Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For that most recent organism, Venter didn't cut and paste, he synthesized the genes from scratch (they were copies of the bacterial genes):That cutting and pasting extant genes wasn't really what I had in mind.
Why postulate than anything has an intelligent designer? After all-there is no way we can tell-right?"Intelligent design" can't be replicated in a lab, either. So why postulate it as happening to begin with?
Of course, all those suggestions just move the origin of life one stage further back. 'Extra-dimensional beings' (whatever that means), alternate universe beings, and aliens, all originated somehow, somewhere; so the 'abiogenesis vs God' dichotomy still persists.Others might suggest extra-dimensional beings using extra dimensional technology.
Or alternate universe beings using their technology to tamper with other universes.
Or aliens who prepared the Earth and seeded our earth with life as in the film 2001 Space Odyssey. So the conclusion of God isn't necessary from the ID viewpoint as you seem to insist.
All ID proposes is intelligent design.
But they were copies, nonetheless. When a scientist designs functional, coding genes that don't exist in nature and creates the complete genome of a viable organism with them, we're getting into deity territory. When a scientist creates many such organisms that can exist in a viable ecology, I'd be pretty comfortable using terms like "godlike".For that most recent organism, Venter didn't cut and paste, he synthesized the genes from scratch (they were copies of the bacterial genes):
"Venter, together with his close colleagues Clyde Hutchison and Hamilton Smith and their team, set out to build a minimal genome from scratch, by joining together chemically synthesized DNA segments."
They're not certain of the function of about 1/3 of the synthetic genes that proved to be necessary, but once they've worked out what they all do, they will be able to create new organisms without using an existing bacterium as a guide.
It's your theory, that's what you're supposed to be telling us.Why postulate than anything has an intelligent designer? After all-there is no way we can tell-right?
OK - although it does remind me of Arthur C. Clarke's comment that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic...But they were copies, nonetheless. When a scientist designs functional, coding genes that don't exist in nature and creates the complete genome of a viable organism with them, we're getting into deity territory. When a scientist creates many such organisms that can exist in a viable ecology, I'd be pretty comfortable using terms like "godlike".
Feels right....Because it factually did. Once there was no life and then there was. So life DID originate one way or the other.
Yeah, pipe down Professor Hoyle, the grown ups are talking.Feels right.
But are you sure?
What if life is an eternal component of an eternal universe?
I think we need another couple decades to have the slightest idea how difficult that will really be. The technology is just approaching infancy. Its practically newborn. Way too soon to tell what it will grow up to accomplish.But they were copies, nonetheless. When a scientist designs functional, coding genes that don't exist in nature and creates the complete genome of a viable organism with them, we're getting into deity territory. When a scientist creates many such organisms that can exist in a viable ecology, I'd be pretty comfortable using terms like "godlike".
We'll see, I guess.I think we need another couple decades to have the slightest idea how difficult that will really be. The technology is just approaching infancy. Its practically newborn. Way too soon to tell what to will grow up to accomplish.
I'd be surprised if it's actually attempted - why design the parts from scratch when you can use the abundant results of 3.5 billion years of evolution?I think we need another couple decades to have the slightest idea how difficult that will really be. The technology is just approaching infancy. Its practically newborn. Way too soon to tell what it will grow up to accomplish.
We're getting into science fiction speculation now, but theoretically, if you wanted a biological function that doesn't occur in nature, and don't have time to evolve it, maybe?I'd be surprised if it's actually attempted - why design the parts from scratch when you can use the abundant results of 3.5 billion years of evolution?
Same territory where doubt that it can be done resides.We're getting into science fiction speculation now, but theoretically, if you wanted a biological function that doesn't occur in nature, and don't have time to evolve it, maybe?
Feels right.
But are you sure?
What if life is an eternal component of an eternal universe?
Assuming you subscribe to the Big Bang theory. The Steady State theory says otherwise, and, indeed, allows for the existence of life having always present, spreading by panspermia. Hence the Hoyle joke.Considering how "life" is defined, it makes no sense to say that life "always" existed.
I'ld say that by definition, there was a time where there was no life in the universe. Not on this planet, not on any other planet. In fact, there was a time when there were no planets.
That's already being done; I was referring to creating the whole genome from scratch.We're getting into science fiction speculation now, but theoretically, if you wanted a biological function that doesn't occur in nature, and don't have time to evolve it, maybe?
Of course, all those suggestions just move the origin of life one stage further back. 'Extra-dimensional beings' (whatever that means), alternate universe beings, and aliens, all originated somehow, somewhere; so the 'abiogenesis vs God' dichotomy still persists.
IIRC, gene pruning doesn't create new functions.That's already being done; I was referring to creating the whole genome from scratch.
Who mentioned abiogenesis being "random"?FYI, in the framework of Panentheism, there is no such dichotomy and abiogenesis need not be "random" at all, even if it's a "natural" process.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?