For the alternative theorists:

[Yazata]

That is the reason there is no faith or belief in science. Scientism is an oxymoron. That's why belief and science are two diametrically opposed paradigms for looking at the world, but one is valid, the other is not.

You don't think that evolutionary biologists believe that evolutionary biology is true? You obviously believe that it is. I'm not criticizing that belief, I share it. I'm just pointing out that it's a belief.

It’s not properly called a belief

Of course it's a belief. Belief refers to the mental state in which people hold that propositions are true. It's difficult to imagine how people could live their lives, or how scientists could conduct their science, without having any ideas that they think are true.

nor is it accurate to conflate it with religion. It’s knowledge.

And knowledge is traditionally defined by epistemologists as 'justified true belief'. Knowledge isn't something separate from and antithetical to belief, it's a subset of belief. Knowledge consists of those beliefs that are 1) not only held to be true, but really are true, and 2) where the believer possesses sound justification for believing that the proposition is true.

Part of the value in looking at things this way is that it directs our attention to the justifications for believing particular things.

And one of the dangers in the layman's idea that belief and knowledge are opposed mental states is that it suggests that there's some kind of blessed mental state (knowing as opposed to believing) whose propositional content is necessarily true. That idea makes knowledge uncomfortably similar to some of the more doubtful Christian ideas of faith. (Many Christians are more sophisticated than that and define 'faith' as trust, not as a specially privileged way of infallibly knowing things.)

The thousand of facts (or so) that Darwin meticulously documented constitute knowledge.

Ok.

In the pursuit of truth, there has to be a pursuit of justification.

Right, I agree.

Otherwise there is tendency to cave in to the purveyors of pseudoscience and it counterpart, the anti-science arguments like leopold is raising.

I realize it's the ostensible purpose of this thread, but my own interest really isn't in defending the catechism against perceived heretics. What Leopold believes or doesn't believe about evolution isn't really of much interest to me. I'm not out to convert him to anything. All that I'm really interested in is whether he can produce any interesting reasons for whatever he thinks.

How else does anyone ever tell an obvious lie from an obvious truth?

I would prefer to use the word 'error' instead of 'lie'. The word 'lie' suggests an intentional misrepresentation and possesses perjorative moral implications. Even when I disagree with what Leopold says, I don't think that he's lying.

(The Darwin's finches are obviously true, as are the marine iguanas and the long and short necked turtles. So is the age of the archipelago and the thousand of other related facts Darwin tied together).

Observations and descriptions of biological specimens are close to the ideal of raw uninterpreted data, I guess. There's still the logical possibility of misdescribing something though, so I wouldn't want to push 'obviously true' up to the point where it becomes synonymous with 'necessarily true'.

Of course it's simplified, we are all laymen and this is Sciforums.

That remark came in the context of me arguing with Grumpy. Grumpy said that evolution is a fact, and subsequently defined 'fact' as something like 'direct observation'. The implication being that evolution is directly observed. I wrote:

The origins of virtually all of the species on earth haven't been directly observed by human beings, let alone by scientists. What contemporary researchers have instead is a huge pile of often seemingly unrelated evidence, such as fossil bones from the Gobi desert or gene sequencing data on tube-worms. Evolutionary theory provides a coherent model that makes sense of all of that data and starts converting the myriad of data points into pixels in the picture of the history of life on earth. That allows researchers to start hypothesizing about what as-yet missing parts of the picture might look like and so far at least, new data coming in has tended (generally-speaking) to verify many of those hypotheses.

Grumpy didn't like that and flamed me:

That is a ridiculous oversimplification and discounting of the current state of knowledge...

Also, you don't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, evidently. Your knowledge of the current state of evolutionary science is decades out of date, it's only "a huge pile of often seemingly unrelated evidence" if you know little about the details or the process. It is unwise to issue pronouncements based on such ignorance of the subject. Your conclusions based on that lack of knowledge are understandably way off regarding the reality of current knowledge and you do no one any favors by promulgating them(nor do you do yourself any favor by continuing to cling to your belief in those conclusions).

So I responded with this:

Of course it's simplified, we are all laymen and this is Sciforums. The thing is, if we start attending to the technical details of how it's done, then it just makes my point stronger.

