Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 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
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

  
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

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 152 (237338)
08-26-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by iano
08-26-2005 6:32 AM


Re: Abiogenesis ...abiohope
iano writes:
Lets presuppose God exists.
Well, if you're going to start there, you're really setting yourself up for a circular argument.
iano writes:
Now supposing science managed to make a human. The first problem is to show that God couldn't have had a hand in it.
No, the first problem would be to show that god did have or could've had a hand in it. See the circular reasoning issues you run into when you set up your argument with a presuposition that equals the conclusion you're trying to reach?
iano writes:
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.
This all stems from your supposition that god exists. Why is that necessary? The science of this works equally well without that superfluous metaphysical being in the equation.
iano writes:
Thus Science cannot, of itself, make a human. Thus the problem never needs to arise.
You mean you think the problem need not arise if we start by supposing god exists.

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 20 by Yaro, posted 08-26-2005 1:37 PM LauraG has replied
 Message 33 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 4:01 PM LauraG has not replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 152 (237376)
08-26-2005 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Yaro
08-26-2005 1:37 PM


Re: To drive home the point
Yaro writes:
Hey LauraG,
Here is a rephrasing of iano's post in order to drive home the point:
Lets presuppose Invisible Pink Unicorns exist. Now supposing science managed to make a human. The first problem is to show that Invisible Pink Unicorns couldn't have had a hand in it. This I pose would be impossible because science would be using elements that Invisible Pink Unicorns 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 Invisible Pink Unicorns: cells, DNA etc.
Thus Science cannot, of itself, make a human. Thus the problem never needs to arise.
I fail to see how restating the same argument and changing the name to "Pink Unicorn", "Thor" or "Jimmy the Pancake Chef" solves the severe circular reasoning problems with the argument or how it "drives home the point."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Yaro, posted 08-26-2005 1:37 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Yaro, posted 08-26-2005 2:05 PM LauraG has replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 152 (237395)
08-26-2005 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Yaro
08-26-2005 2:05 PM


Re: To drive home the point
Yaro writes:
Meaning that the argument is totaly cirular and you can presupose anything in the place of god. Essentially, an argument that proves too much, proves nothing.
iano's argument, if considered valid, can be used to prove any invisible, undetectable, uncorporial, supernatural entetie. That's what I was pointing out. The argument in and of itself proves nothing and is useless.
Oh! To drive home MY point! I thought you meant driving home Iano's point which, obviously, it doesn't.
Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Yaro, posted 08-26-2005 2:05 PM Yaro has not replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 152 (237509)
08-26-2005 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by iano
08-26-2005 3:30 PM


A call for evidence?
iano writes:
See post 26 for what constitutes 'new life'. I think I am being fair too. If science does this, then I'll not only reevaluate belief. I'll eat my hat.
Post 26 writes:
Lets see if Atheistic Science can create it's very own lifeform out of inanimate matter. Then we'll be able to compare God-of-the-gaps and the God-of-Science. And no copying mind. Copying and using Gods ideas such as RNA and proteins and amino acids is eazi-peezi-lemon-squeezi. Let them think up their very own life form - improve on this accidental jumble. It's original art we want to see - not some old low grade forgery....
So you get to define what acceptable evidence is based on your assumption that "RNA and proteins and aminoacids" are god's idea. What happened to the biblical "god specially created man in his own image" thing? I'd say when man specially creates man in his own image, the necessity for divine intervention is discredited and faith in the god of the christian bible takes a big, thundering thump.
I mean, how's the evidence you require in post 26 any different than the call for a dog giving birth to a cat as evidence for evolution that I saw on this board a day or two ago?
Actually, if scientists do create a living being without using the basic building blocks of life, I'LL eat my hat because that would go a long way to prove the foundations of life sciences as we know them are off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 08-26-2005 3:30 PM iano has not replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 152 (239120)
08-31-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
08-31-2005 9:27 AM


Re: Science revealing God...
iano writes:
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: NO GOD. Your presumption is based on what YOU think God should or shouldn't do. Your demand is that he provides evidence on YOUR terms. But again, if you consider what he would be you would no doubt agree that his way of revealing himself (presuming again that he indeed wanted to) might well be done on HIS terms not yours. I asked before if you would consider what God would be like - if he existed. If you carried out this one minute exercise you may have noticed your jaw dropping onto the keyboard. The word 'humility' may have flashed across your skull.
Stop trying to reduce God to your size for a moment and consider that if he was able to make a logical, ordered and predictable world he was able to do other things as well which you may not be as privy to. Especially if you don't want to be.
Let's try this excercise for a moment:
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: NO EVOLUTION. Your presumption is based on what YOU think Evolution should or shouldn't do. Your demand is that it provides evidence on YOUR terms. But again, if you consider what it would be you would no doubt agree that its way of revealing itself (presuming again that you indeed wanted it to) might well be done on ITS terms not yours. I asked before if you would consider what Evolution would be like - if it existed. If you carried out this one minute exercise you may have noticed your jaw dropping onto the keyboard. The word 'humility' may have flashed across your skull.
Stop trying to reduce Evolution to your size for a moment and consider that if it was able to make a logical, ordered and predictable world it was able to do other things as well which you may not be as privy to. Especially if you don't want to be.
Hmmm. Still fits pretty well, doesn't it?
Bold indicates my edits to iano's original text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 08-31-2005 9:27 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Rahvin, posted 08-31-2005 5:45 PM LauraG has not replied
 Message 96 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 5:36 AM LauraG has replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 152 (239472)
09-01-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by iano
09-01-2005 5:36 AM


