion about science? The whole point of science is to be as precise and accurate as possible, therefore the terms we use need to be clearly defined. Like it or not "death" as popularly understood, is kinda vague. To use your own example, take a PVS patient on a respirator. Dead, you may claim, but with fully functioning celular metabolism, healthy, reproducing cells and even viable germ cells. So "death" is kinda fuzzy. There's legal death, clinical death, cellular death, brain death, and probably other kinds I don't know about. All quite distinct.

    I direct you to professor Brian Cox's discussion on when a strawberry may be considered "dead".
     
    #104 Kangaroo Feathers, Mar 30, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  5. THE HOOD APOLOGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2019
    Messages:
    127
    Ratings:
    +39
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yeah, from already life forming material. Smh

    [1]researchers started with an existing ribozyme and added random changes to the sequence to create a trillion slightly different versions. The researchers then subjected the pool of ribozymes to a challenge. They selected only those that were capable of making two different complex RNA molecules. They then repeated the process two dozen times — subjecting the molecules that passed each level of challenges to increasingly stringent challenges — to find the candidates that could make the 30-letter RNAs the fastest. This technique, known as experimental evolution, or test-tube evolution, is an artificial version of natural selection.

    [1] A New Step in Re-Creating First Life on Earth | Quanta Magazine
     
  6. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    32,713
    Ratings:
    +19,185
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You appear to have a problem understanding that article. But it is nice to see that you accept the theory of evolution.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,088
    Ratings:
    +14,589
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    They had their DNA removed. There was no metabolism. By any reasonable measure, they were not alive. They were NOT simply dormant, except for the fact that we were able to 'revive' them by inserting foreign DNA.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    14,088
    Ratings:
    +14,589
    Religion:
    Non-theist

    Well, so you, by definition, reject the possibility that it was dead and we re-started metabolic activities by use of the term 'irreversible'. But we 'reversed' it by adding in foreign DNA to restart metabolism.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,736
    Ratings:
    +7,420
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I don't know that I agree. Dead if left without DNA, sure. But the fact that they were revivable simply with new DNA added seems more like a mothballed dormancy to me.

    I'll try an analogy, which won't be perfect, because no analogy is, but let's liken a cell to a complex machine, say a car, with many separate components that all work together to achieve various tasks. In this analogy, the DNA of the cell is like the driver of a car. Once the driver turns off the ignition and gets out, the car isn't metabolising, none of the subsystems of the car are doing anything, but they're all still sitting there perfectly viable and ready to do their thing, just waiting for the next command from the next driver that comes along.

    I don't know if replacing a cell's DNA really counts as "reviving" a "dead" cell. It seems more like switching drivers of cars, whereas "reviving" a "dead" car to me would involve repairing some critical failure to a critical component that rendered the whole thing unviable. IMHO.

    I acknowledge that part of the problem here is that macroscopic common idiom doesn't really lend itself to accurate microscopic science, but I'm just trying to be clear about exactly what we're talking about.

    Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that it is possible for scientists to one day reanimate unarguably dead, structurally impaired cells, and construct artificial cellular life from completely artificially derived non biological elements. I also happily acknowledge that switching DNA between cells is an astonishing achievement, but let's be clear about exactly what we're talking about here.
     
  10. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,736
    Ratings:
    +7,420
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Fair point. Poor word choice.

    "dead" refers to a cessation of metabolic processes due to specific damage or disruption to cellular mechanisms that would require active repair, to me. Organelles of a healthy cell can function just fine without DNA, at least for a while, hence my point that removing a cell's DNA doesn't necessarily make it "dead".

    My central question here, really, is "was missing DNA the only thing wrong with an otherwise healthy viable cell?" Take the same cell, autoclave it for 10 minutes, then put new DNA in it, it's not gunna spring back to life, right?
     
