If evolution exists.....

[Extirpated Wildlife]

If Evolution exists, then can scientist create a new lifeforms in the labs? Maybe they can't now, but could they in the future when technology is adequate and the understanding of the DNA is complete?

EDIT: Note: by lifeform I mean completely brand new species that has never been within the evolutionary tree before.

 

[notto]

Evolution doesn't deal with the creation of life. It deals with the diversification of life do to natural pressure and imperfect replication during breeding.

Whether evolution 'exists' or not has no bearing on whether scientists will be able to create life in the lab.

Regardless, an understanding of DNA will certainly be a big part of beign able to assemble life. Biochemistry will be another big part.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I doubt that we will ever be able to create life from scratch. It's just too complicated to put together all at once, and slowly buidling it up would take a lonb, long time, during which a single bacterium sneaking in would destroy everything. Besides, there really is no good reason to do so other than to say we did, and we would probably just end up copying what we have already.

 

[PaladinValer]

You are equivocating biogenesis with evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with life beginning, but life after its beginning.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Ok. Instead of creating a new life, do you think that man will eventually be able to create the evolutionary process in a drastically sped up pace, in a lab, and take a piece of algae, or what-not, and bring it to the brink of becoming a mammal?

 

[PaladinValer]

We can adjust an environment, but that is all we can do.

In addition, you seem to fail to understand what evolution is and isn't. The theory states that all life evolves from a common ancestor. You cannot jet a "fox" out of "ooze" just like that according to the theory.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Ok. Instead of creating a new life, do you think that man will eventually be able to create the evolutionary process in a drastically sped up pace, in a lab, and take a piece of algae, or what-not, and bring it to the brink of becoming a mammal?

Why would we want to? We already have mammals. Besides, algae are of a completely different kingdom than mammals.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Why not? No, I don't understand what evolution is. That is why I am asking. They might not be able to jet a fox out of ooze, but they could start the sped up process and maybe the next generation of scientist can complete it. I'm not saying they know how to do that yet. I just want to know if you think they will be able to do that?

In laymens terms, it seems as though we are taught we come from the amoeba and developed to man in the evolution. It seems as though at some point Scientist should be able to replicate that in the lab in a sped up way. Maybe not now, but eventually.

Now I totally agree evolution exists because creatures adapt. Anyone would agree that adaptation happens, whether they call it evolution or not. We know that viruses adapt. The question is then will viruses in a billion years grow legs? Can we create viruses to do that.

 

[PaladinValer]

Evolution deals with environment. A species' population changes to a change in environment. If you change the environment, eventually a new species will evolve.

 

[billwald]

Yes, I believe that we will be able to create new life forms in the lab.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Why would we want to? We already have mammals. Besides, algae are of a completely different kingdom than mammals.

Ok. They had to start from somewhere. I just figured that someone might understand what I was getting at. So wherever they started, can they develope a this first kingdom creature of animal lineage in the lab to a fox?

Why not try to do create evolution in the lab? Isn't this the purpose of any scientist? Why clone a mammoth? Because they want to. That's why. Don't tell me there isn't a scientist out there that wants to do this. They just can't yet. That is why it hasn't happened. Or because the splitting points of speciazation doesn't really exist.

Another question:

Are there any known examples of the species at the exact moment where speciation happened?

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Evolution deals with environment. A species' population changes to a change in environment. If you change the environment, eventually a new species will evolve.

Now I would gather that there is no question a theistic evolutionist would easily have an answer for this since they will say that evolution was driven solely by God and He conducted the whole process to make sure everything was designed the way he wanted it.

So was it the enviroment that caused cows to develop 4 stomachs? Or was it a mutant cow that mated and caused all cows to have 4 stomachs? Did the enviroment require 4 stomachs? 2 was too little to survive and 5 was too many. Or do you think that the enviroment might eventually require cows to have 10 stomachs? And how much of an enviromental change causes an animal to need to go from 1 to 4 stomachs?

 

[Willtor]

The only way you could really speed it up is to speed up the rate of change between generations. But if you make the change too great, there will be too much difference between creatures at the same level in the tree. So you won't start with a jelly-fish and arrive at a salmon in one generation. Typically, when Scientists perform experiments, they use fruit flies and such since they go through so many generations so quickly.

The obvious problem is that if you wanted to evolve a creature with a longer life cycle, this would take much longer. It's also not necessarily clear how you would do it. You'd have to find a niche in which greater life-span was beneficial.

As for cows and stomachs, it was probably (like most evolutionary things) a very gradual change. I'm not an expert on the evolution of the cow, but I'd have to imagine that it didn't start out as 4 stomachs, but one stomach which gradually achieved divisions, which, in turn, gradually separated.

 

[pastorkevin73]

You are equivocating biogenesis with evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with life beginning, but life after its beginning.

Not according to Darwin and those who followed. Evolutionist believe that life started as a non-life chemical reaction.

A resource for looking at the possibility of species evolving into different creatures are the Creatures That Defy Evolution video series. This is series does use scientists.

 

[PaladinValer]

Not according to Darwin and those who followed.

Oh? Quote him, please.

Evolutionist believe that life started as a non-life chemical reaction.

False.

A resource for looking at the possibility of species evolving into different creatures are the Creatures That Defy Evolution video series. This is series does use scientists.

Sorry, but I do not accept psuedoscience.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

The obvious problem is that if you wanted to evolve a creature with a longer life cycle, this would take much longer. It's also not necessarily clear how you would do it. You'd have to find a niche in which greater life-span was beneficial.

As for cows and stomachs, it was probably (like most evolutionary things) a very gradual change. I'm not an expert on the evolution of the cow, but I'd have to imagine that it didn't start out as 4 stomachs, but one stomach which gradually achieved divisions, which, in turn, gradually separated.

The life span issue would be a problem, certainly.

But what enviromental issues would cause a stomach to go from 1 to 4 stomachs? Can scientist tell that?

 

[chaoschristian]

The life span issue would be a problem, certainly.

But what enviromental issues would cause a stomach to go from 1 to 4 stomachs? Can scientist tell that?

Cellulose.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Oh? Quote him, please.



False.



Sorry, but I do not accept psuedoscience.

I have to find where I read this. Give me some time to find it.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

Cellulose.

My lack of understanding of science will need an expanded answer to what you mean by your one word answer.

 

[Willtor]

My lack of understanding of science will need an expanded answer to what you mean by your one word answer.

He's joking.

Whether science can find an answer to this? Probably. Whether it has? I don't know. You'd have to read the technical journals. If it's well-enough accepted, it may also be in somebody's book.