Here's the lecture notes for lecture #2 of the graduate level course in Principles of Phylogenetics that the University of California at Berkeley offered this spring semester, 2014.

http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib200/lect/ib200_lect02_Mishler_homology_chars.pdf

The first introductory paragraph reads:

"Genealogical relationships themselves are invisible, so how can we know them? Is there an objective, logically sound method by which we can reconstruct the tree of life? Recent advances in theories and methods for phylogenetic reconstruction, along with copious new data from the molecular level, have made possible a new scientific understanding of the relationships of organisms. This understanding of relationships has led in turn to improved taxonomic classifications, as well as the subject matter of this class: comparative methods for testing biogeographic, ecological, behavioral and other functional hypotheses."

Which isn't very different than what I wrote.

Yes but Galapagos is not that complicated. In fact it’s pretty much common sense. How did the creatures get there (the islands popped up only recently) and why are they so different than their ancestors? For the level of this discussion (a covert religious attack on science) that’s pretty simple. But it’s also an essential fact.

If we look at finches in the Galapagos, all we will see are populations of birds with slightly different beaks or whatever it is on different islands. As the phylogenetics professor wrote, "genealogical relationships themselves are invisible".

My point here is simply that the shape of the evolutionary tree is something that's inferred, it isn't something that's simply observed. (That doesn't mean for a moment that it's false, wrong or bullshit.)

So how do contemporary up-to-date evolutionary biologists go about making those kind of inferences?

Here's the link to the lecture notes for the University of California at Berkeley's IB200 Principles of Phylogenetics spring 2014 graduate class that explores that very subject.

http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib200/IB200_SyllabusHandouts.shtml

Pay special attention to the seven lectures on constructing phylogenetic trees. I think that anyone who looks at this material will recognize that this is a very complex process of inference that makes use of a great deal of theory.

 

[Yazata]

Here's another University of California Berkeley website that addresses the subject of reconstructing evolutionary relationships and constructing evolutionary trees at a more elementary level. It's seemingly aimed at undergraduates and secondary-school teachers and should be comprehensible to many Sciforums readers.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/phylogenetics_01

So read this one first, then look at the graduate class notes. This one explains some of the technical terminology and outlines what motivates the more complex things that the professionals are doing.

A broader survey of evolution in general (not just phylogenetic reconstruction) at an even more elementary level (American AP or British A-levels perhaps, or an introductory university class for non-majors) is provided by this Berkeley 'Evolution 101' website:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_toc_01

So if the site above is still confusing, read this one first. You might want to read this one anyway (it's pretty good in my opinion) to get the bigger picture.

 

[paddoboy]

Of course it's a belief. Belief refers to the mental state in which people hold that propositions are true. It's difficult to imagine how people could live their lives, or how scientists could conduct their science, without having any ideas that they think are true.

This exactly why Grumpy has problems about "belief". I don't have the same problem, although I do understand Grumpy's position.
I believe firmly and without any doubt, that the Sun will rise in about 30 minutes or so. I also believe that if I jump up in the air, I will fall back to Earth.
You appear just to be making excuses for those that see the need to deride science. Why?
From my position, it appears a logical deduction to assume evolution and abiogenesis to be fact.
That belief is based on the facts that irrefutably support it, beyond the realms of any reasonable doubt.
I see this as aligning with point 10 in the OP.
The longer a theory holds reign, the more evidence that is observed to continually validate it, the more certain it becomes.
At this stage of proceedings, [and correct me if I'm wrong] this is the point you do not accept.
All I can say is see my reference to the Sun rising and jumping up in the air.
I mean if someone told you he was going to jump up in the air and go into orbit, or the Sun was not going to rise in the morning, you would realistically, doubt there sanity...despite the non zero chance that in reality, the Sun might not rise, and that just maybe, he could go into orbit.

Part of the value in looking at things this way is that it directs our attention to the justifications for believing particular things.

The only justification for believing anything to be fact, is irrefutable evidence supporting it.

What Leopold believes or doesn't believe about evolution isn't really of much interest to me. I'm not out to convert him to anything. All that I'm really interested in is whether he can produce any interesting reasons for whatever he thinks.

He claims he has, but in all cases, I still see it as life arising from non life at its most basic fundamental.

I have only very briefly read your links, and from that I only see doubt cast on some of the details and interpretations. I don't see anything completely refuting evolution or Abiogenesis, or even casting doubt on those facts.

 

[Yazata]

I have only very briefly read your links, and from that I only see doubt cast on some of the details and interpretations. I don't see anything completely refuting evolution or Abiogenesis, or even casting doubt on those facts.

