Will Man Create Life?

[NLN]

This question, it seems to me, gets at the heart of the matter. Progress in science grows at an exponential rate, and it is inevitable that eventually one of two things will happen: either we will be able to create life from scratch, or we will discover that we will never be able to do so.

Think about it: what would happen if humans created life in the "test tube"? What would that mean for religion?

 

[RichardT]

This question, it seems to me, gets at the heart of the matter. Progress in science grows at an exponential rate, and it is inevitable that eventually one of two things will happen: either we will be able to create life from scratch, or we will discover that we will never be able to do so.

Think about it: what would happen if humans created life in the "test tube"? What would that mean for religion?

This would mean nothing to religion. What are you trying to imply?

In the bible, God created ex nihilo, these scientists would have created life based off things, and not ex nihilo.

 

[Opethian]

This would mean nothing to religion. What are you trying to imply?

In the bible, God created ex nihilo, these scientists would have created life based off things, and not ex nihilo.

But if scientists succeed in allowing life to spontaneously assemble by combining building blocks and catalysts that have been evidenced to have been present on the early earth, under conditions that have been evidenced to have been the conditions on the early earth, then this would show that life can arise from non-life without the need of any supernatural entities. Because of the building blocks, catalysts and conditions used, that we have evidence for to have been present during the time that life must have arisen, it would show that it is plausible that the life we observe here on earth, in fact, originated in this, or a similar way. Don't you think this would have an impact on those people who believe that life was created by a divine creator? It would at least give them something to consider. Of course, it says nothing of the origin of the universe. But it might make some people that originally believed that a divine creator directly created life, consider the possibility that this divine creator simply created the universe, and that life naturally sprung forth because of the characteristics he gave this natural universe. A prime mover, so to speak, that only needed to give one little push that resulted in the birth of the universe, and needed not intervene after that, because the universe itself would automatically evolve into what we see now, including the arisal and evolution of life (in my opinion, this sort of indirect creation is much more elegant and well thought through then the direct creation of many of the more prominent religions, not that I believe this myself, since I believe there is no need for any supernatural entities at all).

 

[Nathan Poe]

Will Man create life?

Ask your father.

 

[NLN]

Opethian put it well: this issue effects religion in that it would be one example of where science gives man the ability to do something that was once considered to be in God's realm exclusively. Another might be the eventual creation of artificial intelligence.

To many theists, it is not only impossible for man to create life and intelligence -- it never will be possible, for they feel these are in God's domain alone. This is the same argument that Jehova Witnesses (and other sects) give for refusing certain forms of medical treatment, for instance: they feel that this is God's territory, not man's.

 

[Darxtarox]

In order to create life...all that's needed is a single cell to be created. A baby starts as a single Zygote. If all of the correct molecules were correctly organized it would create life. Scientists already claim that they can do it easily. We've already cloned an animal using the same procedure...but to create something NEW you would have to know what Chromosomes to put with what...something slightly more difficult but not impossible. We've caused a mutated tobacco plant, with the protein that causes a lightning bug to glow. The plant glowed. You can probably search it...but Ethical reasons keep scientists from trying to create whole human beings...mostly morality...but also alot of Religious groups are watching their backs and trying to keep them from doing it. Even if they did, religious people would call it a conspiracy anyway...I'm sure. We already understand many of the genes and can already manipulate the eye color, and intelligent genes. Ethical reasons keep us from creating a supreme race, obviously.

 

[Darxtarox]

Christians will go to the point of denying solid scientific laws in order to force themselves to believe in something that they were told to believe since birth. Also, I'm tired of the arguement, how did SOMETHING come from NOTHING. It was religion, NOT science, that made the assumption that everything once started as nothing. We know that the universe is 13.7 billion years old...we know that the earth is about 4.54 billion years old. Saying that the earth is 6000 years old is like saying the distance between San Fransisco to New York City is 28 feet. It's rediculously incorrect by a HUGE factor. By knowing the speed of light we can see stars forming, billions of years ago at the edge of the universe...Hydrogen forming from Aether, then nucleosynthesizing into Helium and the rest of the elements up to about the atomic number of 93 naturally. Radioactive carbon dating through several different procedures shows this accurately...Dinosaurs are approximately 65 million years old. Most of the earths time in existence was taken by molecules combining until about 3.5 billion years, when the first life appeared.

