abiogenesis

[outhouse]

Man created life in a lab.

Now that it has been done in a lab :yes:

yes, man created what you thought only your god could do :sorry1:


where will creationist move the bar now????


what would it take to be able to prove to a creationist that there myth doesnt exist?

in my opinion, theres nothing that would work on the older ones. How to get through to teh young ones is the trick.

 

[Falvlun]

Well, in all fairness, just because it can be done one way, doesn't mean that it couldn't have been done some other way instead.

 

[Revoltingest]

Man created life in a lab.
Now that it has been done in a lab :yes:

Link?

 

[outhouse]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article7132299.ece

 

[outhouse]

Well, in all fairness, just because it can be done one way, doesn't mean that it couldn't have been done some other way instead.

It was done another way, true.

naturally

 

[Revoltingest]

Scientists create artificial life in laboratory - Times Online

I knew about that one...interesting & wonderful it is.
I was hoping for abiogenesis from duplicated early Earth conditions....even cooler!

 

[Meow Mix]

[sarcasm]But this was created by intelligent design![/sarcasm]

 

[Madhuri]

I don't understand how this human achievement says anything about the existence of a God?

 

[Falvlun]

I don't understand how this human achievement says anything about the existence of a God?

It's more against an argument commonly given in support of the necessity of God.

 

[Falvlun]

The man-made genome was then transplanted into a related bacterium, Mycoplasma capricolum. This “rebooted” the cell so that it was controlled by the synthetic genome, transforming it into another species.

Not that what they did isn't impressive, but this really isn't abiogenisis; they did not create life. They created an artificial genome, a new "species" as it says, but they had to put it in a pre-existing living cell. Without that nurse cell, would their genome have been anything but a string of A's, T's, G's, and C's?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't understand how this human achievement says anything about the existence of a God?

It tells me that if there is a god, then he (she? it? them?) gave us some
really cool tools to play with. That speaks to the benevolence issue.

 

[Madhuri]

It's more against an argument commonly given in support of the necessity of God.

Weird. I'm not very familiar with arguments that say only God is capable of understanding and manipulating the laws of nature. If man could not manipulate nature through science, we wouldn't have technology.
Man's ability to understand the laws of nature says nothing about whether a God was or was not needed to create those laws in the first place.

 

[linwood]

Scientists create artificial life in laboratory - Times Online

Not abiogenesis and not the creation of life from scratch.

Damned impressive though.

 

[Pegg]

Not that what they did isn't impressive, but this really isn't abiogenisis; they did not create life. They created an artificial genome, a new "species" as it says, but they had to put it in a pre-existing living cell. Without that nurse cell, would their genome have been anything but a string of A's, T's, G's, and C's?

ty, exactly what i was going to say. When you read the article it doesnt say they created 'life' as we know it.

scientists made a synthetic copy of the genome ...The man-made genome was then transplanted into a related bacterium, Mycoplasma capricolum. This “rebooted” the cell so that it was controlled by the synthetic genome.

Other bioligists are not so amazed by it, so it can't be what the article title makes out to be.

"Ben Davis, who works on synthetic biology at the University of Oxford, said: “I still think we are quite a long way away from artificial life. “You could take this synthetic genome and write in new genes with known functions, but that is not so different from molecular biology at the moment.”

 

[Alceste]

Man created life in a lab.

Now that it has been done in a lab :yes:

yes, man created what you thought only your god could do :sorry1:


where will creationist move the bar now????


what would it take to be able to prove to a creationist that there myth doesnt exist?

in my opinion, theres nothing that would work on the older ones. How to get through to teh young ones is the trick.

The usual argument is "Science has NO IDEA how life began, so it MUST have been God. There's no way a random soup of chemicals could have bonded together to create living DNA. That is proof of intelligent design!"

When science eventually manages to reproduce the necessary mix of chemicals, temperature, water density and salinity, convection and all the other factors needed to cause life to manifest spontaneously, the argument will change to:

"Man, who is intelligent, has intentionally constructed the conditions necessary for life to occur in a lab! That is proof of intelligent design!"

Damned if we do it, damned if we don't. It's ridiculous logic, but water-tight.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It's more against an argument commonly given in support of the necessity of God.

And a strong argument for the necessity of previous life and a good lab.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't understand how this human achievement says anything about the existence of a God?

It has profound effect on what we say and how we think about God.

 

[Falvlun]

And a strong argument for the necessity of previous life and a good lab.

Yeah, basically, now I'm just imagining super-aliens manufacturing us. It really doesn't lend itself to the argument that everything just happened naturally.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah, basically, now I'm just imagining super-aliens manufacturing us. It really doesn't lend itself to the argument that everything just happened naturally.

That's not what the experiment proves. If nothing natural existed, they wouldn't have been able to "create" a synthetic life form. They have manipulated nature using natural patterns (DNA) to "create" something that could not have naturally evolved.

No matter how unlikely it may seem, the probability of nature occuring naturally through naturalistic evolution is a factor of 1. We're here, and we can prove that there is no need for a creator, whether divine or alien. It's possible, but the likely hood of that is far less probable than what we can actually prove.

 

[Revoltingest]

....the probability of nature occuring naturally through naturalistic evolution is a factor of 1. We're here, and we can prove that there is no need for a creator, whether divine or alien. It's possible, but the likely hood of that is far less probable than what we can actually prove.

Heavens! As a fire breathing God-hating puppy-BBQing atheist, even I would not go that far.
I cannot calculate any probabilities, & would only say that we can't prove that God is necessary.