Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 139 of 152 (241092)
09-07-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
09-07-2005 12:59 PM


Re: How do you eant an elephant?
AEA writes:
You can’t put a “good” or “evil” label on knowledge. Knowledge is impartial in and of itself. It is how we use the knowledge that can be judged. Labeling knowledge itself is as ridiculous as positing that fire is evil because it has destroyed buildings and taken lives.
Hmmm. Pursuit of knowledge was the "right track". Why?
Okay iano, here’s one that scientists have observed outside of a lab. You now officially have no reason to deny that speciation has and is occurring (unless you move the goalposts again)
I think a request to read something something with a bit more punch to it than what is written in newspapers about "The insects are believed to be the descendants of...". is not moving the goalposts. Like would you accept a newspaper report about a moving statue of the virgin mary seriously? I know I wouldn't.
I would go straight to the part in the scientific paper which deals with the reasons why if "This usually happens only when species are isolated for thousands rather than tens of years.", how it can be explained to happen so quickly. Given that such an explaination would not be forthcoming I would have the time to surmise that this statment about timescales was derived from artifical lab experiments which were aimed to cause the speciation and which were then transferred (without any scientific justification) to describe what happens in nature. A bit of extrapolation and hey presto!! "(nature) usually takes...."
I don't know if I'm being too flippant here, maybe speciation does occur in nature - but I can't see a way of setting up and experiment to test for it
The (tornado in a junkyard) argument doesn’t hold weight."It does not take into account any non-random effects. Most significantly, it ignores natural selection, the central principle of evolution theory".
I don't see how natural selection is applicable to building blocks of life. What 'advantage' can a non-living (and thus non-replicating) piece of material have in order to pass it's advantage on to successors it can't make. Abiogenesis has to assemble all the parts (either in stages (a series of random accidents) or all at once (a single random accident). Either way, it is all random.
You've say speciation occurs. It does: in a lab. It occurred in a lab because the experiment was designed to achieve that goal. That says nothing about whether it occurs in nature. A newspaper report doesn't change that
Abiogenesis is a tornado in a junkyard.
'Creationist' is often employed as a dirty word. But it is not a magic wand that will somehow make the issues go away. If you think you can argue that speciation occurs in nature (where folk seem to assume it does) or that abiogenesis is other than a tornado in a junkyard, then I'll discuss them with you. But it will have to be discussion based on reason - not smear.

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-07-2005 12:59 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-08-2005 3:33 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 140 of 152 (241096)
09-07-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Brad McFall
09-07-2005 3:57 PM


Re: the tailor or the cook, you decide
disagreed a bit with iano
Remind me not to annoy you would you Brad? One day you might take it upon yourself to blow me outta the water!
Serious question though. Quite often you refer (it seems) to concepts as if these are known to others. Maybe they are but not to me. Reading your posts makes me feel dumb because I haven't got the first clue about the nodal points on which you build your post. You mention "cbs Report". Me goes "cbs report " then goes "Google" and goes "blimey!! where do I start?" Could you not spell it out more. Like take account of the way it is...."Brad McFall-Lite or summit"
I have left clue after clue as to how to do more than explore the subject.
And there I think you have the nub of the issue. Folk are, it seems probably more inclined (and I put my own hand up here) to argue to the death to support their own position than they are to genuinely trek along the path to "knowledge and understanding through discussion" I reckon there is knowledge and understanding through discussion alright: the Evo gets to see what a unyielding and dogmatic bunch of folk the creationists REALLY are. And the Creationist gets to see what an unyielding and dogmatic bunch the Evos really are - and what a house of cards the whole edifice really is (oops - couldn't resist it )
How much are folk here to really objectively explore the evidence and learn. Hmmm....

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Brad McFall, posted 09-07-2005 3:57 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Brad McFall, posted 09-07-2005 7:18 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 142 of 152 (241232)
09-08-2005 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Brad McFall
09-07-2005 7:18 PM


Re: Re:in the begining of this was a thread post #1
CBS report writes:
"Synthetic biology is like iron: You can make sewing needles and you can make spears. Of course, there is going to be dual use."
Which is kind of what you would expect after all.
Interesting article that and one which underlines the on-topic contention (thanks for the reminder) that in "creating life" folk are just (and I don't mean to belittle the effort and intelligence that goes in) using pre-existing elements and design types ('lego blocks' as the article referred to them) to create evermore complex bio-machines. Thus a creationist would have no reason to adapt his position were man to make 'man'. No 'gap' is being filled by this technology
As for refering to concepts in general, well, I am not just posting here for the fun of it. I am trying to shape the thoughts somewhat, and I do it rather crudely. This also however is a function of "getting a feel" on a responder. The bigger words one uses the easier it is to see if the person is cranking or just cranky. Once I get it in my mind who the person is, I dont need much, I try to be sensitive to their character or personality.
Shape away. Brad Lite coming in loud and clear. Sensitive to character or peronality. Hmmm, must take a leaf (sic) out of your book
hey that is what makes the internet not Darwin's telephone.
I take it back, I had to Google Darwins Telephone. I would think this place can be exactly like Telephone myself