Re: Science revealing God...
iano writes:
It is amusing but I'm afraid it falls at the first fence. Having a why? then presuming the answer to the question to be a negative.
You must be a little irked that I have you arguing my case for me. Let me remind you how this little exchange got started:
iano writes:
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: NO GOD...
Now, on to your argument, which I'll take sentence by sentence, as I did before, instead of just flipping around the first sentence and calling it impossible at the end.
iano writes:
You have a why and a presumption as to the answer: EVOLUTION.
No, we had a series of observations and a curiosity for an explanation. The evidence produced by the investigation took us to an explanation and it was called Theory of Evolution. An alternative you have to make your argument fit is to follow the same process of observation and investigation to god, then follow the evidence that and see where you end up... and no, the bible isn't evidence.
iano writes:
Your presumption is based on what YOU think Evolution should or shouldn't do. Your ensure it provides evidence on YOUR terms.
Please support how everyone who has studied the ToE has messed with the evidence to support their opinion of how evolution should behave.
iano writes:
But again, if you consider what it would be you would no doubt agree that its way of revealing itself (presuming again that you indeed wanted it to) might well be done on ITS terms not yours.
It has revealed itself on its terms. If you think it hasn't, please disprove the whole of the evidence that took us to the ToE.
iano writes:
I asked before if you would consider what Evolution would be like - if it existed. If you carried out this one minute exercise you may have noticed your jaw dropping onto the keyboard. The word 'impossible' may have flashed across your skull.
Why? You can't just tack on the word "impossible" to a theory and not support it. You run the risk of revealing bias.
Show me again why your original argument works, while my restructuring of it doesn't?
This message has been edited by LauraG, 09-01-2005 10:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 5:36 AM iano has not replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 152 (239473)
09-01-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by iano
09-01-2005 6:08 AM


Re: Ring-fencing the start of life
About your wheel-spokes-rim analogy...
I can't believe you're arguing unknowables in science, only to turn to an unknowable to explain why there are unknowables. Really, this isn't a case were "fighting fire with fire" works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 6:08 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 1:16 PM LauraG has replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 152 (239508)
09-01-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by iano
09-01-2005 10:44 AM


Re: Ring-fencing the start of life
iano writes:
Only God can explain the diversity of the species completely,
God-of-the-gaps again, with a bit on No-True-Scotsman thrown in for good measure.
iano writes:
The same can happen with Evolution. Evolution is not fact. And no matter how close to fact folk think it is, on its head it most certainly can go.
Yes it can. If and when we find a better, evidence-supported theory to explain observations, on its head it goes. That's the beauty of it. With that in mind, explain to me two things:
1 - Your wheel analogy makes god (the rim) finite and provable. According to you and to avoid a continuous god-of-the-gaps argument, how can god be turned on its head?
2 - How does turning evolution on its head immediately point to god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 10:44 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Brad McFall, posted 09-01-2005 11:17 AM LauraG has not replied
 Message 109 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 11:53 AM LauraG has not replied

  
LauraG
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 152 (239673)
09-01-2005 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by iano
09-01-2005 1:16 PM


Re: Ring-fencing the start of life
Hi, iano. I'm in a bit of a hurry here, so I'll ask this and post the rest of my comments later.
iano writes:
LauraG writes:
1 - Your wheel analogy makes god (the rim) finite and provable. According to you and to avoid a continuous god-of-the-gaps argument, how can god be turned on its head?
Science cannot turn God on his head. Whenever science manages to fill in the disc there will be a ring of mystery enclosing it. What depth the ring extends to no-one will be able to find out -because there will be no way to penetrate it to know. Personally I don't think the disc will get filled in (the world won't, I think, be able to sustain itself long enough to get that far)
You'll notice that you didn't answer my question. I didn't ask how science could turn god on its head, I asked how god could be turned on its head. Also, please provide me with an answer to the following:
If we fill all the gaps in your wheel, we know everything that is to be known in the natural world. Why are you so sure there is a rim? Why do you suppose there will still be mystery after we know everything there is to know in the natural world... or are you just assuming the supernatural to defend the supernatural? ...'cause that would be circular reasoning, you know.
More later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by iano, posted 09-01-2005 1:16 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by iano, posted 09-02-2005 6:53 AM LauraG 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