The University of California webpages that I linked to aren't trying to cast doubt on, let alone refute, evolution. (They don't address abiogenesis that I saw.) They were written by evolutionary biologists in the hopes of explaining, at varying levels of technical sophistication, what evolutionary theory is about and how evolutionary biologists infer and reconstruct past evolutionary relationships from all manner of present day evidence.

 

[leopold]

I just always get the feeling that anti-evolutionists are still stuck in the "irreducible complexity" mode.

i really don't care about any of that.
besides, it isn't "anti-evolutionist" to question what we think we know.

But of all scientific disagreements, this concept is the only one that can claim as having been settled in a court of law. This was in relation to the proposal to teach Intelligent Design (creationism} as an inevitable conclusion, instead of Darwinism.

to teach one possibility without teaching the others is wrong.
i believe that in order to teach ID it must be stated that science hasn't demonstrated such a thing.
on the other hand, if evolution could be reduced to a set of equations then i believe it would give the appearance of a direction where none actually exists.

 

[paddoboy]

to teach one possibility without teaching the others is wrong.
i believe that in order to teach ID it must be stated that science hasn't demonstrated such a thing.
on the other hand, if evolution could be reduced to a set of equations then i believe it would give the appearance of a direction where none actually exists.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view[1][2] that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,[4][5] while conceding that they have yet to produce a fully worked-out scientific theory.[6] Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses.[7][8] The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.[n 1] Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Intelligent Design, if so wished, should only be taught in homes and specific schools.
It is not science.
If in specific schools, it should be taught as "non science" and science should be compulsory absolutely.

 

[Aqueous Id]

aqueous,
for you to refer to ALL scientists as atheists is NOT true.

Actually I said all true scientists are atheists. The rest are having a serious issue with honesty.

there isn't a "true" scientist alive that will get up there and categorically state "THERE IS NO GOD!!!"

Sure there are. Me, for one. It’s quite elementary: every definition of God is one invented by some person or culture of people. Therefore God is a human invention. Therefore God does not exist.

You just quoted a religious fundamentalist source. You say you’re not arguing from the religious position, so why quote them if you’re not supporting their agenda? That makes no sense to me.

yup, i did.
i was hoping for some feedback on the material it presented, not to be labeled creationist and shitcanned.

Then something is still not clear about your posts. Didn’t you say, and isn’t it your position, that scientists who oppose “Darwinism” are repressed? You used the term “dissent”. This is a creationist position. It has zero basis in fact, and when that question was raised you cited the creationist sites that support the claim. So it might help to clarify your position. You’ve equated formal education with “being told what to think” (in so many words) so I guess I’m addressing what I see as a gaping hole in your ideas about science and academia in general. It didn’t come across that you were asking us to take note of the creationist position. It sounded like you were endorsing the creationist position.

I was going to say.... Given that 45% of Americans believe in young earth creationism.

It’s a rotten shame that the land one hailed as the fount of “American know-how” is disintegrating under the scourge of Evangelical mega-churches. In a fairly recent poll of the high school science teachers, it was shown that they fare quite a bit better than the average lay person—probably because they at least attended college. As I recall, only 12% of them are Young Earthers, while about the same number (aroung 45% as I recall) believe that God at least intervenes in evolution. This fits with the profile leopold is presenting—that without any “transitional fossils” they can assume God stepped in and waved the magic wand, and the new taxon (once we figure out which one(s) they think were “created”) sprang up out of thin air.

nor should there be a true scientist who categorically states "There is a God"

I think that’s the default position of a lot of posters with good technical chops who should know better but seem to be unwilling to stir the pot with the fundies. In their gut(s) I’m pretty sure they all know for sure that God does not exist.

And none who should claim he does exist, given the scant(almost non-existent, in fact)evidence of his existence.
the subject is evolution, and i seriously doubt if god or "accumulating small changes" is the cause.

The cause of evolution? :bugeye: The cause of evolution is genetic mutation and drift, natural selection, etc. The cause of speciation is evolution. Does speciation “accumulate small changes”? That’s a very subjective creationist perspective. There are two fronts on which the “changes” play out. One is the genotype. Thus two nearly identical humans (in appearance) may carry entirely different codes for something like malaria resistance (sickle cell anemia). The second stage where “change” plays out is in the phenotype, which seems to be your sole concern. That’s simply referring to the physical traits, regardless of what’s happening at the molecular level. Here’s where the clades (classification trees) spring up from countless branches arrived at through “accumulated small changes”. Compare a Chihuahua with a Great Dane or St Bernard and ask how these forms arrived from the progenitor wolves. Was is though small accumulated change? This all played out through artificial selection long before Darwin came along. And he refers to artificial selection extensively in Origin of Species.

