Could you creat a fly ?

[McBell]

What does this have to do with evolution?

I fail to see where Godobeyer thinks or even implies it has something to do with evolution.
In fact, the OP flat out removes evolution from the hypothetical.

Though I do find it interesting that the OP has to stack the cards against evolution and for god.
One wonders if they think god is as weak and feeble as they make him out to be.

 

[Skwim]

.

.​

 

[Godobeyer]

What does this have to do with evolution?

it's has to do with creation.

 

[Godobeyer]

I fail to see where Godobeyer thinks or even implies it has something to do with evolution.
In fact, the OP flat out removes evolution from the hypothetical.

Though I do find it interesting that the OP has to stack the cards against evolution and for god.
One wonders if they think god is as weak and feeble as they make him out to be.

Evolution as starter/orignal of life,that's don't make sense to me.

 

[McBell]

Evolution as starter/orignal of life,that's don't make sense to me.

Evolution does not speak about HOW life started.
So what doe snot make any sense is your harping over something that only exists in your mind.

 

[Godobeyer]

.

.​

Thanks

 

[Laika]

Hello everyone

Let's imagine that all species and plants are die for any reason,only you lucky one to live
and you can live forever.

and supposing your first mission is creat a living fly insect (male and female), how much time you will take to creat a two living fly(male and female), and how,why the humans now could not ?

NOTE:
my questions is for atheist or pro-evolution as starter of live.
I have two requests:

1-Please take my question in serious way
2- Don't tell me the same story that species will appears from nothing by billions of years, and the fly will be one of them

(My understanding is that) Humans at present do not have sufficient mastery of the natural process to create an animal or insect from scratch.

In theory however, our knowledge of evolution and genetics raises the possibility of being able to engineer a species (such as a fly) based on manipulating the genetic code. The power of science is being able to take a natural process and harness it for human purposes. We look at the shape of a birds wings and may discover the laws of thermodynamics- so eventually we may be able to reproduce the "lift" for a man made object.

Here's leonardo Da Vinci sketch of a birds wing:

Here's a sketch he made for a flying machine based on trying to identify the structures in a birds wing (or a bats wing), such as bones and feathers:

In the case of evolution we have already manipulated the process to an extent by using breeding, such as breeding chickens for increased meat yield. This process was already under way in the agricultural revolution in the 18th and 19th century. Darwin called it "domestic selection", the man-made eqivilent of "natural selection".

The leap darwin took was borrowing the mechanism of competing for resources to understand changes in population from thomas malthus. Malthus' theory of population was originally intended for understaing the limits of food supply on humans. Darwin applied it to animals as the mechanism of "natural selection".

Now- the same principle of understanding and reproducing a natural process by science can be applied to the "origin of species". For example- we cloned a sheep in 1996:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

The difference between artifically cloning an animal and altering the genetic code (at a guess) is an order to magnitude of control over the process. Its not technologically impossible.

Now, lets take your scenario for a second. Assume all life on earth (excluding yourself) died out. With enough time, resources and knowledge it is possible to genetically engineer life. Its a physical process and we can theoretically repeat it in a laboratory. The process of abiogenesis is the one in which non-organic matter is turned into living organic matter. Hypothetically, we could eventually do it in a laboratory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

The wonder of genetics is that all life on earth is essentially built from the same genetic building blocks. Manipulating the genes of a fly, you could reverse engineer species from genetic material, or perhaps produce new species of fly or maybe another species entirely using the same building blocks.

This is an atheists view (a pretty radical one maybe) but not one based on being intimately familiar with the deatils in biology. my understanding is what you are asking is not impossible, but still technologically maybe a few decades away (and raises alot of ethical questions about how we use these technologies). But its not impossible.

 

[Thief]

I see a distinction between making something and creating

there is only one Creator

Man manipulates
mano a mano

we humans are not really creative.....we just say we are

 

[Godobeyer]

Evolution does not speak about HOW life started.
So what doe snot make any sense is your harping over something that only exists in your mind.

So why you care if I don't implies to evolution or it being hypothetical in 32 minutes ago#25 ?

 

[McBell]

So why you care if I don't implies to evolution or it being hypothetical in 32 minutes ago#25 ?

I am still awaiting for clarification from you concerning the OP.
That you revealed your ignorance of evolution in a side tangent is besides the point.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes because I don't think a soul is dependent on some magical addition to the "material" that makes up everything. Thats why I often question the idealistic view on this subject. Seems to me if consciousness is built into anything and everything then anything built with it could be life or aware to some degree. Like using legos that have fundamental awareness potential built into them.

We don't have any indicator of life or sentience beyond what we can physically observe.

Because I am not convinced it takes something more to animate life.