A CREATIONISTS BIGGEST NIGHTMARE IS A DINOSAUR

 

[Darxtarox]

Sorry I just have to add that...the age of the universe, is the time duration since the Big Bang occured...not since creation, to go ahead end any ignorant dispute there. xSorry for the repost.x

 

[JohnHarthover]

Wait, what are you talking about? Do you want to just make life from the stuff that was around when life started (because that would obviously take a long, long time).

Or do you allow us to use chemical or biochemical tools. I mean it would probably be feasible to do that right now, expecially if you just wanted to make E. Coli or something like that. But it's kind of pointless.

 

[lucaspa]

But if scientists succeed in allowing life to spontaneously assemble by combining building blocks and catalysts that have been evidenced to have been present on the early earth, under conditions that have been evidenced to have been the conditions on the early earth, then this would show that life can arise from non-life without the need of any supernatural entities.

The fallacy here is implied when you say "without the need of any supernatural entities". How do you know the supernatural is absent from the natural? That is the basic statement of faith of atheism. Why do you accept it?

As it happens, life has been "made" by humans. Or rather, they have let life arise from simpler chemicals by very simple and common chemical reactions. Start here and we can discuss it in detail (because I have gotten and read nearly all the papers in the subject):
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

I believe there is no need for any supernatural entities at all).

At least you phrased that correctly: "I believe" Science can't tell you that this is not the case. Instead, what science does is give you the material cause or origin. However, science cannot tell you whether a supernatural entity is required for the material cause to work.

Here, think about this hypothesis:
"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

BTW, I didn't find the quote in the original source. Your homework assignment is to find out where I did find it. Hint: think "evolution".

 

[NLN]

Theorizing about conditions in the early earth's atmosphere can only get us so far. We know that primal conditions were different from what they are today, and that as life evolved—consuming and producing a mixture of gases—the composition of the atmosphere was changed to what it is today. For instance, oxygen was once rare and toxic to early life; now, of course, this is no longer the case.

My point is that we may never be able to know exactly what the first micro organisms were like on earth. This may make our task of reproducing life from scratch more difficult, for if life began as a result of a specific recipe of elements and environmental conditions -- and if we are unable to determine what that exact recipe was -- then creating life in the manner it occurred originally may be difficult or impossible.

Perhaps our best chance lies in attempting to reproduce each element of a living cell individually -- mitochondria, golgi apparatus, ribosomes, centrioles, microtubules, lythosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, cytoplasm, nuclear membrain, nucleus and its chromosomes -- then, placing them all together within a man-made cell membrane. Separately each of these components is not alive, and yet, together, they make a living, fully functioning cell.

There are people working on precisely this strategy, as well as others: MachinesLikeUs.

 

[smog]

How do you know the supernatural is absent from the natural?

The problem is to define what supernatural means. One might say that the supernatural is that which would be natural if we knew how it worked: indeed, once you understand how a certain phenomenon occurs, what reason is there to not file it under the natural phenomena label?

The best definition I can think of is that the supernatural is the class of things whose atomic behavior is too complex to be represented by simple rules. In other words, something is supernatural if you can't crack it open to see how it works. That doesn't mean they cannot be analyzed, but rather that their nature must be inferred from their behavior rather than from guts inspection. Why that definition? Well, if a phenomenon can be summarized in a simple formula that fits in a single line, it's easy enough to add it to the current theory of the universe and thus make it perfectly natural. Hence only phenomena that defy current theories in a statistically significant manner AND display inherently complex behavior could ever be categorized as supernatural.

But that is very generous. Indeed, to classify something as supernatural is always an argument from ignorance: we cannot exclude the possibility that a suitable naturalistic explanation is found for it. Furthermore, even in the negative case, we can easily suppose that the universe is made out of visible and hidden layers, and that "supernatural" phenomena in the visible universe are in fact the result of complex processes taking place in the hidden layer. We could analyze the hidden layer by inference from its visible effects. Overall, I would consider the whole to be natural.

Basically, if we're to have the natural on one side and the supernatural on the other, that means there ought to be a way to tell the difference between the two. My opinion is that any such frontier between the two concepts will be either painfully fuzzy (in which case supernatural events can jump ship and become natural, and vice versa, why not, through thought experiments), relative (something can be natural from some point of view and supernatural from another) or arbitrary.