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Brad McFall, posted 09-07-2005 7:18 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Brad McFall, posted 09-10-2005 10:01 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 148 of 152 (242391)
09-12-2005 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by ramoss
09-10-2005 3:03 PM


Re: How do you eant an elephant?
Ramoss writes:
How probable? We can show that the pathways follow the observed behavior of organic chemistry, in a repeatable fashion.
Analysing a motor car and understanding all the stages that go into it's existance: metallurgy, thrmodynamics, manufacturing processes etc are what you describe here. What makes life can indeed be analysed. The question is however, could it arrive accidently and if so what are the probabilities of it doing so?
There maybe s sequence of conditions and events that will be discovered in which life arises, but you can be sure (given that it hasn't happened yet) that these are complex - extremely so. No matter. How does one, given an extremely complex series of events work out any probability that these were the conditions then? One can't. All one could say is that WE manufactured life and that it is very difficult to do.
There will undoubtable many different paths to the same results.
If 1000 different paths to the same results are found, does it matter which path is actually taken, except as a historical curiousity?
I admire your faith. At the moment there isn't even one that has been found. And when there is there is nothing to be said about it as far as history goes. Man will have made life - not shown that it could have arisen accidently. That door will remain shut forever - curiosity or no.
When we find out a path that is totally naturalistic, why do we have to invoke the supernatural for an explaination?
It will not be naturalistic when/if it is found. It will involve the application of intelligence, carefully assembled conditions and countless failed experiments which are modified to push nearer a result. Naturalistic this is not. Life, when man makes it, will be designed and in such a way, as to require the answer (how is life assembled) before one can attempt the question. When I was in college this method of passing exams was called cheating
But I predict that if/when scientists do manage to design life the headlines will splash "Life occurred accidently on Earth" across the world ("..and these were the conditions then too....")
Can you show me a way to test that any god exists?
I don't know about any god but as far a God is concerned, sure. And you will be pleased to know it involves elements of scientific method. But that would be another threads work.
Hint: some central elements in it, just like in any scientific endeavor are:
you'd have to want to find the answer
you'd have to be prepared to dispense with predisposition and deal with the evidence as it presents itself to you.
you'd have to go looking for the answer on it's terms not yours (ask any ornotologist whether this is a sensible thing to do)
Somehow though, I suspect in reality your not all that interested. I think that the remark was intended to imply that science could provide hard evidence (it can't and never will) and that since there was no hard evidence for God (there is but of course you've got to look for it) Science wins. I'm glad (for you) that it ain't that cut and dried.

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by ramoss, posted 09-10-2005 3:03 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Wounded King, posted 09-12-2005 7:37 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 150 of 152 (242422)
09-12-2005 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Wounded King
09-12-2005 7:37 AM


Re: How do you eant an elephant?
woundedking writes:
Oh of course, I forgot about all those little fairies and goblins that run about casting magic spells to help out in the lab. I wonder if my pet leprechaun can produce some nanogold for me.
No better man for the IPU argument . One of these days you might come up with an argument that addresses the evidence as it is: millions of people believe in God (and have done so all through the ages) Not many believe in fairies. To compare the two as you frequently do (if memory serves me correctly), to be or the same order is do YOU no justice.
(ps: if delusion and indoctrination are the next best things you can offer to explain then some evidence - for that is were we deal - then some non-assertion style argument would be useful)
No matter how tortuous or finagled the neccessary mix of elements and pathways needed for abiogenesis to occur are they will still be more parsimonious than positing a supernatural being interceding in the event. To my mind the leap in credibility is many orders of magnitude.
The thread has to do with the effect of man 'creating' life on the creationist. The answer for the creationist is no effect - he has all the evidence he needs, and life-from-the-lab is almost amusingly feeble in how little it would scratch the knowledge the creationist has. For the athiest (you presumably) it would be a different matter altogehter, I agree.
You may chose to see it as opening up to probabilites something which currently appears improbable. For you it would be a step forward in copperfastening your existing belief (No God). It is illustrative that you might be looking forward to the day when life-in-the-lab occurs will give you further assurance.
However man-designs-life says nothing about it-could-have-occurred-by-accident. Apples and Pears. Nothing at all. It doesn't make it more probable to presume by even one iota. Not one shred of a hand-up is offered towards the conclusion of life-by-accident by man -designing - life.
The only help it offers is if you chose to ignore that fact and see it indeed to be something that it is not. Blind faith. Nothing designed can be taken to indicate something by accident. That would be, I'm sure, a form of non-sequitur.
By all means chose it WK. Give me the rational anyday

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Wounded King, posted 09-12-2005 7:37 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Wounded King, posted 09-12-2005 11:52 AM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024