Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Artifical life
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 3 of 71 (561489)
05-20-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Flyer75
05-20-2010 8:57 PM


no barrier to mutation/s
Hi Flyer75, good question.
Could this guy (a brilliant guy no doubt), just proven that life, *gasp*, requires some sort of designer, or a "god"????
Or is this not that big of a deal and all it means is that this genius of a scientist is advancing science?
In my (obviously humble) opinion, what this shows is that there is no limitation to what can occur through mutation and replication.
Why?
Because it shows you can take random molecules and assemble them into any form of life you desire, replicate any known organism, and the result is a viable living reproducing organism.
You could take one organism, deconstruct it and reassemble it into another.
Any such change could occur by mutation in a natural process.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Flyer75, posted 05-20-2010 8:57 PM Flyer75 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mike the wiz, posted 05-21-2010 11:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 71 (561495)
05-20-2010 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AZPaul3
05-20-2010 10:00 PM


What is significant about this experiment is that this is the first time in genetic engineering an entire genome has been sequencer produced without any of the naturally produced genome used in the resultant cell.
The potential of this process for biogenic drugs is ... inspiring.
My last chemo drug was biogenic -- produce by bacteria bred to make it in quantity.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AZPaul3, posted 05-20-2010 10:00 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AZPaul3, posted 05-20-2010 11:04 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 14 by ramoss, posted 05-21-2010 9:58 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 71 (561599)
05-21-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ramoss
05-21-2010 9:58 AM


Hi ramoss,
Gleevec?
No, Bendamustine\Treanda
Home | TREANDA® (bendamustine HCl) for Injection
quote:
TREANDA for injection is indicated for the treatment of patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that has progressed during or within six months of treatment with rituximab or a rituximab-containing regimen. TREANDA is also indicated for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Efficacy relative to first-line therapies other than chlorambucil has not been established.
That's me - non-Hodgkins (follicular) lymphoma which is fairly resistant to treatment. It came back the second time after only 8 months and aggressively. Then had rituximab (CHOP-R) and then an "autogenic transplant"
http://my.clevelandclinic.org/...artfailure/celltherapy.aspx
See Message 61 on Cancer Survivors
I was originally stage 3-4
Welcome lymphomation.org - BlueHost.com
After the autogenic transplant I had two years before it came back, and then only at stage 1.
The bendamustine appears to have done the job so far, but we are only 4 months after end of treatment.
A recent symposium of oncologists across the nation shows a strong positive support for bendamustine being effective against nH-lymphomas.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ramoss, posted 05-21-2010 9:58 AM ramoss has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 49 of 71 (561711)
05-22-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by agent_509
05-22-2010 3:44 PM


Welcome to the fray, agent_509
(you'll notice that I prefer the word Darwinism, has less baggage. There are multiple types of evolution, and evolution doesn't have to be inconsistent with design.)
Curiously, it doesn't matter at all what you think, as science is defined by the scientists, and if you are going to talk about the science then you need to use the terminology and meanings that are used in science.
Use different terminology, or try to adopt different meanings from what is used in science, and you are only deluding yourself that you are talking about the science and not some misinterpretation based on confirmation bias and preconceptions.
Evolution is the change in the types and frequencies of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.
If anything, I see that it took our intelligent species years to be able to replicate a very basic cell using coding that already existed and was already known, while an Atheistic Darwinist theory would suggest that such an event could have occurred by complete random chance out of non-living matter.
Amazingly chemistry is not completely random.
Message 46 I could not remember the term abiogenesis, so I used the term atheistic Darwinism instead.
Which just demonstrates how wrong you can be when you try to misuse terminology and attach different meanings rather than discuss the science with the proper terminology and meanings.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 3:44 PM agent_509 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:51 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 58 of 71 (561733)
05-22-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by agent_509
05-22-2010 5:51 PM