In the case of creating life through carefully controlled physical and chemical processes that are meant to mirror the original abiogenesis, it comes down to whether we do know what's going on, or we don't. If, for instance, we can simulate that process on a computer, being assured that we know what's going on at every time step, it would be silly to claim that there is anything supernatural going on, because those processes are precisely what we claim nature to be. On the other hand, if we don't truly know what's going on we might have to accept the possibility that our theory doesn't actually work but some invisible puppet hand is making the experiment succeed... but that puppet hand might still be natural when viewed from another universe.

At least [Opethian] phrased that correctly: "I believe" Science can't tell you that this is not the case. Instead, what science does is give you the material cause or origin. However, science cannot tell you whether a supernatural entity is required for the material cause to work.

That is because science is not concerned with semantics. As I see things, it is profoundly unclear what it means for an entity to be supernatural. This said, it's very possible that my view of what is, or should be considered natural is much wider than it should.


About the main topic of discussion:

I think there are many ways to create life. I'm not sure if artificial biological life will come before or after virtual life (I mean pure computer-based life). I think both will happen eventually but that only the latter will be truly useful, because the driving forces behind its development are much more malleable and configurable. People might not be inclined to believe the latter is life, though.

 

[lucaspa]

The problem is to define what supernatural means. One might say that the supernatural is that which would be natural if we knew how it worked: indeed, once you understand how a certain phenomenon occurs, what reason is there to not file it under the natural phenomena label?

For someone who says science doesn't argue semantics, you spend most of the post arguing semantics!

From Merriam-Webster: "1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; "

That leaves our your speculative definition.

In other words, something is supernatural if you can't crack it open to see how it works.

If that is the case, then most of the phenomenon at the quantum level -- such as radioactive decay -- is supernatural.

Well, if a phenomenon can be summarized in a simple formula that fits in a single line, it's easy enough to add it to the current theory of the universe and thus make it perfectly natural.

Nice try. But no. That isn't what you really mean and it isn't what theists mean. Nor is it what is implied in the quote I gave.

Hence only phenomena that defy current theories in a statistically significant manner AND display inherently complex behavior could ever be categorized as supernatural.

As I said, the decay of a single nuclide or quantum entanglement meet your criteria. Yet neither you nor I say that this is "supernatural". Let's stick to Merriam-Webster, shall we?

We could analyze the hidden layer by inference from its visible effects. Overall, I would consider the whole to be natural.

Unless the "hidden layer" is deity?

Basically, if we're to have the natural on one side and the supernatural on the other, that means there ought to be a way to tell the difference between the two.

But there isn't. That's the problem. It's a limitation of science that arises from how we do experiments. We can't separate "natural" from "supernatural". The hypothesis is that ANY phenomenon has 2 essential components: the material one that you call "natural" and the will of an intelligent agent that I am calling "supernatural". Science is unable to evaluate the hypothesis.

In the case of creating life through carefully controlled physical and chemical processes that are meant to mirror the original abiogenesis, it comes down to whether we do know what's going on, or we don't.

Been there, done that. And we know what is going on. Read the link I gave you.

And it is not "silly to claim that there is anything supernatural going on, because those processes are precisely what we claim nature to be."

You miss the entire point of the quote! How do you know that ANY process studied by science does not need an intelligent agent to make it happen? You have incorporated your faith so firmly into your worldview that you no longer recognize it for the faith that it is: natural = no supernatural. That's a faith. It's not something science can tell us.

That is because science is not concerned with semantics.

No, it's not semantics. It's a limitation of science based on how science determines "causes". Remember from high school how you did experiments. You always hasd a test tube where you knew the agenst(s) were present and test tubes where you knew individual agent(s) were absent. You compared the test tubes. If the phenomenon happened only when the agent was present, then you concluded it was a "cause" and necessary.

However, how do you put deity or a supernatural entity in a test tube and know it is there? More importantly, how do you know such an entity is absent? This is summed up by the scientist who quipped "you can't put God in a test tube, and you can't keep him out of one."

As I see things, it is profoundly unclear what it means for an entity to be supernatural. This said, it's very possible that my view of what is, or should be considered natural is much wider than it should.

Welcome to semantics! Here you are going to eliminate deity by simply "defining" it as "natural"!

I think there are many ways to create life. I'm not sure if artificial biological life will come before or after virtual life (I mean pure computer-based life). I think both will happen eventually

I've told you: biological life has been made already. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. Read the link I provided and we can discuss it further.

 

[lucaspa]

Theorizing about conditions in the early earth's atmosphere can only get us so far. We know that primal conditions were different from what they are today,...My point is that we may never be able to know exactly what the first micro organisms were like on earth.

