Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 152 (236313)
08-24-2005 2:58 AM


CBS News - Building Life A Molecule At A Time
That links to a CBS news article telling how Genetic Engineering is being led away from trial and error changes in DNA to something called "Synthetic Biology", or the science of building organisms, living things able to reproduce, with a more ordered approach. Intelligent design, if I ever saw it.
It's not the deepest of articles if you're going to look at it from a scientist's point of view, but it doesn't need to be for the purposes of discussing the potential effects this can have on a creationist's point of view on the origins of life.
Synthetic Biology has already succeeded in creating a polio virus and another smaller virus by stitching together individual genes purchased from biotechnology companies. Here we have scientists, mere mortals, creating life. All of a sudden it doesn't seem to take divine intervention.
As this field progresses, we'll be seeing more and more complex organisms created with specific purposes. What's to keep us from thinking this will eventually lead to the synthesis of fully engineered human (or human-like) DNA resulting in beings undistinguishable from current humans?
Without even getting into the ethical issues potentially raised by this, what effect do you think it would have on creationists' belief that humans were specially created?
This message has been edited by LauraG, 08-20-2005 05:49 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by iano, posted 08-24-2005 9:26 AM LauraG has replied
 Message 4 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-24-2005 9:28 AM LauraG has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5250 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 2 of 152 (236314)
08-24-2005 2:59 AM


Promoted by AdminSylas.

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


Message 3 of 152 (236356)
08-24-2005 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LauraG
08-24-2005 2:58 AM


Abiogenesis ...abiohope
LauraG writes:
Without even getting into the ethical issues potentially raised by this, what effect do you think it would have on creationists' belief that humans were specially created?
Hi LauraG and welcome to EvC
The effects on creationist would be, I pose, absolutely none. The building blocks are there and it's that fact that needs to be addressed. Analysing an existing thing and being able to modify it and make other things or even copies of it is not creating anything.
If what is happening says anything, it is this: that which constitutes life is a very complicated thing. And it takes the full powers of a lot of very intelligent people working over many years - just to be able to make copies of it.
It may in fact add to the creationists argument which holds that if the very best intelligence in the world can only make copies and other bits and pieces using existing building blocks, then to believe that blind chance came up with the original is farther-fetched than once thought.
For science to be able to objectively eject the need for a creator, only one thing is required:
Design an experiment in which a self-replicating entity is formed out of an unknown mixture of chemicals and conditions in a completely undirected way. The experiment could be a stepped one where discrete stages on the way to the the life form are inserted into the next step of the experiment.
Given that 'undirected' and 'unknown chemicals and conditions' form such central elements, it is unlikely that any such experiment will succeed. Assumptions as to what was sloshing around in Darwins 'warm pond' and assumptions as to athmospheric conditions at the time are just that - assumptions. Assumptions means the experiment is being directed by intelligence. Which is not how abiogenesists see it. The creationist, I suggest, can rest easily in the knowledge that science will never be able to formally eject God from the equation

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LauraG, posted 08-24-2005 2:58 AM LauraG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-24-2005 9:50 AM iano has replied
 Message 10 by LauraG, posted 08-24-2005 5:48 PM iano has replied
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 08-29-2005 7:13 AM iano has not replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 152 (236358)
08-24-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LauraG
08-24-2005 2:58 AM