  11. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,820
    Ratings:
    +4,862
    Religion:
    atheist
    Not nearly as vague as the definition of "life".
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,820
    Ratings:
    +4,862
    Religion:
    atheist
    We get it. You don't like science. That's OK.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,820
    Ratings:
    +4,862
    Religion:
    atheist
    Take a cell from a cat.
    Remove its DNA.
    Wait a day.
    Insert a dog's DNA.

    A cat became a dog.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,736
    Ratings:
    +7,420
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I can only think of one case where life hasn't been pretty clearly defined, what are you thinking of?
     
  15. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,736
    Ratings:
    +7,420
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Even if that were practically possible at the present time (is it?) that doesn't involve what I think of as reviving a dead cell.
     
  16. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,820
    Ratings:
    +4,862
    Religion:
    atheist
    I'm thinking of the fact that I have done my research.



    Life - Wikipedia
    There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.

    NASA - Life's Working Definition: Does It Work?
    In a recent paper in Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, Christopher Chyba and I argue that it is a mistake to try to define 'life'. Such efforts reflect fundamental misunderstandings about the nature and power of definitions.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=def...me..69i57j0.8556j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
    What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive?... At that point, we all became convinced that although everyone knows what life is, there is no simple definition of life.

    There are over 100 definitions for 'life' and all are wrong
    Great minds from Aristotle to Carl Saganhave given it some thought – and they still have not come up with a definition that pleases everyone. In a very literal sense, we do not yet have a "meaning" for life.

    If anything, the problem of defining life has become even more difficult over the last 100 years or so.

    But Nasa's is just one of many attempts to pin down all life with a simple description. In fact, over 100 definitions of life have been proposed, with most focusing on a handful of key attributes such as replication and metabolism.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    9,820
    Ratings:
    +4,862
    Religion:
    atheist
    Let me try again:

    [ATTEMPT AT HUMOR]
    Take a cell from a cat.
    Remove its DNA.
    Wait a day.
    Insert a dog's DNA.

    A cat became a dog.
    [/ATTEMPT AT HUMOR]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Kangaroo Feathers

    Kangaroo Feathers Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

    Joined:
    May 19, 2017
    Messages:
    9,736
    Ratings:
    +7,420
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Oh. Okay.
     
  19. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    10,097
    Ratings:
    +6,661
    Religion:
    Christian (Methodist)
    Apparently, you missed out on the reading comprehension courses, since your response to Christine does not correspond to what she posted.

    Why would any one be aware of 'overwhelming' evidence of the claims of a straw man argument?

    Molecules to man is not an assumption, statement of fact or prediction included in or made using the theory of evolution. Molecules to man is made up and not something claimed in science.

    Sorry. I had to jump out of the way as those goal posts shot by.

    John Cleese had great advice. You should maybe kiss the girl before you jump, blindly, groping frantically at her.

    Failure to have a ready answer available to explain the human mind is not evidence that the theory is failed. It is being used to seek the answers to the human mind, its state and origins.

    The theory and fact of biological evolution do not form any component of the origin of life. The theory is related to the origin of life only by way of the necessity for life to exist, contain variation and reproduce in order for biological evolution to take place. Evolution is not dependent on a specific origin of life and would work the same whether life was divinely created or formed from some natural process.

    No it is not.

    Since science does not deal with supernatural causes, the only causes it can hypothesize about and test are natural causes. This does not mean that the supernatural is eliminated as a possibility.

    Plumbers are not trained to do open heart surgery, but by your logic, it is reasonable to hire one for the job.

    Panspermia is a legitimate hypothesis and the understanding is that it would explain the origin of life on earth and not any ultimate origin of life.

    Exactly. The hypothesis does not say otherwise.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    10,097
    Ratings:
    +6,661
    Religion:
    Christian (Methodist)
    How can something that does not exist, create itself? What literature are you using to assert such a wild claim that this is a paradigm of science?

    Do not be so harsh on yourself. You believe in a lot more than that, but with an equal like of experience and evidence.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...