]
there HAS to be an explanation for all of this . . . somewhere

There is. In On the Origin of the Species. And tons of other stuff. But that should be the launch point for all discussion on this topic since it contains all the seminal ideas.

Either would not be scientifically valid claims.

correct, and it has NOTHING to do with any real belief, it's the nature of science itself.
i raised this point to point out that it IS NOT a fact that there is no god although the prospects of one is, well, remote.
frankly i find the concept of an "intelligence without substance" ludicrous

It is a fact that there is no God because every God ever conceived of was/is a human invention.

is it really "unevidenced"?
a lot of what we think we know about evolution has not been proven.

I will have to side with you in part here. Yes there is overwhelming evidence God does not exist, since every record attesting to God is laden with superstition, myth, legend and fable (and more when we expand our repertoire). But evolution is not the proof. It’s the theory (explanation) about the anomalous data (Galapagos). There is no other possible explanation other than the one Darwin gave (with caveats for a the few refinements that came later).

my deity?
but now that you mentioned it, where did this "singularity" come from?

It doesn’t. It’s there before time begins. (My revision to Gen 1:1 is In the beginning there was no beginning because there was no time. There was no space. There was only “singularity”.

where did the energy come from?

From the Big Bang. It creates itself.

there is always going to be some kind of "beginning" unless it's infinite.

The problem is that you have to contend with the meaning of “before time was created” which is beyond human capacity to understand.

i'm beginning to believe that the universe is indeed infinite with life itself some property of that infinity.

It exists forever (in the pre-Big Bang state) as the opposite—as infinitesimal volume. I guess you say the density was “infinite” but that makes no sense in the strict sense of the term.

i will propose that science will never duplicate the living cell from the elements in regards to earths history.

You are aware that living cells have already been synthesized.

I would prefer to use the word 'error' instead of 'lie'. The word 'lie' suggests an intentional misrepresentation and possesses perjorative moral implications. Even when I disagree with what Leopold says, I don't think that he's lying.

I was referring to the liars he sometimes cites. They’re pathological.

Observations and descriptions of biological specimens are close to the ideal of raw uninterpreted data, I guess. There's still the logical possibility of misdescribing something though, so I wouldn't want to push 'obviously true' up to the point where it becomes synonymous with 'necessarily true'.

It was obviously true that the creatures evolved on the archipelago, since Darwin knew it was a younger habitat than the genera were.

(more later, gotta go. Excellent link to the university site. I’m reading the material and enjoying it immensely).

 

[Write4U]

i really don't care about any of that.
besides, it isn't "anti-evolutionist" to question what we think we know.

Yes it is! There can only be one question about evolution and that is trying to discover the types of evolution. But the function is ALWAYS evolutionary in nature.

You are questioning evolution itself, not how evolution works. Therein lies the problem. It certainly does not work in "mysterious ways" as ID proponent would have us believe.

Is the joining of 1 oxygen atom with 2 hydrogen atoms "intelligent design" or a natural chemical affinity? If you feel it is ID, please explain why?

 

[Grumpy]

Yazata

That remark came in the context of me arguing with Grumpy. Grumpy said that evolution is a fact, and subsequently defined 'fact' as something like 'direct observation'. The implication being that evolution is directly observed. I wrote:


The origins of virtually all of the species on earth haven't been directly observed by human beings, let alone by scientists. What contemporary researchers have instead is a huge pile of often seemingly unrelated evidence, such as fossil bones from the Gobi desert or gene sequencing data on tube-worms. Evolutionary theory provides a coherent model that makes sense of all of that data and starts converting the myriad of data points into pixels in the picture of the history of life on earth. That allows researchers to start hypothesizing about what as-yet missing parts of the picture might look like and so far at least, new data coming in has tended (generally-speaking) to verify many of those hypotheses.
Grumpy didn't like that and flamed me:

That was not flaming, that was correction of your statement and understanding.

Fact, evidence of creatures evolving is found throughout Nature and in our labs. That is observed fact. We can't even make it from one flu season to another without being slapped in the face by the evolution of flu strains. That is just the facts, no speculation, no theorizing, it has been observed to occur.