LauraG writes:
Without even getting into the ethical issues potentially raised by this, what effect do you think it would have on creationists' belief that humans were specially created?
As of now, the general reaction by creationists is one of disdain. They view it as just another failed attempt my science to rule their god out of the equation. Since the technique calls for pieces of existing genetic code they don’t view it as on par with creation. In the end though, they are blinded by their defensiveness from seeing what great benefits this could mean for mankind. It just becomes another great example of how the religious mindset stymies mankind’s advancement IMHO.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LauraG, posted 08-24-2005 2:58 AM LauraG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 2:53 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied
 Message 117 by Brad McFall, posted 09-02-2005 9:19 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has not replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 152 (236366)
08-24-2005 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by iano
08-24-2005 9:26 AM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
iano writes:
The effects on creationist would be, I pose, absolutely none. The building blocks are there and it's that fact that needs to be addressed. Analysing an existing thing and being able to modify it and make other things or even copies of it is not creating anything.
If what is happening says anything, it is this: that which constitutes life is a very complicated thing. And it takes the full powers of a lot of very intelligent people working over many years - just to be able to make copies of it.
It may in fact add to the creationists argument which holds that if the very best intelligence in the world can only make copies and other bits and pieces using existing building blocks, then to believe that blind chance came up with the original is farther-fetched than once thought.
Although this rational is valid, I think you are failing to give enough credence to the fact that the very best intelligence in the world can only make copies and stitch pieces of code together right now. A year ago we couldn’t even do that. As science advances, we will be able to do more. Being able to accomplish creating new life by gene-fiddling really shows that genetics are the driving force for the diversity of all life that we see and lends substantiation to the theory of evolution. If stitching together a couple of pieces of DNA can create a new life form then mutation surely can.
iano writes:
For science to be able to objectively eject the need for a creator, only one thing is required:
Design an experiment in which a self-replicating entity is formed out of an unknown mixture of chemicals and conditions in a completely undirected way. The experiment could be a stepped one where discrete stages on the way to the the life form are inserted into the next step of the experiment.
Given that 'undirected' and 'unknown chemicals and conditions' form such central elements, it is unlikely that any such experiment will succeed. Assumptions as to what was sloshing around in Darwins 'warm pond' and assumptions as to athmospheric conditions at the time are just that - assumptions. Assumptions means the experiment is being directed by intelligence. Which is not how abiogenesists see it. The creationist, I suggest, can rest easily in the knowledge that science will never be able to formally eject God from the equation
While I concede that abiogenesis is far less supported than the ToE, and this would definitely be very strong evidence in support of abiogenesis, it is not necessary in positing it’s viability as a reasonable theory. As science marches on just how well supported a theory will be seen. Thus far it has been premature to assign things we do not yet fully understand to a god. Instead we should continue to bring science to bear on these matters and seek real explinations.
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-24-2005 09:51 AM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by iano, posted 08-24-2005 9:26 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by iano, posted 08-24-2005 10:58 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

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


Message 6 of 152 (236402)
08-24-2005 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-24-2005 9:50 AM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
AEA (and if you think I'm going to spell that out in full!!) writes:
While I concede that abiogenesis is far less supported than the ToE, and this would definitely be very strong evidence in support of abiogenesis, it is not necessary in positing it’s viability as a reasonable theory.
Reasonable theory? I'm not debunking science here (which I think is a fantasitic enterprise) but when it comes to abiogenesis, what we have are unfounded assumptions about what was happening then. That isn't science, it is science fiction. A viable theory cannot be based on presumptions which can never be tested.
As science marches on just how well supported a theory will be seen. Thus far it has been premature to assign things we do not yet fully understand to a god. Instead we should continue to bring science to bear on these matters and seek real explinations.
Science should not assign unknown things to God. That is not it's remit. But neither should it comment on God on way or the other. That too is outside it's remit. Science is a narrowly defined entity. It can only attempt to explain the natural. It must remain silent on anything else. It must not, when it reaches limits pre-suppose that a natural cause will be found although it may look - otherwise it becomes a Religion. What it can say is "We do not know yet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-24-2005 9:50 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 08-24-2005 11:13 AM iano has replied
 Message 8 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-24-2005 11:36 AM iano has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 7 of 152 (236412)
08-24-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by iano
08-24-2005 10:58 AM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
iano writes:
Science is a narrowly defined entity. It can only attempt to explain the natural.
Pardon me for disagreeing, but some of us absolutely have never experienced anything beyond the natural and are convinced that there is nothing beyond the natural. Thus, to us science is hardly narrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by iano, posted 08-24-2005 10:58 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-24-2005 11:44 AM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 11 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 6:21 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 152 (236423)
08-24-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by iano
08-24-2005 10:58 AM