Immaterial. We know:
1. The building blocks of polymers used in life -- amino acids, sugars, nucleotides -- can be made in a wide variety of conditions and atmospheres: in space, at hydrothermal vents, in a wide variety of atmospheres.

2. Follow the link I provided in my first post on this thread: protocells can form in a wide variety of conditions, including all the possible atmospheres of the early earth and others besides.

then creating life in the manner it occurred originally may be difficult or impossible.

There are two issues in the discussion:

1. Can life arise thru non-life by chemical reactions?
2. How did life on earth actually arise?

For the first one, there are a number of scenarios that life can have (and actually does) arisen via chemical reactions. Therefore the claim by creationists that God is needed to directly construct the first cell is refuted.

We might never be able to answer the second. But that is trivial compared to the first.

Perhaps our best chance lies in attempting to reproduce each element of a living cell individually -- mitochondria, golgi apparatus, ribosomes, centrioles, microtubules, lythosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, cytoplasm, nuclear membrain, nucleus and its chromosomes -- then, placing them all together within a man-made cell membrane.

1. NLN, you do realize that you did not describe a "living cell", but an eukaryotic cell? Bacteria do not have a nucleus, microtubules, golgi, or mitochondria. Yet they are living cells. So you are making the problem more difficult than it is. In effect, you are making a pseudo-problem.

2. As I said, it is easy to make a living cell. What is difficult is to get directed protein synthesis and all those organelles. But that is because both are products of at least 2 billion years of evolution! It's not something humans are easily going to be able to replicate in a few decades.

There are people working on precisely this strategy, as well as others: MachinesLikeUs.

What they are doing is trying to construct a modern eukaryotic cell. That is no longer the same problem of getting life from non-life. It is abiogenesis + 2 billion years of evolution.

 

[Nathan Poe]

lucaspa! The legend returns!

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa! The legend returns!

Yes, it's been awhile. Now, please stop the bowing! It would make me uncomfortable if the idea of someone bowing to me weren't so ridiculously funny!

Or maybe, keep bowing. I'm going to need some damaged knees to try my adult stem cells out on to see if they can repair knee cartilage in humans! If you keep this up, you might be my first test patient.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Immaterial. We know:
1. The building blocks of polymers used in life -- amino acids, sugars, nucleotides -- can be made in a wide variety of conditions and atmospheres: in space, at hydrothermal vents, in a wide variety of atmospheres.

I can have a bunch of parts for a 57 chevy in a large warehouse. It doesn't mean they are going to go together to form a car.




There are two issues in the discussion:

1. Can life arise thru non-life by chemical reactions?
2. How did life on earth actually arise?

For the first one, there are a number of scenarios that life can have (and actually does) arisen via chemical reactions. Therefore the claim by creationists that God is needed to directly construct the first cell is refuted.

It is far from refuted. Life has not been proven to have risen soley from chemical processes so the best you can say is that it's an open case.

We might never be able to answer the second. But that is trivial compared to the first.

We need to answer both

2. As I said, it is easy to make a living cell. What is difficult is to get directed protein synthesis and all those organelles. But that is because both are products of at least 2 billion years of evolution! It's not something humans are easily going to be able to replicate in a few decades.

It is not easy to make a living cell, at least from random processes i.e. early earth. If humans are able to construct a cell in a laboratory, it will only prove that intelligence is needed to form a cell if the process utilizied couldn't mimic anything on the early earth i.e. molecular maniipulation at a high level.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

This question, it seems to me, gets at the heart of the matter. Progress in science grows at an exponential rate, and it is inevitable that eventually one of two things will happen: either we will be able to create life from scratch, or we will discover that we will never be able to do so.

Think about it: what would happen if humans created life in the "test tube"? What would that mean for religion?

Humanity will certainly create or form life from nonlife at some point. Of course the question is at what level will they create it.

We alread in a way create life with our genetic engineering. The question i guess is when will we make it from complete scratch with no base form of life.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

This would mean nothing to religion. What are you trying to imply?

In the bible, God created ex nihilo, these scientists would have created life based off things, and not ex nihilo.

I think if scientists can show that life can form from nonlife then to some theists and some religions it will be a blow. Of course the formation of the universe from nothing in this universe is still be worked on by scientists.

 

[Person7]

Wait... Are you implying that we haven't created life? What the hell is dolly if not man made life. Yes we are copying another life form, but it's still man made life.