What you don't seem to understand is that whatever shuffling of the limbs on the Tree of life biologists do, the fact remains that we have direct evidence that makes indisputable(by rational, informed actors anyway)that evolution has indeed occurred. There is great uncertainty in the exact explanations and criteria of how to classify the facts of evolution, we know much more about the facts of evolution in the genomes of creatures closer to us in time than we do about those to far in the past to get such detailed direct evidence, but there is no doubt about the fact that it has occurred. The theories we create from the observed facts are not facts, nor did I say they were. Nor are they beliefs, they are reasoned explanations sufficiently supported by enough evidence and testing to be provisionally accepted as true, unless and until facts or better understanding comes along, then they will be dropped like a hot rock with zero emotional attachment. In fact, scientist LIVE to prove other scientists wrong, we look forward to new facts and understandings so we can move on from our flawed thinking to better insights. That sure is a strange "belief" system. It's exactly opposite of the belief system of religion, as illustrated by leopold's Creationist cites. While they twist themselves into pretzels to defend their erronious beliefs, scientists do their level best to destroy beliefs and substitute knowledge. It really is a different paradigm that in no way can be compared to the beliefs of laymen or theists.

Grumpy

 

[billvon]

to teach one possibility without teaching the others is wrong.

Should we teach that maybe the Holocaust didn't occur?
Should we teach that math might be meaningless, and thus 2+2 might equal 5 or pi? After all, it's wrong to teach one possibility without teaching the others.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@ Aqueous Id

AId, I found your Post #947 to be very insightful.

Especially the following statements :

It’s quite elementary: every definition of God is one invented by some person or culture of people. Therefore God is a human invention. Therefore God does not exist.

It is a fact that there is no God because every God ever conceived of was/is a human invention.

Is it just the way I read those statements, or are you actually trying to say that : "Therefore God is a human invention. Therefore God does not exist.", and : "It is a fact that there is no God because every God ever conceived of was/is a human invention."

AId, what would you call the "Logic", or "thought process" that led you to those statements?
AId, could you apply that same "Logic", or "thought process" to other "human inventions"?

For instance, how would you respond, if it was stated :
1.) - "Therefore Science is a human invention. Therefore Science does not exist."
2.) - "It is a fact that there is no Science because every Science ever conceived of was/is a human invention."

AId, simply replace the word "God" in your statements with the words "Science" or "Mathematics" or even "Language", simply to test the applied "Logic", or "thought process".
What are the results of that simple test?

Aqueous Id, your Post #947 seemed quite knowledgeable, except for the caveats that I posited above.

 

[paddoboy]

For instance, how would you respond, if it was stated :
1.) - "Therefore Science is a human invention. Therefore Science does not exist."
2.) - "It is a fact that there is no Science because every Science ever conceived of was/is a human invention."
.

No that's not correct. While God is a human invention, needed as a non scientific method of explaining the Universe around us, science on the other hand, is based on the knowledge that is around us, and the observations we make.
The name we apply to the different scientific disciplines may be a human invention, but the science itself is what is around us and the knowledge we gain from what is around us.....
see.....

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.

The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

A far far cry from the deluded invention of deities of any sort and their sympathetic adherents..

 

[leopold]

Actually I said all true scientists are atheists.

this is what you would like the world to believe isn't it.

The rest are having a serious issue with honesty.

actually they have a problem with the evidence aqueous.

Sure there are. Me, for one. It’s quite elementary: every definition of God is one invented by some person or culture of people. Therefore God is a human invention. Therefore God does not exist.

humanity has been questioning the existence of god since time began.
some of the greatest minds has been tasked with the question.
you swoop in here and solve it for everyone . . . with one sentence.

Then something is still not clear about your posts.

i don't know how much clearer i can make it.
it's really simple, i provided a link to be commented on.

Didn’t you say, and isn’t it your position, that scientists who oppose “Darwinism” are repressed?
You used the term “dissent”. This is a creationist position. It has zero basis in fact, and when that question was raised you cited the creationist sites that support the claim.

yup, i did.
so far you have not addressed anything the link presented.

So it might help to clarify your position.

i don't need to clarify anything aqueous.

Does speciation “accumulate small changes”? That’s a very subjective creationist perspective.

not according to the "science" source i posted.

You are aware that living cells have already been synthesized.

point me to this alleged cell please

 

[Write4U]

@ Aqueous Id

AId, I found your Post #947 to be very insightful.

Especially the following statements :


Is it just the way I read those statements, or are you actually trying to say that : "Therefore God is a human invention. Therefore God does not exist.", and : "It is a fact that there is no God because every God ever conceived of was/is a human invention."