Stepping on philosopher’s toes
AEA writes:
While I concede that abiogenesis is far less supported than the ToE, and this would definitely be very strong evidence in support of abiogenesis, it is not necessary in positing it’s viability as a reasonable theory.
iano writes:
Reasonable theory? I'm not debunking science here (which I think is a fantasitic enterprise) but when it comes to abiogenesis, what we have are unfounded assumptions about what was happening then. That isn't science, it is science fiction. A viable theory cannot be based on presumptions which can never be tested.
Although I am no expert in abiogenesis, I do realize that the theory (I should say hypothesis to be more accurate) is based on more than presumptions. Aside from the fact that it has historically been shown to be premature to posit a god as the reason for natural observations, abiogenesis (when looked at in detail) is a very rational hypothesis. Once science advances further it will be put it to the test. I'm sure there are ambitious scientists trying to reproduce at least one of the steps involved in abiogenesis right now. Like other natural observations where science has been forced to state we don’t know it’s merely a matter of time before we have a better understanding of whether abiogenesis is a solid explanation or not. Based on current related fields of study (such as the ToE) it is a rational and plausible explination.
AEA writes:
As science marches on just how well supported a theory will be seen. Thus far it has been premature to assign things we do not yet fully understand to a god. Instead we should continue to bring science to bear on these matters and seek real explinations.
iano writes:
Science should not assign unknown things to God. That is not it's remit. But neither should it comment on God on way or the other. That too is outside it's remit. Science is a narrowly defined entity. It can only attempt to explain the natural. It must remain silent on anything else. It must not, when it reaches limits pre-suppose that a natural cause will be found although it may look - otherwise it becomes a Religion. What it can say is "We do not know yet"
Yes, ultimately science does not speak to any philosophical entity, theism included. It can however seek out natural expiations where theism has happened to place it’s philosophical assertions. In this case science is unwittingly treding on theism’s philosophical assertion of special creation. Although it is not science’s intent or purpose to refute the philosophical assertions of theism, if a natural explanation is found which has better explanatory power and advances our understand of the universe then so be it. The theistic philosopher will have to reevaluate their beliefs lest he become out of touch with reality. If the theist’s god is placed safely into another gap of knowledge for now then that is the business of the theistic philosopher. Science cares not about god.
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-24-2005 03:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by iano, posted 08-24-2005 10:58 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 3:23 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 152 (236425)
08-24-2005 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
08-24-2005 11:13 AM


Lack of supernatural narrow?
GAW-Snow writes:
Pardon me for disagreeing, but some of us absolutely have never experienced anything beyond the natural and are convinced that there is nothing beyond the natural. Thus, to us science is hardly narrow.
To the naturalist science is definitely not narrow as it deals with everything in the universe. There are some, however, that will argue the validity of the supernatural to which science is excluded. The problem is that if there is such a thing, it lies outside of the natural universe, and therefore reality as we know it. If you are going to lend viability to the supernatural then you will have to lend credibility to believers in unicorns, and leprechauns. None of these things have evidence of their existence for the same reason that any supernatural entity does not. Ultimately, science has proven itself to be a great tool for the advancement of mankind’s knowledge and has contributed to everything you use in your day to day life (such as the computer you are using right now) whereas positing a supernatural explanation has not.
This message has been edited by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, 08-24-2005 11:44 AM

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 08-24-2005 11:13 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 152 (236567)
08-24-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by iano
08-24-2005 9:26 AM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
iano writes:
Hi LauraG and welcome to EvC
Thanks.
iano writes:
The effects on creationist would be, I pose, absolutely none. The building blocks are there and it's that fact that needs to be addressed. Analysing an existing thing and being able to modify it and make other things or even copies of it is not creating anything.
A believer in biblical creationism, by definition, also believes in the special creation of human beings in the image of god, thus posessing an eternal soul. It could be very conflicting for a creationist to, supposing the science advances in that direction, interact with a creature that, for all intents and purposes is human, yet was designed protein by protein by a really smart set of guys in lab coats. What is the creationist's conclusion going to be about that being's relation to him and the world they both interact with and exist in? What is the creationist's conclusion going to be regarding the existence of souls... and god?
I think a living being, human or otherwise, designed from the most basic components, as opposed to one created in the natural, "god-designed" manner, will have to blow some pretty serious holes in the biblical creationist's set of beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by iano, posted 08-24-2005 9:26 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 6:32 AM LauraG has replied

