Fair enough, but it does not much help in supporting the hypothesis of life originating spontaneously out of available non-living molecules.
Which, while not really very related to evolution, seems to be what FearGod is asking about.
-
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!
Evolution based on random mutations and natural selection
- Thread starter FearGod
- Start date
Fair enough, but it does not much help in supporting the hypothesis of life originating spontaneously out of available non-living molecules.
Which, while not really very related to evolution, seems to be what FearGod is asking about.
I was talking about Craig Venter. Craig Venter creates synthetic life form | Science | The Guardian When you remove the DNA from a bacteria it can't do what is required of it for us to call it alive. It can't reproduce, it lacks the blueprint to sustain itself. It is not alive anymore. We killed it. Some chemical reactions are still taking place but not all required for life. When they put their own DNA in it they created new life. Go back and see the list of things required for an organism to be alive.
"Spontaneous generation or anomalous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh." Wikipedia. Is this what you are talking about?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
That is again a dishonest and misleading, but when a scientist speak he won't do the same as you do or the same as your chosen article says as the honest scientist don't care about religion but about science and they did a great achievement but they didn't create life from scratch.
Craig Venter himself said we didn't create life.
CNN: Did you create new life?
Venter: We created a new cell. It's alive. But we didn't create life from scratch.
We created. as all life on this planet is. out of a living cell.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/21/venter.qa/
I never said they created life from scratch. I said they created life from non-life. I never said they took one atom or one molecule at a time and put them together until they had a living cell. I never said they created life from scratch.
I never said they created life from scratch. They created a new living cell. They created life. They used non-life to do it. They used a dead cell to do it. They used what was left of a previously living cell to create a living cell. Got it yet?
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Why you removed the last statement, he said as well
We created. as all life on this planet is. out of a living cell.
Not out of a dead cell.
Because what he meant is that they started with a living cell but when they take the DNA out of a living cell it becomes a dead cell. They kill the cell. When you take the DNA out of a living cell it becomes a non-living cell. For example, it can't produce copies of itself anymore. So it lacks one of the properties we need to call it alive. I removed the last statement because I thought you would get the point from my previous statements. But no.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Why they needed to insert it in a living bacterium at first place regardless of it being dead ?
It's as stupid as saying this TV isn't working as i removed one transistor and see how i'll make it works by inserting another transistor.
But you have to make the TV(bacterium) and not just inserting a new transistor.
Because I'm sure if you would like to pay the bill and wait quite a few years they could in principle put together a living cell molecule by molecule part by part but don't you think that would be a complete waste of money and time when we already have loads of bacteria freely available?
Yes finally now you got the point! Finally! Take a TV, remove the power supply and what you have left is a dead TV! Just a collection of parts. But when you put in a new power supply you have created a live tv from a collection of non-living parts. You could have made the parts yourself and put them together and created a live tv but the principle is the same. In both cases you produce a live TV from non-living parts.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
OMG, that's a boring discussion.
DNA isn't life to compare it to a power supply, it's only information coded in a molecule.
Dishonesty is the reason that no one in this forum will say that you're wrong, that's distressing
The reason no one in this forum will say that I'm wrong is because I'm right. What is distressing is that it seems completely impossible to get you to understand the simplest concepts. No matter how many different ways I try to explain something you don't get it. So I give up trying.
Sort of. It is of course obsolete thinking that organisms usually develop by spontaneous generation. But FearGod seems to be asking specifically about the origin of life itself.
Which, granted, isn't of more than tangential interest to evolution, if even that much.
Many people believe that it is so, but that is certainly not a known fact.
It's one of those working hypotheses that can get junked if knowledge ever gets to the point where we can understand enough about all the processes to be able to make our own.
But you can guarantee, if mankind manages to make synthetic life from scratch, the designed structures and processes are gong to be a whole lot simpler than what goes on in a living cell.
The origin of life would be when the proper authorities agreed on which properties a collection of molecules would need to have in order to be called alive. If nobody had bothered to make a distinction between certain collections of molecules based on certain properties and called some alive and some not we wouldn't have this discussion.
No, I don't know that. At, least, not if you allow for the descendants of that artificial cell.
True. Just as long as what they make have the properties that defines a living organism it doesn't matter how simple or complicated it is.
I think he means that if we manage to make something that does all the things I listed it doesn't matter if it's just made up of a thousand molecules. It would be life.
Underhill
Well-Known Member
This whole discussion about whether live without god is possible is predicated on the absurd notion that god is possible. It's like explaining how we designed the first airplane by reverse engineering it from the Concord.
The notion of god existing at all, in any form, means either a) that life came from somewhere or b) that god has always been. The first leaves us back where we started and the second... well it takes a problem that seems extremely difficult to understand and answers it with something infinitely more difficult that goes against everything we know in science. People like to think of god as simple. The story is. But the implementation, not so much.
The notion of god existing at all, in any form, means either a) that life came from somewhere or b) that god has always been. The first leaves us back where we started and the second... well it takes a problem that seems extremely difficult to understand and answers it with something infinitely more difficult that goes against everything we know in science. People like to think of god as simple. The story is. But the implementation, not so much.