Hi again agent_509,
I'll ignore most of your useless comments ...
Denial is one of the first stages of cognitive dissonance when confronted with information that contradicts pet beliefs.
Cognitive dissonance is resolved by recognizing facts for what they are and altering you opinions to be consistent with the evidence. Until this happens, cognitive dissonance will remain, because reality is not a matter of opinion.
... and move on to what you said about chemistry not being completely random.
Which is a fact: atoms only combine with other atoms in certain very specific manners and only with certain other atoms.
I would love to hear you explain how the first cell could have arisen without a creator, or random chance.
As abiogenesis is not the topic of this thread, that would be innappropriate here. Note that this forum sets a lot of stock on staying on topic on each of the threads, and that if you want to discuss this you can either (a) find an existing thread on abiogenesis or (b) start one.
Is Abiogenesis a fact? and Stanley Miller debunked? are two threads that are still open, or go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.
Message 52
you are extremely wrong on the controversy of the science, and btw, Darwinism is a widely accepted term for ToE.
Again, this is false.
(1) there is no controversy in science that (a) evolution is an established science, (b) the process of evolution occurs, and (c) the theory of evolution has not been invalidated.
(2) Darwinism as used within the science of evolution is limited to describing Darwin's theory of descent with modification through the action of natural selection, while evolution in general, and the ToE in particular, incorporate several additional mechanisms that result in the change in type and frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunity. Mutation of genes is one that was unknown in Darwin's time. Neutral drift is another.
You don't need to take my word for it, you can see what Darwins theory is from this page
Evolution and Natural Selection
And you can see what the modern concept of evolution is from this page
The Process of Speciation
Note the differences, and also that neither page uses the term "Darwinism".
You can also go to this page and search for "Darwinism" on the whole site
An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
Darwinism is a term that is most often misused by creationists that seem to be adverse to discussing evolution within the terminology of science, either because they don't understand it or don't want to understand it.
Now you may think that using the term "Darwinism" strengthens your argument, but it doesn't. It weakens it. Either the term is used correctly to refer only to Darwin's theory, in which case you are only discussing the effect of natural selection and not the rest of evolution, or you are misusing the term and confusing fact with fantasy. In either case the conclusions you reach are necessarily invalid, because you are not dealing with evolution.
No informed person would disagree that some things have changed over time, ...
And biological evolution is not just the change is some things over time, it is the change in hereditary traits over time by a number of specific mechanisms and processes.
Biological evolution has been observed and is a fact of life. It can be seen in life all around you.
... however I completely reject the idea that ...
And amusingly, your underinformed opinion is useless in being able to alter reality in any way.
... all the complexity and diversity we see today ...
It was Darwin's insight that descent from common ancestors along with the adaptation of beneficial traits in populations from generation to generation was sufficient to explain "the complexity and diversity we see today" ... and there is no evidence that has been found since then to contradict this.
... was created by mutation and natural selection.
Which is not what is claimed by evolution and the modern theory of evolution.
Scientific theory takes observed facts and then makes a testable hypothesis, forms predictions based on the hypothesis and tests those predictions to see it they hold up.
Today we observe that evolution - the change in type and frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunity - has occurred and is a scientifically established fact.
We also observe that the process of evolution in isolated populations of a parent species results in different evolution in these offspring populations, and that in many instances that this different evolution has resulted in reproductive isolation, where the daughter populations no longer interbreed when they have the opportunity. This process is called speciation, and while it is rare compared to general evolution, it is also a process observed to occur and is a scientifically established fact.
In simple terms the modern theory of evolution can be defined as the theory that evolution and speciation are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from prehistory, from archaeology, paleontology, geology, genetics, chemistry and other sciences.
The fossil evidence is a test of this theory: it is the evidence of what actually occurred in the past. There is no fossil evidence that contradicts this theory.
The genetic evidence is a test of this theory: it is the evidence of hereditary descent from ancestors to modern organisms. There is no genetic evidence that contradicts this theory.
Both these lines of evidence are (1) independent and (2) capable of forming patterns of descent from ancestral populations. The patterns of descent from ancestral populations that emerges from each line of evidence is a nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestor populations. The overall pattern that emerges from the fossil evidence matches the overall pattern derived from the genetic evidence, and this match is powerful validation of the pattern of descent from common ancestor populations, as there is absolutely no reason for these independently derived patterns from independent evidence to match without common ancestry being involved.
Again, this is off-topic on this thread, and if you want to discuss this further you can either (a) find an existing thread on evolution or (b) start one.
If you start one on "the controversy of evolution" it would be most fun.
I'll read that site in time, but as for now I will simply place one of my own evidences against evolution. irreducible complexity. The flagellar motor is a good example of irreducible complexity.
...
also, the Cambrian explosion is quite a problem in the fossil record...
And you may want to include this page in your reading so you don't keep making foolish assertions that have already been refuted:
An Index to Creationist Claims
or
Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis
They're called PRATTs for a reason.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by agent_509, posted 05-22-2010 5:51 PM agent_509 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