OK, you guys are materialists and I am spiritualist (for lack of perfect terms).

You see life as upwardly caused, meaning the lower level, physical atoms, create the higher level, something we call 'life'.

In my view, the higher levels and blueprint actually pre-exist the physical. The physical is fulfilling a blueprint from a higher level and involving more than three-dimensional physical components, perhaps akin to what Rupert Sheldrake would call Morphic Resonance.

I believe the theoretical adult fly would be nothing more than a nice replica museum piece with no animation possible.

 

[Godobeyer]

(My understanding is that) Humans at present do not have sufficient mastery of the natural process to create an animal or insect from scratch.

In theory however, our knowledge of evolution and genetics raises the possibility of being able to engineer a species (such as a fly) based on manipulating the genetic code. The power of science is being able to take a natural process and harness it for human purposes. We look at the shape of a birds wings and may discover the laws of thermodynamics- so eventually we may be able to reproduce the "lift" for a man made object.

Here's leonardo Da Vinci sketch of a birds wing:

Here's a sketch he made for a flying machine based on trying to identify the structures in a birds wing (or a bats wing), such as bones and feathers:

In the case of evolution we have already manipulated the process to an extent by using breeding, such as breeding chickens for increased meat yield. This process was already under way in the agricultural revolution in the 18th and 19th century. Darwin called it "domestic selection", the man-made eqivilent of "natural selection".

The leap darwin took was borrowing the mechanism of competing for resources to understand changes in population from thomas malthus. Malthus' theory of population was originally intended for understaing the limits of food supply on humans. Darwin applied it to animals as the mechanism of "natural selection".

Now- the same principle of understanding and reproducing a natural process by science can be applied to the "origin of species". For example- we cloned a sheep in 1996:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

The difference between artifically cloning an animal and altering the genetic code (at a guess) is an order to magnitude of control over the process. Its not technologically impossible.

Now, lets take your scenario for a second. Assume all life on earth (excluding yourself) died out. With enough time, resources and knowledge it is possible to genetically engineer life. Its a physical process and we can theoretically repeat it in a laboratory. The process of abiogenesis is the one in which non-organic matter is turned into living organic matter. Hypothetically, we could eventually do it in a laboratory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

The wonder of genetics is that all life on earth is essentially built from the same genetic building blocks. Manipulating the genes of a fly, you could reverse engineer species from genetic material, or perhaps produce new species of fly or maybe another species entirely using the same building blocks.

This is an atheists view (a pretty radical one maybe) but not one based on being intimately familiar with the deatils in biology. my understanding is what you are asking is not impossible, but still technologically maybe a few decades away (and raises alot of ethical questions about how we use these technologies). But its not impossible.

Is proved that abiogenesis (as start of life) is apply to all species ?

It's known that human could change some of DNA..;etc, but not creat.
for my opinion it's would be great challenge that humans could creat a living fly or living animal, as we build cars or planes

 

[George-ananda]

Not really since we can't make a fly atom by atom. Ergo we can't deduce something from things that can't be done.

It was a 'theoretical' question with important implications such as; is life formed from just three-dimensional physical matter and energy within our detectable range?

 

[Godobeyer]

I am still awaiting for clarification from you concerning the OP.
That you revealed your ignorance of evolution in a side tangent is besides the point.

Some believe evolution as starter/original of life,that's not my problem.



back to OP.
How much time you take to creat a fly,and how?

 

[McBell]

Some believe evolution as starter/original of life,that's not my problem.

It is when you are one of those who believe the lie.

back to OP.
How much time you take to creat a fly,and how?

About 35 seconds.
Of course, I would be using the magic powers you granted in the OP.

 

[Godobeyer]

@Mestemia

Say after me:
"Humans could not creat a fly"

 

[McBell]

@Mestemia

Say after me:
"Humans could not creat a fly"

It is interesting that even though humans cannot create a fly, they create gods by the hundreds.

 

[Godobeyer]

It is when you are one of those who believe the lie.

this is back to me to same question
So why you care that I don't amplies on evolution as hypothetical.?

About 35 seconds.
Of course, I would be using the magic powers you granted in the OP.

 

[Godobeyer]

It is interesting that even though humans cannot create a fly, they create gods by the hundreds.

let them believe whatever they want.

maybe because they can not create a fly,so they believe in God?

 

[McBell]

this is back to me to same question
So why you care that I don't amplies on evolution as hypothetical.?

What are you talking about?

I am not complaining that you eliminated evolution from the OP.
Makes sense to eliminate evolution really, considering evolution does not address how life started.

In fact, I understand why you would make it a big point to eliminate evolution because there will be those who will want to preach evolution even though it does not address how life began.