AId, what would you call the "Logic", or "thought process" that led you to those statements?
AId, could you apply that same "Logic", or "thought process" to other "human inventions"?

For instance, how would you respond, if it was stated :
1.) - "Therefore Science is a human invention. Therefore Science does not exist."
2.) - "It is a fact that there is no Science because every Science ever conceived of was/is a human invention."

AId, simply replace the word "God" in your statements with the words "Science" or "Mathematics" or even "Language", simply to test the applied "Logic", or "thought process".
What are the results of that simple test?

Aqueous Id, your Post #947 seemed quite knowledgeable, except for the caveats that I posited above.

'll let AI answer that illogical question, but I do have a similar suggestion about stubtituting the word "God" with the word "Potential" and you will find that everything will begin to make sense in a scientific defensible theory, even as you are speaking of a metaphysical condition.

 

[paddoboy]

i don't need to clarify anything aqueous.

not according to the "science" source i posted.

point me to this alleged cell please

You have posted nothing that invalidates Evolution and/or Abiogenesis....
Some of the details and isolated evidence maybe...But not the overall accepted fact.

 

[Write4U]

this is what you would like the world to believe isn't it.

Actually they have a problem with the evidence aqueous.

point me to this alleged cell please

In a breakthrough for artificial life, scientists have created a single cell of yeast with a complete set of artificial DNA that functions and looks exactly like a natural cell of yeast. Spearheaded by Dr. Craig Venter and his team of scientists at the J Craig Venter Institute, the project has far reaching — not to mention philosophically questionable — implications. But if used in a controlled way, this remarkable breakthrough could revolutionize the medical and energy industries

Read more: Artificial Life: Scientists Create First Synthetic Living Cell | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building http://inhabitat.com/artificial-life-scientists-create-first-synthetic-living-cell/

and

LOS ANGELES -- In a major step toward the creation of artificial life, researchers announced Thursday that they had inserted DNA synthesized in a laboratory into the nucleus of a living cell that had been stripped of its own DNA, obtaining a functioning semi-synthetic microorganism.

Read more: http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_682224.html#ixzz342rXEJeR

 

[leopold]

Read more: Artificial Life: Scientists Create First Synthetic Living Cell | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building http://inhabitat.com/artificial-life-scientists-create-first-synthetic-living-cell/

from the link:
"To create the cell, the J Craig Venter team assembled a set of DNA one million units in length that directly mirrored an actual strand of yeast DNA. They they replaced a regular yeast cell’s DNA with the artificially created DNA and the yeast cell began to act like a natural cell would."

not even close to "recreating life".

 

[Write4U]

from the link:
"To create the cell, the J Craig Venter team assembled a set of DNA one million units in length that directly mirrored an actual strand of yeast DNA. They they replaced a regular yeast cell’s DNA with the artificially created DNA and the yeast cell began to act like a natural cell would."

not even close to "recreating life".

You do realizw that synthetic particles at nano scale are indistuingishable from naturally occurring chemicals. That's why they work, the system accepts them as fuctioning parts. and does not know the difference!
Do you have knowledge of the chemicals and their interactions in your body? How many parts of your system is inert? Not all parts of an organisms need be "alive" to fill an evolutionary useful function. Your are still trapped in the concept of "irreducible complexity", IMO. Sorry, I'd love to agree with you, but those pesky facts keep getting in the way.

 

[leopold]

You do realizw that synthetic particles at nano scale are indistuingishable from naturally occurring chemicals. That's why they work, the system accepts them as fuctioning parts. and does not know the difference!
Do you have knowledge of the chemicals and their interactions in your body? How many parts of your system is inert? Not all parts of an organisms need be "alive" to fill an evolutionary useful function. Your are still trapped in the concept of "irreducible complexity", IMO. Sorry, I'd love to agree with you, but those pesky facts contradict a "sudden creation".

what you posted (the above link) does not show "recreating life".
consider the following:
you have a functioning, running, V8 engine.
you replace the 8 pistons with domed ones (for more power).
you DID NOT recreate the V8.

i believe science will eventually be able to do this with ALL the parts of the cell, but this not the same as "naturally occuring".

 

[paddoboy]

what you posted (the above link) does not show "recreating life".
consider the following:
you have a functioning, running, V8 engine.
you replace the 8 pistons with domed ones (for more power).
you DID NOT recreate the V8.

But you still have an engine!!!