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


Message 11 of 152 (237197)
08-26-2005 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by coffee_addict
08-24-2005 11:13 AM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
Science is great I agree. But it cannot comment on anything outside the boundaries it sets itself. Typically: objective, observable, experimental explaination of the natural. Period. (Not that it doesn't speculate wildly at times)
What is the reason whereby we should believe objective is all there is. It might be a well founded theory but a theory is not truth. What reason have we to think that natural and objective are all there is (a reason that doesn't rely on circular reasoning I mean)
If supernatural, then science cannot measure it or observe it. It must be silent on things which may lie outside its self-imposed boundaries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by coffee_addict, posted 08-24-2005 11:13 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-26-2005 12:23 PM iano has replied

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


Message 12 of 152 (237198)
08-26-2005 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by LauraG
08-24-2005 5:48 PM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
LauraG writes:
It could be very conflicting for a creationist to, supposing the science advances in that direction, interact with a creature that, for all intents and purposes is human
Lets presuppose God exists. Now supposing science managed to make a human. The first problem is to show that God couldn't have had a hand in it. This I pose would be impossible because science would be using elements that God already created. The scientist would be doing no more that he does at a grosser level with IVF. Science would have to make up a totally new form of life which didn't involve the design used by God: cells, DNA etc.
Thus Science cannot, of itself, make a human. Thus the problem never needs to arise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by LauraG, posted 08-24-2005 5:48 PM LauraG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 08-26-2005 12:50 PM iano has replied
 Message 15 by Yaro, posted 08-26-2005 12:53 PM iano has not replied
 Message 19 by LauraG, posted 08-26-2005 1:24 PM iano has replied

  
AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 152 (237304)
08-26-2005 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by iano
08-26-2005 6:21 AM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
iano writes:
Science is great I agree. But it cannot comment on anything outside the boundaries it sets itself. Typically: objective, observable, experimental explaination of the natural. Period. (Not that it doesn't speculate wildly at times)
What is the reason whereby we should believe objective is all there is. It might be a well founded theory but a theory is not truth. What reason have we to think that natural and objective are all there is (a reason that doesn't rely on circular reasoning I mean)
If supernatural, then science cannot measure it or observe it. It must be silent on things which may lie outside its self-imposed boundaries.
Science never seeks to prove or disprove the supernatural. What we were discussing was that grey area where theistic philosophy makes assertions about the natural universe. This becomes an overlap where science may hold an opposing assertion to theistic philosophy.
The real question becomes, when is it unhealthy to hold onto a philosophic belief in light of scientific evidence to the contrary?
The OP touched on an assertion that I’ve seen made by theistic philosophers before. Namely that god is necessary to create new life. It is one of the reasons these people reject the ToE (Theory of Evolution). Once science advances far enough to be able to create new life without god then isn’t it prudent to reevaluate your belief at that point?
I understand that there will be grey area where science has yet to offer enough compelling evidence to sway theistic beliefs in a certain area. The question becomes what is reasonable and what is simply cognitive dissonance.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 6:21 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 3:30 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6486 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 14 of 152 (237313)
08-26-2005 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by iano
08-26-2005 6:32 AM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
This I pose would be impossible because science would be using elements that God already created. The scientist would be doing no more that he does at a grosser level with IVF. Science would have to make up a totally new form of life which didn't involve the design used by God: cells, DNA etc.
God of the gaps is it? Not a very good creator, allways hiding just out of reach. God forbid we ever prove him
This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-26-2005 12:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 6:32 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 2:41 PM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6486 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 15 of 152 (237316)
08-26-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by iano
08-26-2005 6:32 AM


Usefullness of God
So, how is God usefull? If he creates a universe which is self sufficient, seemingly devoid of him, filled with things that can happen without him. What does this God do? Does he serve a purpose?
ABE: If we create a human from scratch, in the lab. And say we even improve on the design and clean up that DNA code. Maybe add some better indentation and comments here and there. And this person is a better person than you or me (geneticaly anyway) we just improved Gods design. So where did the guys soul come from?
Does god hide in the wastepaper basket in the Lab and when our hypothetical human comes to life he jumpes out and sticks a soul in him? Does this not seem a bit silly?
This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-26-2005 12:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 6:32 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 08-26-2005 12:56 PM Yaro has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024